Sitting of 1 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    WHITGIFT CHARITIES BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.
    LEVER PARK BILL [Lords]
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
    BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL [LORDS] (By Order)
    Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    Road Signs (Welsh Place Names)
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will send a circular to Welsh road authorities urging the use of the proper form of Welsh place names on all road signs.
    The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): I have been asked to reply.
    There is nothing that my right hon. Friend can add to the Answer he gave the hon. Member on 6th November last year.—[Vol. 772, c. 129.]
    Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Lady aware that some of the most eminent and highly respected non-political leaders in Wales are increasingly supporting the very reasonable demand that our place names should be used, that our national language should be used on road signs, and that our language should be given
    210
    equality of status with English in a country where it has been spoken for almost 2,000 years? Why are the Government dragging their feet in these matters?
    Mrs. Hart: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he fully understands the nature of the responsibilities exercised respectively by local authorities and by the Government in this matter. If the local population of Wales, in any area, wish their towns to be renamed, or the road signs to be redesigned, it is for them to influence their local community, and the Government will not stand in their way.

    Explosions
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement on the explosions in Wales.
    Mrs. Hart: I have been asked to reply.
    Everyone will feel the deepest concern about the recent wholly deplorable and tragic incidents. I understand that three men have been charged as a result of the incident at Holyhead on 25th June and that the police are actively pursuing their investigations into the explosions in Cardiff on 30th June and in Abergele early this morning. I cannot properly say more at this stage.
    Mr. Evans: May I express my sense of shock at the horrifying tragedy last night, and may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she is aware that no solid piece of evidence has yet been produced to show that these explosions, which we all condemn, are the work of anybody connected with the Welsh Nationalist movement? If it should come to light that they are the work of, say, anarchists, or people who are not Welsh, will members of the Government apologise to the Welsh people for the way they have exploited them in order to prevent the advance of the Welsh nation towards national freedom?
    Mrs. Hart: I think that the whole House will rather regret the tone of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says on his own behalf, but one is bound to observe what the party's organiser in South Wales was quoted as saying as recently as last weekend. I think that the

    211
    whole House will wish to be concerned to express every possible sympathy with the people of Wales for the tragic events which have occurred during the last 24 hours, and we should be concerned to ensure that there is no element whatsoever of the Welsh nation which is prepared to express any degree of support for the events which have taken place.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the Welsh people, in overwhelming numbers, deplore these senseless attacks of violence which are doing much harm to the future prosperity of Wales?
    Mrs. Hart: I am sure that that expresses the general feeling of the House.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: May I ask the right hon. Lady whether she considers that what the House should be concerning itself with this afternoon—tragic though this morning's incident was—is the explosion of admiration and affection which the whole British people have for the young Prince whom Her Majesty is to present to the people of these islands and the Commonwealth?
    Mrs. Hart: I think that we all wish to associate ourselves this afternoon with the admiration which has been expressed for the courage and dignity of the young man who is at the centre of all these events.

    Derelict Land (Acquisition)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many acres of derelict land in Wales were acquired by the Land Commission in 1968.
    Mrs. Hart: I have been asked to reply.
    None, Sir.
    Mr. Hooley: While recognising that my right hon. Friend is not an expert on Wales, or yet on dereliction and probably not even on the Land Commission, may I ask whether she would not agree that the Land Commission could play a useful rôle in the acquisition and management of land where there are serious dereliction problems?
    Mrs. Hart: Yes. As my hon. Friend will know, I have tried to discover the background to his Question and to his anxiety. I think that he knows, from the correspondence which he has already had
    212
    with my colleagues, that the Commission has made clear its willingness to help local authorities by acquiring derelict sites and passing them on to the authorities concerned. I should stress, in the light of his correspondence, that there is nothing to prevent amenity projects being grant-earning, so long as their justification includes making the area more attractive for industry.

    Damaged Houses, Newport
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales when a settlement will be reached on all outstanding matters relating to the properties known as 41–55 Brynglas Road, Newport, Monmouthshire, which were damaged as a result of tunnelling roadworks.
    Mrs. Hart: I have been asked to reply.
    Nos. 41–49 Brynglas Road were bought by the contractors and I understand that they are disposing of them. Nos. 51–55 are at present vested in my right hon. Friend's Department, but are being sold. My right hon. Friend is proceeding as quickly as possible with the legal formalities, but is unable at present to forecast precise dates when the transactions will be completed.
    Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend impress upon the Department the urgent need to unravel the legal complications which are preventing a settlement of this matter? Will she remember that these houses are an eyesore, that they are devaluing property, frequented by vagrants and infested by rats, and that there is an urgent need to clear the site?
    Mrs. Hart: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take careful note of those points.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Foreign Exchange (Earnings)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the value of Great Britain's total earnings of foreign exchange in 1968 and the proportion represented by invisible earnings.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): Excluding credits on capital account, about £9,800 million, of which 36 per cent. were invisible earnings.
    Mr. Blaker: In view of those figures, has not the time come for the Government to reconsider fundamentally their policy of discriminating against the service industries in the tax structure and in relation to investment incentives?
    Mr. Diamond: One does not discriminate against any section of the economy or of the people. The hon. Gentleman will know that the tax structure is one of the matters which a Committee is considering.

    Invisible Exports
    Mr. Blakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what detailed studies the permanent Committee on Invisible Exports has undertaken in following up the conclusions of the Bland Committee Report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Diamond: The Committee's first Annual Report contains details of a number of studies which are completed or in hand, and, where appropriate discussions are in progress with the Departments concerned. I welcome the Committee's examination of ways in which our invisible export performance can be further improved.
    Mr. Blaker: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly aware that that Committee is currently investigating the effect of the tax structure on invisible exporters. When does he expect this study to be concluded, and will it be published?
    Mr. Diamond: I expect it to be concluded during this year. Whether it will be published or not is a matter for the Committee.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not S.E.T., by its very nature, discriminate against invisible exports?
    Mr. Diamond: S.E.T. does not discriminate against anything.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the recommendation of the Chairman in the 1968–69 Annual Report of the Committee on Invisible Exports that the Central Statistical Office should show clearly gross payments and receipts and net balances for Government transations on the one hand, and private invisible earnings on the other, in all summary tables produced; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Diamond: I have nothing at present to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) on 11th June.—[Vol. 274. c. 265.]
    Mr. Turton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that I raised this matter as long ago as last February, when I was given a negative reply by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that since that date this country's invisible earnings and the outflow of private capital have been misrepresented in the official accounts?
    Mr. Diamond: I do not think that I could accept the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I recognise, in answer to the earlier part, his great concern with this matter. I assure him that the Government are concerned as well and that the matter is being fully examined.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures, just published, for the first quarter of 1969 show that Government expenditure overseas is running at one of the highest ever rates? Will he look into this and make sure that we are doing everything possible to bring it down?
    Mr. Diamond: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that one reason for the increase in that quarter was the large increase in aid payments.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the effect of the tax structure on invisible earnings; and what conclusions he has reached.
    Mr. Diamond: This is a matter on which my right hon. Friend is always willing to consider specific suggestions, and, where possible, he has taken steps to help.
    Mr. Digby: As S.E.T. was justified on the ground that it would help exports, is this not a rather negative tax from the point of view of invisibles and is it not high time that a positive tax was arrived at?
    Mr. Diamond: It may be established that S.E.T. has helped invisible exports. It is certainly the case that invisibles are

    215
    doing very well indeed, for which we are most grateful.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take on the latest Report of the Invisible Exports Committee.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the recent Annual Report of the Invisible Exports Committee.
    Mr. Diamond: I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the written replies given to Questions by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Board of Trade on 11th and 12th June respectively.—[Vol. 784, c. 265; Vol. 784, c. 295.]
    Mr. Digby: Will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to this report and the strong views expressed in it, particularly the fact, which is brought out in the document, that Government expenditure abroad has risen from £100 million a year to £500 million a year since the early fifties, figures which speak for themselves?
    Mr. Diamond: We are, of course, giving the report the most careful and sympathetic consideration. We welcome a good deal of what is said in it.
    Mr. Macmillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in the past we have seldom, if ever, achieved a surplus on our visible account while the surplus on invisibles has been proportionately larger than it is now? Will he consider introducing a policy of reinforcing success, rather than concentrating so much on the visible side?
    Mr. Diamond: Until I heard the last few words of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I thought I would be in complete agreement with everything he was saying. I do not believe that one should concentrate on anything to the exclusion of everything else. I do not see why one should not try to help visible and invisible exports.
    Sir F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman has asked for helpful suggestions, and I will make one. Will he have another look at the operation nowadays of
    216
    the 25 per cent. levy on the dollar premium, which many people with expert knowledge consider to be operating as a law of diminishing returns from the point of view of holding back new private portfolio investments overseas which could otherwise make a valuable contribution to our balance of payments?
    Mr. Diamond: Without undertaking to do anything or even giving the impression that I may do something, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he puts, as he has, a serious suggestion to me and asks me to consider it, I will, of course, be glad to do so.

    Agriculture and Horticulture (Grants)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether under his Regulations money grants made under the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964, Part 11(2) and Statutory Instrument, 1964, No. 963, The Small Horticultural Producers' Business Scheme, are assessed by the Inland Revenue free of income tax, surtax, corporation tax and capital gains duty and are not aggregable with trading profits for taxation purposes.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): These grants reimburse a grower for the expenditure on the relevant programme, so that the expenditure taken into account in computing his tax liability is only the net amount, if any.

    Purchase Tax
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, whereas toothbrushes are free from purchase tax, toothpaste is subject to purchase tax at 36⅔ per cent., whereas some face cloths are free of purchase tax, other facecloths are subject to purchase tax at 13¾ per cent., and that whereas some soap is free of purchase tax, perfumed soap is subject to purchase tax at 13¾ per cent.; whether he will render all such ablutionary materials free of purchase tax; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Taverne: The answer to the first, second and third parts of the Question is "No".
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Chancellor take steps to clean up the extraordinarily unsatisfactory position of purchase tax

    217
    on face cloths, sponges, toothpaste, toothbrushes and soap, varying between 13¾ per cent. and 55 per cent., although all are devoted to human ablution? Would it not be in the interests of cleanliness and hygiene to remove the lot from purchase tax?
    Mr. Taverne: The hon. Member's questions would be more telling if they were not based on total misconceptions. For example, face cloths are not tax-free at the moment. He is also totally wrong about soap, whether soft or otherwise. If we exempted all "ablutionary articles", as he called them, the position would be just as anomalous as anything now, and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to denounce it.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise it as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

    International Monetary Fund
    Mr. Martenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the results of the recent negotiations with the International Monetary Fund.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 23rd and 25th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 1001–1010; Vol. 785, c. 1521–1534.]
    Mr. Marten: While recognising the Chancellor's point in his previous remarks, that he does not intend to publish the quarterly figures of domestic credit expansion, may I ask whether he does not think that the experts will arrive at an approximate quarterly figure? Therefore, would it not be better to reconsider and publish them?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. Experts can often reach very divergent figures. I told the House, during that debate—and I think that they were accepted—the reasons why I did not propose to publish the quarterly accounts.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: On the narrow question of our relationship with the I.M.F., is our national position in any way less circumscribed than it was when Montague Norman had to advise the
    218
    British Cabinet in the early 1930s of the terms laid down by J. P. Morgan?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that Montague Norman had relations with the I.M.F.
    Mr. Heffer: Are the terms of the Letter of Intent likely to lead to an increase in unemployment, particularly towards the end of the year? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in areas like Merseyside, unemployment is far too huge, and that, on the basis of the Letter of Intent, it seems that it could go a lot higher?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I see no reason to change my views about the likely course of the domestic economy, and, therefore, about the likely course of employment as a result of the Letter of Intent, from those which I had after the Budget.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the next visit of the International Monetary Fund team to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Probably in August.
    Mr. Ridley: As we are now a fourth tranche borrower and are at the limit of our credit, would the right hon. Gentleman supplicate the I.M.F. to allow him to publish a White Paper about the results of these visits so that everyone may know what conditions have been attached to our financial survival in the' future?
    Mr. Jenkins: If I thought that it would be right to publish such a White Paper, I would do so. It has not been thought appropriate in the past to do so; for example, after the quarterly visits which took place last year. I have published more about our relations with the I.M.F. than was previously published.
    Mr. Heffer: While I accept the point which my right hon. Friend makes, which we appreciate, may I ask whether he will make it clear to the representatives of the I.M.F. that we are not a banana republic, that we have had just about enough of squeeze and freeze and that we will not tolerate any further high levels of unemployment?
    Mr. Jenkins: No question of bananas arises and, as far as I can gather, we

    219
    are not at present a republic. The wider issues raised by my hon. Friend were debated extensively last week. I would not wish to go further into, or take away from, what I said then, which is that I believe it is possible—indeed, this is what we intend to do—to get our balance of payments right on the basis of a healthy economy at home.
    Mr. Hordernasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will write a supplementary letter to the International Monetary Fund, setting out the economic objectives and policies included in his Budget but not included in his letter to the International Monetary Fund of 22nd May, 1969.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hordern: Surely the Chancellor must change his mind on this? Does he not recall saying in his Budget speech that the Government would publish without delay some of the more important provisions of the White Paper "In Place of Strife", and that this was so because of the occurrence of unnecessary and damaging disputes? Surely it is essential to publish a supplementary letter to the International Monetary Fund without delay.
    Mr. Jenkins: No. The hon. Gentleman is trying to drag this in rather unconvincingly. This did not at any time play a part in the discussions with the I.M.F.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the point he made earlier about our having a healthy economic situation without this leading to an increase in unemployment? Will he tell the House clearly that there will not be any further increase in unemployment in the coming months?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. Clearly with this index as with others nobody is going to give an exact prediction of what will happen. I am sure that my hon. Friend, if he thinks about it, will agree with that. I see no reason as a result of the Letter to the I.M.F. to change the view about the general progress of the economy during this year which I expressed at the time of the Budget debate.
    Mr. Onslowasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Letters of
    220
    Intent have been sent to the International Monetary Fund on behalf of Her Majesty's Government since the Fund was established; and on what date each of them was signed.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Seven. The dates are: 28th July, 1961; 19th July, 1962; 9th July, 1963; 8th July, 1964; 27th April, 1965; 23rd November, 1967; 22nd May, 1969.
    Mr. Onslow: Is there any reason why they should not all be published?
    Mr. Jenkins: That question should more appropriately be addressed to right hon. Gentlemen on the hon. Gentleman's own side.
    Mr. Maudling: Is the Chancellor aware that I have said myself that I should be delighted for there to be publication?
    Mr. Jenkins: It is a little late for the right hon. Gentleman to say that.
    Mr. Higginsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether United Kingdom drawing of future quarterly instalments of the standby credit covered by the latest letter of intent to the International Monetary Fund depends on the Fund's holdings of sterling being below 200 per cent. of the United Kingdom quota; and what estimates he has made of the future level of the Fund's sterling holdings.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The arrangements for drawing future instalments of the standby are designed to ensure that Fund holdings of sterling will remain below 200 per cent. of the United Kingdom's quota. The future level of the Fund's holdings of sterling will depend on our drawings under the new standby and on whether other member countries make drawings in sterling.
    Mr. Higgins: If the level of sterling in the Fund is not sufficient to enable the full amount to be drawn at any quarterly period, will we be able to draw only that amount which would bring the balance up to 200 per cent.?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that this will arise. As I see the position, we shall be able to do the scheduled debt repayments and make the drawings without there being a question of our going above the 200 per cent.

    Luncheon Vouchers
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when 3s. was fixed as the limit beyond which luncheon vouchers issued by an employer to his employees would be treated as taxable in the hands of the employee.
    Mr. Taverne: In 1948.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the lapse of 21 years, if 3s. was then the right figure, fixed by the then Labour Government, should it not be much higher now?
    Mr. Taverne: No, Sir. This can be viewed in a number of ways. In the first place, one has to consider those who have to pay in full for their meals; in the second, it puts those who receive luncheon vouchers in no more advantageous a position than those who enjoy the benefits of a subsidised canteen.
    Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this method of subsidising wages is unnecessary and out of date and that it should be replaced by a more satisfactory wage structure, which would make all these niggling forms of subsidy unnecessary?
    Mr. Taverne: This is in some ways anomalous, but it has existed for a long time and its withdrawal would be resented. But I accept that that is a good reason for not extending the system.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of payments outturn for the current calendar year; and at what date he now expects to reach a large payments surplus on an annual basis.
    Mr. Diamond: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said in the House on 23rd and 25th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 1001–10; Vol. 785, c. 1521–34.]
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the polite scepticism expressed by the O.E.C.D. about the Chancellor's latest payments target? Can he tell us, as the Chancellor failed to tell us last week, what will happen if the target is not reached, as seems evident? Will the trigger clause be applied, or is this another instance of
    222
    the Government's habit of proclaiming the inevitability of the unattainable?
    Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of points but the essential one was about the so-called "trigger clause". This is non-existent.
    Mr. Higgins: But is it not true that what the Chancellor said does not answer my hon. Friend's question, particularly the first part, about the balance of surplus in this calendar year? What is the answer to that?
    Mr. Diamond: I have given the answer to that. I cannot add to the information which my right hon. Friend has given: if I could have done, I would have done.

    Overseas Sales Organisations
    Mr. David Howellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposal he has received for special tax privileges for exporters wishing to invest in and build up overseas sales organisations.
    Mr. Taverne: None, Sir.
    Mr. Howell: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman nevertheless accept that it is in building up strong wholesale and distributing organisations in foreign markets that our rivals have had their most striking successes? When he and his colleagues next turn their minds to export incentives, as they presumably will before long, can they provide particular encouragement in this respect?
    Mr. Taverne: This is, of course, a very important matter. However, one must have regard to a number of factors. One is the position under our international obligations, such as G.A.T.T. and E.F.T.A. Another is the fact that if there are subsidiaries abroad, they will not pay United Kingdom tax, while if there are branches abroad they receive considerable relief under double taxation agreements.

    Value-added Tax
    Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, on the United Kingdom's becoming a member of the European Economic Community, he intends to introduce the value-added tax system.
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what

    223
    arrangements he is making to implement a value-added tax in the United Kingdom in view of the renewed negotiations to enter the Common Market.
    Mr. Diamond: The Government's position remains as indicated in the full statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in May, 1967, and in paragraph 44 of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the meeting of the Council of the Western European Union in July, 1967, the text of which was presented to Parliament as Cmnd. 3345.
    Mr. Hall: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that informative Answer, may I ask him to be aware that the members of the E.E.C. have agreed to introduce a value-added tax not later than 1970? If Her Majesty's Government are really serious in their attempts to join the Community, will not the achievement of that desire be made more difficult if we, too, are not prepared to go over to a value-added tax system? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take steps to prepare Britain for the introduction of such a system?
    Mr. Diamond: My Answer particularly referred to what the then Foreign Secretary said and covered exactly the supplementary question which the hon. Gentleman has asked.
    Mr. Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he makes another weekend speech of rhetorical questions, to note what the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on the subject of the value-added tax system, in particular about it not applying to foodstuffs? Will he also bear in mind that many organisations, including the C.B.I. and N.E.D.C., consider that a value-added tax would be not only fair and sensible but likely to be necessary?
    Mr. Diamond: We will see what the N.E.D.C. has to say on this subject when its report is published shortly.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: While congratulating the Chancellor on his weekend speech, may I ask the Chief Secretary to say how much choice we would have about introducing a value-added tax if we were to join the Community?
    Mr. Diamond: I have referred to the very full statements which were made with the authority of the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As I said, they covered all these points completely. I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to them.

    Finance Act, 1956 (Section 23)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet considered the representations made to him by the General Council of the Bar requesting amendment of Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1956, relating to the nature and amount of relief for qualifying premiums in order to bring the relevant statutory provisions into line with the increase in the cost of living since 1956; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Taverne: I have written to my hon. and learned Friend explaining that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said when this matter was discussed in Committee on the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that it is a pity that he cannot add to that Answer, since Section 23 as it stands is inflicting great hardship and injustice on an important element of the administration of justice in this country? Will he consult the Attorney-General with a view to rectifying this position?
    Mr. Taverne: There are two answers to my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question. The first is that a general review of the taxation treatment of superannuation arrangements is going on; and the matter which he has raised should obviously be dealt with in that context. The second is that, while there is some hardship, it is, on the whole, affecting those earning more than £7,500 a year.
    Mr. Waddington: Has the Minister really got his heart in the right place in dealing with this matter? Does he genuinely believe that it is a good thing to encourage private provision for old age, or does he believe it to be something which runs counter to his Socialist philosophy? If he believes in it, will he back up his beliefs by some action?
    Mr. Taverne: If the hon. Gentleman had read the reply of the Financial Secretary in Committee when the Finance

    225
    Bill was under discussion he would have seen that this issue received sympathetic treatment from my right hon. Friend. This is something which one would like to see helped but one must have regard to priorities, and the first priorities are not necessarily concerned with those who have very high income levels.

    Dividends
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's intentions regarding the level of increase of dividends after 1st January, 1970.
    Mr. Diamond: I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 21st April.—[Vol. 782, c. 43–5.]
    Mr. Ridley: Since that statement said precisely nothing, will the Chief Secretary now tell the House whether it is right that anyone may increase his dividends after the end of this year by any amount he thinks fit, because the powers under which the Chancellor controls them will have expired?
    Mr. Diamond: I dealt with that point in my statement. I made clear that there were to be discussions with the C.B.I. and that I would give the House the information as soon as possible and well within the time for companies to make their necessary arrangements.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: If the Government are unfortunately to go on with this limiting policy, can they be more broadminded in their suggestions and, instead of going to four decimal points, round the figures off?
    Mr. Diamond: I hope that the hon. Member will give me details of any case he has in mind, because when this difficulty has arisen we have met it.
    Mr. Ridley: In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Federal German Republic (Credits)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what currency or currencies credits received from the Federal German Republic under recycling arrangements will fall to be repaid.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Dollars.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving us that most welcome information. Even so, would he not agree that these sort of recycling arrangements provide no solution to the continuing problem of the German surplus and that to some extent they make it easier for the Germans to manage a perpetuating surplus on this scale?
    Mr. Jenkins: I think I have answered the main point the hon. Member has in mind, and he was gracious enough to acknowledge that. As to the wider point, I certainly would not regard recycling arrangements as the answer to all problems of international currency alignment, but I think they are desirable in order to neutralise speculative flows which occur from time to time.

    Bank for International Settlements
    Mr. Biffenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he proposes to have with the Bank for International Settlements in view of the present short-term overseas indebtedness of the United Kingdom Government.
    Mr. Taverne: None, Sir.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the annual report of the Bank for International Settlements in respect of this country talked about "a tinge of anarchy" in our labour relations? Is he aware that that description is both a travesty and an impertinence? Will he take the earliest opportunity to make representations of the sort I have indicated to either the President or General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements?
    Mr. Taverne: That report was an expression of view—it is in no sense an imposition of burdens—and as such I do not think it calls for any international action.

    Taxation
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the further representations made to him that research studies should be set up to consider the disincentive effects of taxation.
    Mr. Diamond: I have nothing to add to my long letter to my hon. Friend of

    227
    29th April and the Chancellor's comments in the Finance Bill debate on 13th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 1272–3.]
    Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since then there has been brought to my notice a very large amount of exploratory work being taken on at certain universities? Does he not consider that it is time the Government paralleled that work in the universities with some research efforts of their own?
    Mr. Diamond: As I explained in my letter and my right hon. Friend explained in his speech, we did not think we could usefully take on further work at the present time.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the Chief Secretary recall that studies into the disincentive effect of taxes on service industries were made by the Bland Committee and published in 1967? The Government have done nothing about them? Why not?
    Mr. Diamond: Those were recommendations made to the subsequent committee examining these very things.
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the plan submitted to him by the accountants' organisations for streamlining the tax system; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Taverne: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed this recently with representatives of the accountancy bodies and has agreed that the Inland Revenue should consider with them the procedure for consultation on this subject.
    Mr. Baker: Surely the Chancellor would not say that this is good enough? Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we have the most complicated and obscure mass of tax laws on personal taxation of any country in the world? Would he not agree that the first thing which is needed is a simplification of the personal taxation system? Will he bear in mind that in America, where there are three times the number of taxpayers, only the same number of tax gatherers are employed as we have in the Inland Revenue?
    Mr. Taverne: Of course simplification would be in many ways desirable, but it is not always realised that simplification
    228
    might run counter to equity, and many Chancellors, including those who have come from the benches opposite, have found in the past that their desires for simplification have not proved quite as easy in practice as they had hoped. Discussions with accountancy bodies on an informal basis would be the best way of proceeding and I hope that when the discussions take place—they are to start this week—they will produce good results.
    Mrs. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the amount of overtime worked by the Inland Revenue and that the bill for overtime is an unproductive addition to the bill the taxpayer has to meet?
    Mr. Taverne: The alternative to overtime would be to take on extra civil servants, which is something that hon. Members opposite are loth to accept. Of course one is very well aware of the arguments produced by hon. Members opposite who want less taxation but more public expenditure.

    New Savings Schemes
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in implementing the new savings schemes outlined in the Budget.
    Mr. Taverne: Good progress is being maintained by the Department for National Savings in its administrative planning for S.A.Y.E., by the Trustee Savings Banks for their parallel scheme and by the Building Societies Association who have agreed in principle to operate a scheme corresponding in all major purposes to S.A.Y.E. The target date for all these schemes is October next.
    Mr. Taylor: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman genuinely alarmed at the fact that for the first 12 weeks of the current financial year withdrawals exceeded new savings by at least £1 million a day? Will he press ahead with the new scheme to attract to the National Savings movement?
    Mr. Taverne: Of course we seek to press ahead but this scheme will be ready by 1st October and, contrasted with the Premium Bonds scheme which took 14 months to come into operation, that seems a reasonable time.
    Mr. Barnett: Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that it might be necessary to increase the rate of interest in view of the level of interest rates and the way they have been going since the first announcement?
    Mr. Taverne: No, Sir.

    M. Giscard d'Estaing (Meeting)
    Mr. Henigasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange an early meeting with M. Giscard d'Estaing.
    Mr. Taverne: My right hon. Friend is looking forward to meeting M. Giscard d'Estaing when a suitable occasion arises. It is as yet too early to say when this might be.
    Mr. Henig: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that constructive and helpful reply. When this meeting takes place, will the Chancellor place high on the agenda the question of the current international monetary system and see if it is possible for Britain and France to devise a common approach to these problems? Will he also examine with his French opposite number the possibility of moving towards some form of common European currency?
    Mr. Taverne: Of course all these considerations will be very much in my right hon. Friend's mind when in due course they meet.
    Mr. Marten: Will the Chancellor at this meeting make clear to the French Minister that the calculations that we would have to pay across the exchanges to the common agricultural pool under the new scheme for agriculture they are now working out are estimated fairly objectively to be of the order of £700 million and that is something which this country cannot afford? Will he discuss this with the French Minister?
    Mr. Taverne: I cannot anticipate the exact form the discussions will take. This matter is very much in the mind of the Government and one has to wait to see how the common agricultural policy works out.

    Local Authority Borrowing (Bank Credit)
    Mr. Alisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to include local authority borrowing
    230
    within the categories of those towards whom banks are to exercise credit restraint.
    Mr. Diamond: As my right hon. Friend said in his Budget speech, he attaches the greatest importance to restraint in the provision of bank credit both to the public and private sectors. The London Clearing and Scottish Banks were asked in May, 1968, to ensure that their lending to local authorities returned to more normal levels—that is broadly the levels outstanding at November, 1967. These banks are aware that they should endeavour to see that their lending to local authorities does not rise appreciably above this level.
    Mr. Alison: Could the Chief Secretary tell us whether the large sums the local authorities have borrowed or may borrow from the banks are included in his residual negative public sector borrowing requirement of £300 million, that is to say, are they already taken into account for the D.C.E. calculation? Would it not be more satisfactory if the Government used some of their very large central Government negative borrowing requirements to help local authorities instead of putting them into the banks?
    Mr. Diamond: To the extent that local authorities borrow from banks the answer would be "Yes". To the extent that they borrow from the non-banking sector this would not arise and would not be part of the domestic credit expansion.

    Private Investment
    Mr. Alisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now take further fiscal and monetary measures to encourage reversal of the recent downward revisions of business investment expectations.
    Mr. Diamond: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's speech in the debate on the Letter of Intent on 25th June. He said then that he expected a good increase in private investment during the year ahead broadly in line with that forecast at the time of the Budget.
    Mr. Alison: Was either the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor expecting the downward revision in investment intentions either at the time of the Budget or

    231
    when the Chief Secretary spoke in Committee on the Finance Bill at the beginning of its proceedings?
    Mr. Diamond: At the time of his Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took into account the variations he expected to arise from current policy changes.
    Mr. Barnett: In view of the importance of manufacturing investment, if it appears to the Chancellor that because of liquidity problems there is a downturn against his forecast, would he consider at that stage possibly bringing forward payment of investment grants to help the companies that we need to help in this sphere?
    Mr. Diamond: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this point. Indeed, we are all concerned that investment should be maintained and not drop through lack of financial resources. Both my right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that we do not see any such likelihood.
    Mr. Higgins: Why apparently was the Chief Secretary unaware of the Board of Trade's published survey on this subject when he took part in the debates in Standing Committee on the Finance Bill?
    Mr. Diamond: I was not unaware of the figures underlying both the Board of Trade figures and other figures which we have published.

    Domestic Credit Expansion
    Mr. Hordernasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures showing domestic credit expansion as a whole, and of the central Government borrowing requirement within it, at quarterly intervals.
    Mr. Taverne: Yes, Sir. These figures will be provided, along with figures for the money supply, in the usual official publications.
    Mr. Hordern: Will they be provided at regular quarterly intervals in the same way as they will be provided to the International Monetary Fund? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise how essential it is that these figures should be so provided, as it was the activities of the Government Broker that were largely responsible for the large increase in the money supply last year? Will he now
    232
    say what the rôle of the Government Broker is after the Letter to the I.M.F.?
    Mr. Taverne: The figures will be provided as soon as they are firm enough. A number of factors determine when they can be published. First, it takes some time for the figures to become available. Secondly, when it comes to the question of sales of Government debt there must be a suitable interval of 10 weeks or so, as has been recognised in the past, otherwise market operations might he prejudiced. The figures will be published as soon as they are firm and as soon as it is reasonable for them to be published.

  MINISTRIES OF DEFENCE AND OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Mr. Raymond Fletcherasked the Prime Minister if he will now merge the Ministries of Defence and Overseas Development into a Ministry of External Security.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no plans to do so, although the machinery of government is kept under constant review.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Question stems from a close study of our experience during the Malaysian confrontation in which the Departments mentioned in the Question merged with conspicuous success? In a world in which economic development is as powerful a contribution to security as armed diplomacy, should not this fact be institutionalised?
  Mr. Jenkins: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take into account what my hon. Friend has said, and the parallel he draws with the Malaysian situation may have some validity. It is important to keep in mind that the primary object of our aid policy is to help developing countries and not to further our external security. Therefore, I am not sure by any means that in all the circumstances such an amalgation would be desirable.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In Asia is not freedom from fear the corollary to

  233
  freedom from want? If so, is there not a contradiction in one Ministry withdrawing its efforts from east of Suez while the other tries to build up?
  Mr. Jenkins: I do not think so for a moment. It may be perfectly reasonable for us to cut our military forces to what we can afford and what are reasonable in present world circumstances without contracting out of development aid.
  Mr. Rippon: Will the Government consider adopting the suggestion made last week by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and in view, as he said, of the ambiguity of the Government's policy east of Suez publish a White Paper on this subject?
  Mr. Jenkins: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be announcing to the House the results of the conference, and no doubt that point can be raised with him and he can consider the matter then.
  Miss Herbison: Will my right hon. Friend inform the Prime Minister that there would be very grave opposition from both sides of the House to the joining of the Ministries of Defence and Overseas Development, particularly as the work of the Ministry of Overseas Development is, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in reply to the first supplementary question, to give aid to developing countries where it is needed?
  Mr. Jenkins: I have already, as I think my right hon. Friend will recognise, indicated that there seem to me to be certain strong arguments in the direction in which she is pointing. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take fully into account the stress she has laid upon this point.

  NIGERIA
  Mr. Barnesasked the Prime Minister if he will seek another opportunity to meet Colonel Ojukwu in view of the latest developments in the war in Nigeria.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have been asked to reply.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained to the House after he returned from Nigeria on 3rd April, he
  234
  would not rule out a meeting if he thought it would be helpful. That remains the position, but since that time there has been no indication to suggest that a meeting with Colonel Ojukwu would be helpful.—[Vol. 781, c. 651–4.]
  Mr. Barnes: Is not much more required from Britain at present than the shuffling off of our involvement and a continual blaming of the Biafrans, as we got from the Foreign Secretary yesterday? Daylight flights there must surely be, but are the British Government prepared to demand that Nigeria allows the International Red Cross to carry out those daylight flights on the same basis as has been so successful in recent months?
  Mr. Jenkins: I understand that meetings have been taking place both yesterday and today with a view to achieving these daylight flights, which we would certainly all like to see, but the exact results of the talks are not yet clear, although the indications are that it might be possible to get daylight flights.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: If the Prime Minister cannot meet Colonel Ojukwu, would it not be a good idea if the Foreign Secretary informed himself better about the situation inside Biafra by getting in touch with the Red Cross? Yesterday he said that there was no food shortage in Biafra at all, which was a most extraordinary thing to say.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am assured that my right hon. Friend is in close touch with the Red Cross.

  PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS (RECOMMENDATIONS)
  Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister if he will request the person who gave him the oral reports on the probable consequences of implementing the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions to commit his conclusions to writing so that these may be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have been asked to reply.
  I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

  235
  the Home Department said during the debate on redistribution of seats on 19th June, and to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to a Question by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on 26th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 737–51: Vol. 785, c. 1703–4.]
  Mr. Onslow: Apart from the fact that that does not answer my Question, will no one ever add some artistic verisimilitude to the Prime Minister's bald and unconvincing narrative?
  Mr. Jenkins: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would have done with his carefully prepared supplementary question if he had thought that I had answered his Question. The Question was put in almost precisely the same form to the Prime Minister in April, and was answered.
  Mr. Whitaker: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the new constituency proposals take into account the 18 to 21-year-old voters?
  Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that this information was available to the Boundary Commission, but this subject is to be debated tomorrow, and the whole matter can be discussed then.
  Mr. Maudling: As there are strong reasons for believing that the Government's actions in this matter are in open breach of the law, will the right hon. Gentlemen tell the House what advice was received from the Law Officers in this matter?
  Mr. Jenkins: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated when this subject was last discussed at Question time in the House, the Law Officers are consulted in these matters, and the normal practice was followed. I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said on precisely this point on the last occasion.
  Mr. Maudling: Surely in these matters the Law Officers should advise not merely the Government but the House as a whole, and the House is entitled to know what their view is?
  Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentlemen will have plenty of opportunity to raise this in the debate tomorrow.

  CABINET MEETINGS
  Mr. William Priceasked the Prime Minister whether he will authorise an official Press statement at the conclusion of future Cabinet meetings.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied with the quality of Cabinet leakages? Does not he agree that an official version would be preferable to the mixture of Ministerial tittle-tattle and journalistic nonsense that we have now?
  Mr. Jenkins: I would be inclined to say that I am more satisfied with the quantity than the quality of Cabinet leakages. I have no proposals such as my hon. Friend suggests

  PRESIDENT OF FRANCE (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the new President of France to visit this country.
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek a meeting with the President of the French Republic.
  Mr. Henigasked the Prime Minister if he will invite M. Pompidou to visit London.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have been asked to reply.
  I would refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on 24th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 1215–16.]
  Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that when the meeting takes place the Prime Minister should state firmly to the French President Britain's objection to supra-nationalism should we join the Common Market? As the Common Market is now heading towards supra-nationalism, would not the answer be, as

  237
  we shall have a clash on this anyway, for Britain to go now for a free trade area between the Six and the Seven?
  Mr. Jenkins: This is the second attempt the hon. Gentleman has made in the past 10 minutes to suggest to the Government what they should say at hypothetical conversations the date of which has not yet been fixed. I hope that the Government will, if and when the conversations take place, as I hope they will, state the policy of the Government rather than that of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the French Prime Minister's forthcoming statement about the British and French nuclear deterrents, would it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister discussed with the President of the French Republic the aligning of these two forces within the Western Alliance? Would not that be very helpful in providing a better atmosphere for discussions on Europe?
  Mr. Jenkins: I have no doubt that it would be a good idea in due course for the Prime Minister and the new French President to have discussions on a wide range of issues.
  Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend consider that this is a matter of some urgency, and that it is now high time Anglo-French relations were placed once again on a proper footing? Will he therefore recommend to his right hon. Friend that a meeting with President Pompidou takes place some time during the summer, that when it takes place there should be full and frank discussions on all aspects of Europe's future, and that there should not be questions that we would rather not discuss?
  Mr. Jenkins: I would hope that when a meeting did take place it would indeed take the form of full and frank discussion. As to the timing of the meeting, President Pompidou has only just taken office, and I think that this is better left to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even in advance of any such meeting it must be made abundantly clear that there is no question of nuclear sharing with France?
  Hon. Members: Why not?
  Mr. Morris: Is not this precluded by our signature to the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
  Mr. Jenkins: There is no question of making any departure from previous policy on a Question about whether or not a particular meeting should take place.
  Mr. Rippon: Does that answer mean that the Government accept that there should be an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent?
  Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. The answer means precisely what it says, that I am not announcing any new policy today on an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent, which may not be a complete surprise, even to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

  FIVE POWER TALKS, CANBERRA
  Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Prime Minister why a Minister representing the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was not present at the Five Power Conference in Canberra.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence represented the United Kingdom Government at these talks. It was not considered necessary to send a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister as well.
  Mr. Griffiths: Since, in addition to its Defence Minister, every other nation present was represented either by its Prime Minister or Foreign Minister, or both, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the British representation lacked weight and comprehensiveness? Has he seen the recent Soviet statements that British withdrawals are creating a vacuum? Does not he think that the political and diplomatic aspects required to be discussed at Canberra?
  Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is accurate on the facts of his premise. I think that Malaysia was represented by its Defence Minister, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, but not Prime Minister or Foreign Minister. However, this country was certainly very fully and powerfully represented by my

  239
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and where he is present he does not create a vacuum.

  M62 ROAD (MINISTER OF TRANSPORT'S STATEMENT)
  Mr. Tilneyasked the Prime Minister whether the public statement by the Minister of Transport on 2nd May concerning the question of a public inquiry in relation to the proposed Tarbuck-Queens Drive section of the M62 represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Tilney: Much as we all want to see the completion of the South Lancashire motorway, does not the Minister of Transport's statement that the sooner we get the public inquiry out of the way the quicker we can get on with it, imply a somewhat cavalier attitude to public inquiries?
  Mr. Jenkins: I think that it implied a desire to proceed urgently with the work of his Ministry. I am sure that that is an attitude that the House in general will commend. I certainly do not take it—and I am sure that it is not the case—that this in any way represented a desire on his part not to take seriously the inquiry, but merely a desire to get moving quickly.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite criticism to the contary, work on the M62 motorway is proceeding ahead of schedule, and that many of us who are interested in that part of the country are delighted with the progress being made?
  Mr. Jenkins: That is very good to hear. My right hon. Friend was anxious to maintain the rate of progress as far as he could, and that is very laudable.

  DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the changed situation resulting from the recent negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, he will now abolish the Department of Economic Affairs.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have been asked to reply.
  I do not accept the assumption contained in the first half of the right hon. Gentleman's Question. The second part does not therefore arise.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would not the acting Prime Minister consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this? Surely the D.E.A. was created as an inflationary counterpoise to the Treasury's deflationary policies? Now that the latter is being reinforced by the I.M.F., is not the former otiose?
  Mr. Jenkins: I have consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this matter, and I have no desire in any way to vary the statement which I made earlier. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that relations between the D.E.A. and the Treasury are extremely harmonious at present.
  Mr. MacDermot: Whilst I, too, do not accept the assumption in the original Question, would my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to consider the matter carefully from another point of view, namely, the reforms in the machinery of central Government likely to be needed following the reforms projected in our system of local government? For this reason, would he ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether it would not be right to set up an inquiry, and start one now, on the whole machinery of government, taking account of the experience gained in the past few years, including that of the D.E.A.?
  Mr. Jenkins: As I have indicated, the machinery of Government is kept under constant review. I am not sure that an inquiry would be the best method of doing this, but no doubt my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will consider carefully the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend, who has had long experience of these Departments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Mellish.]

CIVIL LIST (AMENDMENT)
The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. EMRYS HUGHES.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Civil List Act, 1952, to deny to the Prince of Wales at the age of majority the net revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall.
Mr. Speaker: The whole House will, I am sure, wish me to say how much we regret the reason why the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not here to move his Motion, which, therefore, falls.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

CIVIL LIST (AMENDMENT)
  SUPPLY
  [24TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
  SUPPLY
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FINANCING)
3.32 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In discussing the financing of the National Health Service and contemplating the Secretary of State for Social Services in these activities, one cannot help being reminded of "Alice Through the Looking Glass".
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman should be likened to the White Queen, who said:
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast",
or to the Red Queen, who said:
"Now here you see, it takes all the running you can do to stay in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast."
Anyone willing to accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said over the years, or even over the last few weeks, must be prepared to believe six impossible things, if not before breakfast, at least after Question Time.
I think that we must all admit that, when it comes to the financing of the National Health Service, it takes all the paying we can do to stay in the same place and that, to get somewhere else and improve the Service in the way we all want, we have to pay a good deal more. The basic question we are discussing is how much and how we are to get the extra money. That is the point which will underlie our questions.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has given some indication by charges and squeezes. Reverting to Alice once more, perhaps one can say,
"Speak roughly to your little boy
And beat him when he squeezes.
He only does it to annoy
Because he knows it teases."

243
We are spending nearly 5¼ per cent. of the gross national product on health and the Health Service. According to the Government's own figures, in 1967–68 the figure was £1,662 million; in 1968–69, it has risen to £1,785 million; and in 1969–70 it will be a total of £1,876 million. The major proportion of this sum comes from the taxpayer. Adjusted to out-turn prices, in 1970–71 there will be £284 million from charges and contributions and £1,749 million from rates and taxes, a total of £2,033 million. That is a sizeable problem on any judgment. It is aggravated in two ways.
First, it is not soluble, as has been implied in the past, simply by the buoyancy of the economy, by our capacity to expand, although this is, of course, enormously helpful. Any foreseeable expansion of the economy, even under a Tory Government, could not, in my view, be expected to produce the full amount which the Health Service requires in addition to what we are now spending. Apart from anything else, the calls of education and pensions will be very considerable and on the social side they, too, require more spending in order to maintain existing standards. An increasing number of children will be at school and the number of old people will also increase. The Health Service itself will require more, without any improvement in standards, just to check the malaise indicated by our increasing dependence upon foreign doctors, among many other signs.
The second problem in contemplating the financing of the Health Service is that medical science and the great advances it is making has aggravated the problem. The tendency is that those whose lives are, happily, saved or prolonged are not among the producers. The greater the advance the greater the demand on inevitably limited resources of money and manpower. The original idea that a comprehensive Health Service would keep the nation sufficiently healthy to pay for itself, as it were, out of increased output has turned out to be fallacious. So we have a large problem which cannot be left entirely to economic expansion, whenever that may be achieved, and one which looks like being worse in future, in view of the rapid advance of medical and technical science.
244
On the other hand, the problem is to some extent limited and divided into two by the nature of the care which the Health Service seeks to give to our people. Half the expenditure of the Service roughly deals at the moment with the aged sick, the chronic sick, the mentally ill, the subnormal and long-stay care, and it seems to me that, whatever system of financing of the service we devise in future, that half will inevitably be a burden on the taxpayer and the taxpayer alone because by its nature it cannot be and is not susceptible to charges of any kind. So it is only for half the total expenditure on the Health Service that we are contemplating possible changes or developments in the method of financing.
In 1970–71, excluding the estimated £100 million or more devoted to capital resources, half the total expenditure on the Health Service will come to about £950 million. Assuming that the rates carry the same proportion as now and stay at about £240 million, the taxpayer, under the present system, will be paying £1,500 million or more. Of the total, £950 million inevitably will be the burden of the taxpayers as the system is now organised. This leaves £550 million or more, therefore, which is susceptible to changes in the method of financing the Health Service. At the moment, in 1970–71 the figures at out-turn prices means that the Exchequer will bear £1,500 million or more in the financing of the service.
If we assume that, whatever system we have the Exchequer must bear part of the total cost. This comes to £950 million, the difference between that representing the area of choice which could be open to variation. That area of choice is confined to a total of £550 million, representing in round figures, one quarter of the total expenditure on the Health Service. It is a curious coincidence that this also represents, roughly, the proportion which in many European countries is not covered by the social security tax, is not reclaimable by the patient, except on a test of need, and it is, therefore, that element which in many European systems is met by the patient.
We on this side understand the Government's dilemma, but I cannot pretend that I have very much sympathy for them. They have brought it upon themselves.

245
The promises about the capacity of the Labour Government to develop health and social services generally without increasing taxation were so numerous that the Government's commitment to their past must have had some bearing on their present difficulties and inhibitions in considering future policies.
During the 1964 election, replying to the suggestion that these policies might lead to increased taxation, the Prime Minister said that for the general body of taxpayers the answer was "No". He said:
"Over the period of Parliament, in our whole programme for expansion, we can do all this within the increment of current reduction."
The increment is not enough to prevent an extra £3,000 million a year taxation.
The present Home Secretary said that
"…increased social expenditure will be financed out of the growing expansion of British industry. We shall not cash cheques until the money is in the bank".
Unfortunately, all that we have got is borrowed money in the bank to prevent the cheques being returned marked "Return to drawer".
Even the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said that Labour would not be a spendthrift Government. He said:
"It will not need to increase the general level of taxation to pay for its progamme."
In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, he has the courage and consistency of his convictions, because he has suggested that what could be raised equitably by charges is the extra slice of resources which we need to switch from private to public consumption, to give us the better service we want. He made it quite clear that he was not contemplating a massive removal of the burden on the taxpayer. He was merely suggesting that people should make indirect payments with the safeguards he suggested in detail, for their use of the service or some part of it, such as prescriptions or treatment in hospital, to give us the better service we want—by getting an extra slice of resources switched from the private sector—consumption goods—to the public sector—health.
In principle, I agree with him, but does the Secretary of State? I do not know. He appears to disagree, because in replying to his hon. Friend the Member for
246
Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) on 5th May, he said:
"However, if he was to imply that these charges indicate a view by me that a wide extension of charges is preferable to taxation, this is absolutely untrue, because in my view charges are matters of limited utility at the best and the public must face the fact that the major cost of the Health Service will in future always have to be borne by taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 48]
It rather depends on what is meant by "major". The statement that the charges are of "limited utility" is an indication of a divergence of view. It implies, too, that the Secretary of State appears to accept with resignation, if not equanimity, that there will be no improvement in the Health Service, no money available for it, because in his "Essay on Socialism"—I agree that this is some time ago and he may have changed his mind—in 1967, he commented that without
"…a fairly rapid rate of economic growth"
further social progress could not be achieved.
The right hon. Gentleman went so far as to suggest that higher taxes were out of the question because, as he said:
"There is a limit both in time and in extent to the restrictions that are acceptable."
I agree. Whether his hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) agrees, is a different matter.
I am not even certain whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with himself, whether he still holds this view. It seems that what he said in 1967 and what he said in reply to his hon. Friend in 1969 shows a difference of view, or a willingness to accept that if taxation cannot go up nor can improvements in the Health Service, because the money cannot be found.
I accept that it is too much for us to look for agreement in these matters on the benches opposite, but the House would be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's views. Where does he stand? "There is a limit", as he said, to taxation. On the other hand, "the major cost of the service will always have to be borne by taxation". Charges, he said,
"are matters of limited utility at the best,"
Even to raise equitably the extra slice of resources?

247
As for "a rate of economic growth", "the growing expansion of industry" and "the increment of current production", these are, for him and his right hon. Friends, a pipedream of some distant future. Even when they come, under a Tory Government, there will still be a lot of charges upon an expanded economy. Professor Abel Smith has pointed out the position most clearly. In May, 1968, he said:
"In the 1964 Election, the whole thrust of the Government's programme was on economic growth, and this made it possible to promise both an increase in the social services and an increase in private affluence. The worship of growth rescued the Labour Party from the dilemma of choice between the private and public sectors. But it also made it more painful for the Government when the planned rate of growth failed to materialise. Hence the pain of the cuts announced last January. For instance, the introduction of prescription charges was a bitter blow for Labour supporters."
Since then we have had further charges and an equally bitter blow to loyal Labour supporters. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could let us know when we are to see the regulations that will bring the charges in, so that we can leave the matter until then. If he cannot help in this way, I must say that whereas the Prime Minister made it clear that the £3,500 savings from these charges was a Cabinet decision, requiring the burden of savings to be distributed throughout Government expenditure, the Secretary of State made it equally clear that unless charges were imposed the demands upon him for savings would affect the standard provided by the Health Service and would especially affect mental and subnormal hospitals.
I do not wish to say more about that; we shall deal with the details later. However, what is relevant to the debate is the admission by implication of the need for more money and that a reduction in expenditure can be achieved only at the cost of serious damage and that the only way of averting such a reduction is to impose charges. It is not a question of the Health Service being in any way privileged in the plans for Government saving. In accepting this burden, the Secretary of State faced the dilemma of either making damaging cuts—and, as he put it, that would have been criminal in the case of hospitals for mental and subnormal people—or imposing charges.
248
The relevance of that to the debate is what it implies for the future. The Secretary of State must tell the House, when there is need for more money to prevent further deterioration of the Service, where he proposes to get it from—taxes, charges, or contributions. Or does he propose to do nothing and to wait, hoping that the planned expansion will be achieved, meanwhile doing his best by switching resources from one part of the service to another? I cannot believe that this enthusiastic, genuine reformer, with such great plans, now has merely a pension scheme which puts the burden on the future and health plans which consist of patching and pruning.
Switching expenditure and getting the priorities right in the service can do a great deal to help. As Professor Townsend said in his capacity as President of the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, we are proportionately spending less on mental health provision than we were three years ago. The Secretary of State recognised this. In his statement about Ely Hospital he said:
"These"—
mental—
"hospitals must be given their fair share of manpower and money, even if this means, as it will mean, a reallocation of resources within the Health Service. I shall be considering with the boards ways and means of starting this difficult operation as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1810.]
To do the right hon. Gentleman justice, he did start it. It was pointed out in a speech of his, made at a hospital management committee's meeting at Weston-super-Mare, that long-stay hospitals were already getting a greater share of available public resources. The speech went on:
"'My own top priority in the hospital service at present is to divert more resources to the long-stay hospitals which, I fear, have in the past often been a deprived sector of the hospital service. In spite of my predecessor's request in 1965 that these services should be given a due and early share of the resources available…10 regions devoted a smaller proportion of their allocation than in 1964–65 to subnormality, 11 devoted less to mental illness and eight less to the chronic sick'."
As the Secretary of State recognised, this is a difficult problem—switching resources to places with the most need within the service which is not easy to achieve, as he said. The House should congratulate him on his effort. But I

249
hope that he is aware of its dangers. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) referred to this matter when she spoke to the Co-operative Party conference. Talking about mental hospitals, he said, according to The Times:
"These could not be improved without spending more money, and she did not believe, within the health service resources, that more could be spent on the hospitals for mentally sub-normal without doing serious damage to other sections."
There is that danger. Perhaps with reductance, regional boards found, in following the instruction of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, that difficulty reflected the dilemma in which he has put some regional boards.
There is danger in the bland assumption—and I do not charge the Secretary of State with having made it, but some people have done so—that by a mixture of increasing management efficiency, by the better use of available resources and by leaving the rest to an expansion which one day will happen, the Health Service does not need a greater proportion of our national effort devoted to it.
Again, I quote from The Times, when it referred to:
"A growing number of hospitals…running into new financial difficulties because of the recent spate of Government recommendations for improving the hospital service. Many are seriously embarrassed because of increasing pressure to carry out the reforms although they are not given the money to do so. Since last July the Ministry has sent about 35 guidance circulars to hospital authorities. Recommendations in many of these could be very expensive to carry out. About 70 other circulars were concerned mainly with pay and conditions. Recommendations which hospitals fear will be expensive including improvements in post-graduate education, better conditions for longstay and psychiatric patients, general advice on diets, and exhortations to make a start on the Salmon report's proposals…".
These are all admirable and desirable things. However, The Times also said that:
"One regional hospital board treasurer in the North-West said there was a national problem and it was growing worse. The United Sheffield Hospitals board, in a report published yesterday, said that in spite of drastic economies last year the budget was overspent by £12,000."
The treasurer of another hospital board said
"that his board was under extreme pressure because the Ministry recommendations created higher demands from the public."
The danger is that unless more resources are devoted to health the problem
250
of spoiling many ships for a ha'porth of tar will be very great.
The Secretary of State must give the House a clear answer on these matters and on how increasing costs will be met. Perhaps I could recommend to him the Daily Mirror, which, in a courageous and realistic article, said:
"The concept of an entirely free National Health Service was altruistic: in office, it is an impracticable concept".
Mr. Stanley Orme: Absolute nonsense.
Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense". What does the Secretary of State say? Does he say "Nonsense"? If so, is taxation going up? Are charges going up? We do not know, and we should like to know today. The right hon. Gentleman must have looked beyond 1970–71, although perhaps with less urgent interest in the knowledge that his direct responsibility and that of his Government will be minimal or improbable.
I should like to know whether some of the figures which have been suggested to me are likely to be right. It is suggested that, assuming that nothing much more is done in the Health Service, the cost will be running at about £2,500 million a year by 1974–75, of which about £2,000 million will come from the taxpayer. I should like to know whether this sort of level is an acceptable charge in total and to the taxpayer. I think that it probably is, since it represents roughly the same proportions that we have today.
But this increase makes no allowance for any greater expenditure. It makes no allowance for implementing the Todd Report or the Zuckerman Report, or improving nurses' pay and salaries and junior hospital doctors' salaries and conditions. If we are to do anything at all, by 1974–75 the Health Service will cost much more, in the neighbourhood of £2,750 million.
It has been recommended by many people that we should bring up the level of our expenditure to that now enjoyed in Canada and the United States—which, incidentally, is beginning to be regarded as inadequate. If we were to do that, we should have to be spending well over £3,000 million a year.
On these figures, it becomes clear that there is no question of finding all the

251
extra money which is required from taxation. As a result, we have to face some system of insurance, charges, or increased contributions. We on this side of the House have recognised always that the taxpayer's commitment can only be limited by some form of payment for the service when it is used; in other words, some form of charges, with safeguards.
The alternative is for some form of contribution when people are well; that is to say, some form of insurance or social security tax. The third possibility is a combination of both. That is a view which is gaining support on both sides of the House and among interested and knowledgeable people who have no political affiliation.
I would ask the Secretary of State what he has considered. Has he considered on the capital side, for example, financing hospital building by some method of borrowing from the public, using public savings, perhaps in conjunction with contractual savings? Has he considered tax reliefs on charities, including hospitals and other health projects, such as are now used with considerable success in Canada and the United States? Has he considered a more flexible system of hospital finance on capital account, with longer-term budgeting and allowing a wider use of gifts not confined completely to amenities?
Has the right hon. Gentleman considered any form of encouragement to private provision for health? Has he considered the possibility of allowing hospitals to retain a proportion of the charges that they make for private beds? What has he done in the way of considering a more effective use of resources? Can he say on what cost-effectiveness studies he has embarked? Has he considered the burden of motor car accidents, which cost the service £20 million a year, of which only £600,000 is collected, and that very expensively? Has he considered a method of taking that burden off the taxpayer and putting it where it belongs, on the motorist? Why should motorists rely on their insurance companies to mend their cars, but on the taxpayer to mend their bodies that their cars break?
We really want more information on the wider issue. Does the right hon. Gentleman favour or look askance at
252
the general plan on the lines suggested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby? Has he considered variations of the different plans in Europe, where the cost is met largely through an earnings-related social security contribution which enables a patient to claim back a proportion of the total cost, normally amounting to between 70 and 80 per cent.? Has he thought of any variations on the insurance scheme? The health element in his new wage-related package scheme seems to be at about the same level as it is now. It is a little different in that there will be a small element of buoyancy in it, but it will not be significantly different.
There are many methods with which the House will be familiar, and we do not ask him to specify any one now. All that we ask him to say is whether he has considered any of them, or whether he is still firmly wedded to the principle of a Health Service which is free at the point of use. If he wants to maintain the promise of the 1964 election manifesto, which was met in 1965 by abolishing prescription charges and restoring them 18 months later, how is he to meet it? Does he pretend that it can be met in the future, and, if not, what is his alternative?
If the right hon. Gentleman means to go on record now saying that the future policy of the Labour Government and the Labour Party as a whole will be at all costs to have a Health Service free at the point of use, does he propose to increase taxation to pay for it, or will he let it deteriorate, drive people unwillingly to private provision and rely more and more on immigrant doctors who suffer exploitation because the experience that they gain here is valuable to them and is needed in their home countries?
It ought not to be too difficult to answer that question. Even if it involves a total reversal of Government policy, it should not be too difficult. We have seen it often enough in the past weeks. In any event, the right hon. Gentleman cannot exactly reverse what does not exist. His policy for pensions finance is simple. It is to pile up a large but uncertain debt for our children to pay. In itself, it is a massive increase in contributions which is partly a tax, on top of huge increases in general taxation

253
and at a time of higher rates, prices and unemployment.
As for the Health Service finance policy, where is the consistency? In January, 1965, prescription charges were abolished. June, 1968, saw them back again and increased from Is. to 2s. 6d. In May, 1969, the 25 per cent. increase was announced, and now, in July, we still await the regulations. We do not know when they will come in or what they will contain. We know that more money is needed from charges, from contributions or from taxation. There is no other source.
The Secretary of State has described himself as a compulsive communicator. In the course of the debate, will he please communicate his policy, the Government's policy and the Labour Party's policy, preferably in one policy, though I accept that there may be divergences between the three? If he does not, in his capacity as the Minister in charge of health, one will be inclined to speak to him in the words of that old ditty:
"The other day upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
Oh, how I wish he'd go away."
4.7 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I want to start by thanking the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) for the tone in which he introduced the debate and the questions which he asked. They proved that I guessed right and that, after some personal persiflage at the beginning, he wanted to ask some serious questions. From a Tory spokesman, I did not expect any constructive answers. I have never heard so many questions asked in one speech.
It is worth remembering that we have an Opposition who claim to be responsible. During the debate, it is to be hoped that other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will be a little more constructive in indicating what they would do. However, I shall try to deal precisely with the hon. Gentleman's questions, because they should be asked. The problem of financing a health service is a real one, most of all for the Minister in charge.
I also want to thank the hon. Member for beginning by fairly analysing the
254
causes of the problem. It is worth noticing that it is right to scrutinise the Health Service today, because it comes of age on Saturday, 5th July, 1969. This is an excellent time at which to appraise its development.
I would add two figures to those which the hon. Gentleman gave. In the first full year of Nye Bevan's Health Service, expenditure was £455 million. I think that it is true to say that Sir Stafford Cripps thought it rather a lot. Today, 20 years later, it is just under £2,000 million, at £1,942 million. When one takes the effect of pay and prices from those figures, whereas its money cost has quadrupled since 1949, its real cost has just about doubled. As the hon. Gentleman said, the share that the Health Service now takes of the gross national product has increased from 4 per cent. 10 years ago to nearly 5 per cent, today, and the increase in the real cost since we were in power is 23 per cent. That is why there was one unfair thing in what the hon. Gentleman said. He implied that there was a question of cutback. There has been no question of a cut-back of the Health Service; there has been an enormous expansion.
Let us take the hospital building programme, which we have doubled in five years. We now have a proper programme for the first time since the war. What we are discussing is not how to face cuts but how to sustain this astonishing development which we have undertaken and, I add, how to ensure that we have enough revenue to operate for the capital equipment that we have produced. It is no good producing hospitals and then having to close them down because we cannot afford to keep them up.
Before I come to the question of finance I want to follow the hon. Gentleman in analysing whether the process of increasing expenditure is inevitable: must we look forward to hospital services and to a Health Service in general taking more of the national resources. I believe that we must, and that the explanation takes us right back to the Beveridge Report. In 1944, we assumed that if we could only introduce a comprehensive Health Service the improvement in the health of the nation would flatten out the costs within a few years. We would all keep healthy and it would not cost anything to keep us alive.

255
That was one of the many basic fallacies of the Beveridge Report. In real life, what happens is that the Service—and I give the hon. Gentleman credit for his fairness in mentioning this—instead of satisfying demand stimulates it. It is not true in the case of health that demand stimulates the service; it is precisely true that the service stimulates demand.
But there is another reason which I want to mention, because it is sometimes forgotten. One of the heaviest of those costs which were not predicted arose because of our carrying out the principle of levelling up the service for the individual, for the group and for the region. It is true that by a stroke of the pen and creating the service we took the dollar sign out of health and made everybody equal, theoretically, in terms of hospital treatment. That was only the beginning. One of the main inequalities was between the regions in 1948.
Let me give a simple case. Most of the crack hospitals were concentrated in London, whereas England, north of the Trent, had more than its share of decrepit public assistance institutions and shocking buildings, often with very low standards. Instead of levelling London down we decided to level the provinces up, and this process has been continued ever since. Even so, there is a long way to go before the process is completed and the gravely over-privileged region of London is overtaken by the Midlands and the North. This process of levelling up is costing us far more money on the Health Service than Nye Bevan expected.
The second grave inequality was the inequality between different groups of patients, and especially between the patient in an acute hospital and the one in a long-stay hospital, such as a geriatric hospital or a hospital for the mentally subnormal. Once again, the Health Service inherited a deplorable state of inequality and injustice as between groups of patients. In some long-stay hospitals there were absolutely Dickensian conditions.
Let me give one example. In 1953, the number of beds for mental illness represented about 36 per cent. of the total of all beds, but we were spending only about 15 per cent. of hospital money on
256
those beds. The people concerned were under-privileged patients. Some progress has been made. The proportion of mental illness beds—thank heavens, by means of a breakthrough in treatment—has been reduced from 36 per cent. to 29 per cent., while mental illness beds still receive 15 per cent. of hospital money. Even so, there is a huge gap, that we all know of, between what is provided or assumed to be necessary for patients in mental hospitals and subnormal hospitals in particular, and what is provided for those in acute hospitals.
I now turn to another inherent factor, which is the speed of advance in medical science, drug development and modern techniques of surgery. One of the best examples is that of the kidney machine. It is greatly to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Minister who preceded me that—I believe I am right in saying this—we invested £1 million in saving the lives of people with kidney disease. We invested £1 million in the capital equipment required to do this. The treatment of chronic renal failure requires the provision of about £2,500 of capital equipment for each additional patient and an annual running cost per patient of between £2,000 and £2,500.
Total expenditure on intermittent dialysis, which was negligible five years ago—before the great plan was launched—is now about £2 million a year. Some people fondly imagine that kidney transplants will replace intermittent dialysis and reduce costs. The contrary is true, I fear. Their success, which is already remarkable, will probably require not less but more intermittent dialysis, and we shall then have the transplants and the dialysis to pay for. We shall be saving more lives, but we shall be discovering that we can treat more people with the disease. That is the essence of the problem of the hospital service.
Not all medical ingenuity and science necessarily costs money. Everyone knows how the conquest of tuberculosis in the 1950s produced a huge unseen subsidy to the Health Service and, incidentally, to national insurance. Let me take another example, which is more recent and less well known, namely, the revolutionary modern treatment of varicose veins—one of the commonest causes of admission to hospital all over the country. More and more this complaint is now being

257
treated largely by techniques which can be given to out-patients, thus saving admissions to hospital. Instead of at least one week in hospital most patients can now be treated while still active and living at home—and the cost is about one-fifth of that of the older method. Here there is a genuine case of saving.
But the savings do not equal the increases in expenditure, and the inherent fact is that if we are to keep up, as we are keeping up, with the population increase and the other factors we must assume that more of the national resources will go to the Health Service in the next five years than it did in the last five years.
The hon. Gentleman was quite right to ask me how I think that this vastly expanding service should be paid for. He mentioned three ways in which the Health Service could be financed, namely, taxation, including rates—and I suppose that the hon. Gentleman was assuming that there is now a great difference in distribution as between money from taxation and money from local authorities—secondly, the National Health Service contribution, about which I shall have something more to say later; thirdly, the charges levied upon the users of certain parts of the National Health Service; and, finally, payment for private services either through contributions to a private insurance or provident scheme like B.U.P.A. or by direct payment to the doctor or nursing home. The last named would not pay for the Health Service, but it would reduce the theoretical cost by creating a private health service.
I want to examine each of the four possibilities. At present, the Health Service is financed to the extent of 85½ per cent. from taxation, central and local; 9½ per cent. from the National Health Service contribution and 5 per cent. from charges, including those for amenity beds, and privately paying patients. Let me repeat those figures; 85½ per cent. from taxation, 9½ per cent. from the national insurance contribution and 5 per cent. from charges. So the bulk of the money comes overwhelmingly from taxation, Os in 1948.
I was asked by the hon. Gentleman whether we were wise—so near the 21st birthday of the service—to say that taxation is the only thing that we should rely
258
on, or whether we should include the other three. Here, we can learn something from the past. It is true that relying heavily upon taxation means that the Health Service is inevitably at risk during an economic crisis. The danger is not so much that there will be an absolute cut in the service, but that there will be a slow-down in the rate of expansion. Everybody who knows about Whitehall knows that in a period of crisis there is always a risk, with a great spending Department, if all the money comes from taxation, that pressure will be exerted.
I accept that, but I say straight away that in my view there is no doubt whatsoever that the greater part of what we raise will always have to come from taxation—rates and taxes. I am prepared later to consider the use of the National Health Service contribution under a new form, and after we have introduced our new national insurance law.
Mr. R. H. Turton: Will the Secretary of State split up the 85½ per cent. between local and central taxation?
Mr. Crossman: I do not have the figure here, but my guess is that it is about five-sixths central and one-sixth local. But I am a bad guesser and I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to take that as correct; he had better ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
Before we do anything else, if we are to be realistic we must compare these diffent methods of finance rather more closely. All of them ultimately fall on the workers and their families, though there are important differences in the way this happens and in the impact of the burden. Taxation does not consist only of tax, income tax and surtax. We must remember that an ever-larger proportion of our revenue comes from taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and from rates, which can hardly be considered the most socially progressive tax in the world. All of them fall with particular severity on lower-paid workers.
We must remember, also, that the employer's Health Service contribution falls ultimately on the things which we buy in the shops, on the cost of living and on exports. The employee's contribution to the service comes directly out of his wage packet and is deducted before he gets it.

259
All the alternatives that people talk of are only alternative methods for extracting money from the same lot of pockets. This is a thought which we must face, and it is a thought which any Secretary of State for Social Services has to face. It is important which way it is done, so as to produce fairness and justice, but we shall not find another place from which the money can be raised.
I want, first, to deal with the possibility of a larger private sector, and perhaps hon. Gentlemen will mention this. I have a feeling that many Conservatives outside the House of Commons are toying with this idea. What attitude should we take to the different ways of relieving the taxpayer of part of the cost of the Health Service? Could we, for instance, give encouragement to provident insurance, to B.U.P.A. and similar schemes? Since I thought that my hon. Friends would like to study the private sector and know something about it. for very little is written about it, I have collected some facts about provident schemes to give to the House.
In the year ended 30th June, 1968, the schemes collected £14 million and paid out £12 million in benefits. The total number of registrations was 800,000, the largest number being in B.U.P.A., which had 650,000 registrations and provided benefits to 1¼ million adults and children. People who can afford it have a good material reason for wanting to be private patients and thus to join provident schemes.
It is not unlike a fee-paying school. What they are buying is a greater chance of choosing when they are admitted to hospital for an operation which is not urgent. They are buying, also, the right to choose their consultant, and to ensure that their consultant actually is there and does the operation. Thirdly, they are avoiding a lot of waiting around in the out-patients' department. For busy people these are advantages which have their price.
The question which I raise this afternoon is this. Should any encouragement be given to these people? Should we, for instance, allow a contribution to such a scheme as a deduction from income tax, as is done in the United States of America, or would it be possible to allow
260
people with a certain amount of private insurance to contract out?
The further question which will be raised from the other side is this. In other social services, notably housing and pensions, we have encouraged a partnership between the private sector and the public sector. Why, I shall be asked, should not we extend the same principle to the Health Service and encourage contracting out into private enterprise? If more people were purchasing their health services on a private basis, the limited money which we could raise in taxes and contributions could be spent on a reduced number of users of the service. This argument will be heard louder and louder in the coming months up to the election.
Exactly the same argument is used about private education, and there we can already see the effect of a much larger private sector and the complexities which result for the State system.
My answer, in a nutshell, is this. If registrations with provident schemes increased from 1¼ to, say, 5 million, the Health Service would soon become a second-class service. At present, virtually all the leading doctors treat Health Service patients, and the majority of their time is contracted to the Service. Health Service patients know that they can obtain medical care from our leading doctors, or at least from those doctors' firms.
If the private sector or insurance became dominant, there might well be a considerable number of leading consultants who treated only private patients. Some might work only in private hospitals. We could no longer claim that all citizens, whatever their means, were able to obtain the same standard of medical care.
If this were allowed to happen as a method of economising on money, the comprehensive service would be destroyed, and a service which was felt to be socially superior would be permitted to grow up by its side.
Mr. Dudley Smith: Does the Secretary of State agree that the private sector is growing substantially, in which case, if his party remains in power, does he ultimately intend to abolish the private sector?
Mr. Crossman: I gave the figures. There is some sign of growth, but it is

261
interesting that the growth has been limited to 1¼ million people, including wives and children. It is at present a very small sector compared to the private sector in education. I have called attention to the fact that to encourage it to develop may relieve the Health Service of a little expenditure but would effectively destroy the service.
I now turn to charges. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should this afternoon discuss what rôle they can play in financing the Health Service. I gather from him that he thought that they could play a very large rôle, although he did not make it clear how. In discussing this issue I shall not deal in detail with the particular proposal to increase the charges for dentures and spectacles which I announced recently. I prefer to reserve the case for these relatively minor increases for the debate which no doubt will take place after I have laid the regulations, which I intend to do at an early date.
In this debate it is important to consider charges in general, and to ask ourselves whether they can or should be regarded, as some people regard them, as an alternative to taxation. But the charges in the Health Service are a very mixed bag and many of them are surprisingly uncontroversial. Consider, for example, the charges which we levy for Part III accommodation for a place in an old people's home, for the services of a home help or for a child looked after in a day nursery. Charges are levied for all these services and they have long been regarded as perfectly reasonable and are almost universally accepted as a very minor but perfectly fair method of paying part of the cost of our services.
The same applies to amenity beds. There are many who feel that pay beds should be abolished altogether. They are dwindling, but the case for providing amenity beds and charging for them has been accepted ever since the Service started, so that when I recently announced an increase in the charges for amenity beds to cover the cost the announcement passed almost without notice, and I do not think that a single hon. Member put down a Question.
There was almost as little reaction when my predecessor announced last year an increase in the charges for dentistry. On that occasion one reason why the increase was so little discussed was the
262
fact that it was overshadowed by the controversy over the restoration of prescription charges. That controversy still continues. Now that I have been seeing the problem at first hand for some months, I find myself in ever closer accord with the feelings and views of my predecessor. I am sure that he was right to choose what he felt to be the lesser evil and to accept health charges in order to protect the hospital service. Nevertheless, the decision leaves us with a most difficult problem to resolve. I am sure that it can and will be resolved.
Meanwhile, there is one thing I have to say in relation to the debate about charges, in answer to the question from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham. It is not my view that charges, even if one develops them as far as possible, could ever provide more than a minor auxiliary support to other forms of finance.
Mr. Orme: Why have them?
Mr. Crossman: I went into some detail in answer to the question that was put to me about this matter. There are two other charges that one could seriously consider. One is in relation to the hospital bed; the other the visit to the doctor. Both are outrageous. Between them, I reckon that they could hardly raise more than £30 million a year. The total amount, if one were to extend the system as far as possible, does not get up to £90 million a year out of the £1,500 million, and the suggestion brings with it appalling administrative problems, not to say a couple of political problems as well. Therefore, I say clearly that one can rule out charges as a substantial answer to the problem of finding alternative sources of revenue for the Health Service.
Mr. Tim Fortescue: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point clearly, but he has announced, almost in the same breath, that shortly he will lay regulations to increase charges for dentures and spectacles by 25 per cent. If the effect is so minimal, and the process is so useless, why is he taking such action?
Mr. Crossman: We will leave that matter to a debate on a later occasion.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I was not advocating increased charges, but was

263
putting forward the view that they could be significant. I was asking what the Minister's view was.
Mr. Crossman: My view is that, however hard one tries, they should not be made more than a small factor—a useful adjunct, but only an adjunct, to the major source of finance. If one is not to rely exclusively on taxation and is not to hand over to a private sector, if one is not to expand charges, one is left with the possibility of a higher health contribution. At present, we pay for nearly 10 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service through flat-rate National Health Service contribution. In the White Paper on National Superannuation we propose that these contributions should become earnings related. Employees would pay one half per cent. of earnings up to the ceiling and employers would pay a half per cent. of their payroll.
Could more money be raised by gradually enlarging the Health Service contribution? Suppose, for example, that the taxpayer were to pay for the first £1,000 million of the service and the new earnings-related contribution paid for the expansion of the service beyond that point. This has been suggested to me by a number of Socialists, and it is something that one ought seriously to consider, for it follows the principle that one should pay for the service when one is healthy and not when one is ill. With earnings-related benefit we should remove an intolerable injustice from the lower-paid worker that is imposed on him by flat-rate contribution.
But there are one or two quite serious problems to be faced. We have always spoken about a comprehensive Health Service for every citizen. With contributions by employees and self-employed persons certain people will be excluded from contribution. Will they be entitled to that part of the Health Service which is covered by contribution? I put the point because we are discussing introducing a contributory principle into a universal system available to every citizen. The two principles must be taken together. This is made even more complex since we are moving towards earnings-relation since all earnings-related contributions will earn earnings-related benefit. There we are introducing
264
with an earnings-related pension a contribution geared to the benefit. In the earnings-related Health Service contribution we would all get the same benefit.
Mr. Orme: Is there not a danger that, as with other earnings-related benefits and with the Minister's pension scheme, if he is not careful the burden can fall heavily on a certain income group, particularly the skilled workers earning between £20 and £30 a week? Such a group has already been asked to bear a terribly heavy burden.
Mr. Crossman: These are the kinds of consideration I have to have in mind. I am merely saying that if we are asked to consider the matter, this is the only proposition that I have found to be even worthy of consideration. It must be remembered that the higher-paid worker, if he does not pay a contribution, will probably pay income tax at the full standard rate. One has to work these things out.
The hon. Member for Farnham put to me one further point. It is true that in a considerable number of countries in Europe social security contributions play a much larger rôle in the financing of health services than they do in Britain. In none of these countries is there any difficulty in combining earnings-related contribution with a single unitary service without classes or differences in it. To take an example from the Commonwealth, the New Zealanders have for years demanded varying contributions towards the cost of the service from their workers, but a standard single health service is available for all. Therefore, that particular objection is not final.
We have been considering so far the employees' contribution. There is another aspect we can have in mind. Whatever may be felt about the principle of earnings-related contribution paid by the employee for medical care, there cannot be the same objection to the employer paying a percentage of pay roll for the Health Service. There are strong arguments why the employer should pay a considerable share of the cost of the medical care given to his employee. After all, part of the need for medical care is generated by the fact of employment—for example, industrial accidents and prescribed diseases. Moreover, if the Health Service ceased to exist, I suspect

265
that many employers would be willing to subscribe to some type of private health insurance scheme to cover their employees for medical care. Employers have a definite interest in securing that their employees obtain swift and efficient treatment and return to work as soon as possible. It is worth considering whether, in the expansion of the health services which we all want to see, the employers' contribution should play a more important rôle.
In this respect, our White Paper on National Superannuation has green edges. I did not have much to say about the National Health Service contribution. I should be interested to hear a discussion of the pros and cons of moving towards contribution to the service on a much enlarged basis; whether it should be on a 50–50 basis between employer and employee, or whether the employee should pay up to 70 per cent. as he does in France, Italy and in Sweden. Those are the questions. I have tried my hardest to respond to the hon. Member for Farnham and to deal with them as directly as I can.
Mr. Paul Dean: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point about the employer's contribution, which is an extremely interesting one, can he say whether he thinks it would be practicable to put an additional burden on the employer at the same time as the new pension scheme is coming into operation, or is he thinking much more in the long term?
Mr. Crossman: I was definitely thinking of the matter in the long term as related to the White Paper and to 1972. I myself do not think that we could introduce this without the earnings-related contribution which we need from it. If we want to remove the injustice to the lower-paid worker, we have to move from a flat-rate national health contribution to an earnings-related contribution. Otherwise, we would be making the lower-paid worker pay 6d. or 9d. extra on the flat rate for his Health Service, and he would not thank us for that. Indeed, I suspect that he might prefer to have a few prescription charges instead.
I know that we shall get from this side of the House a number of constructive speeches, because there are some hon. Friends behind me who have spent a lot
266
of time thinking about the future of the Health Service and are not prepared merely to say that it must always remain the same. Who is to pay? We should be prepared to think about these things. I believe that we on this side are. I am curious to know when we shall have evidence from hon. Members opposite of a wish to contribute something constructive towards the debate.
4.41 p.m.
Mr. Charles Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) painted a somewhat gloomy picture of the finances of the Health Service. At least, the Secretary of State agreed that there are considerable problems attached to its financing. The House will have been relieved that the Secretary of State has removed the cloud of uncertainty about the proposals for increasing the cost of spectacles and dentures. I have no doubt that the House will look forward with fear and doubt to the debate on that subject whenever it may occur.
I was a little surprised by the Secretary of State. When he started his speech, he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham of putting forward no constructive ideas, and yet he ended his speech by saying that he had dealt with all the ideas that had been put forward by my hon. Friend. That seemed to be a little contradictory, perhaps not for the first time in the Secretary of State's history.
The right hon. Gentleman also expressed pride at the percentage increase in the total amount of expenditure on the Health Service. That would have been quite good stuff for elections. Had there been some by-elections, which we wish had been taking place, it might have helped the Labour Party minimally. Regrettably, however, no elections are forthcoming. In reality, of course, what the Secretary of State said was not particularly helpful to a rather serious debate like this when we are considering how to cope with the continuing problem of growing demand.
The reasons why that demand is growing and, consequently, why we are concerned about the Health Service finances are, I think, generally agreed. The population is increasing, the cost of development is rising and as capital investment proceeds and increases, so, too, does

267
revenue expenditure. As medicines and medical equipment become more and more sophisticated, their cost, too, is bound to increase. The figures produced by the Secretary of State were startling although, at the same time, they were in many ways reassuring, because they show what is being done. This does not, however, make the problem which we are debating any easier to overcome.
Research continually decreases the sphere of illness for which treatment cannot be given and thus, again, demand for treatment and medicine steadily grows. All these things together are bound to mean that the cost of the Health Service will grow at what the Secretary of State, the Minister responsible or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will certainly consider to be an alarming rate. These considerations come on top of the known deficiencies in provision within the Health Service, in mental hospitals and in general hospitals, in provision for the old and in the pay and working conditions of many Health Service personnel.
What, therefore, is to be done? The Secretary of State accused my hon. Friend of putting forward no constructive ideas, but when one tried to add up what constructive ideas the right hon. Gentleman himself put forward, one could not draw any firm conclusions. It is obvious that the Service must continue and must, so far as is possible, improve. It must be available to everyone. But how is it to be paid for? There are only two possible alternative ways of assisting us towards overcoming the problem. The first is savings within the Health Service and the second is the possibility of increasing resources.
In the main, I do not believe that there is very much opportunity for saving. The Government may reallocate resources. They may change the direction and emphasis of their investment. They may, for example, reallocate money from the general hospitals to the mental hospitals to meet a sudden need which has been brought to light. That, however, is robbing Peter to pay Paul and soon the process will have to be reversed.
There is, however, one sphere in which I think that savings could be made, and that is in administration. Last week, I
268
wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Secretary enclosing six envelopes which had been addressed to one family in one house in my constituency. The letters were addressed to the husband and the wife and their four children, aged between one year and 10 years. The envelopes were addressed by hand. For each, a postal charge was paid. Each envelope contained a card about the local doctor's surgery times and the cards had been sent by the local health executive.
It is important that people should know what time they can attend a doctor's surgery, but if each and every member of one family received individual cards, doubtless every family in the area of the doctor in question—and, probably, of other doctors—received similar cards and similar treatment. Surely this is a blatant example of Parkinson's law. It really looks as though junior staff have been employed and those in authority have then scratched their heads to try to think up a way of using them and have set them all to addressing envelopes by hand.
I cannot believe that it is necessary for more than one card of that nature to be delivered to each house. I know that it is foolish to draw general conclusions from one case, and I realise that the Parliamentary Secretary could not possibly have replied to me yet, but I look forward to his reply. The case to which I have referred demonstrates that there is scope for saving on administration within the Health Service. Therefore, I should like to know from the Minister, when he replies to the debate, what running system of review of administration goes on in his Department. Clearly, judging by my experience, whatever review takes place, it cannot be wholly satisfactory.
Nevertheless, I believe that the opportunity for major savings in the Health Service must be limited. If, therefore, the Health Service is to maintain its standards, let alone improve them, for an increasing population, somehow it must find more resources. As we have already heard, there are three methods which could be used: first, increased taxes, including contributions; secondly, increased charges and a widening of the scope of charges; and, thirdly, the attracting of private resources.

269
First, increased taxes and contributions. The Secretary of State said that the greater part of the finances of the Health Service would always come from taxation and I am sure that he is right—one could not disagree with him on that—but heaven forbid that taxes should be increased still more. Apart from the added burden on the country, such an exercise would be self-defeating, as everyone must realise from the results of the increased burden of taxation that the country has had to bear during the last four-and-a-half years.
The Secretary of State referred to what happened in certain other European countries. It may be that the contributions in those countries are higher than in this country, but even if that is so I believe that at the same time their rates of direct taxation are lower, and I think that this should be borne in mind. I think that contributions can be raised a little, and perhaps gradually, but only a little, and in any case I am not convinced such an exercise will provide more than an extra drop in the ocean since, again as the Secretary of State said, only 9½ per cent. of Health Service resources come from contributions.
Then there is the question of increased charges and the widening of their scope. This is always a possibility, and it is something which must always be under discussion, but it is not a subject which I view with any great pleasure.
The Government were, in theory, opposed to any charges, so they abolished the prescription charge of Is., only to replace it 18 months later with a charge of 2s. 6d. This may have demonstrated the deterioration in the value of money in the intervening period, but mainly it showed how desperate was the need of the Health Service and how much money was required.
In principle, I think that a prescription charge can be commended, but I am continually worried about the exemption categories. However they are framed, there are bound to be, and there are, anomalies, and every hon. Member must realise this from his constituency post. Because of this difficulty, and because of those who are most affected—the less well off, the elderly, and so on—I do not believe there is much scope for raising the charges further, nor for extending them. Although the Secretary of State
270
told us he was going to raise the charges, even he seemed to be doubtful whether it was all that worth while.
Thus, we are forced back to a more detailed consideration of the question of attracting money from private resources. Can such money be attracted, and can it be attracted to a worth-while degree? I believe that the answer is "Yes", given the incentive. I believe money can be attracted under two headings, general, and personal.
By general I mean, in effect, charitable gifts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham referred. At present, there is a seven-year covenant system, but many firms and individuals are reluctant to commit themselves for so long. Like many hon. Members, from time to time I receive requests from charities for subscriptions or covenants, and increasingly I find myself unwilling to commit myself for seven years ahead. I believe, therefore, that it is high time our charity laws were reviewed with the objective of giving a tax relief on gifts to recognised charities. This is done in the United States of America, and it could be done here. I believe that it would be of benefit, not just to the Health Service finances, but to such other spheres as sport and the arts, and I think that the benefit could be very considerable, indeed.
I turn to what I call the personal aspect. I think that my hon. Friend, even if not the Government, will agree that it is right to encourage private provision. Already, as the Secretary of State said, in the Health Service 1¼ million people benefit from, or subscribe indirectly to, B.U.P.A. Why not give them tax relief on their subscriptions? I should perhaps declare my interest as a subscriber, but I believe that if tax relief was given the 1¼ million subscribers would be multiplied several times over, and there would be a large net gain to the Health Service. As a refinement to please the Secretary of State, perhaps it would be possible to give tax relief only on incomes below a certain level. I throw it out as an incentive to the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman is not, apparently, in favour of expanding the private side of the Health Service because he feels that if that were done the service would become, and would be thought of as, second-class. I disagree with the

271
right hon. Gentleman totally about that, because I believe that the private resources which would be gathered in and attracted would relieve the Health Service of some of the burdens which it is at present carrying. It would then be able to spend the available money to greater advantage and in that way everyone making use of the Health Service, whether privately or publicly, would benefit.
There are two reasons why I think that tax relief would be no breach of principle. First, we give tax relief to encourage private provision in housing, in pensions, and for life insurance. Why not give tax relief for health as well? Second, and perhaps more important, where firms co-operate in group B.U.P.A. schemes, employers' contributions already receive relief from corporation tax, and, therefore, there would be no new principle involved by giving personal relief as well.
It is in the sphere of attracting private resources that the greatest hope of improving the financial situation of the Health Service lies. It is no use burying our heads in the sand, or going round and round in circles and coming up with no answer to the problem. There is clearly a very real problem which cannot be solved by further raids on the Exchequer, because that cupboard is bare, and dreaming alone will not fill it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that this is a short debate, and that short speeches may enable most hon. Members to participate.
4.58 p.m.
Mr. David Marquand: I participate in this debate with a great deal of diffidence, not being by any means an expert on the Health Service. I do participate because I am one of those who feel very passionately about the whole question of how in a democracy where there is considerable public resistance to paying greater taxation, this party can reallocate more resources to public expenditure and away from private consumption.
I want to talk about National Health Service finances as a particular case of
272
that general problem. Before I turn to the financial aspects that we have been looking at so far this afternoon, I wonder if I could make one plea to my right hon. Friend which might appeal to him, not only in his capacity as Secretary of State for Social Services, but in his old rôas Leader of the House and a leading Parliamentary reformer. It seems to me that this debate is taking place in far too narrow a framework. We cannot sensibly debate the problem of financing the Health Service in isolation from the general problem of financing the social services as a whole.
Moreover, we cannot sensibly debate financing any of the social services without considering the way in which the money is spent. Health, social security and all the other social services compete for limited resources. If we are to decide what proportion should go to any one claimant, we must compare the efficiency with which it spends the resources it gets with the efficiency of the other claimants.
In the last few months, the Treasury has taken an important step forward, which will enormously help the House to debate this question sensibly in future, by publishing the Green Paper on the presentation of public expenditure. This says that in future they intend to publish an annual White Paper giving forward projections for all public expenditure.
But that step forward is only a very small one, and for it to be really valuable to the House it should be supplemented by the rapid adoption of output budgets by the spending Departments. This would enable hon. Members to know on what particular objective and how efficiently money is being spent. I understand that the Department of Education and Science has already carried out a feasibility study of an output budget in education. Is such a study contemplated for health expenditure? When may we expect one? Only when we get these output budgets for the whole range of domestic expenditure shall we be able to discuss priorities and choices sensibly.
The narrow question of financing health expenditure has been bedevilled by two opposing sets of dogmas. The first is the dogma, which has not yet been expressed, but which probably will

273
be expressed from the other side, associated with the Institute of Economic Affairs—that the only sensible and liberal way to allocate resources, here as in any other field, is the free market. This approach underlay the contribution of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), and little bits of it could be detected peeping out from the bland evasions of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan).
That dogma is wholly inappropriate to a sensible discussion of this question. If incomes are unequally distributed, the free market cannot allocate resources equitably, but inevitably increases the distortions and inequities which exist already. This applies to health as to any other social service.
But there is another dogma, which we have not yet heard, but which we may hear from this side of the House. This says that for health there must be no charges at all, that all health charges are wicked and must be removed as soon as possible. This dogma seems to be based on two assumptions, with one of which, I was glad to see, my right hon. Friend has already dealt. The first is the assumption that charges are necessarily a much more inequitable method of raising finance than taxation, that taxation is progressive and charges are regressive.
In fact, as my right hon. Friend said, taxes are not all that progressive in this country. I should like to live in a society in which they were—in which all taxation was raised by progressive income tax and none at all by regressive taxes on expenditure. But no one believes that that is politically practicable for the foreseeable future. At the moment only about half the Government's revenue is raised by taxes on income. The rest is raised by taxes which are not even meant to be progressive. So the belief that to finance the National Health Service out of general taxation is somehow more Socialist because general taxation is progressive cannot stand up to examination.
Nor do I accept the argument that it is wrong to levy any charges in the Health Service on the grounds that because sickness is involuntary charges on sickness are peculiarly inhumane. All kinds of expenditure are involuntary. Take my personal case, which may seem trivial but which in my view is not. I wear spectacles
274
and also, for some unknown reason, wear out my shoes quickly. I seem to spend more than the average on footwear. It is involuntary expenditure, caused no doubt by the clumsy way I walk—as involuntary as my expenditure on spectacles.
I cannot see why it is utterly wicked and wrong to say that I should pay a contribution for my spectacles if at the same time I am expected to pay the whole cost of my footwear, which is at least as necessary to me. Indeed, had I to choose between the two, I would probably choose footwear—
Mr. Douglas Houghton: My hon. Friend may be entitled to surgical shoes, in which case he would pay a charge comparable to that which he pays for his spectacles, and justice would be done.
Mr. Marquand: I was not aware that I would have to pay a charge for surgical shoes, but the fact that I would reinforces my point. So I cannot accept the dogma that there should be no charge in health because sickness is involuntary.
The only sensible way to consider this subject is to ask oneself two questions, ridding one's mind of dogma. First, does health now get a proper share of the gross national product? If not, what is the most effective way of making up the difference between the percentage it now gets and the percentage which we think it should get? So far, everyone has agreed that health gets nothing like a satisfactory proportion of the G.N.P. Despite the welcome advance, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, to 5 per cent. of the gross national product which has been achieved under this Government, we are still a long way behind other countries. As long ago as 1961–62 Israel was spending 6·3 per cent. of its G.N.P. on health; Canada, 6 per cent.; Chile, 5·6 per cent.; Sweden, 5·4 per cent.; and America, 5·8 per cent., and that was at the beginning of this decade. We therefore have a long way to go to make up the gap that exists between what we are spending and what we should be spending on health.
Because of past neglect of the National Health Service during the 13 years when the Conservatives were in power, we

275
need particularly heavy capital expenditure to close the gap. And because of the demographic changes in the structure of the population—the increase that will continue to occur in the number of elderly people as a proportion of the total population in the coming decades—we will have to spend more on health simply to maintain existing standards, just as is the case with a number of other social services.
From where is the money to come? At current prices we need £500 million a year or more to reach, say, 6 per cent. of the G.N.P. There are only three sources; taxes, charges or contributions. As I have said, I have no dogmatic objection to charges. They can have a useful, though limited, rôle to play. But the view that charges alone can close the gap of which I have spoken is open to serious objection.
We have not been able to allocate a sufficient proportion of the national income to health because people resist paying higher taxation, and it is sometimes suggested that the same resistance would not be encountered if people had to pay for these services when they used them. In other words, they would be less reluctant to pay when they were able to see a direct connection between the money they were paying and the services they were getting. If that argument were true, it would be attractive and powerful and I would not object to charges on a large scale. In fact, I see no reason to believe that it is true.
To close the gap by charges, and in no other way would be grossly inequitable. This really would mean taxing the sick—people who were ill through no fault of their own. The raising of an extra £500 million solely by charges at the polka of use would be intolerable to any humanitarian. If it were decided to raise this money through charges there would have to be some sort of insurance scheme, with insurance premiums to amortise over his lifetime the charges that a person might have to pay.
I see no reason to believe that people would like to pay increased insurance contributions for their health any more than they like paying increased taxation. There is no evidence that they would and, until compelling evidence of this kind is produced, the idea that one could escape
276
the dilemma by introducing massive charges is a chimera.
Much the same applies to an increase in National Health contributions. I have nothing against this, if the contribution is earnings related. However, I do not believe that anybody would be happier to pay a higher earnings-related National Health contribution than higher taxation. The idea that one could tap a source of easy money by doing it this way rather than via taxation is a fallacy.
Nor do I accept what my right hon. Friend appeared to be arguing; that if one raised money via National Health contributions it would be easier for my right hon. Friend and his successors, in a future situation of economic stringency, to resist the Treasury's attempts to hold down the growth of health expenditure. We have these recurring panics in the public expenditure exercise when we are in a state of economic stringency, not because the money is raised by taxation, but because it is thought necessary to limit the total resources devoted to this subject. This need would exist whether the money were raised by National Health contributions, taxation or by any other means.
My right hon. Friend asked us to speculate on the idea of employers' contributions. I hope that this aspect will be considered, not in isolation but as part of the whole problem of our taxation system. This should not be done simply by my right hon. Friend. A Select Committee of Parliament is needed to look at the whole question of taxation policy, and the question which faces us today should be considered as part of a general study of the whole problem.
There is, therefore, no escape from the central difficulty, for we cannot possibly hope to achieve the kind of health expenditure we need without a massive increase in taxation. It is not popular for any politician to say this, but it should be said. We have not spent adequately on the social services for the past decade and a half because the people became corrupted during the 13 years of Conservative Administration into accepting the philosophy that private affluence was better than an attack on public squalor.
I agree with Professor Abel Smith that the Labour Party has tried to pretend that

277
it was possible to evade this difficulty simply by attaining a higher rate of economic growth. That will not solve the problem. We can never escape the problem. If we are to allocate a higher proportion of the national income to social expenditure it cannot be done except by increasing taxation. We must face this and show the people the choice that is before them.
We must ask them if they want a starved, second-rate public sector or if they are prepared to pay for an adequate and decent one. If we campaign properly and present the issues squarely, I am sure that they will prefer an adequate and decent public sector. There is no point in our trying to evade the difficulty or in pretending that it does not exist.
I support the economic strategy of the Government, despite its unpopularity and difficulty, largely because the Chancellor has laid the heaviest burden on private and not on public consumption. In the lifetime of the Labour Government there has been a massive redistribution of resources to the public sector. I accept the limitations on the growth of the public sector which it has been necessary to impose in recent years because that has been the general philosophy and general approach, but I believe we have to face honestly and squarely that as present economic difficulties get less, the graph showing the rate of increase of public expenditure must go up again dramatically in the 'seventies. I hope this will be taken account of by the present Government as they go through the exercise of deciding future priorities.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Dudley Smith: All Governments, even those as bad as this one, have a tremendous cross to bear in financing essential services. We have had this afternoon reference to the enormous cost of education. One has to throw in the charges involved regarding the police, the roads and the social services. Many of us believe that of these essential priorities health is the most important.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) has spoken with a good deal of common sense mixed up with a lot of irrelevant Socialist ideology. He posed the question, how should the National Health Service be financed? We are all
278
agreed that it will cost more as years go by. The hon. Member said that we cannot make up the gap by charges alone. I do not think anyone, certainly not I, pretends that that is possible. If we have some form of charges, however, that will be a distinct help in this situation.
The Secretary of State referred to the services stimulating demand. I am sure that is true. No one wishes to deny services to those in need. One of the essential tenets of the National Health Service is that it should be of help to those in genuine sickness, but no hon. Member would deny that the Service is abused in some sectors. Perhaps some selectivity of charge might help. I make the point as a paid-up hypochondriac. I do not go to my doctor unless I think there is something wrong with me. I do not say this as a member of B.U.P.A.
Dr. John Dunwoody (Falmouth and Carborne): Surely the hon. Member will accept that it does not cost the National Health Service any more if he goes to see his doctor every week?
Mr. Smith: That may be so, but it places great strain on the service—and it does cost the service more. If I get a palliative from the doctor who gives we a nice coloured medicine so that I shall not trouble him again, that costs the service more.
The question is, do we get value for money in the service we have at present? I doubt it very much. I think the standards of the National Health Service have gone down over recent years. We are paying more and more collectively for the service. We have heard on the eve of the twenty-first anniversary of the inauguration of the service that it will cost something like £2,900 million by 1975. Yet as a nation we are paying less towards the service than we should, bearing in mind the contributions we make as a nation to drink, cigarettes and motoring which are all anti-health things, killers in their respective fields. I make the allegation against a Government of any colour that it has a cynical way of subsidising many of the services by revenue from cigarettes which are a lethal substance. I should have thought this indefensible and I make the allegation against any Government.

279
There is a fundamental need to pay out more for the various essential elements of the National Health Service. It is an absolute disgrace that at present we still have not a proper medical force to staff our hospitals. A number of comments have been made recently on the fact that in our hospitals at least half the junior staff are immigrant doctors. I have no wish to denigrate immigrant doctors. Some are very good and some are not so good, but it is entirely wrong that a sophisticated nation such as ours is not in a position in 1969 to provide almost the whole of the doctoring force from among people born and educated in this country. We have to look seriously at the way in which we remunerate young doctors and give them incentives to remain here rather than emigrating to find better prospects and positions abroad.
We have not got our priorities right concerning the nursing profession. It is amazing that recently we have had a strange argument about whether nurses should have sufficient money for their food and the right resources to do their job. They should be among the higher paid members of the community in public service. Their duties are second to none among sections in the public field. Until we get the nursing services right, allied with the medical profession, we shall not be on the right road to improving the National Health Service. That also goes for the professions ancillary to medicine which are also vital in the conduct of our hospitals and services allied to them.
One of the peripheral ways in which we might save money in the National Health Service would be to hit the pharmaceutical industry even harder than it is hit at present. I say this with the knowledge that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) is probably hoping to make a contribution to this debate. I declare an interest because I am associated with one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the country.
I am alarmed to read reports in the Press that members of the party opposite in their small back rooms are debating whether or not they should propose to nationalise the drug industry, as it is often popularly known, if they are fortunate enough to win the next election. I should
280
think this pretty out-of-date stuff. Everyone knows that with a customer like the National Health Service the pharmaceutical industry has to be competitive and keen in prices. It is right for the Government to drive the hardest possible bargain, but to suggest—or to even to hint—at further State participation in the pharmaceutical industry would be damaging an element of the National Health Service, and probably that damage would be irrevocable.
In Russia, where the service has been State-controlled for many years, little if anything has been produced in discoveries by fundamental research. Of all the British industries, the pharmaceutical industry has an excellent record in the number of new medicines which it has brought on to the market as a result of the vast amount of money ploughed back into fundamental research. If we had the dead hand of State enterprise involved in the pharmaceutical industry the nation's health would take a backward step. I therefore suggest to hon. Members opposite that any talk about nationalisation and State participation in the industry is not on. Obviously it will not be on because the Conservatives will win the next election, but to come forward with such a suggestion would lose hon. Members opposite many votes because the people will understand these arguments.
A partial answer to the problem of financing the National Health Service must surely be selective charges; more money from less direct taxation is always important. I should have thought that, although the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State dismissed this rather peremptorily when he said there was no point in charging for hospital beds, he was entirely wrong, because a reasonably well paid member of the community like me should not be able to go into a hospital for four or five weeks entirely free and have all treatment free exactly on the same basis as an old-age pensioner. It would be right for me to make a payment, even if only a small one, towards the cost. A small payment multiplied by many patients would mean a considerable saving.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) talked about the number of letters which arrived by one post for one family. I saw hon. Members opposite smile when my hon.

281
Friend said this. I have received recently a large number of communications from the West Midlands Gas Board. Every other day two or three letters arrive for me, all dealing with the same subject and all of which could be put into one envelope; but nobody cares, because it is the public which pays. In every nationalised industry and in every public sector service it should be writ large on the walls, "If you look after the pennies, the £s will look after themselves". That old saying is still very true.
After sustaining a serious road accident some years ago I received remedial treatment at an orthopaedic hospital. At the end of that time I was given two walking sticks with which to go out into the world and learn to walk properly again. I said to those concerned, who were courtesy itself, "When I am better and can walk properly again, shall I bring these walking sticks back to you?". The sticks were worth £4 or £5 each. These people said, "Please do not trouble. You keep them. It will be administratively much more inconvenient for us if you bring them back and we have to enter them all up again. Therefore, we always tell people in these circumstances to keep them. Nobody will worry about it". This is the attitude up and down the line, not only in the service, but in many other public sectors. They are small amounts in themselves, but added together they make up a large total.
There has been talk about National Insurance contributions, about taxation, and even about rates. Members of the public regard all forms of deduction from their salaries when they are compulsory—all forms of rates and other deductions—as taxation; the money which goes out of their pockets, under whatever name, is taxation. This should be regarded as a deduction from their earning capacity.
The answer put forward by his side is that we should allow people to have more money in their pockets, that there should be less direct taxation, and that they should at the same time pay more indirect taxation over a wider field. There should be selectivity so that those who can afford to should pay for certain services. I challenged the Secretary of State on this, because there was an implied threat in what he said about the private
282
sector of the service. I believe that if the Labour Party won the next election, and if the private sector was growing strongly, the right hon. Gentleman would abolish it.
The time has come for us to change our thinking on many aspects of the service. No one will suggest that we should in the long term reduce expenditure. Britain is fairly advanced in the matter of health services. We provide very good resources for the individual, but we still have a long way to go. We should drop the sterile argument as to whether it should be a "free" service, whether we should pay more for it by direct taxation or by indirect taxation, and look to many of the areas which now need to be financed and which will need to be in the years ahead.
We are entering into a new era with transplant surgery and with even further advances in the treatment of mental illness. On the other hand, we are very backward. Only the other day a young, bright, intelligent girl was struck down terribly at the age of 25 with multiple sclerosis. As there was no proper accommodation for her elsewhere, she was put into a home with old people, with people of a different intelligence level from her own. The result is that, although sadly enough this is an irreversible illness, she will deteriorate far more quickly as a result of not having the right sort of environment.
We must get our priorities right within the service. A form of selective charging would in the long term enable us to have a better and more efficient service. We would also bring some spirit of understanding and enthusiasm to those working in the service, many of whom are very dedicated and worried about the way things are going. When we get a change of Government at the next election we shall have the opportunity of doing something about bringing the service up to date and ensuring that it is fitted to fulfil its obligations in the rôle which we plan for it in the last quarter of the 20th century.
5.36 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I am sorry that this is a short debate, because I would dearly love to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith), with 99·9 per

283
cent. of whose speech I disagree. Perhaps we shall have the opportunity in the future of debating the pharmaceutical industry.
Before I come to the main burden of my speech I want to take up four points which have been made in previous speeches. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) on the meat he put into his contribution, and I look forward with interest to reading some of the figures he gave.
Secondly, I entirely reject the allegation of dogma as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand). I refer him to one of the least dogmatic of former Members of this House, his father, Hilary Marquand, and advise him to read the speech his father made on 1st May, 1952, which is a better answer than any I can give in the space of time available to me.
Thirdly, I think that the point my right hon. Friend made about the resources for mental health was valid, but his equation was less than profound. In trying to equate the percentage of beds with the percentage of resources it must be borne in mind that acute hospitals, chronic hospitals, mental hospitals, and geriatric hospitals each require different provisions. Therefore, although my right hon. Friend's finding was right, I do not think that his equation necessarily bore out his conclusion.
Fourthly, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is entirely wrong in saying that the service is suffering because it is bad. One of the problems of financing the service arises from precisely the opposite. This debate takes place against the background of a success story. The success story has been that because of the N.H.S. people are living longer and that our service has been one of the great successes in the world. In 1945 19,236 people died of tuberculosis. In 1967 only 1,798 died of it. We have more hospitals. We have more doctors. We have more nurses. For every two nurses employed in 1949 we now have three. So I could go on.
In the last four years more resources than at any other time since 1948, in real terms, have gone into health and welfare services. Modern science and modern
284
treatments inevitably require an ever-increasing amount of finance. Unfortunately, only disaster makes news. Only conflict seems to make a news story. The fact that two million operations were successfully performed last year in National Health Service hospitals does not rate a by-line, whereas only one case of an accident or mistake in the operating theatre causes headlines in every newspaper.
Because of the increasing age to which people live, because of the introduction of new diagnostic machines, because of the increasing use of computers—which will have an important rôle to play in all sections of the service—because of the Increased treatment possibilities that grow up as science puts more weapons into our hands, the nation will have to find more money. The easiest way to find the money is at the time of need. There is no person who, faced with the problem of sickness in his wife, son or daughter, would not be prepared at that time to give the earth to save his family. People, like myself, who are deaf and people who are partially sighted are, of course, willing to pay at the time of need. Even if one only has toothache one is anxious to pay to get rid of it.
There is no question but that that is the easiest way to raise the money. The challenge the House and the Government face is that it is not best to take the easy way out. It destroys the basic principle that my right hon. Friend put forward this afternoon, that it is the healthy people, those who are at work and capable of earning, who should pay, while at a time of sickness or disability, their time of need, people need worry only about getting better and how to manage with pebble glasses, impaired hearing or an amputated leg, and not about whether or not their disability will have a bad effect on their family income and welfare.
This principle has been preserved, and I hope that the House will preserve it. It is unique in the whole world. Various excellent provisions are made in other countries' health services, but this has within it the spark of greatness. It is practical Christianity; it is practical Socialism. We are saying in simple terms that we are members one of another and are prepared, not for our own benefit, to help the man who is unfortunate, the woman in difficulties.

285
When the National Health Service was introduced this was the fifth freedom we proclaimed at the end of the Second World War—health as a right; fit limbs, eyes and teeth. We were saying, "Although I am all right and do not need to pay, I am prepared to do so for the person who is not. Can I help him?"
It is a difficult concept. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield says that he does not mind paying for his glasses. But glasses are not a commodity that the person with good eyes does not have. He is the normal person, and it is the person with bad eyes who has less than he is entitled to. If he wears glasses, they only bring him up to normality, so that he may live fully within the community.
The whole basis of the comprehensive service is part and parcel of the philosophy on which my party came to power in 1945 and again in 1964. If one is to maintain a comprehensive service, it can only be paid for comprehensively. All other ways of doing it can only touch the fringes. The hon Member for Farnham and my right hon. Friend have proved that in their speeches this afternoon. It is the only way, and it is right on health and economic grounds, and to ensure social justice. I shall continue to oppose with all the power I have, as long as I have breath in my body, any imposition of further charges at the time of need.
The hon. Member for Farnham quoted an extract from the Daily Mirror, which was highly contentious because it talked about a free service. There is no such thing as a free service. We are paying for it all the time. The argument is about when we pay, not whether or not it is free.
I entered the House in 1959. I fought my first election—and this is always a fairly thrilling experience for a new Member—largely on the Labour Party's health policy. The policy statement for that election said:
"We reaffirm the pledge repeatedly given that in order to restore a free health service we shall abolish all charges, including those on teeth, spectacles, prescriptions and surgical appliances."
I still adhere to that. I cannot concede the point made by my hon. Friend the member for Ashfield, that if a person needs a surgical boot he should be the
286
only person who has to pay, even in a comprehensively financed scheme, while the person who does not need it and has two good feet has to pay nothing.
The most irrelevant matter in the broad canvas of National Health Service financing is that which has caused so much discussion in recent weeks—the 25 per cent. increase on the existing charges for teeth and spectacles. Of course, deep feelings were involved. I remember the prescription charges debate last year. When I prayed against the Order imposing them a right hon. Member opposite put a point to me which I felt was very valid. After the debate he reminded me of a saying that unless there are some principles whose violation makes life not worth living, life is not worth living. I take the stand not in a puritanical or holier-than-thou attitude. Nevertheless, I hold that unless a party has principles and can keep to them it might as well go out of business. As the hon. Member for Willesden, West I want to remain in business for a long time, and I want my party to remain in Government for a long time. It has been absolute nonsense for the Press to build up this controversy over a sum representing less than one-third of 1 per cent of National Health Service expenditure, as though the whole credibility of the Government rests on whether or not they decide to lay the Order. In terms of the whole financing of the service, this is a small matter.
The Press has not been all that kind. I have read amusing accounts, and my right hon. Friend has no doubt been equally amused, of knives flashing between the Chairman of the Labour Party Health Group and the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am never quite certain which rôles we have been playing. Sometimes it seems that I am David challenging the enormous Government, at other times it seems that he is David against the menace of a large army of back-benchers. What the Press has missed, and always misses, is that debates of this kind between backbenchers and front-henchers in the Labour Party start from an understanding on both sides of the other's point of view. They start not from misunderstanding but from an acceptance of the sincerity of both sides in the debate.

287
I do not blame the Press boys for doing their job. They have to find a story and do their job according to their lights, even if at times I feel that their lights are rather dim. I sometimes think that they start the day with a prayer:
"Give us this day our Labour split
That we can stir and stir a bit.
If peace prevails, how much we hate it.
No strife today? Then let's create it."
In this rather more ironic frame of mind I come to the question of the prescription charges imposed last year as part of the attempt to finance the National Health Service. Professor Abel-Smith said in 1960 that the economic factors in the Health Service never work out in the way people intend, and the charges imposed last year have had precisely that kind of unlooked-for effect. Instead of £25 million, they will yield £10½ million this year and £16½ million in a full year, according to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But let us consider the side effects. In the Inner London Executive Council there are nine civil servants who checked 19,000 forms at a cost of £8,400 in order to recover £45 from those who cheated. One can go through the whole Health Service. When one tries to be fair, as the Government obviously would, in the institution of charges of this kind, the administrative costs which go not on the drug bill but elsewhere inevitably make a big inroad into the savings that the Exchequer wants to make. Increased staff at acute hospitals in one Metropolitan board area are estimated at about one extra person per hospital to collect the half-crowns. The cost of a machine to put the half-crowns in is £200–£250. How many hospitals have had to install such machines? If after all the kerfuffle we had last year over prescription charges the real yield is more than £5 million to the Exchequer I shall be very much surprised.
I do not think that any of us thought when prescription charges were introduced that the person who would bear the brunt was the middle-aged woman at the time of the change of life, when medication is needed and is helpful, and yet it falls heavily on her. There is only a small number—130,000—of registered blind people. But there is a large number with low visual acuity who have
288
pebble glasses and need changes for a long time. I am certain that no Government meant to hit the blind person. Who would want to impose a tax on a white stick?
When it comes to the side effects of charges, what happens? The annual report shows that we have more dental surgeons and ophthalmic surgeons than ever before. It is false economy to move away from preventing things happening to treating them in hospital afterwards at great cost. So we will charge for teeth and spectacles, and, as a result, we shall increase the incidence of gingivitis and gum trouble. At a time when there are only five periodontologists in the country, it will put a terrible burden on hospital dental departments.
As my right hon. Friend has explained, with 85½ per cent. going to Exchequer funds from taxation, any charges that we make represent a second payment. We all pay regularly, but there is a second tax charged at the time of use only to those who are sick, to those who need glasses and to those who need dentures. There is a 100 per cent. exemption for the healthy. This is, therefore, an unfair second form of taxation.
In my view, all charges are irrelevant. If they are maximised, they can only be very marginal. My main contention is that it prevents our getting down to the real problem. The only way that the Health Service can be financed is by people being willing to pay and knowing what they are paying for.
Each employed person now pays £37 a year. A man with a wife and two children pays more on two items for his car, his tax and insurance, than for the health of his family for 12 months.
Can the nation afford the Health Service? Last year we spent £1,690 million on beer, wines and spirits, £1,578 million on cigars, cigarettes and tobacco, and £2,230 million on betting. Of course the nation can afford the Health Service if it wants to afford it. But the only way we shall want to afford it is if we know what it is about.
This mood which has been brought about—and I am just as responsible as others in this House—that it is a free Health Service, which the benevolent Government, whether Tory or Labour, give us, is nonsense. It is our service. We built it and we pay for it. If we

289
know what we are paying for, whatever method my right hon. Friend finally devises, the cash will be forthcoming. What kind of a nation are we if we cannot look after the sick and disabled within our midst?
We must be able to identify the ordinary person with his Health Service. He must be able to participate in it. Charges are an illusion. The possibilities of contributions from taxation will be fully explored in future debates. I do not like a weekly poll tax, but if there is an identifiable and fair system whereby contributions are clearly designated for the Health Service according to ability to pay, provided people pay while they are in normal health, I see no justification for accepting that sick people should pay if we are to have a mixed approach to finding the finance for the National Health Service.
The whole House has agreed that we must talk in terms of six per cent. gross national product. It is to the credit of the Government that they have gone up from 4 per cent. to just over 5 per cent. in the last four years—the biggest rise since the inception of the service.
On financing, the gap between myself and hon. Gentlemen opposite is almost as wide as the Grand Canyon. I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham at Headington on 15th March, 1968, when he made clear the policy of the Conservative Party, He said:
"This review should certainly consider the possibility of getting the service or at least parts of it on an insurance basis up to a reasonable level of health provision which could be laid down by Parliament. Where services beyond this level were needed there could be charges scaled according to ability to pay. Old age pensioners would, of course, not have to pay and neither would they be expected to insure … With sizeable proportion of the cost of the service coming from a source other than taxation, it would really he possible to consider ways and means of getting effective decentralisation."
This is the old philosophy of a minimum provision and a safety net. This is the philosophy of the Opposition, and I cannot subscribe to it because it inevitably leads to a first-class service for those who are wealthy and a second-class service for the man in the street.
This policy was confirmed by the Leader of the Opposition in his teleview last week with Robin Day when, accord-
290
ing to The Guardian report, on the social services the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to see people able to provide for themselves more and they want to do it. Along those lines is the complete negation of all the policies which all right hon. and hon. Members on this side have stood for.
We need to rethink about the allocation of the resources inside the National Health Service. We are inclined to regard the hospital as the nearest thing to a sacred cow. We have what I should call an Emergency Ward 10 syndrome. The whole health problem seems to be concentrated on the hospital, and when we see this soap opera, it is concentrated mainly on doctors and nurses, and the patient comes last.
We are in great danger in planning forward for the Health Service of making the mistake of planning on institutional rather than domiciliary care. We should have made the same mistake in 1945, at a time when T.B. sanatoria were very much needed, if we had continued to pour money into building T.B. sanatoria when, a few years later, they were no longer required for that purpose.
That other priority in allocation of resources should be the provision of personnel rather than bricks and mortar. Bad as some old hospitals are, it is more important to have more money for nurses, radiographers, physiotherapists, and medical staff to cope, even if conditions are not right.
The two major shifts, first, from institutional to domiciliary care and, second, towards prevention, mean that more resources must be given to general practice. At present we give about 7 per cent. to general practice compared with 12 per cent. to manufacturers of pharmaceuticals. I should like to reverse these figures and have the proportions the other way round.
I pay tribute to the way that drugs have minimised the need for hospitalisation. But at present we are paying through the nose. The Government are paying more than they need for necessary drugs for Health Service use.
The story of company A, which has gone through Question Time in this House, is a case in point. From 1961 to April, 1969, negotiations went on, and some of the reductions finally agreed

291
still have not taken place. Yesterday at Question Time one of the Under-Secretaries mentioned the broad spectrum of the antibiotic Ampicillin. The profits of the company producing it went up from £20,559,000 last year to £25,095,000 this year. That is a return of 36·2 per cent. on the equity capital this year compared with 31·1 per cent. last year. That destroys the case made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith). He seemed to argue that there is nothing one can do in the pharmaceutical sector to save money, and preferred charges for spectacles through the National Health Service.
I conclude with this comment. In correspondence with me last year my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
"As you will know, the decision to reintroduce prescription charges was both difficult and distasteful to us all. It was taken, along with other disagreeable decisions, from sheer economic necessity."
My right hon. Friend later said:
"It would be wrong for you to assume that these charges, reluctantly introduced to meet a serious economic situation, carried the implication of a permanent change in the Government's policy or of its approach to Health Service financing."
I urge the Government to restore the basic principle of this party on health matters. This has been a trump card at every General Election right the way through my political history. If we debase it and make a pale blue copy of something that the Opposition would like for their policy on financing the Health Service, I believe that we shall throw away one of our biggest opportunities of winning the next General Election and, most important, of getting back the full support of those faithful and loyal supporters of the Labour Party who believe this kind of principle is the thing for which they have given a lifetime's service.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Tim Fortescue: The whole House admires the idealism and persistence of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), even though we may not agree with any of his views on Health Service charges or the profitability of private enterprise
292
companies. We have heard that speech before, and I hope that we will hear it many times again, but not perhaps in future immediately before one of mine. But he has not much to worry about, because his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear the direction in which his thoughts are moving. Whatever he may do about the threatened 25 per cent. increase in charges on spectacles and dentures, which we will hear about very soon, it is clear that he is thinking in terms of raising the extra money needed for the Health Service by extra taxation.
On Second Reading of the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill, we argued about what were taxes and what were contributions. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that a tax was something paid to the general pool from which general services were drawn, and that a contribution was paid for a specific purpose. He now says that he is thinking in terms of raising additional money by increasing graduated contributions both from employees and employers which would, in his view, be not an increase in taxation but an increase in contributions. But it is clear that increased graduated contributions applied universally in return for the enormous bounty of the National Health Service, spread over such a wide field, are so close to additional taxation as to be almost indistinguishable. The message which the House will carry from this debate must be that the party opposite, for the financing of the service, will be looking for additional taxation.
I have experienced many squeezes in my life, some more attractive than others, but none perhaps so unattractive as the one which I am now suffering, in common with the rest of the country. When one works for a commercial organisation, as I have done, they are called not "squeezes", but "efficiency audits" or "management consultant investigations", but they are exactly the same. Their purpose is to find money where no more income is available, which means through savings.
I have learned, through these bitter experiences that the only way to find money by this means is not to reduce everything by 5 per cent., which looks like the easiest way always but is about the most foolish, because one reduces the

293
costs of efficient and inefficient departments alike; it is not by firing the office boy in one department and perhaps the junior clerk in another. It is by examining the functions of the organisation and deciding which could be dispensed with. This is the way that real economies are made. Any other way is simply playing with the problem.
In turning my thoughts to the finances of the National Health Service, I tried to adopt this technique, and to think whether any part of the Service could be hived off so that it would no longer be a burden on the consumer or contributor. My thoughts turned to dentistry. The original National Health Service Act of 1947 did not provide necessarily that the Minister of Health should provide all services. The Act says that he shall provide or "see that there are provided" services in such fields as dentistry, medicine and pharmacy. The original advice of the British Dental Association to the dentists was that they should not be part of the National Health Service. That advice, of course, has never been rescinded. Any general practitioner in dentistry can at any time say that he will no longer participate in the National Health Service but will become a private dentist. This can be done without notice, and more and more dentists are doing it.
The truth is that all is not well in the world of dentistry. The general practitioners are very disillusioned with their lot under the National Health Service, and a breakaway group of some strength has been formed 'to see what can be done to change the conditions of service. Their chief complaint is the complication and and ineffectiveness of the system of remuneration.
Rather than rely on my memory, since this is a very complex matter, I should like to quote from an article in a publication suitably called The Probe, the journal of the General Dental Practitioners Association, for May, 1969, which is as up to date as it can be, written by a practising dentist. He writes:
"The present system of remuneration provides that an independent Review Body fixes a target net income for dentists in the General Dental Services. Then a Dental Rates Study Group, composed of equal numbers of dentists' and Department of Health representatives, with an independent chairman, adds an estimated amount to cover the average expenses, multiplies by the number of principal dentists, thus
294
not counting the assistant dentists, and arrives at the gross fees which should be earned by all the dentists, assistant dentists and hygienists in the General Dental Services.
Taking the treatments carried out the previous year, and adding an estimated 3 per cent. for increase in output, the scale of fees is computed. This fee structure based as it is on a series of averages, without a common baseline, results in about 30 per cent. of dentists achieving, or exceeding, the target income. Even for equal hours of work, and equal turnover, the net income will vary, depending on the variation of expenses and type of practice from one part of the country to the other."
The whole essence of this highly complex system is that dentists have a target net income set for them by the National Health Service.
This is my first point of attack. Why should any man, let alone a professional man with a long and difficult training, have a target net income set for him by anyone? The labourer is still worthy of his hire, and it is absurd that the target net income should be established for dentists by an outside body with political implications—the findings of this Review Body are subject to approval by the Minister—rather than each man being allowed to earn what he can through the scale of fees prescribed by the Ministry.
The author of this article also writes:
"Payment of dentists in the Genral Dental Services is unique, and while it may suit the civil servants and the politicians, as it ensures a dental service at the cheapest possible cost, it has resulted, over the years, in discouraging the conscientious dentist. It has discouraged preventive dentistry, encouraged the provision of fillings which will require subsequent renewal, for which a fee is payable, instead of more permanent restorations such as crowns, and encouraged more treatment to be carried out than would appear necessary."
This is a practising dentist's view of the present position.
The reason for this unsatisfactory position is that in order to earn the target net income general practitioners in dentistry must work as fast as they can and must do as many dental operations in the day as possible. This discourages them from doing operations which take any length of time—the more skilful and comprehensive dentistry for which they are trained—and encourages them to do the fillings and simple things which they can do quickly and then get another patient into the chair.
Another result is that dentists' incomes decrease progressively as they get older. In answer to a Parliamentary Question

295
the other day, I was told that the average income of dentists between 25 and 35 is about £4,000, whereas the average for those between 55 and 65 is about £1,500. The reason is that the older a dentist gets and the slower he works the less he can earn.
I wrote to the Ministry of Health about this. The noble Lady, Baroness Serota, told me in a long and courteous letter that:
"The Secretary of State has now accepted in principle a request that a scheme of seniority payments for older dentists should be introduced."
This is good news. The letter went on:
"The details of the scheme have yet to be worked out but the broad intention is to provide practitioners between the ages of 55 and 70 … with a special payment of up to £200 per year in recognition of their lesser earning power."
This entirely confirms my point that a system of remuneration in which the older professional man earns less than the young professional man is, by definition, wrong.
I can assure the Under-Secretary that the present system of remuneration is causing much dissatisfaction in the dental service. What can be done about it? It occurred to me that dentistry is a sphere of medicine fundamentally different from the other spheres. It has three fundamental differences. The first is that people do not die of dental problems. Do I see the Under-Secretary shaking his head? I have the figures here.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): I was not shaking my head. I was cogitating.
Mr. Fortescue: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He looked as if he was shaking his head. If that was cogitation I should have recognised it. In 1968, 12 people died from what could have been identified as dental conditions. Although it is a tragic number, it is not an important number. Because people do not die from these conditions, and because they do not become chronically sick—they can always have their teeth out and start again—the problem of the safety net, which, whatever the hon. Member for Willesden, West says, is always inherent in National Health Service problems,
296
through providing for the chronic sick, the mentally sick, people who will be ill for a long time, does not exist.
The second fundamental difference between dentistry and the other spheres of medicine is that dentistry is, or should be, essentially prophylactic in its nature. If dentistry is done regularly there should seldom be any need for therapeutic dentistry. We can keep dentally fit by regular treatment. Thirdly, all children in this country, thanks to the National Health Service, now leave school dentally fit. There is no reason why they should not do so. They have regular free treatment during their school days and they set out in life with a high standard of dental fitness.
These three differences between dentistry and the rest of the Health Service seem to indicate that it would be possible to have a different attitude towards dentistry within the National Health Service from the attitude towards other spheres of medicine. I suggest tentatively that if it were possible for the free dentistry to be retained for children and older people, then for the working population we could introduce a system whereby dentistry would be free only to the patient if he regularly visited his dentist, that is the prophylactic side of dentistry would continue to be free. If people, having started with a dentally fit mouth, neglected to maintain it, and did not go to the dentist for a long time, they would automatically have to pay when next they went. This would in fact apply a degree of marketing technique to dental services.
This would be a great incentive to all of us who hate going to the dentist. I am sure that every hon. Member hates going to the dentist. We would have this incentive to keep our mouths fit, and thus to improve the dental health of the nation. It would be a saving for the Health Service because the dental state of the nation would be better and because dentists would be given more time to concentrate on the skilful side of dentistry which at the moment is beginning to be neglected. I am sorry to say that, but I firmly believe it to be true.
The present cost of the dental services to the country is in the nature of £100 million a year. Of that patients pay about £30 million with present charges,

297
and about £30 million represents the cost of school dentistry and dental hospitals. We are talking, therefore, about £40 million available for saving if people could gradually be weaned towards paying for dentistry when they have begun to neglect their mouths. This would be a perfectly proper sphere of investigation for the right hon. Gentleman and I believe it would be one way at least in which the cost of the National Health Service might be reduced.
6.15 p.m.
Dr. John Dunwoody: It is useful that we should have a debate on this subject now because there is a great deal of anxiety within the Health Service about the whole problem of financing. Our Health Service has some outstanding achievements to its credit over the last 21 years. Nevertheless, we face very serious problems. We face the problems of excessively long waiting lists for surgical treatment; we have a shortage of doctors in all parts of the service; we have overcrowded waiting rooms; and we have a nursing profession disgruntled as perhaps never before.
In the last year or so we have seen the re-introduction of prescription charges and the intention of the Government to increase existing charges for glasses and dental treatment. It is useful that we should be discussing the question of finance. I want to put forward some constructive suggestions because some of the speeches this afternoon have been a little less than constructive.
First, we must accept the cause of the problem—the inevitability of the increasing demand for finance in the National Health Service. This is inevitable, inexorable, for two reasons. First, we are an ageing community. As the years go by, a higher proportion of our community is of retirement age, and expectation of life increases. This means, without any change in the standard of service, without any change in treatment offered, that we shall have to provide more resources to provide adequate care for the community.
At the same time we see, inevitably, inexorably, advances taking place in medicine. New treatments become available in surgery, new drugs become available, all giving great advantages to the community, nearly all costing more than
298
the treatments which they replace. The new drugs are nearly always more expensive than the older ones; surgical treatment is always more expensive than non-surgical treatment. New operative techniques make great demands on skilled medical workers.
The result of these two factors is that the requirements of the Health Service in terms of finance will go up year by year. If we are to see the sort of advances that some of us want to see, the rate of increase must be great. At the moment the great bulk of the revenue which finances the Health Service comes from taxation—85 per cent. or so. About 10 per cent. comes from the weekly stamp, and only 5 per cent. or so from charges from the patient. The great bulk of this money goes to the hospital service.
We sometimes forget that the hospital service costs twice as much as the whole of the rest of the Health Service. Two-thirds of our money goes to running the hospital service. A mere 9 per cent. runs the general practitioner service, 12 per cent. is required for the drugs which G.Ps prescribe, and the remainder is required for dental, ophthalmic and other ancillary services.
At the moment we have these three means of financing the service: taxation, weekly stamp and charges. Inevitably taxation must remain the major means of financing the service for the indefinite future. Some thought should be given to the rôle played by the contributions from the weekly stamp, particularly as we are moving towards a wage-related stamp for pension and National Insurance benefits.
The case for a wage-related National Health contribution on the weekly stamp is very strong. I was also attracted by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend that we should be considering the proportion of this that the employer should pay. The reason why I am attracted to this is that there is, as he says, a certain illogicality about a wage-related contribution from the employee for a benefit that is static, because health benefits will remain constant, irrespective of income. But the benefit which the employer derives from the National Health Service is directly related to the wage or salary which he pays his employee. The case for a significantly increased contribution from the employer is strong.

299
I turn to the question of charges. I do not have a doctrinaire opposition to all Health Service charges, as one of my hon. Friends implied. I accept the inevitability of some—for example, amenity beds. I am opposed to prescription charges, and I am very anxious about the proposed increase in dental and ophthalmic charges. My opposition to charges basically is that they fall most heavily on those sections of the community least able to pay them at the time that they are least able to pay them. But I agree that we should not look at this matter in a completely doctrinaire way.
I reject out of hand, however, the suggestion of some hon. Members opposite that we should think in terms of inpatient hospital charges. It is ludicrous. We are talking about a service which costs nearly £2,000 million. Even if a charge on in-patients of, say, £4 a week were politically and socially acceptable—which I do not believe it would be to the people of this country—with the inevitable exceptions, like geriatric and psychiatric patients, children, long-term cases, and the chronically ill, the amount which would be raised in a full year would be very small indeed.
How can we save money in the Health Service? Are there means by which we can economise? Can we get better value for money? There are some things which we can do. Somebody has already had a knock at the administrative side of the service. It is always popular to talk about administrative waste. I am not sure that there is enormous scope for savings here. Perhaps some time and motion study work could be done in the administrative field. I look forward to the administrative reorganisation which my right hon. Friend will be proposing in the fairly near future.
I believe that savings are possible in the hospital service. The cost of an acute hospital bed is about £50 a week, or £7 a day. That is 6s. an hour, which is more than some people in this country earn. I question whether all patients in hospital need be there, particularly in two fields. First, many surgical cases remain in hospital longer after the operation than they need do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned advances in the treatment of varicose
300
veins. I suggest that similar advances could be made in the treatment of other surgical conditions. The possibility of much earlier discharge after routine surgery should be much more seriously considered.
Other people who should not be in hospital are those admitted for primarily social reasons. The investment of money in the community health services, which means improving the general practitioner service, the district nursing service and health visitor services, would give a far better return, and, incidentally, would provide far better treatment for the patient. These patients should not be in hospital away from their homes, families and friends, but very often they are costing £50 a week to maintain merely because there is not, for example, an adequate home help service in the area.
I turn to the drugs bill. I give the Government credit for the real advances which they have made in restricting the excesses of some of the more irresponsible elements in the pharmaceutical industry. Nevertheless, a lot goes on which should not go on. There are still cascades of advertisements pouring through the front doors of general practitioners every morning. There is a wastage of drugs in many ways. I ask my right hon. Friend seriously to consider whether it is possible to devise a scheme by which, when drugs are prescribed by a doctor, if the doctor does not order a particular company's product the pharmacist should supply the cheapest equivalent. This would not be a restriction on the freedom of the doctor to prescribe what he wanted to prescribe. It would save a significant sum of money over a year.
We should do more to make the community conscious of the cost of the service. Is there any reason why pharmacists should not put the cost of tablets or medicine on the bottle? Many patients do not realise that the tablets which they receive cost perhaps £2, £3, or £4. It would be in the interests of the service if the community had a much clearer idea of how much these products cost.
In the final analysis, more resources must be made available to the National Health Service. This can be done, and in my view should be done, only at the expense of other demands. There is no alternative. It must be done at the

301
expense of Government and personal expenditure in other fields. This is the choice before us, and I hope that we take the right decision.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) produced only chicken feed in the way of savings in the National Health Service. The problem is to get a substantial flow of funds into the service. I am convinced that the only way to solve it is by getting a large flow of money to the hospital service and the general medical profession from private sources. Many of us feel that we do not get value for money and we are terrified by the appetite for new money in the hospital service, not only for new surgical techniques and medical advances, but to repair and modernise the many dreadfully shabby buildings in the hospital service.
However, I pay tribute to the way some Government money has been spent in my constituency. Most people who have to use the Health Service only have to see their general practitioner. Most of us hope that we never have to go further into the service than that. The Government have made grants available to general practitioners in Gainsborough to modernise their consulting rooms and have a proper appointments system. For people who do not often have to use the service, this is a spectacular, sensible and useful development.
I am surprised that, when considering fresh sources of money, nobody has remembered that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod), when asked what he would propose in his budget, said two years ago in the Financial Times that he would start a national lottery to pay for capital improvements in the Health Service. This point seems to have been forgotten. I do not think that it is part of the Conservative Party's policy at the moment. I urge my Front Bench to say clearly that we in the Conservative Party feel that the only way in which we can bring about a substantial improvement in the Health Service is by the injection of private money and that the only way to encourage it is through organisations like B.U.P.A.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) men-
302
tioned the 1,250,000 people who subscribe to B.U.P.A. and the eight new nursing homes and hospitals, practically the only ones being built anywhere, which are springing up in the country. I hope that our policy will be to make it clear to people that if they subscribe to B.U.P.A. they will get a substantial tax concession on their subscription. That would encourage them, and it fits in with Conservative Party policy, which is to encourage people who can pay to help themselves. If we do not do this, there will be a continual deterioration in the standard of the Health Service, which none of us wants. This is the only way which I can see of making a practical improvement in the service.
6.29 p.m.
Mr. Paul Dean: There has been a common theme in all the speeches in the debate, and that is the built-in growth factors which inevitably exist in the National Health Service, as in many other public services, but perhaps more in this service than even in pensions or housing. The Secretary of State, in his interesting and thoughtful speech, referred to the enormous expansion which has taken place. He gave the figures—a cost of £450 million in the first year of the service, rising to about £1,900 million today, and continuing to rise.
The fact that there has been a substantial rise in expenditure, in both absolute and real terms, although substantial needs still require to be met, shows the dilemma which any Minister inevitably faces. In spite of this expansion there are still problems. We heard the report on the Ely Hospital only a few weeks ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was able to offer nothing more than a reallocation of resources within the service so that mental health service will have slightly more. This, inevitably—as I am sure the Minister will agree—is a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Then there is the enormous growth in the demand for services for old people, which was brought out clearly in a report last year by the Office of Health Economics, which showed that there was a gap between the services required by old people and those which they were getting. The Seebohm Report referred to the great untapped demand for personal services for the old, the mentally

303
sick, children, mothers, and so on. Then there is the disturbing feature of the brain drain of doctors, which began to show in the decrease in the number of practitioners in both 1966 and 1967. This is a disturbing trend in a service which depends greatly on medical manpower. These are a few examples. The Todd Report target of 1,100 extra doctors trained each year represents another demand for additional resources which must be met.
It is obvious that the problem will become worse rather than better, because these built-in growth factors are multiplying all the time and the number of old people is growing. The sort of conditions that people were prepared to accept in hospital ten years ago are not accepted today, because standards are rising. Most important of all, perhaps, are the advances in medical science which we see most acutely in spare part surgery. An enormous cost is involved, not only in terms of money but in skilled manpower.
In the context of advances in medical science it is unfortunate that at the moment some quarters should be attacking the pharmaceutical industry. That industry has done a good deal in terms of the great advances in medical science which have taken place in the last 20 years. At a time when the industry is negotiating a new voluntary price regulation agreement with the Minister it is unfortunate—and I suspect it is rather embarrassing for the Minister—that these attacks should be made on the industry.
In admitting these growth factors the right hon. Gentleman attempted to answer the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) as to the way in which we can obtain additional resources to meet the ever-growing demand. Interesting as they were, the Minister's answers were rather unconvincing. They left us with little prospect of meeting the cost of the additional resources required if our health services are to continue to progress and not gradually to decline.
The Minister spoke first about the possibility of increasing taxation. He said that the greater part of the service must inevitably continue to be paid for through taxation. In our present position, when over 80 per cent. of the cost is met
304
through either central or local taxation, dependence upon the taxpayer is so great that the service is bound to be subjected to the pressures of economic crises, as the Minister admitted. The taxpayer is now on strike. The fact that in the last two Budgets the Chancellor was not prepared to increase direct taxation to help meet the expansion of the service shows that very clearly. It is unreal, therefore, to expect that we can obtain substantially more money for the service from taxation. It is a blind alley.
The Minister also referred to the possibility of making direct charges. He said—and we would agree with him—that the amount of money that can be raised in this way is limited. If we were thinking of charges divorced from insurance we would entirely accept his proposition that the amount of money is limited. In our view, there is a strong case for a prescription charge and for the other charges which apply at present, but these are not the fundamental aspects of the service. That is the difference.
In relation to a service which now requires £1,900 million a year, the tremendous row that is going on over the £3½ million in increased charges for teeth and spactacles would be laughable if it were not taken so seriously by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. In spite of its being a comparatively minor financial matter, I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer the questions put both by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite as to when we shall see these famous regulations and when we shall be able to debate them. Whatever may happen, when the regulations have been passed—if they are passed—it will be nothing more than a pyrrhic victory for the right hon. Gentleman. It will do little to deal with the central problem that we are now discussing.
The third possibility which the Minister examined related to the private sector. It was referred to in a number of speeches, especially by my hon. Friends. The Minister referred to the fact that subscriptions to the private sector now run at about £14 million a year. He did not say, however, that this figure is increasing substantially. It may appear small—it is small, in relation to the National Health Service—but it is growing at a rate of about 15 per cent. a year, and has been doing so for many years.

305
The subscription income of the various provident associations, of which B.U.P.A. is the largest, was about £3½ million ten years ago. There has been a substantial increase in this period. There are also the hospital saving funds—the sixpence-a-week schemes—which bring in substantial additional resources, mostly from wage earners, which supplement the services, and the finance available through the National Health Service.
Additional resources are brought in through the private sector. For example, whereas 30 beds were provided by B.U.P.A. in 1959 that organisation now supplies well over 460, and the number is increasing each year. Many nurses who otherwise would not be available are brought in from abroad by these organisations. Although this movement may now appear to be small, we must remember that it is growing at an encouraging rate considering the fact that the people who contribute to it have to pay twice or three times.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if we encouraged this sector to develop in the same way as we encourage home ownership in the housing sector, and occupational pension schemes in social services, the National Health Service would become a second-class service. I do not accept this argument. I do not believe that is what would happen. It is much more likely that additional resources would help to relieve pressure on the National Health Service, and that the private sector would act as a pace setter and yardstick against which the National Health Service can be judged.
The right hon. Gentleman's other argument was that leading consultants would treat only private patients, and their services would not be available to the National Health Service. Were that to happen, I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this would be an unfortunate situation, but I do not believe that it will happen. If the right hon. Gentleman will talk to leading consultants in this country, as I have, he will find that they will almost invariably tell him that the success of their private practice depends upon the success of their National Health Service practice. The better the work they do in the National Health Service, the greater their reputation and the more private patients they have. I do not accept the arguments of the right hon.
306
Gentleman, and in rejecting this possibility he is rejecting one of the most hopeful ways in which additional resources can be made available for health as a whole.
The last alternative mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) and others, was the possibility of additional money being available through National Health Service contributions on a graduated basis. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was considering this possibility both for the employee and for the employer. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether this could be done in the short term or the long term. He said in the long term, and I understood him to mean possibly in 1972 when the graduated contribution is introduced.
Is it realistic to expect employees to pay a substantially increased National Health Service contribution at precisely the time when the right hon. Gentleman is expecting them to pay an increased contribution for cash benefits? I am doubtful whether that sort of time scale is on.
It is exactly the same for the employer. The employer's costs will be considerably increased in 1972 under the right hon. Gentleman's new scheme. To expect them, in addition to that increase, to accept another burden for the National Health Service is totally unrealistic. It would be the consumer who would pay. That increase in contributions would inevitably be added to prices, and therefore passed on to the consumer, including the poorer sections of the community.
It is not realistic in the foreseeable future to expect that substantial additional money can be raised through the National Health Service contribution, although it may be possible in the long term to raise more money through a system of insurance, but not as soon as the right hon. Gentleman envisaged.
The right hon. Gentleman is still faced with the acute dilemma put to him by my hon. Friend in opening the debate. He has not found the way in which this additional money can be raised. So we are left with the possibility of the Health Service running down. The right hon. Gentleman is in a difficult position, as he is on pensions. He is long on promises but short on money to fulfil those

307
promises. He has put forward some ambitious ideas for reform, as he has done on pensions, but in practice, unless he can find additional and acceptable ways to bring in more money, it will be impossible for him to carry out these promises, in health, as in pensions.
6.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): There seems to be fairly general agreement on both sides of the House that the existing pressures which we recognise on the National Health Service in terms of expenditure are likely to increase. There may be greater argument, if not dispute, on how the resources, if they are obtained should be deployed.
The record of this Government is not all that bad. Expenditure in real terms has increased 30 per cent. since we took office in 1964. The share of the gross national product for the National Health Service is up to about 5 per cent., compared with the 4 per cent. when we took office.
Comparisons with other countries can be very misleading. It is difficult to compare like with like and to assess the value secured for expenditure in one country compared with another. Sufficient to say that the National Health Service at present, with all its shortcomings—and there are many—is admired throughout the world.
In listening to some of the speeches this afternoon I am reminded that I am the only member of the original Committee which examined the 1946 Act when it was piloted through the House by Mr. Aneurin Bevan, and I take great pleasure in addressing the House today on this subject.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) made a critical speech—that is his job—which was a bit short on constructive proposals for achieving the increase in income which we all know to be necessary. He made one or two suggestions but, by and large, they were chicken feed. The great argument is how to achieve the increase in income which will inevitably be necessary.
One suggestion which struck a discordant note with me was that gifts should
308
be made to hospitals with, possibly, attached tax relief. This is an unattractive idea for various reasons, one reason being that it might lead hospitals into the habit of soliciting money, thus making poor patients feel that they were at a disadvantage. A second reason is that there might be a big discrepancy in the provision of gifts as between acute hospitals and subnormality hospitals.
I do not want to make too much of that point, because I want to return to the principle which the hon. Member enunciated, and which was taken up by my right hon. Friend. The major question is whether the increase should be achieved by some form of insurance contribution or by charges. On charges I stand four-square by my right hon. Friend. The question for people who think as our party thinks is whether we can maintain the situation that when a person is in health he should pay and when he is sick he should be free of financial anxiety. That is the basic principle by which we stand.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I do not see how being able to give money to hospital tax-free affects the patient.
Mr. Snow: Some patients may be so poor that they have no money to give. Surely the provision of money is after the event, and that is not a very attractive idea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) in a very thoughtful speech rightly said that expenditure by a Health Department could not be isolated from expenditure by other spending Departments. He said that it boiled down to the question of relative efficiency; the share of the national product for health must be determined by defining the public interest and the interest of the patient. Our discussions in Parliament on health matters often become so rarified that we forget that in the end it is the patient who really matters.
There is no escape from this question of a matching increase in taxation if we are to meet the financial demands of increased complications of techniques and the improvements which we all desire in our hospitals. People say "Look at America", or "Look at Sweden", and their problems are very different. Although there may be many examples

309
in both countries of wonderful hospitals with services far in excess of the sort of provision we can make in this country from the technical or capital investment point of view, I say that in this country in the peripheral, rather out-of-the-way, hospital there is nothing of which we need to be ashamed compared with other countries.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith), who has not stayed for an answer, referred to immigrant doctors. Has he ever thought of this fact? I put it to the House, in the hon. Member's absence, so that it can be considered. The United States is just as short of doctors in its own way as we are here. It is dependent on immigrants as we are dependent upon them. The lesson to be learnt is that, in the end, it is the increased provision of professional people in the practice of medicine which is the answer, not necessarily the raising of hares about immigrants.
The hon. Member also referred to the hard-hit pharmaceutical industry, a point that I thought was adequately answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I answered yesterday in the House some Questions about a certain drug. There is a continuing process of scrutiny of the prices charged to the National Health Service. We are always trying to improve on the system of securing the right price, and we are at present in negotiation with the industry to try to reach a satisfactory agreement. We take into account not only the very heavy expenditure on research but the fact that we are the biggest single purchaser of drugs in the world, and we feel that we ought to achieve a better understanding in relation to price than the rest of the world.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) asked about the ratio of income derived from rates and taxation. The answer is that 80 per cent. of the cost of the service is derived from taxation and 5 per cent. from rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West went into the matter of the underlying feeling on this side of the House about prescription charges and other health charges.
Incidentally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was in error in talking about charges on surgical items. No such charges are
310
made. He rehearsed his feelings, which reflect the feelings of most people about charges under the National Health Service for various items that we have always undertaken would be free of charge. This flows, if one likes, from the doctrinal feeling on our side of the House that the service was initiated as a free service and should be maintained as such.
I accept the criticism that was made by my right hon. Friend, but what he did not rehearse equally were the methods by which he thought we should alter our sources and our ability to secure the necessary finances. This is not necessarily a criticism of him since it was endemic in most speeches this afternoon. The major question about contributions versus charges—a generalised tax versus an individual tax—we must to some extent leave for opinion to develop and for new methods and ideas to ferment.
I was rather concerned about the speech made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) about the disincentive contained in the formula to provide an economical dental service. I thought that he was on the wrong tack when he suggested that a bonus should be payable for those people who keep their mouths in fit order. This is an ordinary matter of prophylaxis and good sense, and there is much to be done in dental education. There are many conditions of mouth and teeth which have to be remedied by therapeutic treatment.
The formula which was criticised by the hon. Gentleman was a formula worked out by an independent advisory committee presided over by an independent chairman. The dentists are represented upon that committee. I should have thought that had they been able to achieve a more simple formula we should have heard about it before now. But we live in hopes. It is a complicated formula.
The hon. Gentleman referred to time-consuming work and also to the problem of the ageing dentist. He mentioned that an increment had now been agreed. There is a review body for the medical and dental services to which the professions can make adequate representations. I will draw the attention of that body and my Department to the matter of time-consuming work. This is not a new problem but will certainly repay further investigation.

311
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) referred to failures in administration, although the example he gave was not a very good one. There is a continuous review of organisation and methods not only within my Department but on the part of hospital authorities and executive councils. We issue notes suggesting improvements which can be made. It is not evidence of general inefficiency to give as an example the sending of six letters to one family. Indeed, if one considers the methods of private enterprise companies, the hon. Gentleman, like myself, may sometimes have received three or four envelopes on the same subject addressed to individuals in the same family. It is a matter of working out the best economical system.
I have tried to refer to the main points which have arisen in the debate. I am led to the conclusion that underlying most of the Opposition speeches this afternoon is a feeling that there should be a place for a system such as B.U.P.A. as an alternative for the higher income group in this country to the National Health Service. I find this unattractive and unacceptable. The fact is that not only do they skim off the professional and medical staff, but they skim off other resources. The drain of nursing
312
and ancillary staff to them must be to the detriment of the National Health Service.
It all comes down to a question of priorities and whether a man in a high income group is the best judge of his particular condition or whether it should be in the hands of a doctor who can take a detached attitude on the matter. It is not unknown for establishments run by these provident organisation to refer cases which become complicated or serious to the National Health Service because such establishments have not the facilities to cater for those cases. I make no generalised complaint, but that is not unknown.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan when dealing with this subject in 1947 said that the Tory Party was miles behind medieval thought. He referred to the fact that the great religious houses in this country gave a comprehensive medical service throughout Europe to the pilgrimage centres. We in this country are giving a lead to the world. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our National Health Service.
Mr. Joseph Harper (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FINANCING)

  AGE OF MAJORITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

LEGAL AID
6.59 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I am in some slight doubt whether this matter will be interrupted at seven o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be interrupted in 20 seconds.
Mr. Buchan: I thought that that would be the position. This matter will be discussed after the Private Bill, when the Solicitor-General will conduct the matter. It will be of great interest to the House after the Private Business is completed, and at that stage the changes that we seek to make in the Legal Aid Scheme, both north and south of the Border, will be fully outlined to an attentive House—

WELLAND AND NENE (EMPING HAM RESERVOIR) AND MID -NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Before the debate begins, I should like to make a brief personal statement. At the outset of this debate, I wish to express my regret to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) and to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for some of my Rulings during the recent debate on the consideration of the Bill on 19th June. Those Rulings were far too restrictive.
314
At consideration stage of a Private Bill which has been amended in Committee, Amendments may be tabled but rarely are put down. The absence of Amendments for consideration does not, however, mean that there cannot be a substantial debate at consideration stage. Such a debate, like that on Third Reading, is limited to what is in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford was trying to debate just that. I hope that he will accept my sincere regrets for confining his remarks far too tightly. In this respect, Private Bill procedure differs from that on Public Bills, as the hon. Member has been rightly advised.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: May I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for that statement and say that it is a comfort to me, who am, of course, out of order occasionally, quite inadvertently, to find that sometimes Mr. Speaker can also be out of order, slightly inadvertently.
Mr. Speaker: There is a saying that Homer sometimes nods.
7.2 p.m.
Mr. Tom Bradley: The Bill which we are discussing tonight is substantially the same Bill to which we gave a Second Reading on 2nd April. I certainly do not propose this evening to reiterate the detailed presentation of the case for the Bill which I made on that occasion. There were, naturally, rival and varying views expressed on Second Reading, but during the debate quite a number of hon. Members, on both sides of the argument, agreed that the Floor of the Chamber was not a suitable place to argue the merits and the demerits of this type of Bill. Indeed, some hon. Members supported Second Reading because they considered that the Bill should be subjected to meticulous and searching scrutiny by the Private Bill Committee, where learned counsel could be let loose on it. That has now taken place, and after nine days of evidence the Bill has been passed virtually unscathed with only minor amendments.
On today's Order Paper, only one hon. Member is objecting to the Third Reading tonight—naturally enough, the hon. Member for Stamford and Rutland (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). One cannot help admiring the persistence of the hon. Member

315
but his customary enthusiasm in resisting any matter involving the County of Rutland has once again run away with his judgment.
I must remind the hon. Member and the House that the reservoir which we are discussing this evening will not destroy Rutland. Rutland will need this water every bit as much as do the parts of Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and South Lincolnshire which are encompassed within the area of supply. In any event, I do not know how much longer we shall be talking about Rutland, or, for that matter, any other local government area, because we are now talking of these matters in the wake of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. At the time the reservoir is functioning, it may well be that it will be sited in unitary area No. 31 of the East Midlands province. In that context, the reservoir sounds positively attractive from any point of view!
I think that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford has overstated his opposition to the Bill. Throughout the entire Private Bill Committee proceedings, the whole approach of the petitioners against the Bill was in marked contrast to the tone of its opponents in this House on Second Reading. The petitioners conceded the case for a reservoir at Empingham. In the words of their learned counsel,
"we regard Empingham as a deplorable and regrettable necessity."
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bradley: The House will recollect, however, that on Second Reading the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said that there was no case whatever for a reservoir at Empingham. One of his reasons for that assertion was that the promoters of the Bill had exaggerated their population forecast.
Again, the petitioners' counsel said, on the question of population,
"happily, there is now no difference between us … and Peterborough has been the subject of an agreed reduction",
due to the delay in implementing the city's development plan.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford also alleged on Second Reading that 40 farmers would be displaced by the reservoir. The Committee proceed-
316
ings elicited the fact that 23 residences are affected by the Bill, seven farms and 16 cottages, four of which are vacant and derelict.
The hon. Member's criticism of per capita consumption and his advocacy of water from the Lincolnshire limestone were also rebutted in Committee. One by one the allegations went. Indeed, it is difficult to know where to stop in drawing attention to the discrepancies between the hon. Member's speech and the case made by the petitioners in Committee. The only major point which the petitioners pressed was that the reservoir at Empingham should be reduced in size by truncating the shallower upstream arms of the basin by means of two subsidiary stop dams to prevent flooding.
The effect of those two stop dams would be to reduce the acreage of land taken by 1,100 acres in respect of the southern arm and by 1,500 acres by truncating both arms. If that were done, however, the capital cost of the reservoir as outlined in the Bill—£16¾ million—would increase by such truncation by £1·2 million and £2·2 million, respectively. In other words, the additional capital cost per acre of land saved is £1,020 or £1,260 for a daily yield of 38½, million gallons or 34½ million gallons, however the truncation may be affected, as against the 50 million gallons a day which we are seeking by the Bill.
If the full Empingham reservoir, without truncation of any kind, as sought in the Bill is disallowed, the sensible alternative would not be a curtailed Empingham, but a reservoir at Manton. The House will recall that Manton was the second site recommended for investigation by the Water Resources Board in its study of water supplies in South-East England in 1956.
I realise that that still keeps the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford in trouble, because Manton also happens to be in his constituency. It would be much more sensible, however, if the Bill were disallowed, to go to Manton rather than play about with truncating the reservoir at Empingham. Manton would flood only 1,470 acres and it would yield 40 million gallons a day at a cost of £18½ million. Therefore, on every test—yield, costs and saving of acres—Manton is much to be preferred to a truncated Empingham.

317
But, of course, neither alternative is good enough in terms of quantity and time scale with which the Bill deals. The reservoir which it proposes will yield 50 million gallons a day and that quantity will be needed in full by 1991. Of that quantity, the South Lincolnshire Water Authority will require 14 million gallons a day, primarily to meet the expansion of Peterborough, and the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board will require the remaining 36 million gallons a day, 4 million of which it has agreed should be sold to the Leicester Water Corporation, which anticipates that amount of short-fall in supply in relation to the growing demand in its area by the end of this century.
The Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board's existing sources will last only until 1975–76. Indeed, they may not last even that long. I understand that the daily consumption yesterday reached a new high of 21¾ million gallons. Last year's average was 18 million gallons, which itself had trebled in the 20 years since 1949. Therefore, it is doubtful if existing sources will last as long as the mid-1970's at this rate of growth. Thereafter, of course, the growth of population planned for the Board's area, together with the increased consumption of water per head and the needs of new industries, make it essential to provide a new source of supply.
I know of no other water board in the South-East which has four new or expanded towns in its area. We should remember that Peterborough City, which must be supplied, is also just outside the area. The four towns—Northampton, Corby, Wellingborough and Daventry—had a total population of 218,000 in 1967. By 1981, that will be 427,000 and, by 2001, it will be 560,000. On the 1981 figure, therefore, the population of these four towns alone will have doubled within six years of the intended completion of this reservoir.
These were the compelling facts which led the Water Resources Board to recommend in 1966 that a reservoir should be constructed at either Empingham or Manton. As I have said, on grounds of yield, cost and engineering, Empingham is to be preferred to Manton. If Parliament does not pass the Bill, the plans to expand these towns, to develop new industries and to introduce overspill from
318
Birmingham and London will grind to a halt. We shall be putting back the clock.
Sir David Renton: The hon. Member is taking, as he is entitled to do, future projections of population as the foundation of his case. He may know that the birth-rate, however, has already begun to fall since those projections were made. Would he agree that if it falls considerably his projections are completely invalid?
Mr. Bradley: I cannot accept that. The birth-rate may be falling in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I can assure him it is going up in mine. Anyway, the case for the Bill rests on increased population as a result of overspill from London, Birmingham and elsewhere, and the undoubted fact that the consumption per head of any population is increasing over any given number of years. In 1949, when the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board was set up, the consumption per head was 23 gallons a day. Today it is 51, expected to rise to 77 by 1981 and to 94 by the end of the century. This is a natural increase per head, which, in addition to the increased number of heads, is the basis for the estimate which I have given. I would also remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the petitioners against the Bill agreed to the promoters' figures about population estimates. There is no longer any dispute on this issue.
The Private Bill Committee, in passing this Bill, added an unusual and interesting rider, that, in its view,
".there is an urgent necessity to study the alternative supplies of water. They therefore strongly recommend that a feasibility study of the Wash Barrage be undertaken immediately."
At present, a desk study is in progress, the results of which we shall have at the end of the year. It must be completed before any feasibility study is undertaken. The desk study may come down for a feasibility study, but it may not. We do not know. We shall have to await the results of the desk study.
What I want to make clear is that the promoters do not oppose the so-called Wash Barrage scheme. They would welcome such an enterprise. But if one accepts, as one must, that such a concept cannot possibly, if all else is favourable, yield any Wash water before 1990,

319
that is obviously outside the time-scale required by the Bill. As I said, the extra water will be urgently needed by the mid1970's—if not before, on the basis of yesterday's figure which I gave.
Mr. Derek Page: Since my hon. Friend says that the Wash Barrage could not be considered pending the result of the feasibility study, is he right in assuming a time scale which could only be justified by such a study?
Mr. Bradley: If we look at the time taken by the Morecambe Bay Study, we can assume that at least a year or so will be taken, and then there are the actual works on the site. If we are thinking of an embankment from Hunstanton to Skegness, which I am now told is an out-of-date concept in terms of the Wash Barrage, serious engineering problems, let alone the navigational problems regarding the four rivers which flow into the Wash, are involved. If, on the other hand, a series of lakes or lagoons are to be created around the periphery, certain rather different problems may also arise. What I am certain of—if this helps my hon. Friend—is that, even if the Wash Barrage feasibility study got off the ground on 1st January next year, we could not get any water from it by 1975, when it is needed under the terms of the Bill.
The promoters also regret very much that this proposal involves taking over 3,000 acres of agricultural land. It is a regrettable necessity. No one, however, gets any pleasure from this. It is one of the melancholy consequences of the relentless demands of the urban dwellers, with their factories, garbage grinders, washing machines, car cleaning plants and hot water systems. The competing claims of the countryside are, of course, powerful, but we must balance one set of needs against another.
I know that financial compensation cannot adequately compensate anyone for the loss of his habits or livelihood, but the promoters, while they recognise that they cannot break the law, are willing to bend it as far as possible in being generous with financial compensation to the few farmers and others displaced by the reservoir. I profoundly hope that this is the last time that any water authority will have to ask Parliament to sanction
320
the inundation of agricultural land to provide future communities with adequate water. [Interruption.] I do not know what that collective interruption was about. If hon. Members will read the study made in 1966 by the Water Resources Board they will see that the Board pinned great hopes on the exploitation of ground water in the Ouse Basin, the Wash Barrage, by desalination and by other means in the longer-term.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The collective comment of hon. Members arose simply because the hon. Gentleman had several times quoted from the Committee's proceedings. It was made clear in evidence to the Committee that another eight reservoirs were anticipated, expected and likely to be provided in due course.
Mr. Bradley: They were instanced, but the Board was at pains to point out the imperative need to get a move on with one of them, and that was related only to the one with which we are dealing. The others did not carry the same degree of urgency as the Empingham Reservoir, and their future may depend on the successful exploitation of ground water in the Ouse Basin.
Mr. F. Blackburn rose—
Mr. Bradley: I will not give way. I promised to be briefer than I was on Second Reading. I have already spoken for longer than I had intended. I hope that my hon. Friend will catch Mr. Speaker's eye and make his own contribution.
I repeat that it is the sincere hope that this is the last time that any water authority will have to ask Parliament to sanction the inundation of agricultural land to provide future communities with adequate water. It depends entirely on the rate of progress that is made in researching and studying the long-term alternative prospects of obtaining more water. It also depends on the degree of encouragement that the Government give to the Water Resources Board in its efforts.
If the controversy surrounding the Bill and the recommendation of the Private Bill Committee have impressed the urgency of the matter on the Government, further good will come of the

321
Measure. In the meantime, I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading to ensure that the pressing needs of this unique area are met in good time.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis)—
"That the Bill be read the third time upon this day six months"—
but this will not limit the debate in any way.
7.23 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I suppose that any date could have been chosen for this Third Reading debate. The Government obviously want this stage of the Bill to be taken as quickly as possible. It is no pleasure for me, today being my birthday, to be discussing water when I should be taking my wife out for a drink. However, as Parliamentary business has meant my being here, it may be as well for me to make certain comments.
Rutland County Council, the farmers of the county and the local population have put up stout opposition to the Bill. I have done my best to carry their flag in the House of Commons. It would be wrong for me to do otherwise now, when we last debated this subject, at the consideration stage of the Bill, I made some remarks rather hurriedly, and I wish to clarify them.
I said that Rutland County Council was likely to withdraw from fighting the Bill. I meant to indicate that it was almost bound to withdraw because of the considerable costs that would be involved in fighting the Bill through all its stages, including through the House of Lords and in Committee. I would not cavil at the county council thinking twice before entering into increased costs, £12,000 already having been spent. This has not been £12,000 entirely of the ratepayers' money, although the ratepayers will have to contribute to it considerably. The local farmers have also contributed to this sum, which has been collected to pay for all the legal expenses involved in an exercise of this kind.
One cannot now go to the farmers who have also given and who are threatened with losing all, and ask them for more
322
money. Others in the county have contributed to an appeal fund. The cost of all this is considerable, particularly to a small county. Nobody can convince me that had it been Yorkshire, Lancashire or one of the larger counties, the Measure would not have been fought right the way through, including in Committee and through the House of Lords. That was the point I was seeking to make when we last debated the matter.
If the Government, who are behind the Water Resources Board—perforce they must be—want the case against the Bill to be fully made out, and if they want the Measure to go through with the case having been fully adduced—by which I mean at all stages of the Bill, including its passage through the House of Lords—they should help the county council to meet the cost. This, I believe, the Minister of Housing and Local Government is able to do.
Whether or not the Government are prepared to do this, they should help the county council to meet the costs that have already been incurred. No Minister who believes that Parliamentary debate matters even in relation to the Private Bill procedure should wish difficulties to stand in the way of a small authority fighting a very large authority, such as the Water Resources Board, when faced with a massive undertaking of this kind.
When the Bill was in Committee I spent some time listening to the proceedings. I pay tribute to my colleagues who took part in that stage of the Bill. They were in purdah for that time and I did not attempt to disturb them. However, as I listened to the discussion during those nine days I realised the hard work that was involved for them; the grind, the concentration and the almost impossible issue on which they had to adjudicate.
They did something unique in that they provided a special report for the House. This report suggested that, reluctantly, they had agreed to this reservoir but that they hoped that it would be the last. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) expressed the same hope, although it did not come out in the evidence to the Board. It was at the Committee stage that the hope was expressed that the Government would produce a Wash Barrage, desalination plant or some other method which would

323
make it unnecessary in future to dig large holes in the ground.
The Committee was also helpful to Rutland County Council and the other councils in the area by making it clear to the promoters of the Bill that many of the costs which might fall on a small local authority should be borne by the river authority and those who are to run this reservoir. It remains to be seen whether this recommendation is implemented. There is every indication that it will be, and, if it is, the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) and the members of the Committee will have proved extremely helpful in this matter. The Committee also sent letters to the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible expressing the hope that the Government would explore alternative methods of obtaining water.
This is all fine as far as it goes, but we are now faced with the Third Reading of the Bill and with a proposed reservoir which will cost us nearly 4,000 acres of land. The Government are behind the Bill. The payroll vote, the Government, voted heavily in favour of the Measure on Second Reading, and the same thing may occur tonight.
It is right and proper that the agricultural community should ask any Government how far they should be allowed to go in providing for urban populations to the disadvantage of the countryside. No gigantic lake of this kind, no loss of this amount of land, no farming takeover of this order, no expenditure or turmoil that will take place in the next year or two in this area should be allowed by the House of Commons without considerably probing the position. As I said to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East, this is one of eight reservoirs. It could mean another 20,000 to 30,000 acres in total. If we are to let acres go in this way there will soon be no more agricultural land.
Mr. John Tilney: All the more reason for getting on with the Dee Barrage, the Morecambe Bay project and the Solway Bay project.
Mr. Lewis: Something like 15 per cent. of land in the country has been urbanised. We are getting towards 20 per cent. Much of the countryside is
324
not good agricultural land, and it is very easy to say that the percentage in relation to the whole for urban development is not very high if we take into account all the things we require. We need land for roads, airfields, new towns and so on, but the advance across the best acres of the countryside is quite frightening. If it goes on we shall be left with less valuable land, with only woodland and mountain and have to export our population to keep those who are left on the reduced amount of output of food we need. Simply to pass a Bill of this kind without considering these very important matters would be very wrong indeed.
The cost of this reservoir will be £20 million or £30 million. I guess that in a year or two the cost will escalate considerably. If we accept that there are to be six or eight others the total cost will be something about £150 million to £175 million. That is getting towards the cost of a Wash Barrage. It is certainly getting towards the kind of cost involved in a project for desalination. The proposals in this Bill are Victorian. They are not in keeping with the white heat of the technological revolution, which I think the Prime Minister said would be the basis of activity of this Government. This is the kind of thing that our forefathers were doing. We should have a new system and new methods of getting water supply. If we flood acres in order to flush lavatories we are not very much up to day. The world is waiting for a development which will give it more water supply. We are not the only country which is short of water or the means of preserving it.
This island is surrounded by water. Nye Bevan once said that it is surrounded by fish and covered with coal but short of both. If we could harness this water, although it would be expensive at the beginning, it could be the biggest advance since the discovery of oil.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate tonight desalination of water. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Bill.
Mr. Lewis: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, and I anticipated that there might be a remonstrance about my going outside the terms of the Bill. The Bill is a pointer to what we need. If we could pioneer such a method in our country we could

325
go far to solving many problems not only here but in many countries. We did that with nuclear power and electricity supply; why not do it with water? We shall never do it with Bills of this kind, just as we shall not get progress in industry without innovating and inventing. We need to leap into the ideas of the future instead of resting on the ideas of the past.
The Preamble to the Bill says:
"whereas the demand for, water within the area of the River Authority has increased, is increasing and will shortly be beyond the capacity of the existing sources of supply …"
and goes on to say why this Bill is necessary. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East challenged some figures which I gave. He quoted from the Committee stage of the Bill and said that there were only seven farms and eleven cottages involved. In fact Mr. J. G. Eve said that there are 58 holdings, of which some are cottages. I do not know whether my figures are correct or the figures quoted by the hon. Member or those given by Mr. Eve, but I assure the hon. Member that the number of farms and cottages involved is greater than the number he mentioned and nearer to the number which I quoted on Second Reading. I checked on that number. Although it is true not all of them would be drowned, many would be affected and some of these people would have to move because of works surrounding the reservoir. It is not a question of how many farmers are affected but of how much land is involved.
One farmer can farm 500 acres while another farms 1,000 acres. We are debating this matter on the basis of loss of productive land. That is the answer to the comments the hon. Member made about my figures. I dispute some of these figures. Having read in the Preamble that the case is on the basis of increased demand, what did we find in Committee? On Second Reading I challenged figures which I said were exaggerated. I challenged the city of Leicester figures and the new town figures. The city of Leicester had an expert before the Committee. He admitted that the figures given by the city before the Bill went into Committee were exaggerated and said that the amount of water required, 4,000 million gallons, would not be required until the end of the century. Before the
326
Bill went into Committee the city had said that that amount would be required in the early 1970s.
So the city of Leicester does not require this water until the end of the century. I contend that the new town figures are also exaggerated. I can only say that they are. I cannot prove that they are, because the new town is not yet built. I tried to prove it on Second Reading on the basis that the only new town we had was the new town of Corby and I tried to prove that the figures for the new town of Corby were exaggerated.
Before this Committee it was proved that the figures for the city of Leicester were exaggerated. if the other figures are exaggerated, the whole case for the Bill is exaggerated. I do not see why Rutland would put up with a reservoir because the efforts of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East are apparently so prodigious that there is a population increase in his constituency. I hope that that figure is equally as exaggerated as are the figures for the demand of water. I rest my case still on exaggeration. I accept, however, that the Bill has been through its Committee stage.
Mr. Bradley: As the hon. Gentleman has obviously not finished his series of exaggerations, will he inform the House how the area is to get its water by 1975, bearing in mind that the petitioners against the Bill—his constituents—agreed that the promoters' estimates of population were correct.
Mr. Lewis: The opponents of the Bill—the representatives of my constituents—did two things. First, they discovered that the figure for Leicester was wrong. Secondly, they accepted the guesswork of the promoters. It is purely guesswork. On Second Reading I tried to prove that there could be a bridging situation between now and the 1970s. I concede that, if there is not the Wash Barrage or some breakthrough on desalination by the 1980s or 1990s, we shall be in trouble. I assume that there will be a development of the Wash Barrage, or something else.
Mr. Bradley: Not by 1971.
Mr. Lewis: By the 1980s. Then the bridging situation which I put forward on Second Reading comes into play. I

327
do not think that that bridging situation would have been denied if it had been put to the Committee.
Page 3 of the Bill sets out the cost. I have said that it is likely to escalate. It is for this reason that I think we should have had a truncated scheme. It may be said that the cost difference would not be all that great. Nevertheless, the, difference is there and we would have saved 1,500 acres of good land. This is where I can help the lion. Gentleman: we could have got the water for a bridging situation between now and the late 1970s and early 1980s from a truncated Empingham. I still believe that that would have been a reasonable compromise. The reason that it was not proposed by the Committee was partly technical, because the Committee had to look at the Bill as it stood. It could not look at a Bill which did not have within it the alternative of a truncated Empingham.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: As my hon. Friend is now advocating a truncated scheme, does he challenge the figures which I have given, that the Empingham Reservoir as proposed in the Bill would cost £336,000 per yield of one million gallons per day, whereas a truncated scheme would cost £468,000?
Mr. Lewis: I should have thought that those figures made my case, because the difference is small enough to justify the saving of land. This was not an issue before the Committee, although it was put to the Committee. I think that the Committee might well have decided to suggest that the promoters brought forward another Bill. If the House refuses to give the Bill a Third Reading, we can look at a truncated Empingham.
The Bill is a massive document. It contains proposals which provide for the greatest construction scheme relating to water that there has been for many decades—new roads, old roads re-routed, new bridges, electricity pylons to be changed, rivers to be diverted, the removal of woods, the digging of tunnels, the erecting of buildings of one sort and another. It is a mammoth construction.
To go from the fantastic to the sublime, the Bill contains one item which must be unique in a water Bill. There is mention of a bishop. Clause 22 says:
328
"'the bishop' means the bishop of the diocese of Peterborough".
It is not that the bishop is to be drowned, but that the parish church of St. Matthew, which stands in the middle of a field in my constituency, is to be submerged. It looks as if the Church has done about as good a deal with the promoters as anybody. The promoters have apparently agreed to remove the church. It is a very beautiful church in a very pastoral setting. The promoters are to remove the church with
"the remains of all deceased persons interred therein",
including the remains of the ancestors of a predecessor of mine in this place, the Earl of Ancaster. The promoters are to build the church higher up. I am more concerned with the living, than with the dead.
It is all very well for the House to discuss a Bill whose implementation will cost £30 million and to say, "The farmers will be looked after. They will be compensated. They will be all right. We can afford to lose a little land". Some of us think that this is very serious. Others may not think so.
All of us would hope that those who are to lose their livelihoods will at least be looked after. Those owning the farms in which they live will get market value plus disturbance. Nobody has indicated what disturbance will be. I hope that it will be generous. I think that the tenant farmer comes off very badly, because he is to get four years rent, with an option of two years rent which the promoters assure me that they will provide. There is some doubt about this, because in Committee Mr. Eve said—page 20, Evidence, Sixth Day—that he thought that it would be possible for a tenant to claim up to two years' profits as well as two years' rent.
I do not know whether it is two years' profit or two years' rent. All I know, representing an agricultural constituency, if that it is based on last year's profits and this year's profits, tenant farmers will not get much, because they have had two thundering ba years. Therefore, if the promoters are to be generous, as they say that they want to be, it is necessary that they should take the maximum of profits in any two recent years rather than the minimum. We have no right to build our urban future on the backs of our

329
rural present. We have no right to expect a tenant farmer in the prime of his life suddenly to come out with a minimum amount of money, with insufficient capital to buy a farm, and no place available to rent because everyone with farms to rent today has a queue of people waiting for that farm.
Not only should the promoters be generous on this basis, but in view of the cost of the undertaking, the Government should consider being even more generous than is laid down in dealing with tenant farmers in particular. The cost of the project is in direct contrast to the compensation they will receive.
The Bill deals with a method of pre- serving water that is out-dated. It is proposed on problematical data. It is terrifyingly big, and it does not even say that it will provide us with cheaper water. There is a Clause allowing the water undertakings taking water from the river board to increase their charges for water, so we are not even to have the advantage of cheaper water by having the reservoir.
When history comes to be written it will be said, if we pass the Bill, that we clung to the old-fashioned methods at increased cost rather than going forward with more modern, innovative methods that come to us through our modern technology, and which in the early stages might be expensive but in the long run would provide us with cheaper water, just as we now have cheaper oil and gas.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. Bert Hazell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) on the excellent manner in which he presented his case. All hon. Members, whatever their views on the issue, will wish to join me in those congratulations, because it is obvious that he has given a great deal of thought and care to the preparation and presentation of the case.
But I must oppose my hon. Friend on this issue. As the House will be aware, I am the President of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and my Oakham district committee, covering this part of Rutland, has been one of the organisations that have resisted the Bill and given support to the industry generally
330
for the retention of the land for agricultural purposes.
I shall not make any extravagant claims; the facts speak for themselves. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said, it does not matter how many homesteads may be involved; the fact is that 3,000 acres of land will go out of production for all time, lost for good—
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is nearer 4,000 acres.
Mr. Hazell: If I say over 3,000 acres, I think that that will meet the situation.
Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is much nearer the mark. It is 3,114 acres that are to be inundated.
Mr. Hazell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
Mr. Lewis: There are also all the works round about.
Mr. Hazell: I stand by the point I made. Over 3,000 acres of land are involved, in addition to over 55,000 acres of land that go out of cultivation every year. We can ill afford to loose our heritage in this way. If we pass the Bill we are doing something that will remove an area for ever.
With the increasing millions of population, and the necessity to take more land in the future for homes, roads, schools and so on, if there is any alternative to the use of land for this purpose the House and the country should give it first priority. My members feel that there is an alternative—the Wash Barrage. I accept that it is only at desk study level. Assuming that the desk study report is favourable, there must then be a feasibility study, and I accept that this process will be very long. But I am also aware that corporations and vast undertakings tend to exaggerate their demands in an endeavour to make their claim with the utmost conviction. I wonder whether a delay of a year or two in ascertaining whether or not it is shown that it is feasible for a barrage to be built will damage the cause of the people in the area that the reservoir will serve.
The Oakham district committee of my union is concerned, and has participated in opposition to the Bill, for the

331
following reasons. About 20 farm workers will have their livelihood affected by the scheme. That may not be many, but they are 20 people, and they have a right to be considered. It is their livelihood, their occupation, that is concerned. Most of them have lived in the area all their lives, and it is not easy to be uprooted and told to seek fresh employment elsewhere, make new acquaintances, find new schools for the children and so on. If there is a queue for farms, as the hon. Gentleman declared, obtaining homes for farm workers will be no easy matter. Every local authority that I know has a pretty long waiting list of urgent claims which, in the view of the people on those lists, need prior consideration.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that owners of land will be fairly generously treated, though one is a little doubtful how much compensation tenant farmers might secure. But my experience of farm workers is that when they are displaced they receive no compensation, and my organisation feels very strongly about this. If my hon. Friend can indicate that displaced farm workers will be adequately compensated, my members will be much happier, though this will not remove the main objection to the scheme.
Other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so I shall be brief. I conclude on this note. I have an awful fear—and I am sure that I am not alone in this—that if the House approves the Bill the full feasibility study of the Wash Barrage is likely to be pigeon-holed for many a long year. All who have interested themselves in the Wash Barrage scheme have come to the conclusion that if such a barrage is possible it will meet our long-term problem, not just for the area with which we are now concerned but for a much wider area, and increase the land available subsequently. So we do not want to see the feasibility study shelved.
Therefore, in order that the feasibility study might be embarked upon and not pigeon-holed, I hope that the House will reject the Bill. I believe that it is good for this country in the long term and I hope that the House will also recognise this point.
Sir D. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the unusual
332
circumstances of a special report having been made to this House, which it is in order for the House to consider on this occasion—that is clear from Mr. Speaker's Ruling—and bearing in mind that the report engages the responsibility of the Government and strongly recommends that a feasibility study of the Wash Barrage be undertaken immediately, would it not be conducive to the best ordering of the debate if we could hear the Government's views before proceeding further?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am afraid that this is not a matter for the Chair. I have no doubt that the Minister heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say.
Sir D. Renton: May I take it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Minister for Planning and Land has taken heed of what you and I have just said?
8.1 p.m.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: In all the time that I have been a Member of this House, both here and outside I have tried to avoid saying anything which was likely to exacerbate feeling between town and country. But I cannot help saying, with deep regret, that the attitude adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) will do just that if he is not careful.
No one likes to put good agricultural land under water unnecessarily, but I have recollections, as I expect have many hon. Members, of having to live on a pint and a half of water a day for all too long during World War II.
I am conscious that one of the biggest problems arising over water supply in this country today is not only that caused by the increasing size of water consumption of urban areas but by the fact that rural areas are now being provided with a piped water supply where hitherto they probably had to go off with a bucket and draw it from the nearest well. One problem which now besets the water undertakings promoting the Bill is that the daily consumption of water has been steadily rising not only because of urban demands but also because of the demands from rural areas.
I cannot understand the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland

333
and Stamford tonight when I compare it with what he said on Second Reading:
"We are not lacking in public conscience. There is no alternative to this reservoir. We will accept it."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 2nd April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 574.]
He then went on to try to suggest that the figures and proposals put forward by the water board could prove the reservoir to be unnecessary.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If the Bill goes through all its stages in this House and another place, the County of Rutland, when it is faced with this reservoir, will co-operate. I said that, and it is true. I suppose that we could start putting tractors in the middle of the roads to prevent construction taking place and indulge in other activities like they do in other places, but we would not think of doing that. I said "if we were faced with it". That does not alter the fact that we have a right to put forward our views against it in both Houses.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I do not resent my hon. Friend putting the case against the Bill if he feels obliged to do so. But on Second Reading he made clear that there was no alternative to this reservoir, although he said he would endeavour to show that it was unnecessary.
The Bill was sent to a Select Committee as an opposed Private Bill. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) and his colleagues who sat on the Committee on the hard work that they put in. Having presided over a number of Committees on opposed private water Bills, I realise what this involves. The fact that the Committee sat for nine days and examined every challenge to the Bill made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, at the end of the exercise coming out in favour of the Bill and recommending it back to the House, though making this special report about the desirability for a feasibility study of the Wash Barrage, makes my hon. Friend's arguments a great deal weaker, I suggest, than when he produced the same arguments on Second Reading.
I was a little surprised to hear my hon. Friend pleading the poverty of Rutland as a reason for not carrying opposition to the Bill through another place as well as here. If one single Member ought to take credit for Rutland being still on
334
its own, it is my hon. Friend. But I am sure that he realises there are possibly other reasons besides the efforts which he put in at the time. This is one of the problems which all local authorities have to face. They must recognise that if they are involved in national affairs of one kind or another, be it water or anything else, there may come a time, if they are too small, when they will not be able to stand up against greater national considerations.
However, I regard the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford as an old friend and I do not wish to say anything unnecessarily to antagonise him. But I seriously suggest that the battle that he wanted fought on Second Reading is over. That has been done before the Select Committee. But my hon. Friend ought to be taking credit for a certain amount of kudos coming out of the fact that a special report has been submitted to the House by the Select Committee urging a feasibility study of the Wash Barrage.
About 15 or 16 years ago the late Sir Murdoch Macdonald, who was recognised as being one of the greatest civil engineers that this country has had for a long time—although no doubt he would claim that for Scotland—and I went into the research department of the Library and got out all the charts and looked at the project of the Wash Barrage at that time. His calculation, even then, was that the cost of a barrage could not be much less than £200 million, because it would mean that the foundations would have to be at least 200 ft. deep below the bed of the sea if it was to stand the strain. My hon. Friend has used the cost of the exercise as a reason for not going ahead with it. That is a very dangerous argument indeed if he wants the Wash Barrage.
Sir D. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) will no doubt recollect that we were both colleagues of the late Sir Murdoch Macdonald, who ceased to be a Member of this House nearly 20 years ago, and that since then there have been the most tremendous technical advances in engineering.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I accept that. I try, as I know my right hon. and learned Friend realises, to keep abreast as far as possible of the various methods of

335
coping with water supplies, and I mentioned another possible method on Second Reading—reverse osmosis. The opinion on cost in those days was about £200 million. It may be that there could be savings. I do not know. But we are talking about enormous sums of money in thinking of barrages. If we started the Wash Barrage today—and that could not be done—we could not possibly ensure that a large number of people will not go too short of water for far too long. Nothing short of reservoirs can serve the immediate need of providing by the mid-1970s a greatly increased quantity of water. This is the only solution, and the Select Committee so decided. We are being asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford to throw overboard any usefulness of the Select Committees on opposed Private Bills. It is almost an insult to the Select Committee not to accept its recommendation. I strongly support the Bill as being the only possible solution in the time available.
8.10 p.m.
The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): It may help the House if I intervene at this stage and perhaps I can reassure the right hon and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that it was my intention to rise at this point, which in any case is about the normal order of batting for a Minister on a Private Bill
The Government's attitude towards the Bill is, briefly, that it should be given its Third Reading. The Select Committee spent nine days considering the Bill and at the end approved it with Amendments which did not go to the substance of the Measure. I echo what the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said about the Committee and, in particular, about its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn).
In the event, the petitioners who appeared before the Committee accepted the regrettable necessity for the construction of a reservoir at Empingham, although they question the form that it should take. They suggested that it should have three dams instead of one, the extra dams serving to prevent the flooding of the shallow ends of the arms. The promoters indicated why they were
336
opposed to this modification, and the Committee approved the reservoir provisions as originally proposed.
A great deal has been said already about the special report of the Committee. It was when it was faced with the possibility of a succession of surface reservoir schemes in the years to come that the Committee made this report to the House, giving the view that a full feasibility study of a Wash Barrage should be undertaken without further delay. It was good enough to inform my right hon. Friend of its view in advance, and he has explained to it that a decision about a feasibility study must await the outcome of a desk study already in progress.
A Wash Barrage is, in the Government's view, a most interesting idea, and if it were to prove a feasible proposition it would undoubtedly save much agricultural land from being flooded for reservoir purposes in the future But a full feasibility study is an expensive exercise in itself, and the Government feel, therefore, that we should await the results of the desk study now in progress before deciding the next step.
In any event, we need the results of the desk study before we could decide the parameters of a feasibility study. Meanwhile, a full feasibility study is in progress in Morecambe Bay, and it may well be that the results of that will throw some light on at any rate some of the extremely complicated problems of a Wash Barrage. The Wash desk study, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) said, should be completed by the end of this year, and we shall examine the results in depth alongside the other information which is coming along relevant to the wider problems of water supplies for the South-East.
Estuarial barrages are not the only nor necessarily the best or most economical means of saving land. It is one of the main attractions of taking water from underground strata that it makes virtually no demands on farmland. The absraction of underground water can be extended stage by stage as demand grows instead of having to be fully developed as a reservoir from the outset. Underground water is usually of much better quality than river water and so requires much less by way of treatment. This

337
and the more measured development both help to save costs and make underground supplies relatively cheap. It was for these reasons that the Government decided in 1966 to give priority to a systematic study of the development of ground water in the Great Ouse and Thames basins, and that study is now in progress also.
To sum up, we want to know what scheme or schemes in the Wash, if any, are worth closer investigation and what they would be likely to cost. We want to know what other water resources are in prospect according to other current studies so as to be able to decide which investments of resources in research and development offer the best value to the nation in terms of money, water and land. I remind the House that, however fast we were to move, we simply could not produce water supplies from the Wash in time to meet the situation for which this Bill was devised.
Mr. Derek Page: What method are the Government using to separate the water costs of any Wash scheme from the multiple benefits which would accrue?
Mr. Robinson: These matters are being examined in the desk study but I have not yet seen even an interim report, and so I would not like to speculate. But we shall have the complete report before the end of the year.
Both promoters and petitioners, and, I am sure, the Committee and the House, regret the need to take out of use good agricultural land at Empingham but, in my view, the promoters have amply demonstrated that there just is no alternative if adequate supplies of water for domestic and industrial purposes are to be maintained.
If the Bill is passed and the reservoir built as proposed, the Government would hope that the flexible use of this and other sources would make it possible to meet the short-term pressing needs not only of the promoters but also of neighbouring areas. They therefore commend the Bill to the House not only on the strength of the local case which the promoters have properly made for a local Bill but also because it fits admirably into the overall strategy for meeting the water needs of the South-East.
338
On Second Reading I reminded the House that the Floor of the House is not the most appropriate place to consider the detailed issues involved in a Bill like this and I recommended that the House should give the Bill its Second Reading and send it to a Select Committee, where a searching and careful consideration would take place on those issues. I do not think that the House could have asked for a more thoroughgoing consideration than this Bill has had in Committee. In the event, it emerged that even the petitioners against the Bill found themselves unable to gainsay that a reservoir at Empingham is needed, and, as we know, the Committee passed the Bill. I recommend the House to give the Bill its Third Reading.
8.17 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I first put on record my thanks to Mr. Speaker for his gracious Ruling on the extent of a debate on consideration of a Private Bill. This Bill has achieved some measure of fame afforded to few such Bills. This is because of the gallant, persistent and pugnacious attack upon it by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). I rather wish that the House had been unrestrained enough earlier today to burst into "Happy birthday to you" when he revealed that today is his birthday.
At the same time, I compliment the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley), who has contributed to bringing this Bill its fame by the rather thankless job of putting an unpopular case to the House, which he has done with great force and skill.
The Bill has undoubtedly raised national issues disproportionate to the small size of the county which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford represents. It has made the House think about the national epidemic of reservoir rash; about the probable increase in consumption and the disposal of water during the next decade or two; and, perhaps even more important, about the cost of that provision and disposal both nationally and locally. One finds that the cost of the provision which must be made in the next 10, 20 and 30 years is staggering.
The Bill has also made the House think about the advances of science

339
to meet the desperate need for an increased supply of water—for example, the advances in artificial recharge of the limestone areas, in desalination research and in civil engineering—with the prospect of being able to go forward with a scheme for a Wash Barrage.
The Bill has resulted in the unusual and impressive report from the Committee. The House will not begrudge the time spent here or in Committee on the Bill when such important issues have been raised. After the Minister's speech I am not sure whether the Government have learned their lesson from this. I hope they have, but the impression I got when the Minister was speaking was that this water has run off the duck's back of the Government, and because it is a Private Bill there has not been the same feeling of responsibility for the issues raised as there would have been if it was a Government Measure.
We raised this point during Second Reading, that it was a pity that these measures are not brought forward on the basis of Orders under the Water Resources Act instead of by Private Bill, because Orders are the direct responsibility of the Government. This Bill authorises a reservoir which could be superfluous soon after it is built. If it were suddenly found that the Wash Barrage was feasible, and if the Government suddenly decided to throw all resources into it and go ahead with a scheme of that sort—
Mr. Blackburn: I was Chairman of the Committee and it ought to be made clear that any responsible Committee of this House would have had to do the same as we did and find that the case for the Empingham Reservoir was overwhelming. Our report was because of the future. We were told that there were another eight schemes in the pipeline. It was because of those that we put in this special report about the Wash Barrage—not as an alternative to Empingham.
Mr. Page: I accept that, and it is what I was about to say. I was saying, in perhaps not sufficiently sarcastic tones, that this could be superfluous if it were found tomorrow that the Wash Barrage was feasible and if the Government were prepared to put all resources into it at once. That is not what the Minister has
340
said. He has said that the desk study is proceeding on the Wash Barrage scheme and he expects the report at the end of the year. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) has said, the Committee drew attention to that in its report. All of us who have debated the Bill are convinced that we cannot do without those big schemes eventually.
We cannot go on after the eight Empinghams to have another eight and then another eight. We have to produce the big schemes at some time—the Wash, the Dee, the Solway and so on—because of the consumption increase, not only in urban areas, but in the rural areas, too. When we look at the figures, all of this is inevitable. There must be the big schemes, even if some of the figures are exaggerated as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford said. Looking at past increases in the use of water and at well-informed forecasts of the future, we might be forgiven for concluding that we are a nation of perpetual plug-pullers and fanatical flushers. Certainly the figures are astonishing. Empingham reservoir, and perhaps the other seven Empinghams, is an interim penalty for this permissiveness.
The House is guided by the proceedings in Committee, but it is not bound by admissions and concessions or petitions in Committee. I at once pay tribute, as others have, to the wonderful work of the Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. It spent nine long days studying this in very great detail, and the House is guided by its decisions.
At the same time the House is at liberty to look at the principle afresh when the Bill comes back on Third Reading, to look at it in the light of well-informed forecasts of population, of needs, and of the science to meet those needs, to see whether at this stage the Bill should become law. We are entitled to consider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford about the truncated reservoir. In this connection, because the Bill permits work to be done only as set out in Clause 5, not all those works need be done if the authority decided not to carry them out. It may be that in another place it would wish to put forward a possible alternative

341
scheme. I do not think that we have had sufficient evidence tonight that it is feasible.
We are entitled to look at the compensation provisions in the Bill, both for the owner-occupier of land and for the tenant farmer. I join with others who say that the compensation provisions for tenant farmers are undoubtedly unfair. It would have been better perhaps had the promoters decided to amend the general law a little in this respect. I am glad that the Committee has dropped directly into the lap of the Minister, and, through him, that of the Government, the responsibility for getting on with this desk study of the Wash Barrage. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said, this is now, having regard to the Committee's
report, a real Government responsibility which they cannot escape.
The Government have already partially accepted that responsibility by setting up a desk study, but from the way in which the Minister spoke about the Wash Barrage being a most interesting idea, I did not get the impression that it was being considered with the urgency that we would like. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said, we are talking of very large sums of money. When we talk of these great barrage schemes we are talking of the basic needs of the residential, industrial and commercial life of the country.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 65.

Division No. 303.]

AYES

[8.30 p.m.

Alldritt, Walter

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Orbach, Maurice

Armstrong, Ernest

Henig, Stanley

Oswald, Thomas

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Hunter, Adam

Pentland, Norman

Barnett, Joel

Hynd, John

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Beaney, Alan

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Bence, Cyril

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Bishop, E. S.

Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

Rankin, John

Blackburn, F.

Kelley, Richard

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

Bradley, Tom

Lawson, George

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Buchan, Norman

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

Concannon, J. D.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Silverman, Julius

Conlan, Bernard

Lomas, Kenneth

Slater, Joseph

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Loughlin, Charles

Snow, Julian

Dempsey, James

Lubbock, Eric

Spriggs, Leslie

Dobson, Ray

McCann, John

Symonds, J. B.

Doig, Peter

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Tinn, James

Ellis, John

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Urwin, T. W.

Fernyhough, E,

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

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Ford, Ben

Mapp, Charles

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Garrett, W. E.

Marks, Kenneth

Whitlock, William

Gregory, Arnold

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Millan, Bruce

Wyatt, Woodrow

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Mr. William Hamling and

Hannan, William

Neal, Harold

Mr. David Ensor.

Harper, Joseph

NOES

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Monro, Hector

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Newens, Stan

Bidwell, Sydney

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Norwood, Christopher

Biffen, John

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Onslow, Cranley

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hazell, Bert

Orme, Stanley

Brewis, John

Hooley, Frank

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Chataway, Christopher

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Cooke, Robert

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Cordle, John

Jackson Peter M. (High Peak)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Kerr Mrs Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

Roebuck, Roy

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

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Errington, Sir Eric

Kimball, Marcus

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

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

MacArthur, Ian

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Farr, John

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

Waddington, David

Faulds, Andrew

Marten, Neil

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Maude, Angus

Ward, Dame Irene

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Wiggin, A. W.

Wright, Esmond

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Wylie, N. R.

Mr. Albert Booth and Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Younger, Hn. George

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LEGAL AID
8.35 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move,
That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
It may be convenient to the House—if it is agreeable to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—if I speak to these Regulations and to those following, that is, the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) (Scotland) Regulations.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With the leave of the House they may be taken together.
The Solicitor-General: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations implement the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid that legal aid should be extended to certain proceedings in the magistrates' court and to proceedings partly for defamation. The relevant paragraphs in the 17th Report of the Advisory Committee are paragraphs 5 to 11 inclusive and paragraph 47.
The Regulations also re-enact the provisions of Regulation 1A of the Legal Aid (General) Regulations which are the proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Regulations for which I am now asking approval, and proceedings under Section 3 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, referred to in paragraph 2. These proceedings are "care and protection proceedings."
This part of the Regulations is a matter of convenience. It is thought to be more convenient to be able to find the proceedings to which legal aid has been extended in separate Extension of Proceedings Regulations, rather than in the Legal Aid General (Regulations) which cover a wide variety of general matters connected with legal aid. The proceedings to which legal aid is being extended by these Regulations are contained in Regulation 2 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Schedule.
344
First, in relation to certain proceedings which are partly in respect of defamation, paragraph 1 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, excludes proceedings wholly or partly in respect of defamation from the proceedings for which legal aid may be given. These proceedings were excluded because it was feared that there would be a flood of unmeritorious applications arising out of petty disputes.
However, this meant that in the occasional case where legal aid was given to a plaintiff claiming damages, for example, for wrongful dismissal and the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was dismissed because he libelled him and counterclaimed for damages for libel, the plaintiff's legal aid could not be continued, as the proceedings became, in that hypothesis, "partly in respect of defamation". Regulation 2 saves the plaintiff's legal aid and makes it possible for it to be extended in an appropriate case to cover the defence to the counter-claim.
In recommending this extension, the Advisory Committee accepted the unanimous recommendation of a Joint Committee of the Council of the Law Society and General Council of the Bar. That Committee also recommended, with one dissentient, that legal aid should become available for proceedings wholly in respect of libel or slander. The reference to that recommendation will be found in paragraph 10 at page 53 of the Report. But the Advisory Committee felt that the risk of unmeritorious applications, which had led to the original exclusion of proceedings for defamation, to be a very real one. Accordingly, the Committee, having regard to the consequences, financial and otherwise, of the proposed extension, decided not to "recommend this proposal among those meriting consideration at the present time". The Government accept this view.
Secondly, the Regulations extend legal aid in respect of proceedings in a magistrates' court under Sections 2 and 4 of the Children Act 1948. Section 2 of that Act empowers a local authority to pass a resolution vesting in itself parental rights over a child. Until now a parent or guardian who wishes to oppose such a resolution before a magistrates' court has

345
not been able to obtain legal aid to do so. These Regulations make it available.
They also make it available for proceedings under Section 4 of the Children Act to rescind or vary such a Resolution. This is a consequential extension of the Advisory Committee's recommendation that legal aid should be available for proceedings under Section 2.
Thirdly, the Regulations extend legal aid in respect of proceedings under Section 22 of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950, or Section 4 of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, to vary a maintenance order registered in a magistrates' court. Legal aid is available at present for obtaining or enforcing maintenance orders. It is not available for their subsequent variation where they are either made in the High Court but registered in a magistrates' court, or originate in a Scottish or Northern Irish court, but are registered in an English magistrates' court. These Regulations make it available.
Section 22 of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950, relates to proceedings to vary a registered Northern Irish or Scottish order, and Section 4 of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, relates to registered High Court orders.
Fourthly, the Regulations extend legal aid in respect of proceedings under Section 23 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, and Section 43 of the National Assistance Act, 1948. The Supplementary Benefits Commission can bring proceedings under Section 23 of the 1966 Act against persons who fail to maintain their dependants and those dependants have claimed or been paid benefit by the Commission. Similarly, a local authority which has provided accommodation for a person's dependants can bring proceedings against that person to recover the cost of having done so. Although these proceedings are closely analagous to maintenance proceedings, legal aid is not available in respect of them at present. These Regulations remedy this by making it available to those against whom these proceedings are brought.
Fifthly and finally, in relation to opposed adoption proceedings in a magistrates' court—this refers to paragraph 3 of the Schedule—at present legal aid is available in respect of adoption proceedings in the High Court and the county court but not in a magistrates' court.
346
Although the proceedings in a magistrates' court are so simple that legal aid may be unnecessary, there are circumstances where it should be available. These are where a parent or guardian wishes to contest an adoption order and the court is invited to dispense with that person's consent. These Regulations make legal aid available to both parties where the court is asked to dispense with consent under section 5 of the Adoption Act. 1958.
The cost of these extensions is very little. The total cost is estimated to be in the region of £2,670 a year. The most expensive item is the provision for legal aid for the variation of maintenance orders, which is £1,300 a year. The slight cost of these extensions is, of course, due to the fact that only a few people will benefit from the extensions and receive legal aid for these proceedings. Nevertheless, such cases will be of great importance to those people concerned and the House may well think that this small addition to the ambit of the Legal Aid Scheme should be approved, and I commend it.
As we are taking also the Scottish Regulations, may I, greatly daring, be allowed to say a word about them. They seek to achieve objectives which are more limited than those of the corresponding Regulations for England and Wales. Their purpose is to vary the proceedings in connection with which legal aid may be given to make legal aid available in certain proceedings in respect of defamation or verbal injury. Such proceedings are at present excluded from the Legal Aid Scheme in terms of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1967.
It is intended that this extension of the Legal Aid Scheme, as is also provided by Regulation 2 of the corresponding Regulations for England and Wales, relate only to proceedings in which the defender has entered a counter-claim for defamation or verbal injury. The Schedule to the corresponding Regulations for England and Wales includes provisions for an extension of legal aid to other civil proceedings. I understand that there is no necessity for similar provision to be made in the Scottish Regulations since proceedings of this type are taken in the sheriffs' court and therefore, I am told, they already qualify for legal aid. My

347
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has consulted the Law Society of Scotland which has agreed that it is desirable that this minor extension of the Legal Aid Scheme in Scotland should be made.
8.48 p.m.
Sir David Renton: Although I would not dare to have the temerity of the Solicitor-General to meddle in Scottish affairs—I shall leave it to my hon and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie)—I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for his full, courteous, and apparently accurate description of the contents of these Regulations which I am sure gave satisfaction and pleasure to every hon. Member of the House who heard him. I have no intention to press him for further and better particulars.
I should like to make one or two brief comments. The House should take note of the fact that by applying legal aid to proceedings which are partly in respect of defamation, the Regulations vary the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949—a matter which we should not by Statutory Instrument undertake lightly and without full consideration. It was, however, envisaged that the Statute could be varied by Statutory Instrument, and it seems to be right to do that on this occasion.
My only other comment is that when I heard the Solicitor-General say that the cost would be very little, I thought that those were, perhaps, the famous last words of any Minister who might one day have to come before the House for a Supplementary Estimate. However, I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman well. I hope that he does not have to do so, although the sum that he named seemed to me to be not only small, but trivial.
Bearing in mind that maintenance order proceedings and opposed adoption proceedings are to be made available under the Legal Aid Scheme, it would be remarkable if the total sum were kept within the figure given by the Solicitor-General. Let us hope, however, that he is right. I am sure that we are grateful to the Advisory Committee for recommending this further extention of legal aid. We naturally give it our blessing.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. N. R. Wylie: I intervene only briefly to welcome the Scottish Regulations. The Solicitor-General put the position very clearly. There is no requirement in Scotland for the further provisions contained in the English Regulations because legal aid already applies extensively in the sheriff court.
The situation which at present arises, although only occasionally, is rather illogical, that a pursuer can come into court with the benefit in an action of legal aid. He is faced with a counterclaim involving issues of verbal injury. I will not go into the technical distinctions between the two; they are rather fine. In respect of the counterclaim he is deprived of legal aid to defend himself. That, I think, was an oversight in the earlier Regulations. This is clearly something which should be put right.
I understand, that as the Solicitor-General said, the Law Society of Scotland entirely agrees with these proposals, and I generally welcome them. The only other thing that I would say is that, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), I am rather surprised at the estimate of costs involved. I should have thought that as soon as questions of defamation arise, judicial expenses might be quite considerable. That, however, is not a matter for me to concern myself with at the moment.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I should like to know from the Government Front Bench whether the Faculty of Advocates has recommended this alteration as regards Scotland and whether there have been any representations from the judges. Legal aid is becoming ever more expensive. I submit that perhaps it is not wise to have this extension. If the pursuer in Scotland can get legal aid in questions of defamation and the defendant cannot, might it not be better to put them both in the same category so that the pursuer does not get it to start with?
8.54 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I rise basically to acknowledge the welcome which has been given to the Regulations from

349
almost every source. In a curious sense, this is the second speech which I have made on this subject this evening.
In reply to the particular question which has been raised, the main subject of discussion on this matter was with the Law Society, which has welcomed this proposal. I understand that the Faculty of Advocates has not expressed an opinion, nor have the judges.
I do not think that the extension of legal aid will necessarily be seen quite so widely as has been suggested. The purpose of the Regulations is to close this loophole. In Scotland the verbal injury difference is a rather interesting one. One of the points on which it might arise is when a building is built on insecure foundations. That may interest the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie).
With those brief comments, I again welcome the support which has been generally given to the Regulations.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. James Dempsey: I wish to raise two points in connection with the statement by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I got the impression that my hon. and learned Friend said that, for the first time, legal aid might be available to persons who were contesting issues with the Ministry of Social Security concerning supplementary payments.
If that is so, I am anxious to be clear about the following. Does it mean that in a case where the Department of Health and Social Security legitimately seeks to recover certain moneys which have been overdrawn legal aid will be available for the person who is alleged to have overdrawn such moneys? This kind of thing happens week after week, and I am not too clear whether the Solicitor-General's statement means that such an individual will qualify for legal aid. This situation has arisen on a number of occasions, and it appears to me, having knowledge of the individuals involved, that if what the Solicitor-General has said means an extension of legal aid, it will be an abuse of the whole principle of the system.
I should like the Solicitor-General to explain whether the same principle will apply when a local authority attempts to recover money from tenants who have underpaid rents, and so on, or who have
350
overdrawn certain welfare allowances. Not being a legally-minded person, I am not clear on these issues, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will deal with the matters I have raised.
Turning now to the Scottish Regulations may I ask whether the Committee considered the possibility of extending legal aid not only to those who suffer verbal abuse but to those who suffer physical abuse as a result of assaults, which the moment could be dealt with in a magistrates' court where the legal aid scheme does not apply—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot on this Motion consider other extensions which are not included in the Regulations.
Mr. Dempsey: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether the Committee considered extending the legal aid scheme, or whether it restricted it to this narrow sphere? Did the Committee provide any advice, any report or any documentary evidence which will influence the Solicitor-General in considering a more generous extension of the scheme? My hon. and learned Friend has been at great pains to say that this applies to magistrates' courts in England. He has not said whether it will apply to magistrates' courts in Scotland.
That is the aspect in which I am keenly interested, because it is an important problem for Scotland at the moment. I should be grateful if the Solicitor-General would advise me whether he is recommending the advice of the Committee in full, or whether he is recommending only that part of it which is acceptable to his Department.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is finding another ingenious device for doing what I have already ruled out of order.
Mr. Dempsey: I am a modest type of chap. I never thought that I was ingenuous, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that compliment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The compliment paid to the hon. Member was that he was ingenious.
Mr. Dempsey: Many a war has resulted from the definition of a word. We have a saying in Scotland that.

351
"We'll let that flea stick to the wall meantime".
I should like the Solicitor-General to clear up those matters, because they are being raised in other aspects of our Parliamentary activities and it would be extremely helpful if my hon. and learned Friend could advise me on this issue. He may, as a result, save his other colleagues from some additional vociferation on this subject in the near future.
8.59 p.m.
Mr. Buchan: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). Had I realised that he wished to speak, I should have waited until he had done so.
The Solicitor-General referred to a change in England and Wales. It does not apply to Scotland, because provision already exists there for anything which comes within the ambit of the sheriff court. There is therefore no change in that respect. If the matter could have been dealt with in this way, it will continue so to be.
My hon. Friend also asked to what extent the Solicitor-General took and considered advice on this matter. As this affects England and Wales, I advise my hon. Friend to look at the Seventeenth Report of the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee. In that report, the committee examines different points to see in which it should recommend an extension of legal aid. The Government have not accepted all its recommendations, one reason being the financial one. Finally, my hon. Friend mentioned an extension to the borough and J.P. courts. This was covered by the 1967 Act, but we have not yet implemented it by Order.
Mr. Dempsey: Would the Solicitor-General—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time.
Mr. Dempsey: Am I allowed to ask the Solicitor-General whether he will—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time.
Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked the Solicitor-General some questions about supplementary payments and have had no
352
reply. May I ask him to give me a reply?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
9.3 p.m.
Sir Eric Errington: I did not have the pleasure of hearing the whole of the Solicitor-General's speech, but I wonder whether he gave any reason for this Statutory Instrument being, first, in the form of Regulations, and, second, followed by a schedule. My objection is that this is one of a series. Legal aid, particularly in criminal cases, is very complicated, and it is difficult for anyone to be certain that he has found all the Regulations which cover a particular point.
Although I do not object to this Measure as such, I should like these various Regulations, of which there are nearly a dozen, collated and fitted in with the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. Otherwise, there is a grave risk, as I know from experience, of some Regulation being missed. The system by which these matters must be brought before magistrates, who are not experienced legal people, requires much more attention. I hope that an effort will be made to ensure that these Regulations are simpler and fewer, so that those who run may read.
9.5 p.m.
The Solicitor-General: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I agree with the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). It is important that, so far as is practicable, these complex rules affecting legal aid should be available in a form which can be conveniently and compendiously consulted. This is precisely the objective with which this Measure deals in the first paragraph of the schedule.
As I explained, that paragraph does not deal with any new extension of legal aid created by this Instrument, but is set out for the purposes which the hon. Gentleman has in mind; that there is an advantage in collecting in one Instrument all the existing extensions made to legal aid since the 1949 Act. Thus, the answer to the hon. Member for Aldershot is that not only do we bear this sort of representation in mind, but we are implementing it in the Regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) asked

353
about supplementary benefits. The position in Scotland, as affecting legal aid under this head, is not affected by this Instrument, which seeks for England the position that proceedings under Section 23 of the Ministry of Social Security Act against persons who are alleged to have failed to maintain their dependants, where the dependants have claimed or have been paid benefit by the Commission, shall be eligible for aid. That is the objective which this Instrument has and which, by its language, it achieves.
Queston put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) (Scotland) Regulations 1969 [copy laid before the House 16th June], approved.—[Mr. Buchan.]

SCOTLAND (GRANT-AIDED SECONDARY SCHOOLS)
9.7 p.m.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: I beg to move,
That the Grant-Aided Secondary Schools (Scotland) Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1969 (S.I. 1969, No. 506), dated 26th March, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th April, be withdrawn.
These Regulations reduce by £94,000 the amount of Exchequer assistance provided for grant-aided schools in Scotland. There are 29 of these schools in Scotland, with about 20,000 pupils. In 1967–68 they received 52·5 per cent. of their income from the Exchequer grant, 41·6 per cent. from fees paid by parents, 3·4 per cent. from a number of local authorities which take up places in these schools, and the balance of 2·5 per cent. was provided by endowments and the like.
These schools provide the middle sector of education in Scotland, standing midway between local authority and wholly independent schools. One effect of the Instrument will be to reduce the proportion of income provided by the Exchequer, to increase the proportion paid by parents, and so to remove from some parents the possibility of sending their children to these schools.
354
This is the second of two Instruments introduced by the Government in the last 18 months, and I remind the House that paragraph 1 of this Instrument proposes that the Regulations should be taken as one with the previous Instrument of last year. If the two are taken together in this way they represent a cut of £130,000 a year in the amount of Exchequer assistance to Scottish grant-aided schools. This represents a cut of about 8 per cent.
The first Instrument introduced a cut of £36,000. This second, the target of our Motion, introduced the larger second cut of £94,000. This large cut is to come into force during the current year, 1969–70. Its full weight, therefore, has not yet fallen on these schools, but it will do so very soon. It will be a continuing burden because this is not a cut for a single year; it imposes a new and lower fixed level of Exchequer assistance which will continue year after year. The grants which aid the grant-aided schools are being cut and then frozen. The electorate is becoming conditioned to squeeze and freeze. These are the chilly realities of Socialism. To impose squeeze and freeze simultaneously and to impose them on schools redoubles one's faith in the quality of Socialist mismanagement.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I feel a little confused. I cannot understand the position. I understood that on the question of abolishing fees in local authority schools the Opposition protested that parents were not allowed to pay. Now the hon. Member seems to be protesting that parents will be allowed to pay.
Mr. MacArthur: I will gladly debate the Education (Scotland) Bill with the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes. I hope what I say will help him greatly. He is misunderstanding what I am declaring now, just as he misunderstood what we declared on that Bill.
This Instrument has a shabby history which dates from December 1967. Earlier in 1967 the Secretary of State decided to refer consideration of the rôle of the grant-aided schools to the Public Schools Commission. That consideration has been proceeding, and I hope that it may be in order for the Under-Secretary to make some passing reference in his reply to let us know when the Commission's report on those schools can be expected. In

355
view of this decision, surely the proper and logical course for the Secretary of State to follow, if he were genuinely open-minded about the rôle and financing of these schools, would be to await the findings of the Commission and to hold his mind open and impartial in the meantime, but impartiality in education is not the Secretary of State's strongest point. He has referred the grant-aided schools to the Public Schools Commission and asked for its judgment, but before it could begin considering the evidence he pronounced the sentence.
On 5th December, 1967, the Secretary of State announced in a Written Answer that as a result of the consideration by the Commission, a ceiling should be imposed on the amount of grant available. The ceiling, he said, would be at the 1967 level. That back-to-front justice was bad enough, but worse was to follow. Within six weeks of this assurance being given it was broken. On 19th January, 1968, the Secretary of State told the House that after all the 1967–68 ceiling was not to apply. The Chancellor had told him what to do. The economy cuts of that month would force the level down by £36,000 in 1968–69 and by a further £94,000 in 1969–70. The second of these cuts is provided for in the Measure now before us.
I expect that the Under-Secretary will ask why if we wished to defend the grant-aided schools—as indeed we anxiously wish to do—we did not pray against the first Order which introduced the lower first instalment of the two cuts, but are opposing this second Measure. There are three reasons. First, the original announcement was part of a range of cut backs and adjustments within the total educational programme. They were part of the price which the country had to pay for the Government's bungling mismanagement of the economy, a price which has to be paid by all sections of the community. Second, the Government, with a nice sense of timing, laid the Statutory Instrument during the Recess when Members of Parliament were all away. I make that comment almost in passing, and it is more of a rebuke than a reason.
The third point is by far the most important; and it provides the reason for our Prayer against these Regulations. It
356
is that the first Statutory Instrument was laid against a background of economic mismanagement. Since then a threatening political motivation has come to light and we fear that it is this political objective rather than the economic objective which shapes the Government's intentions in the Statutory Instrument.
We see this second Statutory Instrument more as a political than an economic threat to grant-aided schools. We are, therefore, praying against it so that we can discover the real nature of the Government's intentions and the real reason why these large cuts are to be made. Is this Statutory Instrument purely an economic measure, or does it represent the beginning of a deliberate and planned attack on grant-aided schools?
The Government's hostility towards grant-aided schools which we believe exists in this Statutory Instrument first became apparent when the Secretary of State, having referred the question of grant-aided schools to the Public Schools Commission, decided to freeze the level of grant. Then came the cuts, of which this Statutory Instrument imposes the larger. These were seen at first in economic terms—the imprint of the Chancellor's clumsy hand. Now we suspect they were the second stage of a long-term plan for the erosion and suppression of these schools.
Without the grant-aided schools and the local authority fee-paying schools choice in education in Scotland would be effectively restricted to the very few parents who can afford to send their child to a totally independent school. The belief that the Statutory Instrument is politically motivated was strenghened by the terms of the Education (Scotland) Bill and the tone of the debates on that Bill. That Bill was an open attack on the local authority fee-paying schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh. It was a contemptible attempt to abolish not only the fees, but the structure and nature of these schools, despite the courageous opposition of the local authorities, which refused to bend easily to the Government's will.
During the debates on the Education (Scotland) Bill we referred to this very Statutory Instrument. The debates showed the Government's narrow-sighted conviction that variety in the structure

357
of education should be removed, freedom of choice suppressed, and local opinion crushed. Over and over again we saw the Labour Party's hatred of independence in education and its blind insistence that selectivity is a sin.
This Statutory Instrument seems to us to be part of the whole process of Government circulars, speeches and actions which show their determination to impose on our country a single comprehensive system. This is why the local authority fee-paying schools are to be abolished. That, we suspect, is why this Statutory Instrument has been laid—to squeeze out the grant-aided schools. In time, the wholly independent schools, too, will come under renewed attack.
This is the charge which the Minister must answer frankly tonight, because only then will we be able to judge the real intent of this Statutory Instrument.
There is excellence in every form of education. The comprehensive schools, which are so much a part of the Scottish education tradition, will have an increasing rôle to play, and they will make a growing contribution to the outstanding quality of education in Scotland. But there is room and need for other systems also. The variety in our schools system produces the excellence which we should cherish. It also provides the choice which a free society demands. Surely variety, excellence and choice in education are virtues which wise government should protect.
If the Statutory Instrument is viewed in isolation, it might be seen in purely economic terms as the imposition of an additional cost on grant-aided schools and thus an unwelcome extra burden on them and on parents. Recent developments in the Government's education policy, however, have given it an uglier complexion. We cannot agree to the Regulations unless the Minister can assure us that they are no more than one of the marks of the Government's economic incompetence. We cannot agree to them unless he can assure us simply and frankly that the Government support the grant-aided schools, recognise and applaud their rôle in the education structure, and will allow them to continue unimpeded by further Regulations of this sort.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. Hector Monro: I warmly support the criticism by my hon.
358
Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) of the Government for reducing the financial assistance to grant-aided schools in the current and subsequent years. I want to look briefly at the situation in general, and then to look at it in a little more detail as it affects two schools mentioned in the Statutory Instrument that are in my constituency: St. Joseph's College and the Benedictine Convent School.
Support has been whittled down in the past two years. The logic of the Secretary of State's attitude seems strange, in view of the Report "Education in Scotland in 1968", Cmnd. 3949, published a few days ago. The Secretary of State says in the paragraph on grant-aided schools on page 22 that he is delaying any increase in grant because the Newsom Report on the public schools, extended to cover grant-aided schools, has not yet been published. The report says some complimentary things about grant-aided schools, but also indicates that the matter has been referred to the Newsom Commission in more detail. I understand that the second volume will not come out until later this year. It is wrong that the Secretary of State should have made these cuts before receiving the Newsom Commission's advice, because the Commission was set up specifically to inquire into the working of the grant-aided schools, and the Secretary of State is pre-judging the matter to the serious disadvantage of these schools.
The grant was cut by £36,000 in 1968–69 and by a further £94,000 this year, or £130,000 in the two years. My hon. Friend is very right to say that the full weight of the cut will be apparent to the schools' treasurers only in the coming months. While grants have been falling in the past two years, and the Government have been failing to support the schools to the extent that they should, the local authorities have been doing so. They have fulfilled their part of the bargain. According to the latest figures I have for Dumfries County Council, it was giving substantial grants to the two schools mentioned. The Convent School, an important Roman Catholic school in South-West Scotland which is widely respected and rightly held in the highest regard in Dumfriesshire

359
and Galloway, is suffering serious financial repercussions from the Minister's action. The mother superior has told me that it finds it very difficult to continue the battle against the rising costs of staff salaries and scientific and other equipment. I have been to the school several times. No school makes more effort to help itself in the raising of funds locally, and this should be put on record. Its scholastic record is excellent. The Government should be helping this school in every way, not defeating the objectives by cutting the grant.
Every pound counts. The Minister may say at the end that the total grant which has been cut from the Convent School is not significantly high, but, in relation to its budget, I think that it is a very serious cut.
I now turn to St. Joseph's College in Dumfries, which has a fine tradition known throughout the United Kingdom. It is the senior Roman Catholic secondary school for South-West Scotland. I hope that the Minister realises this, because it is of extreme importance. It receives boys from seven primary schools throughout the area and, indeed, many boys from outwith South-West Scotland. This is all to the good. Indeed, it provides important boarding facilities in this part of Scotland both for boys whose parents are too remote from the school and for boys whose parents are abroad.
It is also important that the Minister should realise that the continued existence of secondary education for Roman Catholic children in South-West Scotland depends at the moment on St. Joseph's College. The local education authority has agreed that it fits into the pattern of education in South-West Scotland.
I hope that the Minister realises that this fine school, doing such magnificent work, does not receive grants for capital expenditure. The local authority agrees that it has provided services of the highest value. When we realise that the capital cost of this school is probably of the order of £180,000, just think what a saving it has been to the local authority in the first place. It is important that the Minister should try to evaluate the worth of such a school both in financial terms, which seems to be his only approach at the moment, and in terms of pure education.
360
St. Joseph's College, like the Convent School, is fighting rising costs. Indeed, the brothers who teach there often return part of their salaries to help. But no boy is ever turned away because his parents cannot afford the fees. It is not on record that anyone has ever been turned away on financial grounds. But St. Joseph's College, like the Convent School, makes a massive effort to raise funds. Former pupils and friends helped to finance the new buildings. The Minister may say that last year there was a slight underspending; but this was on account of teacher shortage and for no other reason. The school is having to skimp on library and technical equipment and sports facilities.
I will not go into the more general points on which my hon. Friend touched, but the backgrounds of the parents of the boys who go to St. Joseph's are extremely varied. I expect that the Minister has seen the report that went to the Public Schools Commission showing that the boys come from every walk of life.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing whether the schools should be grant-aided. This Regulation merely reduces the grants that are made. The hon. Gentleman must talk about the reductions.
Mr. Monro: It is important to point out that if the grants are reduced the schools will not be able to continue to provide the facilities that are now available.
I should make it clear that the grant affects only Scottish boys whose parents are resident in Scotland. The boys who come from outwith the area pay the full fees, so it does not apply to them.
In view of what I have said about the great importance of these two grant-aided schools, the Minister should think again because of the financial hardships that both schools will have to overcome if the Regulation goes through. The cut is very severe in terms of the budgets of both schools. There may have to be a reduction in the services and facilities that they provide if the Minister takes this very hard attitude to cuts in educational expenditure.
I warmly support my hon. Friend in what he has said, and I hope that the House will reject the Regulation.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Donald Dewar: These are Regulations to reduce Exchequer support for grant-aided schools. They will be greeted in many quarters with widespread indifference, and in certain others they will be less than popular. That is understandable and inevitable. My own view is clear. The Regulations are fair. I do not understand and Jo not see why, at a time when we are constantly invited to contemplate fresh attacks on public spending in almost every quarter, this collection of schools should in some way be exempt from the overall atmosphere of stringency.
I could not accept the half-explanation offered by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). Hon. Members opposite are constantly baying for new sacrifices in public expenditure. To call for the exemption from those sacrifices of schools in this narrow sector is hardly equitable. I suppose that it is unreasonable of us to expect the Opposition to think through the consequences of their own slogans which are so freely bandied about, but at least, if we do demand widespread cuts in public expenditure, surely we must accept that, on occasion, interests which may be close to ourselves are going to be hit, and we should grin and bear it.
Mr. John Brewis: But the Government are always saying that cuts are not being made but programmes are only being slowed down or rephased. Here is not only a cut but inflation at the same time which is reducing the money of these schools still more.
Mr. Dewar: I do not know what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say but I accept that there has, first, been a level placed on the expenditure and, second, a reduction. That is undeniable. But what we are arguing about is whether this reduction is justifiable and whether it will affect the fabric of education in Scotland as we know it, and, if it does affect it, whether it will do so adversely.
The argument for this reduction could well appeal to the Opposition because it represents a transfer of expenditure from the public to the private sector and could be determined in terms of the doctrine, enunciated in Scotland recently in the context of another sector, of the dangers
362
of using public expenditure to subsidise private expenditure to provide services bought by the public.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the principle of whether there should be what the hon. Gentleman calls "public expenditure subsidising private expenditure". There are certain grants to grant-aided schools and the Regulations propose to reduce them to a certain extent and give the Minister discretionary power to vary the reduction. The hon. Gentleman must discuss that.
Mr. Dewar: I am sorry if I was infringing on your tolerance, Mr. Speaker. I was suggesting that the cutting of such subsidisation might have been regarded as an acceptable development in terms of the political philosophy we hear from the Opposition. I am disappointed that the squeal is so loud from hon. Members opposite when the shoe pinches.
There is one argument worth hearing on this, however. It is based on the difference in the systems north and south of the Border. We have 29 grant-aided schools in Scotland, and there are 179 direct-grant schools in England. It has been said on occasion, referring specifically to England, that this is not a dangerous or damaging cut because it will be merely the transfer of expenditure from the Treasury to the local authority and will not victimise parents in any way who have a child in such a school.
This point was made recently in an article in The Times Educational Supplement of 11th June, 1969, by John Marshall, headmaster of Robert Gordon's, when he pointed out that this is not true in Scotland. In England it is perfectly clear that on the latest figures 11 per cent. of all children have fees partly or wholly remitted—in other words, met out of public funds—and something like 64 per cent. of all pupils in direct grant schools have their fees paid entirely by the local authorities—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is straying from the Regulations.
Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to point out that there is an important distinction between England and Scotland in this way and that it is fair to say that while in England, because of the kind of system whereby compulsory places must be made available to

363
local authorities—25 per cent., with an optional 25 per cent. over and above—there is an argument for saying that individual parents will not be victimised. The kind of main argument used by the Opposition, that the person whose finances only marginally allow a child to go to a school would be affected, is not valid, because he will not be hindered in any way.
It is true that in Scotland the cut will fall upon the schools and presumably will be passed on to the parents. There is a fair argument against a cut in Scotland as against the cut that might have been inflicted in England. If we look at the kind of support that grant-aided schools get in Scotland and compare it with the direct grant schools in England it will be seen that granted-aided schools in Scotland are extremely generously treated and that the kind of cut now being inflicted on these institutions in Scotland is very small, in proportional terms, never mind global terms, as against the £1·8 million cut that has been imposed on their counterparts south of the Border.
We also have to remember that these schools get exemption from S.E.T. and there are the mandatory de-rating provisions under the 1962 Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act in Section 4(1). It is not possible to say that this is the ungenerous treatment of a hostile Government, at least in a prima facie sense. This very argument, that the burden will fall not on the realignment of public funds but upon parents, in a sense underlines the enormous weakness of the position of direct grant schools in Scotland because they do not, at the moment, provide the kind of service provided in England.
They do not produce that great range, with one or two honourable exceptions, and it may be that one of them is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), or the substantial block of places available to local authorities. For that reason alone they are in an exposed position. If I was a protagonist of grant-aided schools in Scotland I would be anxious to try to come to an agreement, to make a rapprochement, with the public authorities, to build myself into the State system so that I could say that I provided
364
that kind of service, that I had a real element of meritocracy.
By and large this is not the situation in Scotland, and it is fair that some measures should be taken, that there should be some further trimming of the financial support available, when we consider how very generous it is compared with that offereed in other parts of the United Kingdom.
There has been much talk about the long and honourable records of individual schools, and I do not want to deprecate that record. I feel that this is a privileged sector of education; it is an élitist sector which inevitably and by definition, however much it may be altered, will always depend upon the principle of selection. Therefore, it is not compatible, and cannot be compatible, with the development of comprehensive education.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing what I asked him not to do. We are not debating grant-aided schools. We are debating the reduction of a grant to grant-aided schools.
Mr. Dewar: I accept that. It seems to me that the Opposition's case is that this will be the last straw that breaks the camel's back, that it may put individual institutions into bankruptcy or into some genteel state of voluntary liquidation. If it is the case of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire that the whole thing is a monstrous political conspiracy to assasinate those schools, then to some extent we have to deal with the merits, not in depth but in passing, as well as merely the arguments as to how big a slice should be taken off the grant. I will not pursue that matter. My view about it is on record, and we have rehearsed these arguments before. We cannot have a very large selective sector creaming off from the State system. It destroys the possibility of a real intellectual and social cross-section in the State education system. We cannot allow it to continue for ever. At some point these schools, which are in limbo between the State system and the independent system, will have to rationalise their position and make their choice.
I found very strange the argument at which the hon. Member for Dumfries hinted in passing, that parents who send

365
their children to these kinds of schools are saving public money because they are paying through taxes for a place which their children do not take up. This is a most remarkable argument which is often advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it does not apply only to direct grant schools. It is a very dangerous argument that, wherever private services duplicate those offered from the proceeds of taxation in the public sector, someone who opts out of the public sector should have part of his expenses in the private sector met by the State. It would mean that the man who paid taxes for the Health Service but went to a private consultant could expect the State to pay part of the consultant's fees. This is a most peculiar and dangerous argument which cannot be taken in isolation, however charmingly it is put by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brewis: Would the hon. Gentleman, therefore, accept that the independent public schools are perfectly all right under the Socialist principle?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether they are all right or not, they come into this discussion only as far as the grant which is being paid to them is reduced by this Statutory Instrument.
Mr. Dewar: I realise that I must not be tempted to go too far, Mr. Speaker. Obviously different factors enter into the argument, I shall be delighted to argue the point with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.
It has been said by the hon. Members for Perth and East Perthshire and Dumfries that it is wrong for the Government to go too hard on this problem, that we are waiting for Newsom and that no action should be taken until the Newsom Commission has reported and its report has been digested and, presumably, reconciled with the developments in the State education system and in independent schools. All that I can say is that the Newsom report may well be a bit of a weary anti-climax. I hope that I am wrong.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I see nothing about the Newsom report in these Regulations.
Mr. Dewar: A major plank of the Opposition's case has been that no action should be taken until the Newsom Report
366
has been received. However, I will not persist with the point. I believe that the Newsom Commission will almost certainly recommend that the Scottish direct grant schools should be brought into line with the English direct grant schools as a minimum, because the English direct grant system is what it has proposed in essence for the independent section.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If they are to be brought into line, it will be done by another Statutory Instrument.
Mr. Dewar: If these Regulations equalise the State support given on either side of the Border, it seems to me that they are preparing for the Newsom report.
I welcome the Regulations on two main grounds. First, it is right and equitable in the present financial climate that the cuts should be shared and that some of the burden should fall on these schools. Second, I welcome them in the very long term. I suppose that I am confirming, as a back bench Member, the worst fears of the Opposition Front Bench. I see the Regulations as a start in the process of forcing these schools to make the inevitable choice between whether they should integrate with the State system or opt for full independence and all the financial responsibilities of the status which they affect and which many people imagine they enjoy. Many people have said that the private sector cannot be squeezed—that if we carry out this cheeseparing operation all that we shall do is annoy and aggravate in order to save a few halfpennies of the totality of public expenditure without affecting the future pattern of education.
There are some interesting figures in the Newsom Report to which I want to draw the attention of the House. They are English figures but they show that the percentage of the total number of children in secondary schools had fallen from 9 per cent. to 5·5 per cent. in 1967. That is not surprising, because there has been an enormous increase in the number of children staying on in State schools. Taking 14-year-olds, we find that there has been a similar phenomenon, and that the figure has fallen from 8 per cent. or 47,000—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The reduction in respect of the grant-aided schools specified in the Schedule will not affect the

367
figures that the hon. Member is talking about for England.
Mr. Dewar: That is possibly so, Mr. Speaker. My contention is that the squeezing which is clearly the result of a general recognition of the increasingly high standard in the State section will be given an added shot by these Regulations, by the kind of reduction that the House is debating, from 47,000 or 8 per cent. down to 37,000 or 5·8 per cent. for the 14-year-olds in 1967. That is a good trend and a socially justified trend. Regulations on those two major grounds are helpful ones, which will be widely welcomed by the House.
9.47 p.m.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: My speech will be very short. In my view the Regulations and their reductions have been introduced simply because the Government do not like this sort of school. I should like to know how these figures were arrived at, and who thought them up. Was there any consultation with the schools themselves? Secondly, I should like to know how many of these schools will be put out of business as a result of these reductions, in the Government's estimation. Thirdly, I see that the Secretary of State may have power to come to the rescue of a school which gets into difficulties. What schools do the Government have in mind?
9.48 p.m.
Mr. Esmond Wright: I am sure that I should incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, if I sought to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). I preface my remarks by congratulating you upon reducing the hon. Member, if only for a moment, to speechlessness.
I think I shall be in order if I say at the outset that I speak with a certain vested interest, since I am a governor of one of the schools mentioned in the Regulations and have another in my constituency. I trust that the three schools that head the list mentioned will take note of the early remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, because those remarks are very pertinent to the situation in which those schools find themselves.
I shall not follow the hon. Member into the broader aspects to which he referred. Further, I shall not raise the point
368
—because it was admirably stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)—that the Regulations narrow the freedom of choice of parents. I shall not develop the point that it threatens the academic integrity of some old and important schools.
I want to make five points to show why Regulations represent a thoroughly discreditable piece of educational propaganda—to use the words of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) speaking in a seated position about half an hour ago. I believe that these are bad Regulations. [Interruption.] I suggest that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire should take note all the time.
These are bad regulations, first, because the consequence will be a sharp and permanent increase in fees in the 29 schools mentioned in the Schedule. One must remember that this has happened twice, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire mentioned, £36,000 a year ago and £94,000 this year. It happens to schools which it is perhaps slightly inaccurate for my hon. Friend to say have endowments of 2½ per cent. The figures show that the 2½ per cent. endowment is based heavily on the older schools on the list, such as Hutcheson's Schools in Glasgow and the Merchant Company Schools in Edinburgh. Some schools have no endowments whatever, and the burden resulting from the cut will be shifted on to the fees paid by parents, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who has wisely left the Chamber, pointed out. That is my central point.
Secondly, I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said, that many of these schools have no capital or maintenance funds. Three of them, Craigholme, Laurel Bank and Westbourne in Glasgow, splendid schools as they are, each having approximately 600 pupils, are converted houses. Some are schools which are 50 or 60 years old, so that capital and maintenance funds have to be provided by parental contribution. It is therefore important to remember, when one hears about the lavish way in which educational expenditure is disbursed in these days, that no such resources are available to these schools.

369
I would, for instance, were I not likely to be curbed by you, Mr. Speaker, ask how much money has gone into Glasgow schools' television in the last two years. I guess that it is well over—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister answered, he too would be out of order.
Mr. Wright: I realise that I would be out of order were I to put it in that form. I am simply demonstrating the point that no such resources, local or parental, are available to these schools.
May I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South? He drew the customary comparison between the 179 direct grant schools in England and Wales and the 29 mentioned in the Schedule. No such comparison can be sustained. As he revealed, 75 per cent. of the fees paid in those 179 English schools come directly or indirectly from non-parental sources. They come overwhelmingly from local authority funds.
For sound historical reasons—and he is a student of history—the 29 direct grant schools in 1944 were not put on the same basis as the 179 in England. When Tom Johnston faced this possibility he saw that it was impossible to find schools in Scotland that could be made into twins of the 179—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has allowed the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) to tempt him a long way out of order.
Mr. Wright: I am merely making the point that no such comparison can be sustained for a reason which should be prominently in the mind of any good student of history educated in Glasgow University, even though he sits for Aberdeen.
One point which will be of interest to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), is that Troon College in Ayr has a major contribution of about £43,000 a year in addition to the £76,000 paid to them this year as a direct grant—I am subject to correction on this. The consequence of these cuts will be that the good people of Ayr will have to pay more rates, and it might be said that that is one reason why it is a good thing that there is not an exact parallel between direct grant and grant-aided schools.
370
The fourth point I wish to bring to the attention of the House is that there have been teachers' salary increases of about 6 to 6½ per cent. per year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire could have demonstrated that the first warning was that the ceiling imposed by the Government in September 1967 was based on the first term's expenditure by the schools. These were not the final figures on which the cut was imposed. They left out the teachers' salary increase. Therefore, as the years pass more and more money will have to be found to pay the teachers' salaries, and with obvious justice.
I come to my final point, which is central to the argument. It relates to teaching costs and is a fundamental point. Two years ago I made a somewhat superficial investigation into this matter, so perhaps my figures are 18 months out of date. Taking only Glasgow, I worked out that the cost of educating a child in the city schools in Glasgow was £130 a year and that the cost of educating a child at grant-aided schools in Glasgow was £129 a year.
Parents are prepared in the schools which are listed in the Regulations to make contributions varying between £70, £80 and £90 towards the £129. They are helping the taxpayer. It is a matter of freedom of choice. Of course, they want their children to go to these schools for all sorts of reasons, and I would not defend all the reasons that could be adduced. But if there is a reason for the cuts, if the argument is one of financial stringency, why not leave the system as it is and allow parents to make this contribution?
I warn the Minister—and there was a sounding of this in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—that if there is a long-term threat to schools of this type—and there is a long waiting list for all these schools—they could well move becoming totally independent of the State system. This would be the curious non-Socialist consequence of these thoroughly bad Regulations. These are cogent reasons for asking the House to oppose them.
9.57 p.m.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In his opening remarks the

371
hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) admitted that there might be some injustice in these Regulations. After that statement one would have thought he might have abandoned his doctrinaire and absurd vendetta against private education. But as he developed his argument it became crystal-clear that he fully supported the Regulations, which he regards as a means by which slowly and surely schools of this kind can be abolished.
I object to the Regulations because their precise effect is quite clear. The money involved is a substantial sum to the schools concerned, it will certainly be substantial to those who have to bear it, but it is a tiny sum in relation to the amount which the Government spend on education and in relation to all the other responsibilities of the Government. The Regulations, taken together, amount to about £130,000. Although it may not be a large sum in relation to total Government spending, it will have a marked effect on the fees charged in these schools.
If there were any dissatisfaction about the schools as they are at present organised, it might be some justification for wishing to bring about a change by cutting grants. But I do not believe the Minister would suggest that these schools are in any way deficient or that they fail to perform an educational purpose. Far from the Regulations representing just a cut of around £100,000, when one considers the rising costs of providing education in these schools and the increase in teachers' salaries, then in relation to the total share of cost the Regulations will put a disproportionate burden on the parents.
Let us consider precisely what will happen as a result of the Regulations. There will be two obvious effects. One is that serious hardship will fall upon the parents of children who are already at these schools—parents who put their children into these schools on the assumption that there would be a certain level of expenditure for them, with perhaps a rise of a small order. In the Glasgow schools covered by the Regulations there has been a substantial rise indeed over the last four years. The parents have been warned that because of these Regulations and the previous provisions there will be a further substantial rise.
372
I ask the Minister, if he insists on going ahead with the Regulations, whether there is a way in which—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Education (Scotland) and the Architects Registration (Amendment) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Concannon.]

SCOTLAND (GRANT-AIDED SECONDARY SCHOOLS)
Question again proposed.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If the Minister insists on going ahead with the Regulations, has he had regard to the problems and the hardship of parents who are faced with the choice of making a big sacrifice or taking their children away from the schools?
Whenever anything like these Regulations has been brought forward by the Government, they usually back it up by saying that they have made an assessment, inquiry or survey to ascertain the effect. I wonder whether the Government have made any inquiries about the effect which the Regulations will have on the children who are at the schools, who may have enrolled at the age of 8. 9, 10 or 11 some years ago and whose parents now find a substantial increase in the costs. Can the Minister give examples of how fees have risen in the last four years and what effect this will have on fees in future?
It is not, however, for that reason that I must oppose the Regulations. It is because of the effect which they will have on the intake of the schools over the next few years. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South seemed to look on the Regulations with joy because he thought that in some way they might result in finishing or abolishing the schools.
Those of us in the big cities knows that the Regulations will not have that effect. Schools like Hutcheson's, Park and St. Aloysius will always be full, even if they put up the fees to £100 or £200. On the other hand, they will cease to

373
become academically-selective schools and will simply become class-selective schools. They will be schools at which only weathly parents can afford to enrol their children. This will destroy the whole character of the schools and the purpose for which they were set up.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is again allowing the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) to tempt him out of order into widening the debate. In the Regulations we are discussing certain reductions.
Mr. Taylor: It is a fair point, Mr. Speaker, that that reduction will increase fees. Every increase in fees under the Regulations and the previous Regulations, and which will take place as a result of consistent Government policy, will gradually—admittedly, the Regulations will do it only gradually—reduce the social content of the schools.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is only the present Regulations which we are discussing. I have allowed the hon. Member to refer to the previous Regulations. He cannot speak about anything ahead.
Mr. Taylor: The Minister will, I think, accept that, in however marginal a way, the Regulations will reduce the number of parents who can consider sending their children to schools of this sort. He must be aware that by not increasing the grants that effect will come. Certainly, reducing them will have that effect. Is that really what the Minister is trying to do?
Bearing in mind the arguments which the Minister and some of his colleagues recently put forward on the Education (Scotland) Bill, when he said that fees were wrong because they prevented some parents sending their children to these schools, what is the point of bringing forward Regulations which in another group of schools, in largely the same areas, will have exactly the opposite effect and reduce the social mix in these schools?
The Regulations are part of a move by the Government which is entirely wrong, because they will play their part in making schools which have been built up on a reputation and character of social mix become essentially schools limited to only a number of parents who can afford to send their children to them. The Regulations are entirely wrong for that reason.
374
There is no point in the Minister trying to hide the precise purpose of the Regulations. They are spiteful little Regulations to have another crack at the selective schools. The Minister is undermining the character and basis of these schools and the character of the children who attend them. He is undermining the system on which these schools have been based and organised. This is a silly, unnecessarily spiteful move, and I hope that the Minister will withdraw these Regulations. I hope that he will give these schools the opportunity of carrying on as they have done in the past, on the basis of a broad social mix, and will not try to bring about not their extinction by death by a thousand cuts—far from it—but a change in the character of these schools. This is what these Regulations will do, and I hope, therefore, that the Minister will withdraw them.
Can the Minister give us some indication of the effect which these Regulations will have on the parents of children who are at these schools now? If the Minister cannot do anything under these Regulations can he do anything to help those children who, as a result of these Regulations, may be faced with having their education broken, and having to change from one school to another at perhaps a very important stage of their education? If the Minister will not do something to help the children who are at these schools now, we can only consider these Regulations as an unnecessarily spiteful crack at these schools and all that they stand for.
10.6 p.m.
Mr. George Younger: These Regulations should be opposed, and opposed most fiercely, because they are not fair. They are grossly unfair in the way they have been drawn. I say that bearing in mind that because of the current economic situation and all the trials and tribulations it is correct that everybody should bear his part of these trials and tribulations which have been brought on by the Government.
Not by any stretch of the imagination can this calculation of the reductions being made be described as fair. The first reason for my saying that is that these cuts are to take place against a background of steadily rising costs throughout the whole of education, and not least in the costs of running these schools. Costs of everything are rising all the time.

375
Therefore, even if the Minister did not make any cuts, but kept the grant at the level it had been, the effect would still be to put a heavier burden on these schools.
The Minister is proposing substantially to reduce the amount of grant given to these schools. If he tries to make out that what he is doing is on a par with what is being done with the rest of the educational system, let him say which part of the education system is facing a net reduction in the face value of money spent on it this year or next. Let the Minister tell us which secondary school, or primary school, or education authority, is suffering a net reduction in the face value of money spent on education in the years to come.
Mr. William Hannan: It is not we on this side of the House but hon. Gentlemen opposite who are saying that cuts have been made in education expenditure and in the public service. The hon. Gentleman is now asking my hon. Friend to justify statements which hon. Gentlemen opposite are making.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is not his usual perspicacious self, because, I am sure inadvertently, he has not understood my point. I was saying that these Regulations will reduce the amount of grant. If that is supposed to be fair to the grant-aided schools compared with schools generally, let the hon. Gentleman tell me which other schools are facing a cut in the money they receive.
Mr. Hannan: None.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman says "None". In doing so he proves that these Regulations are unfair. The hon. Gentleman's comment proves that the Minister is taking a harsher line with grant-aided schools than with other schools generally. By proving my point the hon. Gentleman has saved a lot of time, because I shall not now need to develop that further. The Minister can perhaps save a lot of time by telling us whether he agrees with what his hon. Friend has said, and whether he accepts that what his hon. Friend has said shows that these schools are being harder hit than other schools.
Then there is the argument that these cuts are necessary to save money. That
376
is a strange argument from the Government who, just a few weeks ago, were throwing money around, wasting £250,000 on abolishing fee-paying schools. There was no shortage of money then, yet now we are told that it is terribly sad but they have to take £130,000 in grants away from these grant-aided schools. The Minister seems to be a Jekyll and Hyde personality. At one time he has all the money in the world for undesirable changes which no one wants, and then we have this Order, which is desperately parsimonious, taking money from these schools, which no one has suggested are anything but first-class.
It is not good enough for the Minister to sit in St. Andrew's House and do his sums on a piece of paper, unfair though they may be. This kind of decision affects people who must pay the extra fees which will be necessary, and who are already saving the State large sums of money every year by paying a large part of their children's education. If any one of these children was taken away from his school, that would add about £100 to the Minister's budget for education. This is the Minister's problem. He is penalising these people. As these schools provide for a middle section in the educational system, it is these parents, who are getting the education which they happen to want, who will not, in many cases, be able to raise the extra money after these schools are forced by the cuts to become more and more dependent on fees and less on the community. These people will be forced to go into the completely independent sector.
That is why these cuts are unfair. They are unfairly calculated and fall unduly heavily on a section of the population which already suffers great financial burdens in every possible way because of the general economic troubles. That is why the Order should be opposed, because the economic arguments do not begin to hold water. The education argument is very undesirable as well, because it knocks yet another hole in the Scottish education system, which has worked so well for so long and has already been whittled away by the Government, who are now making life more difficult for the grant-aided schools. The Order is economic nonsense and educational eyewash, and that is why it should be opposed.
10.13 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I should start with a little of the background to the Order, because the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) raised one or two matters in that connection. It was announced on 23rd October, 1967, by the Secretary of State for Education and Science that the Government had decided to ask the Public Schools Commission to consider the problems of the direct grant schools in England and the grant-aided schools in Scotland, and its terms of reference were accordingly extended.
At the same time, because the grant-aided schools in Scotland have certain characteristics which they do not share with the direct grant schools in England, it was decided to set up a separate Scottish committee, appointed by the Secretary of State, to frame recommendations on the Scottish grant-aided schools. Two members of that committee are also members of the Public Schools Commission—Dr. Faulkner and Mr. Roger Young, who is the headmaster of one of the grant-aided schools concerned, namely, George Watson's in Edinburgh. There are a number of other members of the committee.
I was asked to state the Government's view on the future of grant-aided schools in Scotland. It would be completely improper for me to make any such pronouncement tonight, simply because we have asked this committee of the Public Schools Commission, and the Commission itself, to look into this matter. We expect that the report of the Commission on grant-aided schools and independent day schools may be completed towards the end of this year. However, that is a matter for the Commission and not one within my control.
When the Commission reports, the Government will take a view on the future of grant-aided schools in Scotland, but I do not think that it would be appropriate for me tonight, in view of the work that the Commission is doing—even if it were in order in this debate—to say anything more about the long-term future of grant-aided schools.
Subsequent to the announcement that the schools were being referred to the Commission, it was announced on 5th December, 1967, that the Government
378
had decided to impose a ceiling on the grant pending the recommendations of the Commission. The ceiling was put at the level of the estimated grant for the schools' financial year 1967–68. On 17th January, 1968, when the Prime Minister announced considerable savings in public expenditure, there were included in those savings reductions in the grant to the direct grant schools in England and the grant-aided schools in Scotland. The reductions amounted in total to £130,000 in respect of Scotland, and they were partly covered by the Regulations of 1968 and partly by the Regulations which we are debating tonight.
It seems proper, when the Government are making substantial cuts in public expenditure, that grant-aided schools should pay an appropriate contribution. It seems to me to go rather further than that, because I do not consider that the grant-aided schools, wherever they may be, are an economically under-privileged sector of Scottish education today. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite ask, "It is right that the grant-aided schools should bear a dispropionate part of the burden?" I am not necessarily accepting that description of what has happened, but I am happy to defend a situation in which the grant-aided schools would be expected to bear a disproportionate part of the burden because that would be a legitimate use of Government priorities in the educational sphere. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) pointed out, hon. Gentlemen opposite should not be ashamed to accept that position, particularly when they are so anxious for us to cut Government expenditure. It is difficult to think of any sphere of Government expenditure that the Opposition are in favour of cutting although they make constant appeals to the Government to cut it, not just by £130,000, the modest sum we are discussing tonight, but by considerable sums indeed. The position which the Government have taken in this matter is clear, and I have no difficulty in defending it.
The original cuts in the 1968–69 grant were made in Regulations put through last year. I found completely unconvincing the defence by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire of the Opposition's neglect to pray against the Order in 1968. The fact is that hon.

379
Members opposite negelected even to see, despite their tremendous preoccupation and passion for the grant-aided schools, that these Statutory Instruments were coming forward. Their ignorance was so profound that when the announcement was made earlier this year of these cuts a number of hon. Members opposite put down a Motion condemning us for introducing this surreptitiously by the backdoor, whereas the notice to the schools concerned had been given in a circular sent out as far back as February, 1968.
A great deal of concern expressed this evening is absolute hypocrisy on the part of hon. Members opposite. Comparisons have been drawn between the Scottish and the English positions. Obviously it would be out of order to deal with this in detail, but perhaps I might make one or two comments in view of the fact that comments have been made by hon. Members opposite on this matter in the debate.
Mr. Speaker: The Under-Secretary will remember that I ruled most of those comments out of order.
Mr. Millan: I shall try to deal with those which were not out of order.
Mr. MacArthur: I am reluctant to interrupt the Under-Secretary because we all very much want to hear what he is to say, but he is making quite incorrect remarks about the circumstances in which the first Regulations were introduced and viewed by us. If he refers to HANSARD and publications outside he will see that a wide range of comments were made by a large number of hon. Members on this side of the House at the time the announcement was made. It is inexcusable for the hon. Gentleman to make hollow and groundless statements of the kind he has just made.
Mr. Millan: The hon. Member has been here long enough to know that the way in which an Opposition criticises Regulations is to pray against them. The Opposition did not pray against the 1968 Regulations.
I was about to deal with the comparison between the Scottish and English systems. The two systems are not directly comparable. First, the English system involves the schools concerned making a certain percentage of places
380
available to the local authorities, whereas the Scottish system imposes no such obligation and most of the schools in Scotland make no places available for local authorities. Second, there is no direct grant paid in England in respect of primary pupils, whereas in Scotland a direct grant is made in respect of primary as well as secondary pupils, and this amounts to a considerable amount of the grant aid given by the Department. The reduction in England in the capitation grant was from £52 to £32 per pupil, which is a substantial reduction. The reduction in Scotland works out over the two years to between £6 and £7 per pupil.
The Scottish schools compared with their English counterparts are being extremely generously treated. The Scottish schools' revenue met by grant aid is very substantially greater than the percentage met by grant aid in England. The situation is not comparable, but so far as one can make comparisons the advantage lies with the Scottish schools. This is a matter which, no doubt, the Commission will draw attention to later in the year.
The original grant ceiling for 1967–68 was £1,681,000. The savings of £130,000 were made on that. The actual expenditure in 1967–68 was a little less than £1,681,000; it was £1,649,000, which means that the cut in 1968–69 was a real cut not of £34,000 but of only £5,000. Over the two years the cut is not in practice £130,000 but only £99,000. So it is not even as great as hon. Gentlemen have alleged.
Further, in view of these tremendous assertions of loyalty to grant-aided schools which we have heard from hon. Members opposite, it is enlightening to consider what happened in the last few years of Conservative government, in terms of the total grant to grant-aided schools. A comparison of the amounts paid by hon. Members opposite with those paid by the Labour Government causes me to be amazed at our generosity.
Between 1961–62 and 1962–63 the Conservative Government reduced the grant to grant-aided schools in Scotland. What is more, they reduced the grant again between 1963–64 and 1964–65. In the three years between 1961–62 and 1964–65, which is perhaps the last year

381
which we can genuinely attribute to hon. Members opposite, the increase in grant for all the school's concerned was only £58,000. The percentage of the schools' revenue represented by grant fell by 5 per cent. over that period.
Even with the reductions made in these Regulations, the grant in 1969–70 will be £1,551,000, which is £251,000 more than hon. Members opposite paid to grant-aided schools in 1964–65.
Mr. MacArthur: Now will the hon. Gentleman—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. MacArthur:—say something about costs?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a placid debate. There is no reason why it should become turbulent.
Mr. Millan: I notice that the injection of a few facts into a debate always causes the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire to become hysterical.
Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman wants to quote the facts completely, will he call attention to the other fact, which is that under the Labour Government costs confronting grant-aided schools rose between 1964 and 1967 by £500,000?
Mr. Millan: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman talks about the costs of these schools having risen under the Labour Government. Of course costs have risen under the Labour Government, but in the three years between 1961–62 and 1964–65 under the Tory Government costs rose by more than £300,000 and grants rose by only £58,000, so there was a considerable percentage reduction in the amount of grant which hon. Members opposite paid to these schools in those years. Apart from all the argument from principle and philosophy to which we have been treated, the record of the last Conservative Government in help to grant-aided schools was a completely miserable one in the last few years of their government.
I was asked about some particular schools. Despite all the fuss and palaver which has been made about these Regulations, only two of the 29 grant-aided schools have made representations to the Government against them. They do not
382
include either of the schools in Dumfriesshire mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). Those schools have made no representations. As far as I know, there are no special financial difficulties in either of those schools. But if there are financial difficulties the schools can bring them to our attention, and Regulation 4(1) provides that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State can pay a higher grant if he feels this is justified. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison).
Mr. Clark Hutchison: It does not answer my point. I understood what the Regulations meant. What I asked was how many schools, or which schools, the Scottish Office thinks will have to make use of this provision.
Mr. Millan: In the first instance it would be for the schools to tell us that they were in financial difficulties. Of the 29, only two schools have made representations. There is one very small school with special problems which I think relate only to that school. If it finds itself in special financial difficulties I shall be willing to look at the position of this school.
I think I have demonstrated a number of things this evening. The first is the justice of the modest reductions we have made in the grants to grant-aided schools. The second is the Opposition's failure even to understand the facts about their record in the matter, much less the facts about the present Government's record. I have also dealt with the longer-term future of the schools in my reference to the Public Schools Commission. The Motion is completely misconceived and misinformed. It does not deal with the realities of the situation.
Mr. James Davidson: I apologise for missing the earlier part of the debate. Can the Minister tell me whether the reductions to the individual schools are balanced to any extent by the proportion of local authority students which the schools admit? In other words, where the schools admit a high proportion, as in the case of Robert Gordon's in Aberdeen, which I believe admits about 50 per cent. local authority students, has the grant been proportionately less reduced?
Mr. Millan: Robert Gordon's does not admit any local authority pupils. It has no arrangements except through a foundation, but it is not part of the local authority system. There are only a few such schools in Scotland that work closely with the local authority system, none of them in Edinburgh or Glasgow. A few schools, like Morrison's Academy in Crieff, and the one my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) mentioned, Marr College. All these matters are taken into account in deciding the grant paid to particular schools.
Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman, who is proving so selective in his facts tonight, should have his attention called to the fact that Robert Gordon's College received £3,250 in fees from the local authority in 1967.
Mr. Millan: Compared with the £95,335 it receives in the terms of the Regulations that is very small beer.
The Opposition's Motion is misconceived and completely uninformed. For the reasons I have given, I ask the House to reject it.
Question put and negatived.

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Arnold Shaw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not propose to keep the House for any length of time. There is little to be added to the arguments I put forward on Second Reading. The Bill simply corrects an anomaly which has arisen from Section 14 of the Architects Registration Act, 1931.
I also remind the House that the Bill substantially widens the scope whereby the funds of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom might De more usefully employed in the advancement of education in architecture. The Bill had a remarkably swift passage in Committee and I hope that the House will accept it on Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY CONSTABULARY (MR. J. S. TAYLOR)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]
10.36 p.m.
Mr. Roy Roebuck: I welcome this opportunity to raise on the Floor of the House the grievance of my constituent, Mr. John S. Taylor, of 45, Bromefield, Stanmore, against the Airports Authority police at Heathrow Airport, London. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, for being present to hear my representations, and I hope that he will be able to bring relief to my constituent and satisfy the House about the manner in which the airport police will carry out their duties in future.
This is a case which not only involves injustice to my constituent, who has been treated disgracefully by the authorities at London Airport, but raises wide issues about the administrative control of the airport police and the protection of the citizen against arrogant abuses of power by airport constables at all Airports Authority airports.
I shall show that Mr. Taylor, a taxi driver, was harassed, abused and assaulted by a constable in plain clothes after asking, quite properly, in entirely understandable circumstances, to see the constable's police identity card. I shall show that those in authority over the constable failed to exercise a proper degree of supervision and failed to investigate Mr. Taylor's subsequent complaint about his treatment in a manner which commands public confidence.
I shall show that Mr. Taylor was denied meaningful assistance by the Metropolitan Police, to whom he turned for help. I shall also show that he was led to believe by the airport police that there would be a hearing into his complaint at which he would be present, that there was no such hearing and that he merely received an ungrammatical letter couched in the language of "double speak".
On the evidence I shall put to the House, it is legitimate to draw the conclusion that the airport authorities have
386
tried to hush up this matter. If that is so, then I hope that this debate will give them a better understanding of the facilities which are open to the citizen to seek to have his grievance against powerful forces ventilated in this House through his Member of Parliament.
The case came to my notice on 28th April last, when Mr. Taylor wrote to me in the following terms:
"As a member of your constituency I would like to bring to your attention an incident which took place at London (Heathrow) Airport on 26th April 1969 at approximately 4.15 p.m. concerning a police constable ' Hurley' of the British Airports Authority Constabulary, who whilst in plain clothes did (1) fail to produce his police identity card when requested, (2) order me to leave Heathrow Airport without giving any reason whatsoever, and (3) did physically assault me whilst in the waiting room of the British Airports Authority Police Station at Heathrow. The situation occurred as follows:
On the aforementioned date I was standing with my taxi cab, which was third on the rank, at No. 2 Building when I was addressed by a man in plain clothes whom I had never seen before, and asked why I was not wearing my badge (at the time in question I was dressed in shirt and trousers, the badge being attached to the belt of my slacks and plainly visible). I asked the man who he was, to which he replied, 'I am a police officer.' I pointed out to him that my badge was being worn and then asked him to produce his identification card. He refused to do so and then to my astonishment ordered me to leave the airport; I saw that there was a uniformed sergeant in the vicinity and I asked him to come over and clarify the position. The sergeant informed me that the man was a P.C. Hurley, but still no warrant card was produced. I was then asked by the plain clothes man for the copy of my cab driver's licence and told that if I refused to give it to him I would be arrested. I replied to the uniformed sergeant stating that if he, the sergeant, wished to see the copy I would show it to him or produce it at the police station but not to a man who claims to be a police officer and fails to produce any form of identification. Hurley still wanted to arrest me but the sergeant managed to persuade him to get into the back of my cab so that I could produce the copy of my licence at the police station.
The journey was uneventful and on arrival I asked the desk sergeant if I could see a senior police officer, to which he replied that I should go into the waiting room where he would attend to the matter. Whilst standing half in, half out of the door, the man since identified as P.C. Hurley forcefully tried to push me in and said 'Get in there, you.' The desk sergeant then intervened and pacified Hurley, asked me if I would 'please take a seat' and then went away, re-appearing shortly with Police Inspector Gurney, to whom I narrated the episode which had previously taken

387
place and informed him that I intended to lay a complaint against P.C. Hurley. On terminating the interview I was yet again confronted by P.C. Hurley who cautioned me and said 'Anything you say may be' etc. etc. I asked him what the charge was and was told: (a) not wearing my badge; (b) refusing to show a copy of licence; (c) refusing to leave the airport when ordered.
Mr. Roebuck, sir, believe me, I left the airport in disgust that such a form of Nazi bullying and gangsterism is allowed to exist in England. I made straight for Edgware Police Station where I intended to lodge a complaint and was informed there that they could do nothing about this as in fact the airport police are a private body answerable only to the British Airports Authority.
Sir, I beg of you to use your position to try to get some form of action taken on my behalf as I find this situation not only disgusting, but, I must confess, more than a little frightening.
I remain, yours faithfully,
J. S. Taylor."
The House will agree that that is a most disturbing letter for an hon. Member to receive from a constituent.
I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to give the matter his attention, but he took the view that it was one which concerned the Board of Trade rather than the Home Office. To a great extent, of course, that is true, but in my submission it is also an issue which concerns the Home Office. The House will recall that Mr. Taylor stated that he complained to the Metropolitan Police at Edgware that he had been assaulted at London Airport, and was told, in effect, that they had no authority to intervene.
I cannot, in the absence of further argument, accept that interpretation of the duties of the Metropolitan Police. Mr. Taylor was complaining that he had been assaulted, and it is a convention, for obvious reasons—to prevent vendettas and people taking the law into their own hands—for such allegations to be pursued by the police rather than the victim.
It is true that the airport is private property and that by Section 10 of the Airports Authority Act 1965 the Authority has power to appoint constables to police its property, but is it really maintained that this precludes the Metropolitan Police from investigating any alleged breach of the law by airport constables at London Airport? What if one of them
388
committed a murder or took part in a gold robbery? I hope that the House will be given some clarification of this important point.
I am happy to say that, on the receipt of my general inquiry on Mr. Taylor's behalf, my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Board of Trade sent me a courteous letter on 9th May, stating that the Airports Authority police were already looking into the matter. He added:
"I have asked the Authority to let me know the result of their inquiries and to ensure that you receive a copy of their reply to Mr. Taylor. I will write to you again at that time should further comment seem necessary."
That was an entirely satisfactory interim reply, of the helpful nature one associates with him.
However, when by 19th June I had heard no more, I telephoned my hon. Friend's private office and asked for consideration of the matter to be expedited. It most certainly was—and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for this—because the following day I received a letter by hand from the Deputy Chief Constable of the Airports Police. But my pleasure at the celerity of this response evaporated when I read the contents. This is what the letter said:
"Dear Mr. Roebuck.
I understand that Mr. William Rodgers, Minister of State, Board of Trade, promised that you would receive a copy of my letter to Mr. J. S. Taylor, of 45 Bromefield, Stan-more, Middlesex, who recently complained about the conduct of an officer of this constabulary.
A letter was handed to Mr. Taylor on Wednesday, 4th June, 1969, informing him of the results of the investigation, but the same day Mr. Taylor supplied the names and addresses of two additional witnesses in support of his complaint. These witnesses have now been interviewed, but their testimony does not materially affect the issue and I am arranging for Mr. Taylor to be told of this.
I regret the delay in concluding this investigation and enclose for your information, a copy of my letter to Mr. Taylor."
The contents of the letter dated 3rd June, 1969, to Mr. Taylor may well be regarded with some hilarity by students of the art of evasion. This is what it said:
"Dear Mr. Taylor,
Complaint against Police Officer
I refer to my letter of 29th April 1969 and to a subsequent statement which you made to Chief Inspector Mitchison of this Constabulary in connection with the above.
The matter has been investigated by a senior police officer and I have now received his report. From the evidence available, I am satisfied that the Constable discharged his duties to the best of his ability and without any intent to either assault you or cause offence.
However, it seems that he was somewhat over-zealous and that he did not discharge his duties with that degree of tact and courtesy which one would expect from a police officer otherwise you would not feel a sense of grievance at his actions. I, therefore, intend that he shall be very carefully briefed as to the manner in which he deals with members of the public in future.
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking you for bringing this to my notice and express the hope that the incident will in no way impair the good relations which have hitherto existed between you and members of the Police Service.
Yours faithfully,
Deputy Chief Constable."
Can the House be told what on earth is meant by the sentence
"From the evidence available, I am satisfied that the constable discharged his duties to the best of his ability and without any intent to either assault you or cause offence."?
Apparently Mr. Taylor's complaint that he was assaulted and was caused offence is unchallenged. How can the Deputy Chief Constable's confidence in his man be reconciled with the statement that the constable is to be
"very carefully briefed as to the manner in which he deals with members of the public in future "?
And what about the constable being in plain cloths and refusing to show his identity card? By what authority did the constable threaten to arrest my constituent? It is true that under Section 9 (6) of the Airport Authority Act, 1965, a constable may, without warrant, arrest people for having infringed the byelaws. But what byelaws had my constituent contravened? He was there pursuing his lawful employment, and his good faith is demonstrated by the fact that he approached the uniformed sergeant and offered to produce any form of identification should it be requested by a person who could prove that he was duly authorised to seek it. I hope that the Minister will agree that we cannot have people going around demanding information from citizens upon pain of arrest without first demonstrating their authority to make such a demand.
Following the receipt of the letters from the Deputy Chief Constable, I telephoned
390
my hon. Friend's office with a message to the effect that I was not satisfied that there had been an adequate inquiry. I also complained of the Deputy Chief Constable's delay in sending me a copy of his letter to Mr. Taylor of 3rd June. My hon. Friend, in a letter dated 25th June, offered the following explanation of the Deputy Chief Constable's dilatoriness:
"I understand that, as a result of their inquiries, the Deputy Chief Constable wrote to Mr. Taylor on 3rd June, explaining the conclusion to which they had come. This letter was delivered by hand the following day, Wednesday. 4th June. However, Mr. Taylor then supplied the names and addresses of two additional witnesses in support of his complaint and very properly the Police decided that these witnesses should be interviewed to discover whether the previous conclusion would stand.
It was because of Mr. Taylor's action, which effectively re-opened the inquiry, that the British Airports Authority did not send me at the time—or send you—a copy of their letter to Mr. Taylor of 3rd June. Quite reasonably, they felt that you would be interested in their final conclusion. I understand that in fact they wrote to you on 19th June, saying that, having interviewed the witnesses, their testimony did not materially affect the issue. I have since received a copy of this letter to you."
I told Mr. Taylor of this over the telephone, and as a result of what he said about the conduct of the investigation I asked him to let me have a statement in writing. I have not time to go into the statement in full, but he said that he went to Heathrow Airport on the understanding that he would there be participating in some sort of hearing, but there was no hearing. There was only the letter dated 3rd June, which I have already read to the House. So far as the question of witnesses is concerned, it is my constituent's claim that he gave the names of the witnesses before he went to Heathrow Airport. There is here a complete conflict between what my hon. Friend is saying—no doubt on the basis of what he was told—and what my constituent says.
In his letter of 24th June my hon. Friend very kindly suggested that it might be possible for further talks with the Chief Constable or the Chief Executive of the Airport Authority, but I thought it more appropriate to come to the House and raise this matter. In this connection I draw attention to the Third Reading speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation on 22nd January, 1965, in col. 648 of the

391
OFFICIAL REPORT, which clearly indicated the House would continue to take an interest in all that went on with the Airports Authority.
I maintain to my hon. Friend that the House is entitled to know, as a result of all this, just how the police force at London Airport is run. How can a citizen with a grievance against an airport constable get it investigated satisfactorily? What advice has the Board of Trade given to the Authority? Will my hon. Friend, as a result of this case, give fresh advice?
A citizen with a complaint against a member of the Metropolitan Police or a police force run by a local authority has a statutory right to have his complaint investigated. Will the President of the Board of Trade now consider issuing a directive to the Airports Authority requiring it to establish a similar procedure?
I am proud of my constituent, Mr. Taylor, for bringing to attention an important matter affecting our civil liberties. He should be congratulated on refusing to be browbeaten. He has acted in the best traditions of our democracy in declining to be pushed around outside the law. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to some further inquiries into the case.
One cannot consider the facts of this matter without wanting to sound the the warning, "Facilis est descensus averno…". I ask the Minister to recognise the potential dangers of the situation which I have described and take appropriate action. My view is that a shake-up at London Airport is needed.
It was, I think, Sir Ivor Jennings, in a popular work on the English constitution, who once distilled the Englishman's right not to be pushed around without lawful authority in the well-known phrase of the London bobbie, "Oi, you can't do that there 'ere." I ask my hon. Friend to say just that to the authorities at London Airport: "Oi, you can't do that there 'ere—and particularly to a constituent of the hon. Member for Harrow, East."
10.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr.
392
Roebuck) is assiduous on behalf of his constituents, and at no time more so than this evening. However, the rule for his constituent is the rule that we apply to all: did I feel that his constituent had a grievance, I would be concerned not only about the individual liberty of one man but about the liberty of all citizens.
With respect to my hon. Friend, he has jumped many fences in a short time. I confess that I am in some difficulty. Whereas he has spoken no doubt with the authority of his constituent behind him, he has also spoken with full freedom to disclose what his constituent has thought proper. By contrast I have wider obligations. I am not free to disclose what his constituent may have said, as I understand, in confidence. I am not free to describe in detail the inquiries which took place. Alas, I am not free to defend P.C. Hurley against the accusations which my hon. Friend has felt it necessary to make against him. I have obligations to issues of confidence and relations of a statutory kind. For this reason, I hope he will appreciate that if I do not say that I believe he has been wrong in all cases, I do not thereby necessarily agree with any of the statements which he has made.
While the issues which my hon. Friend has raised are important, I hope that no one will believe that Mr. Taylor was, as my hon. Friend said, harassed, abused and assaulted without better evidence than that brought forward by my hon. Friend. Certainly, in my view, he was not browbeaten. There was no Nazi bullying and gangsterism, which are the words used by my hon. Friend—
Mr. Roebuck: I did not use them. Those are the words of my constituent.
Mr. Rodgers: They are the words which my hon. Friend used, and upon which he put his own special authority. I am not prepared to let it go on record that I accept any of the remarks about P.C. Hurley or any other people involved.
I express my regret that, whereas my hon. Friend has been free, quite rightly, to raise this issue, he has put me in a position where I cannot adequately defend men whose character may require a proper defence. This is because of the relationships of confidentiality, which, within the rules of order, make it impossible for me to disclose the details of

393
the report which was made following Mr. Taylor's complaint.
I only hope, however, that the purpose of this Adjournment debate has been in part achieved. My hon. Friend has certainly laid matters before us that deserve looking at, even though there might not be an immediate reply to them. I can give him the undertaking now that if he has said things that require further investigation, I shall look into them and give him a considered reply. That having been said, I hope he feels that he has got some matters off his chest about which he feels very strongly.
My hon. Friend has been concerned with three related matters. First, he has complained, at least in passing, that the whole question has not been dealt with efficiently by the Board of Trade and, I think, by implication, by me and my own officials. Second, there was the substance of Mr. Taylor's complaint, particularly at the outcome of the investigation. Third, he posed the whole question of what we should now do, which involves the powers of the Board of Trade in relation to the British Airports Authority constabulary.
I need not proceed very far tonight on the first point. I should have been happy to discuss the question with my hon. Friend had this been his wish. But he felt that he wanted to bring the matter to the Floor of the House at an early date rather than examine with me in more detail whether justice has been done within the Act. My hon. Friend would agree that we can only require that individuals should work within our statutes. If the law is wrong, it is for my hon. Friend and myself to change it, not to blame others for acting on the law as it is. I say to him, with respect, that at times instead of complaining to me about the law and saying that he intends to change it, he has complained about those who have acted within the law according to the rules laid down by Parliament.
May I go back over a little of the history? At the time we received my hon. Friend's letter, which came to us via the Home Office on 2nd May, Mr. Taylor had written direct to the British Airports Authority. At that stage, when my hon. Friend got in touch with me, the Chief Constable was already having the matter looked into. Nevertheless, the Authority said to me that when its
394
inquiries were complete it would let me know the outcome and would ensure that my hon. Friend received a copy of its reply to Mr. Taylor. In my letter to my hon. Friend of 9th May I concluded that I would write to him again at the time I heard from the British Airports Authority should further comment seem necessary. I stress my final phrase, because I did not commit myself in that letter, as I think my hon. Friend thought, to write irrespective of the circumstances and whether or not any further comment appeared to be required.
This is how the matter stood when my hon. Friend telephoned my office on 18th June and then again on 20th June. At that stage, on 20th June, he had received a letter from the Deputy Chief Constable about which he has complained tonight. With that letter from the Deputy Chief Constable was a copy of the letter which he had written to Mr. Taylor, dated 3rd June. My hon. Friend apparently complained, not to me personally, at the time about the position and talked, as he has this evening, of a cover-up job. He said this evening that the British Airports Authority has tried to hush up this matter. This appears to have been his view from about 20th June. At that stage he said that if he did not hear from me further he would raise the matter on the Adjournment. I wrote to him, as he has now said, on 23rd June—
Mr. Roebuck: On 25th June.
Mr. Rodgers: On 25th June, my hon. Friend is quite right. On 23rd June the position was that I knew no more than my hon. Friend about the position. I was under no commitment to write to him unless further comment seemed necessary. But my hon. Friend was pressing me for something in writing. In other words, his position was the same as mine, but I had not undertaken to write to him unless there was a further development which it seemed proper for me to take up with him.
As my hon. Friend will know, I was in the House for most of Monday and Tuesday of last week. He and I voted five times in the Division Lobby. During that period, however, he did not raise the matter with me further. I felt at that time that it might have been courteous and helpful on his part had

395
he felt able to talk to me and sort out some of the complexities—
Mr. Roebuck: Come off it! I did not have the opportunity to see my hon. Friend on that occasion. Why does he not deal with the arguments which I have produced instead of handing out all this spurious nonsense?
Mr. Rodgers: If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue—there is little time left to me. I understood that he was concerned about the matter, and I should have been happy to discuss it with him. I was at the House at a time when he could have done so but, clearly, he felt it better to proceed as he has done. As he has said, I can have no complaint against him, and I have no complaint at the method he has chosen.
As my hon. Friend will appreciate—I know that he is fairminded—he has spoken tonight very firmly on behalf of his constituent. He has fulfilled his obligations. He must recognise, however, that I have obligations to some of those whom he has felt it right to criticise on this occasion and who, being public servants, are not in a position to reply to the comments which he has made.
The second main point with which my hon. Friend is concerned is the way that the British Airports Authority dealt with the matter. The Authority has, very fairly, sought to keep my hon. Friend informed.
Mr. Roebuck: Huh!
Mr. Rodgers: On 3rd June, the Authority wrote to Mr. Taylor, as my hon. Friend knows, and had it in mind to deliver that letter to Mr. Taylor to explain the outcome of its inquiry so far. It was at that stage, however, that Mr. Taylor produced the names of his additional witnesses. My hon. Friend said that Mr. Taylor claims that he put forward the names of the witnesses at an earlier date, but I have the letter to the Authority, dated 3rd June, in which Mr. Taylor said:
"Please excuse the delay in my forwarding to you the names and addresses of the two witnesses below."
In other words, it was only on 3rd June that Mr. Taylor wrote to the Authority and supplied these further names about which the Authority could inquire.
396
Quite rightly, therefore, at that stage the B.A.A. wrote neither to myself nor to my hon. Friend, because it felt that the inquiry was still open and saw itself under an obligation only to inform myself and my hon. Friend when its inquiry was complete.
So we come to the letter of 19th June, when the Deputy Chief Constable said that he was arranging for Mr. Taylor to be told the outcome of the second stage of the inquiry. It was at that stage that arrangements were made for Mr. Taylor to be seen by an inspector who would personally explain to him the position.
I am satisfied that all the proper procedures which are laid down by statute and by regulation under the statutes have been followed. Mr. Taylor's inquiry has been looked into with very great care. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not like the letter that the Deputy Chief Constable wrote to Mr. Taylor. I thought it was a courteous and helpful letter and a genuine attempt to explain the outcome of the inquiry to exonerate the person concerned from the larger complaint made against him but to admit that there had been some misunderstanding, some falling short.
I should like that letter to go on record were there time. I think that most people would judge that it was a good letter and one which fairly conveyed the outcome of the inquiry which the Deputy Chief Constable had made. That was, of course, the letter of 3rd June, but, as I have said, it has not proved possible to make contact with Mr. Taylor since to give him the final outcome of the matter.
I understand that on 20th May Mr. Taylor said explicitly that he did not intend to take civil action and was prepared to leave any decision to the discretion of the Chief Constable. Under the statutes and regulations, if Mr. Taylor is not satisfied it would be recourse to the courts which he would choose, but he made clear before the inquiry was undertaken that he would be satisfied to leave it to the discretion of the Chief Constable. My hon. Friend says that that is not now his view. I must put it to him that if Mr. Taylor wishes to pursue the matter he is free to raise it with the British Airports Authority and free to take it to the courts.
That is how the position now stands. I find that there is no advice that I can

397
reasonably give, but I ask my hon. Friend to believe that all the proper procedures were gone through in a meticulous fashion; all Mr. Taylor's complaints were examined; the British Airports Authority did what it was required to do under statute laid down by this House and the position of the British Airports Authority is not in substance different from that of police forces ultimately responsible to the Home Office.
398
Any further remedy, therefore, falls to Mr. Taylor in the courts—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Members of Parliament (Stationery Office Publications)
  Members of Parliament (Stationery Office Publications)
  Terms (Official Use)
  Terms (Official Use)
  Index of Retail Prices
  Index of Retail Prices
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Bank of International Settlements (Report)
  Bank of International Settlements (Report)
  Travel Allowance
  Travel Allowance
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Power Stations, Scotland (Commissioning Delays)
  Power Stations, Scotland (Commissioning Delays)
  Average Temperatures (England)
  Average Temperatures (England)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Contaminated Medical Waste (Disposal)
  Contaminated Medical Waste (Disposal)
  Thames Barrage
  Thames Barrage
  National and Local Disasters (Costs)
  National and Local Disasters (Costs)
  Land, Grappenhall (Planning Application)
  Land, Grappenhall (Planning Application)
  Sheffield Corporation Vehicles (Uses)
  Sheffield Corporation Vehicles (Uses)
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Litter
  Litter
HOUSING
  Local Authority Tenants (Evictions)
  Local Authority Tenants (Evictions)
  Audenshaw Urban District Council (Rents)
  Audenshaw Urban District Council (Rents)
  Huddersfield
  Huddersfield
  Bradford
  Bradford
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
FOREIGN AND COMMONWELATH AFFAIRS
  South Africa (Military Aircraft)
  South Africa (Military Aircraft)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Nigeria (United Kingdom Citizens)
  Nigeria (United Kingdom Citizens)
  United Nations Committee of 24
  United Nations Committee of 24
  Mr. Anthony Grey
  Mr. Anthony Grey
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unofficial Strikes (Unemployment Pay, Tax Rebates and Public Assistance)
  Unofficial Strikes (Unemployment Pay, Tax Rebates and Public Assistance)
  Widows
  Widows
  Pensions (Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons)
  Pensions (Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons)
HOSPITALS
  Building Trade Operatives (Incentive Bonus Schemes)
  Building Trade Operatives (Incentive Bonus Schemes)
  Abortion Operations
  Abortion Operations
  Gynaecologists
  Gynaecologists
  HIGHER CIVIL SERVANTS (PAY)
  HIGHER CIVIL SERVANTS (PAY)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  CIVIL COMMUNITIES (MILITARY AID)
  CIVIL COMMUNITIES (MILITARY AID)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Tiepolo Painting (Purchase)
  Tiepolo Painting (Purchase)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Ministry of Defence Building (Construction Work)
  Ministry of Defence Building (Construction Work)
SCOTLAND
  Transplant Operations
  Transplant Operations
  Cervical Cancer Screening Services
  Cervical Cancer Screening Services
  Outstanding Fines
  Outstanding Fines
  Housing Subsidies (Lanarkshire)
  Housing Subsidies (Lanarkshire)
  School Building Projects, Hamilton
  School Building Projects, Hamilton
  Housing Programme (Building Costs)
  Housing Programme (Building Costs)
  Nursery School Places (Glasgow)
  Nursery School Places (Glasgow)
  Abortion Operations
  Abortion Operations
  Teachers (Registration)
  Teachers (Registration)
  General Teaching Council
  General Teaching Council
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Hospital Service (Social Workers)
  Hospital Service (Social Workers)
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Hill Farms (Forestry)
  Hill Farms (Forestry)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  School Pupils
  School Pupils
  " Education in Scotland, 1968 " (Report)
  " Education in Scotland, 1968 " (Report)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Hospital Service (Employees)
  Hospital Service (Employees)
  Uncertificated Teachers
  Uncertificated Teachers
  Teachers (Training)
  Teachers (Training)
  Health and Welfare Services (Expenditure)
  Health and Welfare Services (Expenditure)
AVIATION
  Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Reguations, 1951
  Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Reguations, 1951
  School Classes (Size)
  School Classes (Size)
TECHNOLOGY
  Research
  Research
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford (Flying Hours)
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford (Flying Hours)
RAILWAYS
  Transport Act 1968 (Section 48(4))
  Transport Act 1968 (Section 48(4))
TRANSPORT
  Test Certificates
  Test Certificates
ROADS
  A57, Denton, and A6017 Audenshaw, Lancashire
  A57, Denton, and A6017 Audenshaw, Lancashire
  Third London Airport (Communications)
  Third London Airport (Communications)
WALES
  Hostels and Welfare Homes (Psychiatric Patients)
  Hostels and Welfare Homes (Psychiatric Patients)
  Local Government Reorganisation (South Wales)
  Local Government Reorganisation (South Wales)
  Aberfan Disaster
  Aberfan Disaster

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

EDINBURGH AIRPORT
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a timetable has now been agreed upon for the improvement of Edinburgh Airport and, in particular, for the construction of another runway.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, it is hoped to announce a timetable for the considerable investment involved in the whole scheme within the next few months. A cost-benefit study of the alternative of a new runway or an extension to the present one is nearing completion.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, some of which was foreshadowed in the economic debate last week, may I ask him two further questions? First, does he appreciate that this is an urgent matter and that "a few months" is all too long for the needs of Scotland; and, secondly, is he himself confident that as a result of what is proposed the number of cancelled flights to and from Turnhouse will be materially reduced?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, by comparison with the years that have gone by, "the next few months" is a relatively short period. In this matter I am reluctant to express confidence; I am willing to express hope.
THE EARL or MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the original Answer to my noble friend Lord Kilmany, and while sharing his satisfaction at its
446
reasonableness, I would ask the noble Lord if he can say whether the opportunity will also be taken to extend the airfield buildings at Turnhouse, which already are hardly adequate and, with the increased traffic that the new scheme will produce, will certainly become entirely inadequate?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I recognise that the existing terminal building is overcrowded. I would go further and say that it is almost totally inadequate, particularly during busy periods. But until the new building is ready we are spending small sums in relieving the more pressing problems of congestion. Obviously the only satisfactory answer is to erect new buildings.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is there any hope of getting these improvements completed in time for the Commonwealth Games?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords.

WYTHAM: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
2.38 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: 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 whether they have any information about plans for the future development of Wytham, near Oxford.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): No, my Lords. However, I understand that the Berkshire County Council are considering designating a conservation area at Wytham under the Civic Amenities Act 1967.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a matter of far more than local concern, as Wytham estate is the only remaining side of Oxford so far not despoiled by urban development? Is he also aware that Clause 1(10) of the Wytham Bequest of 1942 requires that the estate shall be preserved in its natural beauty for all future time?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am aware of these facts. Wytham is in single

447
ownership and this is prima facie evidence of the fact that a single owner could make it as beautiful and as finely a preserved village as, perhaps, Castle Combe or Lacock. I understand that there is also a problem of tied cottages there, but I would point out to my noble friend that the owner of the tied cottage, if he does not immediately require it for one of his own farm labourers, can let it and at the same time retain his right to possession in case he needs it later for a worker on his own farm. This right of possession comes to him under Section 10 of the Rent Act 1968, Schedule 3, Case 12.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, are the Government aware that the University of Oxford, which I think is the owner of this land, has asked for a report, with a view to the reconditioning and improvement of the rural cottages, many of which unfortunately are at present unoccupied?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords, and the report is awaited by the owner. I understand that it comes from a very reputable consultant. I would remind the noble Lord that in the case of listed buildings which are unoccupied and may be deteriorating, the local authorities have certain new powers of compulsion with regard to repairs under recent enactments.

WYTHAM: CLOSURE OF PRIMARY SCHOOL
LORD SEGAL: 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 were the reasons for the recent closure of the village school at Wytham, near Oxford.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, this school was closed because it was no longer large enough to be an effective educational unit. Numbers on the roll have not exceeded 18 since January, 1966, and have been considerably lower. After careful consideration, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for
448
Education and Science is satisfied that wider educational opportunities and adequate space for the children are available at Botley County Primary School.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether she is aware that the closure of this school will probably now result in a dying village, as the number of inhabitants since the closure has fallen off? Would it not be possible to consider reopening this school, if the population of this village should increase as a result of the now empty cottages being restored and made habitable?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend would consider reopening the school, if there were sufficient demand for it, but I should like to remind my noble friend that the Plowden Committee recommended that for a village primary school of this kind the minimum number of places desirable was 80.

RAIL SERVICES IN NORTHERN SCOTLAND
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept the social and economic importance of the British Railways passenger and freight services of the East Coast Highland line from Inverness to Lairg, Wick and Thurso; and whether they are aware of widespread local reports that British Railways intend eventually to endeavour to close down the East Coast Highland route North of Inverness; and whether they will give an assurance that any such proposals will be resisted on grounds of social and economic importance to Highland development.]
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Government have demonstrated their acceptance of the need for a railway passenger service from Inverness to Wick and Thurso by grant-aiding it under Section 39 of the Transport Act 1968 to the extent of £594,000 this year. The provision of freight services is entirely a

449
matter for the British Railways Board, but I understand that, far from seeking to withdraw such services, they are considering making changes to provide them more efficiently. These changes include the establishment of a coal concentration depot at Brora.
We are aware of the reports to which the noble Lord refers, but these reports are groundless. The whole basis of calculation and payment of grant is designed to encourage the Railways Board to run passenger services as efficiently and economically as possible. In the unlikely event of the closure of these services being proposed, all the statutory safeguards would come into operation and the Government would give full weight to the social and economic factors to which the noble Lord has referred.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that his reply will give a great deal of reassurance to local interests and will go far to counter the unfortunate rumours which have circulated locally? May I also ask him whether he will endeavour to get the Government sources of publicity at work, so that the gist of his reply can be widely known in North-East Scotland?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I cannot guarantee that anything I say will be published in the North of Scotland, but I will endeavour to get it through by more devious channels.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the sympathetic treatment meted out to railways that are uneconomic is contrary to the Tory policy when they appointed Lord Beeching, whose policy was to cut off these railways in the country?
LORD HUGHES: Very friendly words, my Lords.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say for what period of time the grant-aided line is extended?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this grant is for only one year, but I would point out that out of 222 grant-aided services at the present time, 133 are in that category. There were about 250 applications to be considered, which meant that there was not time in every case to project
450
estimates of loss for the statutory maximum period of three years. We expect to receive fresh applications for 1970 onwards.

CONSERVATION OF SEALS BILL [ [H.L.]
2.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL IN THE CHAIR.]
Clause 1 [Prohibited methods of killing seals]:
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("and 9") and insert (", 9 and (Duty of Minister in relation to fisheries)")
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will see that the Marshalled List of Amendments is headed by three drafting Amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Burton. followed by what is really the important thing; that is, a proposed new clause after Clause 9. I would respectfully suggest that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if the whole debate on the principle contained in the new clause were taken now when I move this first drafting Amendment. It is more usual to have a proposed new clause followed by consequential Amendments. These Amendments of mine may be described more as anticipatory Amendments, their proper name being, I believe, paving Amendments. If that suggestion is agreeable to your Lordships, I am sure that time will be saved.
There is no difference whatever of principle among those who are supporting this Bill; it is merely a question of how the principles contained in the Bill should best be applied. It is most unfortunate that the conservation of seals should necessarily include the culling of

451
seals. As was made plain during the debate on Second Reading, this culling, at least in the case of the grey seal, is most efficaciously and humanely carried out by the clubbing of the infant seals on the rocks and skerries where they are born. Personally, the only thing that I can conceive as being more repellent than the clubbing of baby seals would be the clubbing of baby humans. But, unfortunately, it is something that has to be undertaken in some form or another if the grey seal population is not to go beyond all tolerable bounds.
Actually nature ensures that a high proportion of infant seals do not survive for very long. It appears that their parents desert them and force them to seek their own living before they are really fit to do so. But, even with that natural culling provision, there remains from year to year a steady surplus which gradually, and not so gradually later on, builds up until the grey seal becomes a menace to fishermen, affecting not merely the fishing of salmon with an angle, but also the fishing of salmon by nets, and the fishing of a good deal of white fish as well. It is not by any means solely a question of sport; it is a question of the livelihood of fishermen. The whole purpose of these Amendments and the new clause is to ensure that there should be, at the proper intervals, adequate culling of seals.
It has been asked, why should not this be done in the ordinary way, as under the Agricultural Acts, by informing the owner of the ground on which the seals breed that he must reduce their numbers? There is a very good answer to that question, and it is that one could not be sure that if the owner was recalcitrant he would not delay doing the necessary culling until such time—only about one month at the most in extent—as the baby seals had left the rocks. As we know, there have been, particularly in the case of the Farne Islands, such objections to the culling that such a procedure might very well arise. I have discussed the point with one of the Natural Environment Research Council people, and he tells me that the Council do not wish to have the last word in how many seals should be culled. They would prefer to give their advice—extremely expert and entirely disinterested advice—to the Minister concerned, be it the Minister of
452
Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland, and leave him to get on with the job.
Another point against expecting the landowner to do the culling is that he would not usually have at his disposal either the means of doing so or the skilled assassins who are necessary if the work is to be carried out in an expeditious and humane manner. I hope that there will not be any repetition of the suggestion that the National Trust, which has not in the past been as co-operative as it might have been over this matter—admirable body though it otherwise is—should in any way be placed in a different position from that of any other landowner, because if it were, it would mean that this culling could not take place expeditiously. Therefore the seal population would in a very few years—and, remember, a seal lives for twenty or thirty years, and can breed each year—be likely to be raised to such an extent that grave damage could be done to the fishing interests, and fishermen would be inclined to take the law into their own hands. It would mean bringing the law into contempt, which is always a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. With that brief beginning, I beg to move the first Amendment.
LORD BURTON: I know that some of your Lordships are worried about increasing the powers of the Minister to enter upon a person's ground. I would draw attention to the fact that the Minister or the Secretary of State at the moment has very similar powers in controlling other animals and pests. In particular, I would refer to rabbits and deer. What is now proposed would be a very small extension of those powers. I maintain that if this Bill is to go through, something on these lines—I would not say that the wording is correct, or that the way in which the Amendment is set out is entirely correct—is essential. If we are to have protection, we must have control. If we do not have control, then I am afraid it will be the end of the Bill; the whole thing would fall down.
My noble friend Lord Mansfield said that many young seals died through desertion by their mothers. Those would die of starvation. Seals build up very quickly an enormous amount of fat on which they can survive for some time.

453
I maintain that a quick blow with a club is a more humane method of controlling seals than allowing them to die of starvation. One thing worries me about this Amendment: one or two additional items would be necessary if we are to approve of something of this sort. There must be some limitation of the time for which an order can apply. The Minister should not be allowed to put an order down and go on for year in and year out. It must be for a period—one month, two months, or whatever it may be. Equally, anyone entering on any ground must carry with him an authority. Both those points ought to be written into the Bill.
There is one difficulty; namely, that under the present Agriculture Acts anyone entering land can do so over a certain period. That works all right with most land pests; but with seals the period during which culling can take place is very limited. It would possibly be only a month at the most—I refer entirely to grey seals. Consequently, the machinery applying to the Agriculture Acts, whereby notice is served on the owner to try to carry out remedial works and if he does not do so then the Minister comes in, would be difficult to apply in this case, because if the most humane methods of control are to be used it would mean waiting for a whole year before anything could be done. Then the owner, or whoever was going to do it for him, might take only half measures. Consequently, nearly two whole years could be lost before the Minister could enter. The machinery in the Agriculture Acts is probably not suitable so far as seals are concerned.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I should like to endorse from this Bench what my two noble friends have said, and also emphasise that it is in the interests of seals that they be culled while they are young and babies, as has been said, as this is more humane and kinder to them. I would also endorse the point which my Party has always protected, and that is the rights of private individuals and private land and the ownership of property. We have always held that ownership of anything is subject to duties. If there is a pest on your land then we, as a Party, have always endorsed the view that the Minister or Secretary of State concerned must obviously have the power to deal with it. I should like to ask the Minister, when he replies, to help
454
the Farne Island National Trust, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked when we debated this subject last month, so that when the Secretary of State gives these orders to cull he will give as much evidence as possible as to why he is doing it. When the Secretary of State gives explanations, then all harm and ill-will is removed. With that, I beg to endorse what my noble friends have said.
LORD CHORLEY: I wonder whether we might hear what the sponsor of the Bill has to say. I want to make a speech about this matter. It is significant that this clause was not in the Bill as put forward at Second Reading. It is a very important additional clause. Obviously it is important we should know what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, thinks.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I can answer that question immediately. At the Second Reading, when this point was raised, I said I recognised that the omission of a clause like this was a fault in the Bill, and if a clause on these lines—although I must confess I do not like the actual wording of the clause as Lord Mansfield has moved it—were moved I should feel bound to accept it. If the noble Earl would be prepared to withdraw this clause so that we may come to some agreement on a clause with a similar objective but couched in different phrases, I shall be happy to accept such a clause.
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: May I say a word in support of what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has just said? Speaking as Chairman of the Nature Conservancy and as a member of the Natural Environment Research Council, I may say that we should welcome and be perfectly happy with a clause of this nature. At the same time, I think nobody should be under any illusions: if the powers in this clause are used in the Farne Islands, where most of the trouble is, there will be criticism and a certain amount of trouble. Therefore it is extremely important, first of all, that the wording should be absolutely clear, and I think it would be a good idea if the noble Lords could consult together on a slight alteration of the wording. Secondly, if the Government of the day decide that they are going to exercise their right of access, they should always consult with both the N.E.R.C. and the National Trust before they do so. Prior

455
consultation, and clarity of the Act, are essential conditions. Given those two conditions, the idea behind this clause is quite right.
3.0 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has taken up this position, because I had the impression from the form of his Bill, even after what he said on Second Reading, that he wanted to have it carried on the basis of good will rather than on the basis of legislative compulsion, which is in effect what he is now opting for. I hope your Lordships will reject this Amendment. The speech of the noble Earl who moved it was based mainly on the alleged destruction to salmon fisheries. It is a very interesting point and I should like to say just a word about it at the beginning. It is, if I may say so, typical of the complete vagueness of the case which is made in favour of this Bill. Practically no facts are ever produced. It is just said that the salmon fisheries, and nets in particular, are damaged by seals. No quantification of this is ever given.
It is interesting, as your Lordships have heard, that the culling of these pup seals on the Farne Islands for the experimental period came to an end some years ago because the National Trust were not satisfied with the evidence which had been put before them. So over the last two or three years there has not in fact been any culling, and undoubtedly the seal population of the Farne Islands has increased. There is some argument as to how much it has increased. I will say a word about that in a minute. But it is extraordinarily interesting, and I suggest a very significant fact in the context of this debate, that these last years have been the most successful years in the history of the salmon fisheries off the coast of Scotland.
A NOBLE LORD: Nonsense!
LORD CHORLEY: The official figures produced by the Ministry make it quite clear that 1967 (I think it was) was I record year. And the year before that, 1966, was only a little short of a record year. According to this argument, with the seal population on the Farne Islands increasing, the damage to the salmon fisheries ought to be stepped up and, instead of having record years, there ought
456
to have been very obvious damage to the salmon fisheries. That just did not happen. This is typical of the lack of real scientific evidence. These people come before your Lordships and ask you to accept these vague accusations against the seals, because that is really what it comes to.
I thought I would deal with that argument first because it was the main point brought out by the noble Earl who moved this Amendment. He very candidly confessed on Second Reading that the salmon fisheries were an interest of his. Nobody blames him for it, but we expect to have rather better evidence produced than these uncorroborated statements. This evidence is one of the things which at the National Trust we have always been looking for and which we have never had. This has been typical of the way this case has been put up to us.
I said a good deal on Second Reading and explained to the best of my ability the position which the National Trust have taken up, and I do not want to go over all the ground again in detail. Shortly, the National Trust, as your Lordships by now know, own the Farne Islands, which are much the largest residences, so to speak, of the seal population, particularly of course of the grey seal population, of England. There are very many more grey seals at the Farne Islands than around the whole of the rest of the coast of England put together.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I would suggest that he tries to obtain some scientific facts before he makes statements like that. In point of fact the noble Lord, Lord Howick, is responsible for an island off the North coast of Scotland——
LORD CHORLEY: I said England, not Scotland.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I apologise.
LORD CHORLEY: I quite appreciate that there are a lot of these grey seals off the North coast of Scotland. The National Trust of England are not concerned with the National Trust of Scotland, except that we are in very close amity with them. In this discussion to-day I am concerned with the seals on the Farne Islands, because, as I say, there are very many more seals on the Farne

457
Islands than there are around the whole of the rest of the coast of England. If the noble Earl likes to contradict that, I am afraid that I cannot agree with him.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): It is some time since you have allowed us to count them.
LORD CHORLEY: The last estimate put before us at a meeting with the Ministry of Agriculture a year or two ago was 5,000. Since this trouble arose on the Farne Islands we have had an observer whose job is to watch these seals and to make various counts. It is quite obvious that the seal population has to some extent gone up, but I do not think anybody suggests that it is much more than 6,000, if as much as 6,000. The whole population of seals on the Farne Islands is only some 6,000—the population of a large village in England. And, I repeat, there are not this number of grey seals around the rest of the coast of England. That is what we are concerned with. I ask your Lordships to bear this in mind when you hear all this talk about terrible over-population and what this really quite small number of seals is supposed to be doing by way of depredation on the salmon and cod population around the coast of England.
The National Trust, if I may remind your Lordships, have the duty, placed upon them by the Act of Parliament which set them up and under which they operate, of protecting the fauna on their lands; and they intend to carry out the statutory duties put upon them by Parliament itself until Parliament decides otherwise and removes those duties from them. It is only right that they should do so. If this Amendment is carried, and the new clause is added to the Bill, it will in fact remove this duty of the National Trust in respect of the seal population of the Farne Islands, because it will transfer it to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Really this afternoon what your Lordships have to decide is whether this transfer should be made. I am going to suggest that it would be wrong in respect of the National Trust properties of the Farne Islands that this should be done. By all means do it around the coast of Scotland, and do it around the rest of the coast of England—although there is not very much point in doing it in respect of grey seals around the rest
458
of the coast of England because so few of these seals are there.
First of all, of course, I agree with what has been said about the unsatisfactory nature of this new clause, and if it were passed to-day it would obviously be necessary to amend it a good deal at the next stage. The whole scheme of this Bill is concerned with the issuing of licences during the close period. There is nothing in this new clause about the close period or anything else of that kind. It has been spatchcocked into the Bill, which it really does not fit. That is just one of the points that stands out a mile. Incidentally, the clause places on the Minister himself the duty of carrying out this cull, which I suggest is most unusual. I am not saying that it is unconstitutional, but it is certainly very unusual in an Act of Parliament to put a direct duty of this kind upon a Minister of the Crown.
On an earlier occasion I said something about the history of this matter; and again I do not want to repeat that this afternoon. I made it clear from the start that the concern of the National Trust has been to get effective evidence on which they could act. The Minister came to us with some evidence in the first instance, and we acted on the basis of that evidence and agreed to the cull. Two things happened as a result. There was a tremendous outcry among all the people who go to look at these seals. Thousands of people go from all over the North of England—and many from the South of England, too—year by year, to watch these seals and enjoy the sight of them at play on the Farne Islands and feel that they should not be killed off. There is no doubt a deal of sentimentality about this matter, but one has to be responsive to the views of one's members; and, after all, the National Trust, with over 160,000 members, a very large organisation, is one of the largest voluntary organisations in the country.
But while a good deal of this opposition to the cull was no doubt based on sentiment, that was not by any means the only reason for stopping the cull. Many of the people who came to us and objected were naturalists of considerable standing, and, looking at the position as a whole, we went back to the Minister and said, "We are not going to agree to the cull

459
until you produce some better evidence." I am not saying that the Minister did not take that seriously. I think he asked the Natural Environment Research Council to look at the matter and they obviously gave a good deal of thought to it. In fact there was a meeting, I think in March of last year, and I want to ask your Lordships to bear with me for a few minutes while I indicate what happened.
The meeting was held in order that the results of such inquiry and research as had been made by NERC might be assessed, and a number of conclusions were reached. I should like to indicate, as shortly as possible, what these are. Although they did not actually ask the National Trust to be represented at this meeting there was a member of the National Trust there, and the conclusions were in fact submitted to us. I think it would have been rather better if we had been directly asked to be there, because there is no other organisation or landowner in the country so closely concerned with this subject as the National Trust.
In the first place, the meeting found that the rate of growth of the grey seal population, measured simply by numbers of pups born in the Farne Islands, averages 8 per cent. per annum, and that if that rate were maintained the population would double in a period of nine years. They went on to say that very much further research is needed—and we were glad to hear that statement, because that has always been our point: that further research is needed to establish how the population changes and what their feeding habits are. But the Council went on to say that it would be unsound and dangerous to delay proper management measures on that account. That seems to me to be a wholly illogical conclusion to draw from the premise. If you feel that a great deal of further research is important, then surely it is dangerous to start taking action before the research is done. If we were to take action and then do the research afterwards, it might well demonstrate that what we had been doing was quite wrong. It seemed to be a strange conclusion for a scientific committee to come to.
Secondly, the increase in the number of pups born (from 658 in 1952 to 1.770 in 1967) has a serious effect on
460
their chances of survival. Pup mortality is increasing at 13 per cent. annually, and the crowding of breeding seals has disturbed the ecological balance of the four Islands which are used by the seals for breeding. This again is most interesting because, as I mentioned a moment ago, since this trouble started we have had on the Farne Islands a watcher who is there whole time. His job is just to make counts, and he is quite satisfied that the mortality rate over the past two years has been 17 per cent., and that the figure of 13 per cent. is wrong. I am not arguing one way or the other what the effect is of the 17 per cent., as opposed to the 13 per cent., though it obviously affects the estimate as to the doubling of the population. It might be said that it shows that the situation is even more serious than was thought, because even with this higher mortality the Islands are still overcrowded. What I am saying is that this shows how dangerous it is to proceed on the basis of this inadequate research which has been carried out during the last two or three years by the Natural Environment Research Council.
There is a considerable difference between 13 per cent. and 17 per cent., and if our figure is right—and after all it is the figure of a man who is there all the time and whose job it is to do this count—it shows how very serious and unsatisfactory is the count on which the Natural Environment Research Council relied. It emphasises the point which the National Trust have been taking, that the material placed before them, on which they have been asked to give their authorisation for this cull, is quite inadequate. It really brings out the fact that the National Trust are being asked, and now we here as Parliamentarians in the legislative assembly are being asked, to take important action on the basis of similarly unsatisfactory material. Before we come to a decision on this Amendment I make that criticism of it: that NERC has not got adequate material. We have been warned time after time that experts should be on tap and not on top. At the end of the day, we have to say whether we are satisfied, and I am asking your Lordships to say that this material which has been placed before you is not material on which you could decide that this Amendment should be accepted.

461
I now return to the findings. The third one was:
"About one in three of young seals move from the Islands to feed in Scottish coastal waters where nets of salmon and cod are frequent; there is no indication of a marked movement of adults away from the Islands."
The implication of this statement is that these young seals go off and destroy the salmon fisheries, but it is interesting to note that it is only a small fraction of the young seals who move away from the Islands, and therefore such damage as is attributable to the seal population is attributable only to a fairly small fraction of the young seals. This is the sort of scientific evidence on which we are being asked to pass this Amendment.
Then I come to the fourth finding:
"The estimated consumption of, or damage to fish of all kinds by seals around the British Isles is not quantified …"—
one cannot say how much it is. The Council went on, rather inconsequentially, to say:
"The seal is the definitive host of a parasite of which the immature stages are found in cod; this parasite (cod lung worm) is harmless to humans."
I am not at all clear what the implication of this statement is supposed to be. Is it that if one keeps down the seal population the cod fisheries will be safer; or possibly the other way round: that it is the cod which are affecting the seals? But surely we are not going to destroy a large number of seals because they get infected from the cod fish in the sea where they get their food.
The next finding was:
"Management of stocks in the interest of scientific research, fisheries and visitors is an essential part of enlightened conservation practice for animal sanctuaries."
That, of course, we accept. The only question is the amount of management; and that raises the question as to whether the seal population is in fact much too large. The next statement was:
"Scientific facts about seals and the effect on the fisheries of uncontrolled growth, with no natural or human enemies, must be put before the public."
We appreciated that statement very much, because it is obvious that there is a tremendous public interest in this problem. But I do not know that any steps have been taken at all to carry through that conclusion, which, after all, was put up to the Minister of Agriculture well over
462
twelve months ago. We have not seen any signs of this educative programme.
The Minister did not ask us to discuss this document with him until, I think, the beginning of October last. My Chairman, Lord Antrim, had informed the Minister at a much earlier stage that as a result of the way in which the matter had been raised at the annual meeting of the National Trust in 1965, he had given an undertaking that we would not change our position without giving an annual meeting an opportunity to discuss the matter. And the Minister must have known, or if he did not he could easily have found out, that the annual meeting of the National Trust was going to take place in November. Obviously, when you have to call the annual meeting of an organisation like the National Trust with 160,000 members, if the meeting is going to be in November, you must know a good deal earlier than October what you have to put before it. And yet the Minister did not come to us; so we could not put it before our annual meeting.
The cost of circulating a special notice of this kind to the annual meeting, even if you could get it done, would be tremendously high. I do not know whether the Minister expected us to do this, but it would not take long for any reasonable person to realise that it put us in an impossible position. We did not put the matter before the meeting. If the large number who had not come to the meeting but had of course received this promise had later learned that it had been sprung on the annual meeting without notice, obviously they would have had a very real grievance.
The Executive Committee, however, at its December meeting, considered the matter which had been put up by the Minister, and instructed the Chairman to inform the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the Trust, first, could not agree that the killing should be resumed, and secondly, sought an assurance that the Conservation of Seals Bill—which was, of course, the earlier version of this Bill—if introduced in the form it took in the last Session, would not be enacted so as to permit killing without, in the case of the Fames at any rate, the consent of the Trust. This was sent to the Minister—whether the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, had it passed to him I

463
do not know—but we heard nothing more about it, and no attempt was made to discuss the matter with us at the National Trust. The Bill was brought in again and has been passing through its stages, as your Lordships know.
I suggest to your Lordships that this is a completely unsatisfactory way of handling a situation like this and that the case for what is proposed has not yet been made out. If it is made out to the satisfaction of Parliament and Parliament accepts it and puts the law into that state, of course the National Trust will accept the decision; but we suggest that there is not the material before Parliament at the moment on which this decision should be reached. And seeing that it is undoubtedly the fact that so far as the grey seal population of England is concerned the English National Trust is almost entirely responsible for them, I suggest that the simplest thing to do is to cut National Trust seals out of the Bill altogether and let us argue it out with the Minister.
We have in the past given the Minister the power to cull on the basis that the case was made out for it. When it appeared that it was not made out, any one of your Lordships who had been present on that occasion, as I was, would have agreed that such permission ought not to be renewed until satisfactory evidence had been produced before us. I have suggested to your Lordships this afternoon various ways in which this evidence is unsatisfactory. If satisfactory evidence can be put before us, we will immediately go back to our annual meeting and say, "We are now satisfied that effective evidence has been produced and we ask you to approve of our resuming negotiations with the Minister of Agriculture and coming to an arrangement with him under which proper culling can be carried through". That should be done instead of our having the provision in the proposed new clause in this Bill, which leaves the whole matter to the Minister and gives him powers to override the National Trust of England in this way. That, I suggest, is altogether wrong. I therefore ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
3.25 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I have a great deal of sympathy with the dispute that
464
my noble friend Lord Chorley and the National Trust have with the Government in not being taken into consideration. I am not a research man and I have not the particulars available. But I do know of the depredations taking place among the salmon on the Northumberland coast in the Boulmer area and the Seahouses area by these grey seals. From a practical point of view, there is an overwhelming case, whether it be scientifically based or otherwise, for this culling to be taking place. I was interested to hear my noble friend say that the mortality rate is in dispute, whether it is 17 or 13 per cent., but I think the figures also show that there was a birth rate of something like 650-odd from a certain date to over 1,700 now in a very few years. He went on to say that these seals leave the Farne Islands and go off to Scotland and elsewhere. From practical experience I can tell him that a tremendous number of these seals still remain round the Farne Islands and on the Northumberland coast and do a tremendous amount of damage to the detriment of the Boulmer and Seahouses fishermen who have practical experience of being among them and seeing them.
Therefore, while I appreciate the very human approach of my noble friend Lord Chorley in this matter, we all know that there is difficulty as regards these culling processes. From a humanitarian point of view no one likes doing this, but what is the best method? So far as science has been able to help, this is the most effective and the most humane method of keeping these seals down to reasonable proportions. As I say, I appreciate my noble friend Lord Chorley's approach. I understand and appreciate his vendetta with the Government over the National Trust not being taken into consideration, but making all allowance for that I do not think that that should in any way mitigate against this clause being inserted in the Bill.
3.28 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I had hoped that we could discuss this important matter without having a Second Reading debate and that it would not be necessary for me to make a long speech. But a number of points have been raised and there have been quite a number of inaccurate statements, and I would ask the Committee to bear with me while I deal with

465
them. My noble friend Lord Chorley said that he understood that this Bill and the discussions on it were to be conducted on the basis of good will and not on the basis of legislative compulsion. But all Acts of Parliament involve somewhere or other legislative compulsion.
LORD CHORLEY: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I said that it would be very much better if the discussions could be conducted on the basis of good will and not on the basis of Acts of Parliament.
LORD STONHAM: When my noble friend reads Hansard, he will see that he said that it should not be on the basis of legislative compulsion. I wrote it down. The rather wicked thought occurred to me that all Acts of Parliament involve legislative compulsion.
I noticed that the mover of the Amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that he was almost as reluctant to kill a baby seal as a baby human, and this struck me very much as my own feelings in the matter. I am painfully conscious of the fact that any Minister who deals with any Bill affecting animals is a loser from the start; whatever he says and whichever way he goes he is bound to be the subject of virulent and indeed threatening correspondence; but it still behoves us to speak the truth as we see it.
I want first of all, therefore, to deal with some of the things my noble friend Lord Chorley said. He made a great point (although I thought this was rather a red herring, if I can mention red herrings in relation to salmon) that 1967 was a good year. Of course it was. But he neglected to say that 1968 was a bad year for salmon, and that 1969 looks like being even worse. You cannot just settle these matters on catches which, as everyone knows, fluctuate from year to year, for a variety of reasons, and it is not possible to quantify the effect of any one factor.
My noble friend said that we have not had any evidence. Well, I myself gave estimates on Second Reading, and last year when we had this Bill I gave estimates as well. I will give them again. The damage to the salmon fish industry is estimated at between £50,000 and £100,000
466
per annum. It has been estimated that seals eat 100,000 tons of fish per annum, and the infestation of cod by worms can obviously affect the saleability of the fish and therefore the income of fishermen. All these facts have been published in scientific papers available to the National Trust. My noble friend said that if we can give conclusive evidence, then of course the National Trust will withdraw its objection. We are trying to do that. But if evidence about consumption by seals means putting a sort of "catchometer" on every seal and recording every fish that it has caught, I would point out that you cannot collect evidence like that. You must have estimates.
In my speech in the Second Reading debate I drew attention to the need for some provision in the Bill for powers of access, to enable seals to be counted and observed for research purposes, and destroyed in the interests of management and fisheries protection. The whole purpose of this Bill is the control and the protection of seals from human and other enemies, and indeed protection in the sense of over-proliferation of the seals themselves. This is the object of the noble Earl's Bill; and of course at some stage, somewhere, it must involve culling.
That is why I said that we thought that it would be necessary to have access to land, and I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, support this view when he said that he thought the Bill was in the interests of seals and that his Party had always thought that the ownership of anything was subject to certain duties, and obviously he would regard it as a duty to provide the Secretary of State with powers of access. So at least the Government and the Opposition Front Bench are in agreement on this main point.
My noble friend Lord Chorley spoke about the meeting which was held in March, 1968, a meeting presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Howick. My noble friend said that the National Trust were not invited to that meeting. That is not true. He admitted that members of the National Trust were present. But what happened was this. It is true that it was an informal meeting of scientists who were called together on the initiative of the noble Lord and of the N.E.R.C. to

467
review the facts. The proposal to have such a meeting was made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the N.E.R.C., and it was made to the Chairman of the National Trust. So much for being asked or not being asked. The National Trust accepted, and scientific members of the National Trust were present at that meeting; but it is fair for me to say that they were present as individual scientists who were members of the National Trust, rather than as Trust representatives. But what did this high-powered and high-principled meeting do? They were not a collection of bloodthirsty cut-throats, determined to annihilate the species, or to do something of that kind. They met there to ascertain the facts and to advise the Government on the basis of those facts.
After considering all the available scientific evidence at that meeting they issued a Report. The Report was not contested by the members of the National Trust who were present and who participated, and that Report made it clear that substantial damage is done to fisheries, both salmon and marine, by damage to gear, loss of fish as a result of damaged gear, fish eaten within nets, fish mutilated within nets, fish diverted from the netting area by the presence of seals, depredations on fish elsewhere directly depleting stocks and the spawning complement, and the spread of parasitic worms.
That was what was agreed, and it has not been disputed. It is not possible to quantify precisely the effects on fisheries, but the Report concluded with these words:
"It is recognised that where sanctuaries for wild animals are established management of stocks is an essential part of any enlightened conservation practice.
"It is quite unreasonable to suggest that a large, mobile and rapidly multiplying animal such as the grey seal, with few, if any, enemies can exist on the Fames in vacuo and without having a major impact upon the environment for some considerable distance; although there is some doubt about many scientific questions relating to grey seals. It would be unsound and dangerous to insist on undue precision before deciding on management measures."
My noble friend now says, "Let the Government produce better evidence", and that the Trust says, "There is far more need for more research." We are
468
agreed about that; but the Trust has not been very helpful in this respect. Is my noble friend aware that they recently denied access to Dr. Peter Young of the N.E.R.C. Fisheries Helminthology Unit for the purpose of getting seal stomach samples to assess the parasitation level? If you want more research, at least you must help us to conduct the research.
Virtually all that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, are asking in their new clause is to have power placed in the hands of the Minister to have access for the purpose of counting and other purposes—for investigation, for research and, if it comes to it, for culling. The Government think that this is reasonable and right, and agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield in so far as his purpose is concerned. But may I put it to him that although we like the music we do not entirely agree with the words, for one or two reasons. First, the noble Earl's proposal appears to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to make orders to provide for seal culls, whereas this would not otherwise be necessary under the main provisions of the Bill. Secondly, the clause duplicates a provision which is already made in Clause 9, to licence the killing of seals in the close season and in areas of full protection, and to specify methods to be used. Thirdly, it implies that the killing of seals outside the close season for the purposes of fisheries protection will be subject to restriction which the Bill does not otherwise impose.
I want to end on this note. Of course we, like everyone else in the country, respect enormously the National Trust, and we admire the great work that it does for the entire population. It is the height of absurdity, it is abject nonsense, to suggest that we would not at all times consult them and pay the greatest possible respect to their advice and their wishes. But I hope from what I have said they will realise that on this issue it is for them to move a bit towards us; and when we are talking about good will, let us have good will all round, as this is quite essential. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, asked for an assurance that the Secretary of State would at all times when these powers were to be used give as much evidence of need as possible. Of course we will; but again we want the National Trust to cooperate with us in very often providing at

469
least a part of this evidence. That seems reasonable enough. I would ask the noble Earl whether he and his noble friend would withdraw their Amendments on the understanding that I will do my best to assist him to produce for Report stage a provision more capable of general acceptance and agreement but which would nevertheless embody what I think at least the great majority on all sides of the Committee wish to achieve.
3.41 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: Just before my noble friend replies, I wonder if I might repeat a suggestion that has been made already from the Cross Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale. I speak as one who served on the Executive Committee of the National Trust for very many years but not in the last year or two. What I should like to make clear to the Committee is that the National Trust through all the years I have known it has been very eager to do what is required in the public interest, though sometimes there has been an honest difference of opinion, as here, as to the conclusion to which the scientific evidence led. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has reminded the Committee of certain statutory duties of the National Trust. What I should like to suggest, since admittedly the new clause on the Paper to-day will not quite do, is that in framing what will be brought before the House at the next stage the Government should have the utmost consultation not only with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, the sponsor of this Bill, but also with the National Trust. If any quarrel still remains, I cannot say whether there will then be a fight or not, but at least we shall have made every effort to secure co-operation where co-operation is so eminently desirable.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I would willingly grant that assurance, but our difficulty at the moment is that the National Trust have not yet conceded the principle of access. While we should be delighted to enter into discussions with them on matters of detail, at least it presupposes that they will concede the principle of access or the power of the Secretary of State to have access in certain circumstances.
LORD CONESFORD: Obviously I cannot answer that. I should have thought that the consultation could be without prejudice to what should be said to the House at a later stage. If they are not prepared to concede the principle, as the noble Lord says, it may be because they are very conscious of their duties under the Acts under which they operate. I hope it will not be assumed by anybody in this Committee that, if the National Trust stand out on a point of principle, that principle is not bona fide based on their conception of their duty.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: May I just say one point on this question, because this afternoon we have concentrated almost entirely on the National Trust? Although the Trust have the major seal population in England, it is quite a small proportion of the grey seal population of the British Isles. In point of fact, the damage which the seals of the National Trust do is very largely in Scotland, and you cannot divorce England from Scotland in this way. I think also you cannot divorce the National Trust from other owners, because grey seal colonies exist on a great many islands and places up and down our coasts, all of which are private property. I should not think there is a single island on which seals pup which does not belong to somebody. I made provision in the Bill—and the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, and I crossed swords a little on it at Second Reading—that N.E.R.C. itself should not have control over the nature reserves for which it was responsible but that the responsibilty so far as fisheries were concerned should remain with the Minister. It is important to remember that it is not only the National Trust which is involved here, it is N.E.R.C. and all our nature reserves, and a very large number of private landowners on whose land the Minister will have the right to enter if a clause of this sort is passed—and I think quite rightly, I must confess.
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: May I add a word to that? So far as the nature reserves are concerned I think the Nature Conservancy and N.E.R.C. would both accept the proposition that the final say must he with the Government. In the end, the question is always the same: how to reconcile conservation of seals, on the one side, and the fishing

471
interests, on the other? All we do say is that before the Government exercise their powers they should consult fully not only with the scientists in the Ministry but also with the other scientists in N.E.R.C.
LORD BURTON: It seems to be very difficult to reconcile the attitude of the National Trust in England to seals and the attitude of the National Trust of Scotland when they call on the official body and ask it to control deer on their behalf. It seems to be entirely inconsistent when we find these two animals being treated in entirely different ways by the National Trusts.
LORD CHORLEY: The National Trust of Scotland are an entirely different body. They have different problems, and deal with them in their own way, through their own committee. It would therefore be quite wrong for us to interfere with them, and equally wrong for them to interfere with us. However, I did not rise to say that. I want to make two points, one in reply to my noble friend the Minister who has, in effect, asked the National Trust to concede the point of principle and then to discuss details. He overlooked the fact, which is very well known to the Ministry of Agriculture, that my Chairman gave a solemn pledge to the annual general meeting of the National Trust in 1965 that the members would be consulted again before any definite decision on this point was taken. So until the next annual general meeting in November it would obviously be morally wrong for the National Trust to make any such concession on the question of principle.
The other point I want to make arises out of the suggestion by the Minister that the National Trust have been completely unco-operative in regard to research and all that sort of thing. But here he is speaking for a Department of which he is not a member, and he does not know the situation as well as I do. The National Trust have been doing their best over these last years to make available all the material which they have. I have not heard about this zoologist who seems to have been refused permission to land on the Farne Islands. There is probably some quite simple explanation—there generally is in this type of case—but I will make it my personal business
472
to find out about this matter, and I can assure the Minister, and Lord Cranbrook and Lord Mansfield, and everybody else in the Committee, that we are most anxious to do our best to further research into these problems and will certainly place all our resources in this matter at the disposal of NERC—I do not like the expression "NERC", but it is easier to remember. I hope that that is clear that we certainly have not been adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude about research. It is something that we have wanted all the time, and I have never risen on this Bill without making that clear.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It will not, I think, come as a surprise to your Lordships to learn that at the conclusion of the few remarks which I shall now have to make I shall ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, in view of the very satisfactory assurances which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has given; that is, that he, in consultation with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will devise something which will be satisfactory to all concerned. I shall leave them to get on with that in due course, and I certainly do not wish to be drawn into the negotiations. I am quite happy to leave it to them. As regards the allegedly unsatisfactory nature of the Amendments, I may say that, although normally I personally draft all the Questions which I put down in your Lordships' House, I did not feel that on this occasion my capabilities were in any way up to the task, and the Amendments were drafted by persons of the greatest possible Parliamentary skill. So much for that. But it is very satisfactory that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is prepared to accept the principle.
I should now like for a few moments to deal with the rambling and irrelevant remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Let me assure him that I have the utmost respect for the National Trust, and I am a life member of its corresponding body in Scotland. But if one were to accept the thesis which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is putting forward, then two points must emerge: first, that the National Trust is seeking to put itself above the law; and, secondly, that the National Trust is utterly indifferent to the interests of the fishermen of the Farne Islands. There is no question about that. The noble Lord gave figures about

473
salmon which have already been refuted by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. But one cannot take one or two isolated instances; and even the cases which he took were by no means accurate. To judge from what Lord Chorley said, one would think that what was being demanded was the complete and utter massacre of all grey seals everywhere. All that is being asked for in these Amendments is that the Government should have power to order the destruction of an adequate number.
LORD CHORLEY: I should be very grateful if the noble Earl would withdraw that remark. I used the word "culling", and anybody who knows anything about this knows that a cull is to take a certain number of seals. To equate "cull" with "massacre" is certainly unfair to me, and I should have thought the noble Earl would have withdrawn that remark.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I do not think it is necessary to reply to that last observation. What I am saying is that all that is being asked for is that the power to cull seals should be taken, after consultation with the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy, both bodies of the utmost responsibility. If they, after making the close investigations which I have no doubt they would make into the matter, were to decide that no culling was necessary, then of course that would be accepted by the fishing interests. But to suggest that any attempt is to be made to override wildly the rights of everyone, including landowners, is pathetic.
The Deer Commission have power to order owners to kill whatever number of deer on their land the Commission think fit, and if it is not done the official deer-stalkers of the Commission can go in and do the work and charge the cost to the landowner. There is no earthly reason why that should not be done also in the case of the grey seal, save for the one important proviso that I have already mentioned: that at the time one found that the National Trust—or indeed anyone else—was not carrying out its duty it would be too late for any culling to take place that year. All we are asking is to have the power, after proper and thorough investigation by im-
474
partial scientific bodies, and I do not think that that is an unreasonable demand. As I have said, I am quite happy to leave the matter to discussions between the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I accordingly beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Apprehension of offenders and powers of search and seizure]:
3.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 12, at the beginning insert ("without warrant").
The noble Earl said: Clause 4 provides that a constable may arrest a person whom he suspects to be committing an offence, and it is implicit that he may do so without a warrant. But I understand that it must be made clear that he can arrest without a warrant, and that is the purpose of my Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 19, after ("sell") insert ("or otherwise dispose of").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment provides that a constable may sell any seal that is seized, but one wonders what would be the result if a constable were unable to sell a seal, particularly in very hot weather. This Amendment provides that he can "otherwise dispose of", it, in order to cater for an occurrence of that nature. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: Would the noble Earl agree that his next Amendment, No. 6, is on exactly the same point? Since Nos. 5 and 6 go together, we need not have a further discussion.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Yes, Amendment No. 6 is consequential.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("the") the second time where is occurs and insert ("any").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Jurisdiction of courts
". Where any offence against this Act is committed at some place on the sea coast or at sea outside the area of any commission of the peace, the place of the commission of the offence shall, for the purposes of the jurisdiction of any court, be deemed to be any place where the offender is found or to which he is first brought after the commission of the offence."
The noble Earl said: I understand that the jurisdiction of petty sessional divisions does not extend out to sea, on to sandbanks and the like, and were it not so late one could speculate endlessly on the fun one might have on a sandbank with no petty sessional division available to try one, if caught. It is quite obvious that people who shoot seals on sandbanks should be prosecuted under this Bill, and this new clause is intended to provide that they may be. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Attempt to commit offence]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("prohibited firearm or prohibited ammunition") and insert ("firearm or ammunition the use of which is prohibited by subsection (1)(b) of section 1 of this Act").
The noble Earl said: The word "prohibited" is not defined in this Bill, but "prohibited firearm" and "prohibited ammunition" are, in fact, defined in the Firearms Act 1968, and it seems better to prevent any misunderstanding by inserting this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Power to grant licences]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 44 and insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State—

(a) shall consult the Natural Environment Research Council before granting a licence under this Act; and

(b) except in relation to the prevention of damage to fisheries,").

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to meet the case which was raised by my noble friend Lord Howick of Glendale on Second Reading and to which I referred when we were discussing access. It provides that in every case the Secretary of State will consult with the Natural Environment Research Council, and will not, save in relation to the prevention of damage to fisheries, do anything on a nature reserve without the consent of the Council. I referred to it in the discussion on the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I hope the noble Lord will agree that this meets the case which he raised. I beg to move.
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: I must be rather dense. I do not entirely follow this.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: In effect, the Bill says that the Secretary of State need not consult the Natural Environment Research Council in the case of damage to fisheries. It now provides that in every case he shall consult with the Council, and leaves him free to order action on a nature reserve only after consultation with the Council, but without their consent. I think that the Council would agree, particularly in view of the discussions we had earlier on the question of access, that they could not expect to be treated differently from any other individual so far as their property was concerned. If your Lordships do not accept the Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will undoubtedly move at the next stage of the Bill, I think it is possible that the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches will wish to move an Amendment deleting this clause, which I should find it difficult to resist.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: This, I understand, is what the Natural Environment Research Council would like—exactly in this form.
LORD HOWICK of GLENDALE: I am sorry to be dense on this matter. My point is solely this. I think that before the Minister orders a cull, either in a nature reserve or outside it, he should consult with the N.E.R.C. Will that now be necessary?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: That is what the Amendment says.
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: Quite regardless of what it says on access?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Yes.
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: I am grateful to the noble Earl.
LORD STONHAM: I think I had better be absolutely clear about this and say conclusively that the effect of this Amendment is to make it mandatory, compulsory, on the Secretary of State to consult the Natural Environment Research Council before issuing a licence for any purpose provided for in the Bill—including, of course, the prevention of damage to fisheries.
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Duty of the Council]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 5, after ("provide") insert ("the Secretary of State with").
The noble Earl said: Clause 10 provides that the Council should provide scientific advice. It was not intended that it should be under an obligation to provide scientific advice to all and sundry so far as seals are concerned, and I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I think I should just say that this Amendment does not mean that the Council will not be able to offer advice to any other interested party, but removes any statutory obligation they might otherwise have had to give such advice to all comers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("Protection") and insert ("Conservation").
The noble Earl said: I must apologise to your Lordships for having to put this Amendment down. During the course of the consultations that took place before I produced it, at one period this Bill changed its name. I angrily changed the Title back but omitted to change this clause, for which I must apologise to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: May I make one final point which I must apologise for not having made at the right time? It is on Clause 2. The N.E.R.C. would be very grateful if the Government will consider again the period for the close season for common seals. At the moment it is two months, June and July. Members of the Council think it should really be June and July plus August. If the Government would give consideration to that point we should be very grateful. I should have raised it earlier, and I apologise.
LORD STONHAM: Of course, this is Lord Cranbrook's Bill and it is a matter for him. But certainly I will look at the point, as it has now been raised, with the noble Earl, although I am bound to say that the dates written in the Bill are as a result of consultation and as a result of advice that we received. But if the noble Lord and his Council think that it should be looked at again, of course we shall do that between now and Report stage.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I can fairly say that I am surprised that I was given the information that I was given and now find that I was given the wrong information.
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: It was a case of second thoughts.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed

NATIONAL MOD (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.8 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This small Bill is to enable district councils in Scotland to contribute to the National Mod. This, as your Lordships probably know, was started in 1892, and its purpose was to encourage the use of the Gaelic language, both spoken and written, as well as a certain amount of music. At the present time, local authorities can help in two different ways. First, under Section 132 of the Local Government Act 1948 district councils can contribute to the expenses of a Mod if it is held in the area of the local authority concerned or if it is held in a place which is convenient for residents of the local authority to go to. The second way is under Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, which provides that county and town councils may contribute with the approval of the Secretary of State. The can contribute up to the cost of a 2d. rate, I think, for this purpose.
But under this arrangement one of the strongest Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland does not rank for grant for Mod. I refer to the Island of Lewis, which would not come in under these two provisions. The powers sought in this Bill are only permissive; there will be no compulsion on a local authority to contribute. All Welsh authorities, of all sorts, can contribute to the funds of the National Eisteddfod which is held at Llangollen. It may be said that Gaelic speakers in Scotland are not great in number; but in the Western Isles and in parts of the Highlands it is the normal speech. About 1-.1: million viewers saw the Mod on television and about 12,000 people actually attended the performance; and that is out of a population of about 5 million.
The district councils in that part of Scotland where Gaelic is spoken wish to have the power to contribute to the funds of the Mod. As I have already said, not a great deal of money is involved. The object of these exercises is to restore
480
and to maintain life in the Highlands with the tradition and vitality which are kept going by those who speak Gaelic. In this way one can produce something to ensure that the Highlands survive as a part of Scotland by itself and are not to be regarded as a part or appendage or extension of Edinburgh and Glasgow. There is no question of the Bill being concerned in the starting of compulsory teaching of Gaelic in Scotland. It is merely that the district councils shall be able to contribute funds if they think fit. I do not want to touch on the effect it might have on tourism in the Highlands; but I certainly think that what we can do to encourage this national Mod, which has been held in quite a number of towns in Scotland in the course of the last sixty or so years, we should do. I therefore trust that these few words will enable your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amuiree.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I hope that this Bill will receive an unopposed Second Reading. As the noble Lord who moved it said, it will help to preserve the Gaelic language; but I think that most of the people who listened to the Mod, either by going to it or by means of wireless, were interested in the Gaelic music. It is very important that this, too, should be preserved. This is an admirable measure which ought to merit your Lordships' support.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we too on this Bench should like to support this Bill. One very good reason for this is that it seems a little illogical and absurd that the right to give financial support to the Mod should depend on where it happens to be held in a particular year. This is a national Mod and I think it only reasonable that it be generally supported by every local authority that wishes to support it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Government are happy to give a welcome to this Bill. I should point out that An Comunn Gaidhealach receives an annual grant from the Scottish Education Department under the Further Education (Scotland) Regulations 1959, to help meet its administrative expenses. In 1967, the grant was £1,000. This has been increased over the past two years and in

481
1969 the grant will he £7,000. So in giving support to this further measure of financial assistance to the Mod, the Government are being consistent in their policy.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords who spoke in support of this little Bill. There is nothing further that I wish to say.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.15 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Functions of education authorities]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 24, after ("suitable") insert ("in the ordinary case").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This Amendment makes it clear that children of school age; that is, those who have reached the statutory age for commencing compulsory education, five years, may attend or continue to attend a nursery school. The whole trend in educational thinking is towards blurring the division between nursery education and education in infant classes in primary schools. The Amendment makes it clear that the section is not intended to mean that nursery school activities are unsuitable for all children over five or that children must necessarily be expected to leave nursery schools immediately on attaining the age of five.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, after ("areas") insert ("and to children in other areas whose parents speak Gaelic")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment (and it is odd that it should come immediately after the National Mod Bill) is to ensure that Gaelic-speaking children—children whose parents speak Gaelic and who therefore hear and speak Gaelic in their homes—should, like children in other ordinary cases, receive education in their own language. I suppose it might be flippantly said that if this applies to Gaelic it should also apply to Italian, Pakistani, Yiddish or any other language. I hope that it will not be said, for those do not happen to be Scottish languages. If we really want racial integration it would be highly undesirable to lay such an obligation on education authorities.
There are two native Scottish languages, English and Gaelic. It cannot be denied that the teaching of one's own native language is appropriate to one's educational requirements. This Amendment would simply emphasise that. At a time when efforts are being made to repopulate the Highlands and Islands it is surely desirable to draw back to the Islands children whose parents have moved out of Gaelic-speaking areas to other parts of Scotland. Such children will be more likely to want to return if they study Gaelic at schools. And I should have thought that if they come from Gaelic-speaking homes they have a right to study their native tongue. There are, of course, many such homes in the four cities, and in such places as Greenock and Paisley—and, indeed, even in the town which I used to represent, Dumfries. There is no difficulty in these places in providing children with tuition in Gaelic.
I recognise that there may be Gaelic-speaking homes in areas where it would be difficult, if not impossible, to provide such tuition, and it may be that this Amendment should be re-drafted to include the words, "where possible", or "where practicable", or some similar provision. But I have deliberately drawn it in the broadest terms because I think it is the principle that we ought to discuss. In any case, I would point out to anyone who wishes or wants to be particularly purist or pernickety about this that there are probably areas in which it is not possible to provide for other forms of education appropriate to the requirements of every child so that, if one wants to be

483
absolutely precise and pernickety, this clause, even as it stands, goes too far; its provisions cannot be carried out in practice.
This Amendment has been put down to consider the principle of teaching Gaelic to children coming from Gaelic-speaking homes in Scotland, wherever they may be, and where it is possible to do so. I hope that the noble Lord will direct his reply to that principle. After all, many children brought up in non-Gaelic-speaking homes will go back to the Highlands—just as many children from Gaelic-speaking homes will go back—as doctors, ministers, teachers, local government officers and so on, and it would be desirable that they should have not only a colloquial knowledge but also a correct knowledge of their language. Moreover, if the teaching of Gaelic is made available other children from non-Gaelic-speaking homes may take advantage of it and so equip themselves to enjoy and understand the Highlands and Islands more fully; and perhaps also to contribute to the re-development and revival of the Highlands. I hope very much that we shall take the opportunity provided by this Bill to do for children from Gaelic-speaking homes outside Gaelic-speaking areas what has already been done for them within the areas. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has rather simplified my task, because he has gone out of his way to point out the difficulty of implementing the Amendment which he has moved. I readily give him the assurance that I do not wish to "paint the lily" by adding the difficulty of teaching Arabic, Pakistani, Italian or any other minority languages which cannot yet be regarded as one of the languages of Scotland. It is simply because of the difficulties to which the noble Lord himself referred that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
The new Section 1(1) which appears in Clause 1 of this Bill states:
"It shall be the duty of every education authority to secure that there is made for their area adequate and efficient provision of school education …"
So a duty is already laid on authorities in Clause 1 as drafted to secure
484
adequate and efficient provision of the teaching of Gaelic in Gaelic-speaking areas. The Amendment would put a duty on the authorities to secure the adequate and efficient provision of teaching Gaelic to children in non-Gaelic-speaking areas whose parents speak Gaelic. The presence of one set of such parents would be sufficient to require an authority to attempt to comply with this duty.
It is true that Gaelic-speaking areas are not defined in the Bill, but, as my honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in another place, one recognises a Gaelic-speaking area when one sees one. Therefore I agree with the noble Lord that the Amendment imposes on authorities in non-Gaelic-speaking areas what might be a difficult duty. I would go further and say that in many cases it would impose a duty which it would be impossible for them to carry out. Irrespective of the number of children whose parents spoke Gaelic, and how many different schools the pupils attended, the authority would have a duty to teach the children Gaelic.
Moreover, the Amendment presupposes that all parents who speak Gaelic but who live in non-Gaelic-speaking areas want their children to learn Gaelic. This may be a perfectly correct assumption, but it is, to say the least, rather unusual to make assumptions in Acts of Parliament about individual subjects which parents may or may not want their children to learn. I think it is much better to leave the Bill as it stands. There is no reason why authorities in non-Gaelic-speaking areas should not arrange for Gaelic to be taught. They have power to do so, and some of them exercise it, as the noble Lord himself has pointed out, by naming areas which cannot possibly be regarded as Gaelic-speaking areas where the language is being taught. In this case we think it is better that the teaching of Gaelic should rest on a power to teach it rather than on a duty to do so.
I do not want it to be thought for a moment that the Government are unsympathetic to the future of Gaelic. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has pointed out, it is rather a coincidence that we should be discussing this so soon after giving a Second Reading to the National Mod Bill. I mentioned earlier the tremendous increase in financial support

485
which the Government are giving, and I would draw attention to the Annual Report for 1968 of the Scottish Education Department which, on page 16, contains this paragraph:
"Determined efforts are being made to stimulate the learning of Gaelic. In Inverness-shire over 2.000 non-native speakers have been receiving instruction in that language. The annual Gaelic camps were attended by pupils from all over Scotland. Three schools in Ross and Cromarty prepared experimental broadcasts dealing respectively with a local Gaelic hard, lobster fishing in Bernera and the wartime experiences of a Shawbost villager now employed in the school meals department. These programmes were transmitted from Rosemarkie in September."
The authorities in the Gaelic-speaking areas agreed, on the suggestion of the Secretary of State, that they should form a joint committee which would be concerned primarily with the production of textbooks in Gaelic. This committee was set up some two or three years ago and has done some very useful work. Apart altogether from progress in the schools, the Secretary of State has increased very substantially the grant, which will reach the figure of £7,000 in the current financial year. In addition to that, the Secretary of State is paying an annual grant of £5,000 to Glasgow University to promote the publication of new and original works in the Gaelic language.
I hope that I have said sufficient to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the Government are at one with him in wishing to see as widespread a teaching of the language as is desired, but that this may better be accomplished by resting on the willingness of interested local authorities—and he and I are agreed that there are a number of these—to exercise the powers which they have, rather than by seeking to impose on them a duty which in many cases it would be impossible for them to fulfil.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, which shows that the Government are taking an interest in this matter. I may trouble him by putting down a Question before long asking in how many local authorities outside Gaelic-speaking areas Gaelic is being taught, and in how many schools. I recognise the drafting difficulty of this Amendment, which, as I indicated, I do not intend to press. It is an exploratory Amendment. In view of what the noble
486
Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 24, after first ("of") insert ("school education in public schools at which fees were being charged on the 25th November 1968 and of").
The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment, even if it now affects only a comparatively small proportion of the pupils in the country. It now affects only our two main cities and only some 6,000 pupils in them—something of that kind. The purpose of the Amendment is to permit education authorities, if they wish, to continue in existence fee-paying schools belonging to them. It does not give them power to establish new ones. Your Lordships will be aware that the power to charge for school education in England and Wales was revoked by the 1944 Act, but it was not revoked in the corresponding Scottish legislation, because it was then recognised that circumstances in Scotland were not—and they are still not—the same as in England. I doubt if anyone will have the temerity to suggest that what is good in education for England is necessarily good for Scotland. Indeed, if we were to equate education in Scotland with education in England, even in the matter of fee-paying schools, the logic of that would be to abolish the Department of Education in Scotland, and that, indeed, would raise a great outcry.
It is true that from that time the number of education authority schools in which fees are charged has declined considerably, and in the last two or three years, under pressure from the Government, the rate of decline has increased. At such schools as Greenock Academy, Leith Academy, Paisley Grammar School and Dundee High School, fees have either ceased or will shortly cease to be charged, but they are still charged at five schools in Glasgow and three in Edinburgh. When I say "are", I mean that they will be after this session. The Government have brought great pressure to bear on Glasgow and Edinburgh to bring them into line, or perhaps I should say, to toe the line, but Glasgow and Edinburgh, as they have a perfect right to do under existing legislation, have declined to surrender.
Perhaps the shortest way of indicating to your Lordships why, is to read the preamble to the motion which the Glasgow Education Authority carried by a large majority for the retention of their five fee-paying schools, after discussing the matter with the Secretary of State. This was the wording of the preamble:
"That having had consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow and head teachers of fee-paying and selective schools, and having ascertained:
"(1) that the Secretary of State had not advanced any argument in support of the contention that the abolition of these schools would significantly benefit the Authority's whole comprehensive system;
"(2) that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese held the view that it was the wish of the Catholic parents, expressed by the Church authority, that the status quo be retained;
"(3) that head teachers of these schools supported the retention of the school and refuted the Secretary of State's view that selection was incompatible with comprehensive education".
I think that that preamble puts the controversy in a nutshell. In Edinburgh a similar motion for the retention of their three fee-paying schools was carried by the Education Authority by a majority of 42 to 16, reversing a recommendation for their abolition from Edinburgh Education Committee, which does not consist only of elected members.
There are grant-aided schools and independent schools as well as fee-paying education authority schools in these two cities, but there is a great demand for places in the fee-paying schools already and they would not be able to accommodate all the children of parents in Edinburgh and Glasgow who want to continue to send their children to fee-paying schools, not to mention those parents who come to live in these cities in order to be able to educate their children in these schools, which have a deservedly high reputation. Perhaps it is relevant to point out to your Lordships that while the number of children, as a proportion of the total number of pupils in England and Wales, who attend grant-aided and independent schools is 7·3 per cent., the number of children attending grant-aided and independent schools in Scotland is only 4·1 per cent. of the school population.
There is no marked difference in character between the leading fee-paying
488
education authority schools and grant-aided schools, whether they are under the control of the education authority or not. Among the characteristics which they share are not only that while they are fee-paying bursaries are available in them and some parents pay nothing at all, but also that they are selective. The reasons they are selective are twofold. First and more important, it is because the demand for places exceeds the available number, in many cases threefold or fivefold. Secondly, it is because one of the ways in which a school maintains its standard is frankly by excluding pupils it does not want. Schools at which there is selection are fee-paying, but fee-paying schools are not necessarily selective. If they cease to be selective, standards are likely to decline.
The complaint against the education authority fee-paying schools is that they are selective. It is the selection which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, does not fit in with the comprehensive system. That, to say the least of it, is odd. The comprehensive school controversy is of English origin. It does not apply to Scotland because a high proportion of our schools has always been comprehensive. I maintain that we ought not to worship conformity or uniformity for their own sakes. The current fashion for comprehensive schools may last for ten years or even for a century, but one thing is absolutely certain, and that is that the fashion will change, because human needs and methods to meet them are always changing. That is one important reason why it would be mad to destroy or to change beyond recognition institutions which have stood the test of time, adapting themselves to changing circumstances, keeping their individuality, as any institution must, if it is to survive and prosper.
Even if fee-paying schools in an education authority system constitute an anomaly, surely it is wrong to destroy them or alter them. I do not believe it is possible to defend either course. To change their character would be quite wrong, if they are serving the community well, as they are, adapting all the time as circumstances change. If they are good, then keep them and improve them, while preserving their own character and virtues. It is not claimed that they are not good. Indeed, all the evidence is

489
that it is because they are good, because they attract better pupils and better teachers, that some desire to destroy them. This I believe to be unworthy. It certainly will not raise the standard of those who are at the schools now or would go to them in future, nor will it enhance either the quality or reputation of education in Scotland. I conclude with the advice which St. Paul gave to the Thessalonians:
"Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good."
The value of fee-paying schools has been proved. Let us hold fast to them. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I rise to support the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has just moved. I confess that I do not understand what benefit is to be derived from doing away with the system of fee-paying schools. Some, at least, of these schools have a long history and a great tradition, and the education they provide is of a very high standard. They have served and they continue to serve the country well. They produce not only men who attain the highest of academic distinctions, but also men of character and ability, many of whom rise high in the professions, in industry, in trade and in commerce. I wonder, then, why Her Majesty's present Government wish to get rid of them. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, told us in his opening speech on Second Reading that it was to remove an anachronistic practice. If the view is that it is an anachronistic practice for parents to pay towards the cost of their children's education, I think it is to be deplored; for I believe that it is something which has existed almost from the days of John Knox and helped to provide in Scotland an educational system which we were proud to claim, and to claim with justification, was probably the best in the world.
It is my experience that when you buy something, and particularly when you have to make sacrifices to enable you to do so, you are inclined to value it and care for it to a greater extent than if it is given to you for nothing. I know from my own personal experience that parents paying for their children's education do much to help them in their studies and take an interest in their school activities; and they do this to
490
ensure that full use is made of the money which they have paid in fees.
Then the noble Lord said that the object was to further equality of educational opportunity, and to make it possible for the present fee-paying selective secondary schools to be included within the comprehensive system. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would be good enough to enlarge on that and to say how it is proposed that these schools should be improved. He went on to claim that the Government have made tremendous advances in the introduction of comprehensive secondary education in Scotland. I would ask the noble Lord again, when he comes to reply, whether he would be good enough to tell the Committee what this wonderful comprehensive system really is, and how it betters education, as such. I understand that we still have primary education, and we still have secondary education—both now, of course, coming under the heading of school education. Does the word "comprehensive" merely mean that everyone goes from primary to secondary education?
The noble Lord also dealt with equality of opportunity. He said that there could be no equality where selection is made at 5 or 12 years of age. But his argument seemed to me to lead to it being unfair to deny children of that age the opportunity of going to a fee-paying secondary school: in other words, that they were losing the opportunity of getting a better education than they would get at a non-fee-paying education authority school. But why, I would ask, do away with the better? Why not hold the fee-paying schools up to the others as a target at which they should aim, and thus give them additional incentive?
With regard to selection, is it not still unfair to some to select those who are to go on for a university education at 18 years of age or so? Those not selected might profit greatly by going to a university. Indeed, I have known of many late developers who have found great difficulty in passing an examination at 18 years of age, but who at 20 years of age have been right at the top of their year. Be that as it may, the system of entry to fee-paying schools, while it may have denied entry to a number, did not deny them the benefits of secondary education it only stopped them from obtaining

491
it at a fee-paying school. In this imperfect world it is extremely difficult to be entirely fair to everyone, but I would claim that, by and large, the system of selection has worked very well.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, also held that parental choice hardly entered into the matter. Of course it does. It was the parents who presented their child to the school; they were prepared to pay the cost of the child's education, or part of it; they chose the school to which they wanted him to go; and it was only then that the school was able to choose whether or not to have him.
I would ask the noble Lord to tell your Lordships about the comprehensive system, and why it demands the destruction of the fee-paying schools. What is it that prevents the fee-paying schools from being part of our educational system in the future; and why must they be dispensed with? I have always believed that when you have a good thing you should not lightly discard it. The great fee-paying schools have proved themselves up to the hilt. They have a great record, and a great tradition, which is of the utmost value both to our country and to the individual. The comprehensive schools (of which I pray the noble Lord to tell us more) are still on trial, and until they have proved themselves I would advise your Lordships to hold on to what we have, of proved worth and of real merit.
There is one other thing I wish to say. As the economic level of our people rises the demand for places at the fee-paying schools increases by leaps and bounds. Should that demand not be catered for? Is it not the duty of the Government to provide for it rather than to deny it? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may yet be able to obtain from his right honourable friend an assurance that, even at this late hour, he will think again.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: This is a difficult problem and one which we knew we should have to face when we came to this Bill, because to-day many people say that one cannot possibly allow parents to pay for any form of their children's education in the local authority schools; that it is all wrong. Some of us wonder why it is wrong. Some of us wonder sometimes whether the amount they pay
492
has been looked into; and some of us wonder sometimes whether everybody must be exactly the same in a comprehensive school (and we have always had what are practically comprehensive schools in Scotland), or whether we think we must have something different now.
A great many schools that had fee-paying pupils have been given up, but some are still continuing to operate. In many cases the amount of fee they pay is quite small. I am thinking now of a school for girls in Edinburgh, where a fee of just over £30 a year is paid by the parents. But they know that the standard there is very high, and it does not matter if you go there with £30, or a proportion of it for that term, you will not get your child into the school unless the child has ability. It is a case not only of paying, but of being of a high standard. The strange thing is that although nowadays we have schools for people with subnormal capabilities, we do not have schools for people with greater ability than the normal. Other countries have them. I am told that Russia is one country with such schools, and at least two other European countries have them. But we say that children must all be in the same type of school.
The point of the comprehensive school is that it gathers the children all from one neighbourhood. It may be thought to be a good plan that all the children in a neighbourhood should go to that particular school. But I wonder whether it is a good plan. I wonder whether it is not a better plan to mix children with other children of the city or town, instead of just being with those next door, or down the street, as the case may be. The idea of the neighbourhood school, the comprehensive school, where all the children will go from the particular neighbourhood makes a pretty pattern when you work it out on paper as your scheme for education, and a great many people have thought it is very much the best way of doing it. This idea of anybody going to a fee-paying school crashes in on that. The child may come some distance and meet other children from another part of the city or town. But do we really think that the child is going to benefit? After all, that is the one point we have to consider: is it of benefit to the child, and to the child's education, to do away with the schools we know to-day and to have everybody

493
in the same type of school in the same neighbourhood? Many people may think this is not the best plan.
We are making a quite definite change in Scottish education. I should be the last person to say that Scottish education to-day is perfect—I am not sure that it was not very much better a certain number of years ago. But are we going to make it better now by the changes we are making? That is the only criterion by which we have to judge. It is no use saying that it is simply better for a particular scheme or plan; what we want to know is whether it is really better education for the children; are they going to be able to learn better and more easily? What effect is it going to have upon them, and the whole social life of Scotland? I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether those things have been considered, and also why the Government have come to this conclusion.
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Rising to support this Amendment, I should like to begin by making several general points. I would plead with the Government to take another look at this matter. If the object is suppression of fees in the interests of equality of opportunity and non-selectivity, I submit that it is an unreal exercise altogether. If you suppress the payment of fees one way or another they will come in somewhere else. There will always be a black market in learning. Both history and contemporary experience proves this.
To go back a bit in British history, when the Roman Catholics suffered under the penal laws they went abroad and set up their own schools; they did not conform. In at least one Communist country of which I have personal knowledge, and fairly frequent experience, because I used to work there—I refer to Yugoslavia—the result of a State system to create uniformity is that the newspapers are filled with advertisements for people offering tuition. Those who are determined to grow up and resist dictatorship feel that they are making their best contribution to that effort by seeing their children work hard, by scrimping and saving and buying extra tuition out of school. The same thing will happen, too, in our own country. If the best that can be had is not to be had from a State system, people will scrimp, save,
494
sweat and slog to buy it round the corner, by means, if you like, of private tuition—and bang goes the idea of equality of opportunity! This black market in education will always be there. People will demand it.
I go further. During the past ten years I have been much concerned with the whole problem of trying to attract industry to Scotland. I have spoken to the managing director or the chairman of company after company about this or that place in Scotland in which I was trying to interest them. Among the very first questions I was asked was, "What facilities for fee-paying education are there, so that our junior executives who are coming up, and will be on the board, can get their children well trained and into the university?" Not every successful businessman has a brilliant child, but certainly if he is any good he wants to push that child. The significance of that particular point is borne out by none other body than the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) which is, indeed, partly supported by the Government. I have in my hands now one of their brochures, called Moving into Scotland, in which an educational system is one of the assets set out as a lure to industry to come to Scotland. The same Scottish Council publish and distribute another brochure, called Living in Scotland, compiled by Magnus Magnusson and Jessie Anderson. I will not weary your Lordships by quoting from it.
The fact that the Council give attention to this matter shows that, where industry is concerned in seeking to come to Scotland, the availability of fee-paying and selective education, and various grades of this from, we will say, the school like Fettes down to the ones we are talking about now, is a real factor. It is no good the Scottish Office saying, as I believe they have said in the past, "There is no evidence of this in Scotland." The firms that do not come to Scotland are not going to give the Scottish Office the evidence which those of us who have talked to them have from experience, that this is a serious factor. We know very well that if Scotland is to produce the material for her higher business school, for her higher management; if Scotland is to provide the technologists, the scientists and, may I add, the administrators who are needed—and administrators possibly

495
of a higher calibre than we have known hitherto—in an increasingly complex society, we simply cannot skimp or invite parents to submit to what amounts to a skimping and a levelling down.
What about the attitudes of the local authorities concerned? There is Glasgow, which has been the focus and home of a radical approach to every trend of thinking since Glasgow University was founded in, if I remember correctly, the fourteenth century. Glasgow, which has been the great home of radicalism, has opposed this particular proposition. Glasgow Education Committee voted by a large majority, as the noble Lord knows, to oppose this particular provision, and my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has already referred to Edinburgh. It has been said, perhaps with the overtones of Clydeside exaggeration which we all enjoy, that this flouting of local authority wishes is something like an interference with local democracy. I would not go so far as to say that. I should like to echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He recalled something which was said to me years ago by the late and great Walter Elliot. He said, "If you want somebody to read a book, make them go and buy it; don't give it to them". My shelves are full of books which have been given to me, and I have never read them. There are also books on my shelves which I have gone without lunch to buy, and I have read every line of them.
Where parents pay, no matter how little, they appreciate what they get. Furthermore, that appreciation seeps through to the children, quite apart from the direct incentive that the parents may give in making the children do their homework at night, and all the rest of it. Surely we shall agree—for the figures seem to bear it out—that the non-comprehensive environment is conducive to children staying on at school after fifteen and sixteen years of age, and on to the sixth form. I was very interested to see some figures, in percentages, of children who chose to stay on the previous year, as between the comprehensives and the fee-paying schools. When one gets to the fifth form the figure is 32 per cent. with the comprehensives, and 85 per cent. with the fee-payers. That is the point at which most of the children will
496
want to go on to university. With regard to examination passes—this may be old ground, well tilled in another place, but for the Record these things must be said again—the proportion of examination passes is manifestly higher in the fee-paying schools than in the comprehensives. I think the difference is something like 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. in Glasgow.
What about the right of parents to choose? In the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, for which we know we can expect full support from the other side when it is a matter of colour, what about this particular right, the parents' prior right to choose the kind of education their children shall have? Stop the fee-paying and you reduce that choice you reduce that right. It is sometimes said that if fee-paying in local authority schools is permitted, somehow or other taxpayers are then subsidising some privilege. I am not personally greatly concerned with the railway, but many people who live in my part of Scotland are, and the withdrawal of the railway means that they are subsidising those who are still able to enjoy it.
Ever since the 1918 Act, more than fifty years ago, fee-paying has been thought fully consistent with the provision of free education for all. The fees in question are low, between (what is it?) £12 and £44 a term at Edinburgh, £10 and £23 a term in Glasgow—so low indeed that these schools in many cases may be said to fulfil the role otherwise provided by the direct grant schools. What do the educationists say? The Scottish Schoolmasters' Association—I am quoting from their journal, The Scottish Schoolmaster, of December, 1968—express the view that fee-paying could well co-exist with the comprehensive system. The Education Institute for Scotland says that it is
"… vital that the resources of schools with exceptionally well-equipped premises, highly efficient staff and a long tradition of academic attainment should be preserved intact".
I quote from the Glasgow Herald of November 14 of last year.
The fact is that the Government—I submit that this is a fact—are determined to deal with the fee-paying schools willy-nilly; otherwise they would surely have found ways of including them within the

497
purview of the Public Schools Commission. In seeking to compress the brilliant children to conform with the mean, one is bound surely to lead to the mean distribution curve having its centre of gravity moved back so that the performance of the average will suffer also. From this abolition of fee-paying there will result not less, but more social division. It will polarise the educational pattern completely between the all-inclusive comprehensives, at one end of the scale, and the fully independent and direct grant schools, at the other.
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn suggested that the theme of the Bill in this respect was unworthy. With the greatest respect, and not wishing to be offensive, but seriously endeavouring to plead with the Government, I should like to suggest that the competitive economics of an élite meritocracy of service and skill are now being frustrated by the intentions of the economics of envy and debasement of standards. During the war, it was said that we fought for four freedoms. I submit that those four freedoms have now grown to five. What then is the fifth freedom? That is one reserved, I regret to say, for the Government: it is freedom from fact.
LORD SOMERS: As one who has spent a considerable part of his life teaching in schools, I feel I must say just one word. There is no doubt that the Government's intention is to provide a good education for all, but unfortunately they have apparently closed their eyes to the fact that that cannot be done with one type of education. They are not taking into consideration the fact that the particularly talented child will need a much more specialised type of tuition, and therefore, of course, one must get particularly trained staff. Trained staff must feel, first, that their services are not being wasted on untalented children, and secondly, that they are being paid an adequate salary. That is the crucial point.
The staff who will go to what I might call the public school type of school are naturally those who have made teaching their living and who have given a great deal of their life to securing the ability to teach really talented children. I am not suggesting for a moment that in a single class one can have children of exactly the same level. On the other
498
hand, there is no doubt that if we want to get really good education for the talented we must pay for it. Therefore, the payment must come in at the other end, from the parents. That is why I support this Amendment.
5.8 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I did not for one moment expect that the debate on this Amendment would be one in which there would be much opportunity for anyone to persuade anyone else to a point of view which was not already held on coming into the Chamber. If there had been a wish for genuine debate and for the possibility of being convinced, one would at least have thought that I should have been encouraged to speak early, and then other speakers would have weighed what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I had said, one against the other, and would have come down in support of one of us—it may well have been in favour of what Lord Drumalbyn had said. But speaker after speaker has risen to make it perfectly clear that his or her mind is made up before I utter a single word. I think, nevertheless, the duty is laid upon me to make quite clear why the Government are still of the opinion which was expressed in another place; and that I intend to do. But I will answer some of the points which have been made during the speeches we have heard.
I am not interested in making just debating points because, if I were, I should be content to rest on replying only to what the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has said, because much of what he said epitomises the very worst of what the Government believe to be wrong in thinking about education. If I were to quote some of the things he said I think that that contention would be illustrated. The noble Earl was good enough to say that he did not wish to be offensive to the Government. I hope it is not my lot to be here when he is deliberately trying to be offensive, because it is going to be pretty difficult to sit through it, if he ever sets his mind thoroughly to the task.
Let us look at some of the things he said. In speaking, he revealed, quite subconsciously, his whole attitude to the subject of fee-paying schools, because while the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in speaking of these schools, and particularly schools in Glasgow, set them on a very high pedestal indeed—and I have

499
not the slightest doubt that in Lord Strathclyde's mind these are among the best schools that can be found anywhere in the United Kingdom—what was the attitude of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale? He said, "When we think of schools like Fettes, and then coming down to the ones we are talking about". So, if his words mean anything, the fee-paying schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh are on a much lower strata.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I was referring only to coming down in scale of the fees.
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Earl will look at his remarks he will find that they were not made at that stage in relation to fees. The noble Earl was clearly regarding these fee-paying schools in Glasgow as coming down to the ones we are talking about.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: That was an Amendment about fees and about fee-paying schools, and it was in that context that I was speaking. I appreciate the point which the noble Lord is making, but I can assure him that was my intention and I apologise to him and to the Committee if I did not make that clear.
LORD HUGHES: Obviously I must accept what the noble Earl has said, but I think that when he reads his words he will find that it was a perfectly reasonable mistake for me to make in the context of his remarks. This was the kind of theme, not peculiar to the noble Earl because he was expressing the idea that many people have, either deliberately or subconsciously. The noble Earl then spoke about industry coming into Scotland and quoted someone as saying, referring to fee-paying schools of the type we are talking about in Edinburgh and Glasgow, that these are the schools to which their junior executives—not their senior executives, but their junior executives—can send their children. Where do the senior executives send their children? To the English fee-paying schools, or to the comprehensive schools?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I am sorry to keep on interrupting, but what I had in mind was that usually the senior executive is a man of about forty-five or fifty whose children are past school-
500
leaving age, but the junior executives are people of, say, twenty-five to thirty years of age who have children of school age. I am sorry if, unintentionally, I have again misled the noble Lord.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Earl shows himself to be very much out of touch with the trend in industry if he now thinks that all senior executives are men who have left the thirties behind them. In fact, in modern industry some of the senior executives have reached that position before they have left the twenties, so while I will allow the noble Earl to get away with the other one, I am not going to let him ride out of this particular difficulty in that way.
With regard to the question of industry coming into Scotland, if the noble Earl was right in saying that this matter of the kind of education available was so important, how is it that we have succeeded in bringing in so much English and American industry into areas where the children cannot go to these fee-paying schools? Why are there so many English and American companies in the East of Scotland and in the central belt, where the children are not going to these schools? It may well be that people bringing an industry into a particular area regard the fact that certain schools are there as an advantage—that I do not deny—but I would also claim that in coming to other areas the fact that there are no such schools does not seem to be regarded as a disadvantage. So we cannot argue that the existence of new industry in a particular area can be tied to the existence or to the absence of fee-paying schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, repeated something to-day, and I have never found myself so much in disagreement with someone who, but for the traditions of this House, I should call "my noble friend". But some of the things which he said—really! he is "off his eggs". I am sorry—I do not think that is a Parliamentary expression, but it sums up what I think. He said, "Why are we doing away with existing fee-paying schools?" But of course we are not doing away with existing fee-paying schools; we are only doing away with fee-paying. The schools will be there; the teachers will be there, and the pupils will be there—we are not doing away with them.

501
Then the noble Lord went on to eulogise these schools and to say, following on the Biblical theme of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that these schools have existed since the day of John Knox. There are many things that existed in the time of John Knox that we have had to get rid of. Poor Law was there, even before John Knox, but it took us until well into the twentieth century to get rid of it; and I have never heard it put forward as an argument for the continuation of the Poor Law that because it was there when John Knox was alive there was something desirable about it. It may be that something which existed when John Knox was alive may still be good in the twentieth century. All I am suggesting is that the fact that something has been there for 400 years does not necessarily make it still appropriate in the twentieth century. On the other hand, I do not necessarily say that it must be inappropriate just because it has been there for 400 years. All I am saying is that what the noble Lord has put forward is not necessarily a reason for the course of action which he is advocating.
The noble Lord has asked me to do something which I will take up on some future occasion in the Library. It would he quite unfair to your Lordships if I were to venture, in this Committee stage, on a debate on a definition of comprehensive education that would satisfy the noble Lord. At this stage I will be content to leave it to the definition which has already been given by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh. They both had things to say about comprehensive education in its existing form and the part which it has played in Scotland with which I do not wish to quarrel, and if, after reading what they have said, the noble Lord still wants further elucidation of my ideas on comprehensive education I shall be quite happy that we should spend an hour in the Library some afternoon when neither he nor I have anything better to do.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that and for undertaking to make me wise on the subject. But I would ask him whether he would he so good as to tell us why, if we are to have this comprehensive system, we cannot have the other system alongside it.
LORD HUGHES: I shall probably come on to that—and, incidentally, I did not undertake to make the noble Lord wiser: I undertook only to let him know what I thought about it. It depends on my ability to impart it to him and his ability to take it in, and it may well be that my ability to impart is even more deficient than his ability to take in. I do not give any guarantee one way or the other.
I thought that in introducing his Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in part at any rate, was a little unfair to the Government—not intentionally, because I do not think the noble Lord is ever intentionally unfair. But he quoted from the preamble to the Glasgow motion, and it is perfectly true, as he said, that the abolition of fee-paying in Glasgow was opposed by the head teachers of the fee-paying school. But what he did not say (because it was not in the memorandum; because the Glasgow people kept it out of the memorandum) was that the views of the headmasters of the non-fee-paying schools were totally different. There was no reference in the preamble to the views of the vast majority of schools in Glasgow. So that what is put forward as if it were an expression of educational opinion in Glasgow is in fact only a partial expression of educational opinion. The noble Lord misquoted nobody because he quoted only from what was there; but I am pointing out that not the whole story was there.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked why selection at 18 was all right while selection at 12 was wrong. It would be impossible for anyone to say that selection at any age is right. All the Government are saying is that it is better to defer selection until the latest possible age. After a common course period of orientation it will be possible to make a more accurate assessment of which courses will suit which pupils, but it will be only a more accurate assessment: no one can ever guarantee that in every case it will be right. We have argued, therefore, that it is better to select at an age later than 12, rather than at 11 or 12. But the fact will remain that sometimes, as the noble Lord said, selection will still be difficult at 18.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I interrupt the noble Lord merely to say that

503
if this is the argument being put forward, the Government cannot also argue that the number of pupils who go into the fee-paying schools at 12 is too small? The Government have put forward the argument that they are too small a proportion.
LORD HUGHES: One of the advantages or disadvantages of an argument of this kind is that people can select points for or against their point of view. It does not necessarily follow that either the Opposition or the Government will be consistent in their argument, otherwise it would be difficult for the noble Lord to get his English colleagues to follow him into the Division Lobby, because they will be seeking to do something for Scotland that they do not do for themselves.
The noble Lord asked me not to say that what was good for England was necessarily good for Scotland. He will be glad to hear that I have no intention of saying that. It is not because fee-paying is abolished in England that we want it abolished in Scotland. What we say is that what has been proved to be good for the majority in Scotland should not be denied to the minority in Scotland. The noble Lord has not put forward an Amendment to enable fee-paying throughout Scotland. He is seeking only to stop the clock at a particular point. This is not an Amendment to make it possible to have fee-paying throughout Scotland; effectively, the Amendment is intended to cover three fee-paying and selective secondary schools in Edinburgh and five similar schools in Glasgow. It does not seem to me that there is any argument on principle: Other people do not have it; but the Amendment does not let it go any further; they will have it; nobody else is going to have it extended to them, but these are not going to have it taken away.
I cannot see very much principle at stake in an Amendment of this kind. If fee-paying and selection have the many qualities attributed to them by noble Lords opposite and by their friends in another place, it seems odd that they should only seek to allow the authorities which charged fees in 1968 to continue to do so. I am not sure whether noble Lords opposite think that fee-paying and selection are wrong in some parts of Scotland and right in others. In our
504
view, they are wrong in all parts of the public system of education in Scotland. I could understand it if the point of view were being put forward that it is right to have it in all parts of the public system of education in Scotland, but that is not what we are being asked to do. At least the Government's view is consistent in that they are seeking to do away with fee-paying throughout and putting Glasgow and Edinburgh on the same basis as the others. I accept that noble Lords may think that that is the wrong thing to do, but I cannot see why they should only think it wrong in this limited context.
I explained during Second Reading that our reason for abolishing fee-paying was to further equality of educational opportunity and to make it possible for the fee-paying selective schools to be included within a comprehensive system. One doubt about the abolition of fee-paying and selective schools is the fear expressed by some noble Lords about what happens to able pupils in comprehensive schools. If it could be demonstrated that they would suffer, this would be a serious argument against comprehensive education. I do not know what noble Lords think is happening to very able pupils at present in areas where there are no fee-paying and selective schools, but I am assured that the results of research on comprehensive education do not suggest that able pupils are penalised. After all, some of the schools which are not fee-paying now but were formerly fee-paying are still ranking amongst the schools with the highest reputation in Scotland, a clear indication that it is not the continuation of fee-paying which is necessary to maintain their standards.
It is difficult to accept the view that the abolition of fee-paying and selective schools in Edinburgh and Glasgow is going to cause the dire consequences predicted by the Opposition in another place. Let us consider some simple facts. The number of 15-year olds remaining at education authority schools after the compulsory leaving age, expressed in terms of percentage of the equivalent 13-year old school age group, has risen from 31·6 per cent. in 1963 to 47·6 per cent. in 1968. The number of 16-year olds remaining at education authority schools, expressed in terms of a percentage of the equivalent 13-year old age group, has risen from 17·6 per cent.

505
in 1963 to 25·7 per cent. in 1968. In 1963, the number of presentations from these schools on the Ordinary grade in the Scottish Certificate of Education was 166,925; by 1968 the figure had risen to 215,998. In 1963, the number of presentations from schools on the Higher grade in the Scottish Certificate of Education was 50,774; by 1968 it was 83,285. In 1963, the number of pupils leaving schools with five or more Higher grade passes was 2,060; in 1968 the number had more than doubled to 4,600.
All these figures are encouraging, and they can be taken as evidence in a very broad sense—I put it no higher than that—in support of the view that the elimination of a system of almost permanent selection at 12 is having an overall beneficial effect on schools in Scotland. That is the answer which I would give to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, about the need for fee-paying schools in order to encourage the child with ability.
May I turn to some of the more detailed arguments against selection. Ability is not genetically fixed for all time, but it can be modified by the nature and the quality of the environment. Equality of opportunity means that all pupils, and not merely a selected few, should have a chance of being influenced by the same environment and the same motivation. Interim assessments of ability at the age of 12 are unreliable. For example, in the past a number of Scottish pupils who were not originally allocated to certificate courses subsequently passed on the Ordinary and even the Higher grade of the Scottish Certificate of Education.
With regard to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the late developing 18-year old, it may interest him to know how the comprehensive system has helped some of those pupils who under the old system would have been damned for all time at the age of 12. Doubts have been expressed about the concept of general ability, and it has even been suggested that there are only a number of specific abilities which. of course, may be combined in particular individuals. These doubts about the nature of general ability merely strengthen the arguments against a system of selection which is intended to assess it.
506
Finally, one of the most important arguments against selection is that pupils develop at different rates. It is important to ensure that late developers are not excluded from academic courses. This in turn makes it desirable to postpone differentiation. Indeed, one of the main objects of comprehensive education is to ensure that so far as possible the individual abilities and aptitudes of all pupils, not merely those who show clearly at an early age that they are bright, have a chance to reveal themselves in the right kind of environment. This is what the so called "common course" is about—it is a way of ensuring that all pupils have a chance to try themselves out in the same broad range of subjects to see where their real interests and aptitudes lie. But this does not mean that while the common course lasts all pupils will be doing the same work at the same pace, or will have their progress assessed on a common standard of attainment. Differences in ability in particular subjects will emerge, and in some cases fairly quickly: and the schools have the job of watching this situation as it develops and taking action to prevent loss of momentum or interest.
There is much misunderstanding about this, and I should like to re-emphasise the point that comprehensive education, far from disregarding ability and aptitude, aims to cater for these more adequately than was done in the past. I think that those who support the view that few schools should be concerned with the education of an élite must also face up to the fact that this theory of better education also implies one of worse education. There may well be some agitation in the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow for the preservation of fee-paying and selective schools, but I have never heard any plea for the preservation of junior secondary schools. That is the other side of the coin. I have never heard of any parents clamouring to pay fees to send their children to these schools.
I have spoken for much longer than I intended, but I doubt whether I have spoken for as long as all those put together who have spoken about fee-paying. But I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not for one moment believe that I have persuaded a single noble Lord opposite who came into the Chamber determined to vote for the retention of

507
fee-paying, to change his mind. I think this is a subject on which probably all of us have our minds so firmly made up that it is exceedingly doubtful whether anything said in your Lordships' House on this subject serves any useful purpose other than to get the conflicting views set down on paper for other people to read in due course.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? I said at the opening of my remarks that I did not understand why fee-paying schools were being done away with. The noble Lord said in reply that they were not doing away with them: what they were doing away with was the payment of fees. The noble Lord said that these schools will still continue. But how are they going to continue? Are they going to continue merely as district schools, and not be permitted to serve a much wider area, as they do to-day?
LORD HUGHES: For a limited time at any rate they will be permitted to serve as wide an area as they do to-day if an Amendment which I have down later is accepted. But I come back to the point which I made earlier, which was for the benefit of the noble Lord as well as others, that schools such as the Glasgow and Edinburgh schools of which we are talking exist in other parts of the country. They have been non-fee-paying schools now for many years without their standards diminishing in the slightest. One calls to mind the Morgan Academy in Dundee, the Harris Academy in Dundee, schools in Fife and in other parts of the country where the fee-paying element was abolished but the high grade of the schools has remained unchanged.
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know whether it will mollify the noble Lord if I tell him that I have been waiting to hear what he said first; he complained that nobody else would. I hope that his last remark is not true, that the only point in coming here to speak in your Lordships' House is to have conflicting points of view reported on paper though without persuading anybody.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to make it clear that I am not stating that as a general principle, because I hope
508
to be a little successful a little later on in the afternoon. I was stating it on this particular subject of fee-paying in schools, and I confine it to that subject.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I would not make an exception of that subject.
LORD HUGHES: We shall see.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is one of the most reasonable of men, and I also know that it is particularly difficult for him to be reasonable on this particular question because of the rigid attitudes which have been taken up in another place.
But I would just put it to your Lordships that the Scottish Labour Party has not always been in favour of this educational principle. When I was a Minister at the Scottish Office, we proposed in about 1937 or 1938 to diminish the independence in certain ways of a school called the Madras College in Fife, in St. Andrews. That school happens to be at the moment the only fee-paying school which is left in Fife, and it will soon cease to be one because Fife is one of the authorities that has decided to abolish fee-paying schools. But at that time it had more autonomy, and our strongest opponent was the leader of the Scottish Labour Party in the House of Commons, the late Tom Johnston. He was vigorous against us, because he took the view, quite strongly, that if you are going to change things you ought to improve them in an upward direction, and not make them worse in an effort to obtain equality or uniformity.
When he became Secretary of State for Scotland in 1943, the Town Council of Glasgow in that year passed by a large majority a resolution in favour of abolishing fee-paying; and this Tom Johnston, who was Secretary of State, refused to accept. He was doing exactly the opposite to what the Scottish Office is doing now in relation to Glasgow. And immediately after the war, when the Education (Scotland) Bill was brought in, and he was then Secretary of State for Scotland in a purely Labour Government, no longer in a Coalition, he again refused to interfere with the fee-paying schools of Scotland, partly because he did not want to inconvenience local authorities by giving them the difficult task of reorganising all their pupils, and

509
partly because he was in favour not only of equality of opportunity but also of quality of opportunity—whether it had an "e" before it or not, he recognised what was good and wanted to preserve what was good, whether it fitted in with a certain pattern of uniformity or not.
LORD HUGHES: Would the noble Earl permit me to intervene, before he departs from this part of his argument? In view of the fact that what is being urged on the Government is the acceptance of the democratic point of view expressed by the Glasgow Corporation, it is rather interesting to think that if Tom Johnston had been similarly impressed by the democratic point of view of the Glasgow Corporation some twenty or thirty years ago we should not be discussing this matter this afternoon.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Exactly. Tom Johnston was so much in favour of preserving variety, which he thought was a good thing in education, that he did not accept the view at that time of the Glasgow Town Council, and I think he was right. But we do not believe that all of these schools which are going to have taken away from them the right to contain fee-paying pupils will necessarily continue to be exactly the same kind of school afterwards. Take a school like the Hillhead High School in Glasgow, which is in the residential area of Kelvinside; if that is made into a comprehensive school for the area, it may have the same good accommodation and, for a time, the same good teachers, but in the course of years it will cease to have children sent to it—nearly 1,000—from all over Glasgow, as it does now. Its pupils will be confined to the same area, which happens to be a residential one, so there will be less social variety among the children than there is now, and I do not believe that necessarily it will be so good.
Then one might take the Glasgow High School. My noble friend said that it existed at the time of John Knox. I think he was understating the matter; I think it has existed since the 11th century and is one of the oldest schools in Europe, and one of the best in Europe. I do not think that its high quality is altogether unrelated to its long history and its high traditions, which are now, I think, likely to be undermined by this Act. We are not asking the Government to do what Tom Johnston did; we are not asking them to prohibit those local authorities who say it is convenient for them to abolish fee paying from abolishing it; we are only asking them not to insist on their doing so against what I believe to be the better judgment of these local authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow who say that to do this thing now will be inconvenient to their problems of staffing and school management, and that it will to some extent reduce the general quality of education. Because very often having a few very good, specially efficient schools with a high reputation, helps the general standard, whereas if you try to reduce everything to one pattern of dull uniformity you are apt to get a lower, instead of a higher, average standard.
The reason why I think we must insist on this Amendment is not only that the Government's purpose is unwise, but that it is wanton, it is unnecessary, it is mischievous and it is expensive; and although it affects only a small number of schools, I think it is one of the most retrograde steps that have been taken for some time in regard to Scottish education.
5.42 p.m.
On Question, whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 63; Not-Contents 36.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Craigavon, V.

Dundonald, E.

Allerton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Effingham, E.

Ampthill, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Ashbourne, L.

Croft, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cromartie, E.

Fortescue, E.

Birdwood, L.

Daventry, V.

Gisborough, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Burton, L.

Derwent, L.

Gray, L.

Colyton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Grenfell, L.

Conesford, L.

Dudley, L.

Gridley. L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Dundee, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Headfort, M.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sandford, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Sandys, L.

Inglewood, L.

Morrison, L.

Selkirk, E.

Kilmany, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Latymer, L.

Newton, L.

Somers, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathclyde, L.

MacAndrew, L

Redesdale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mansfield, E.

St. Helens, L.

Vivian, L.

Margadale, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hughes, L.

Royle, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, Bs.

Burden, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Sorensen, L.

Crook, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stocks. Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

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

Stonham, L.

Faringdon, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

McLeavy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wade, L.

Greenway, L.

Mitchison, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This drafting amendment adds the words "or classes" to "schools or departments" to ensure that in future references to primary classes and secondary classes, which occur for example in educational provision schemes, will be read in the context of the new definitions of primary and secondary education.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, after ("departments") insert ("or classes").
5.48 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the principal Act (as set out in subsection (1) above)—

(a) the power to charge fees in public schools conferred on education authorities by the proviso to section 1(3) of that Act (as originally enacted) shall continue to be available to, and may be exercised by, education authorities after the commencement of this Act, so, however, that this paragraph shall cease to have effect on 1st August 1970;

(b) where—

(i) an education authority have, at any time in the year ending with 1st August, 1970, provided school education in any school under their management for an
512
outwith-area pupil and have charged fees in respect of that education, and

(ii) the said pupil is on 1st October, 1970 in attendance at a class in a secondary school, or in the secondary department of a school, under the management of that education authority,

the said education authority may charge fees in respect of any school education provided by them for that pupil in any school under their management at any time after 1st August, 1970 when he is an outwith-area pupil:

Provided that the education authority shall not have power under this paragraph to charge fees in respect of education provided by them for any pupil if a contribution in respect of such provision is payable to them by another education authority.
In this subsection "outwith-area pupil" means, in relation to any education authority, a pupil who is not deemed to belong for the purposes of section 24 of the principal Act to the area of that authority.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment substitutes a new subsection (3) for subsection (3) of Clause 1. It is a transitional provision. As the Bill stands—or rather as the Bill nearly stood—fee paying in primary and secondary schools will cease without any exception on August 1, 1970. If that becomes the case again, then we have to make some exception, because in session 1969–70 the only secondary fee-paying schools managed by education authorities will be eight in number—five in Glasgow and three in Edinburgh. In Glasgow there are this session about 680 pupils who travel to the fee-paying schools from outside the city and whose parents pay fees.
This arrangement is entirely separate from the payments made by some education authorities for pupils sponsored by their "home" authority to attend schools in the city. The corresponding figure for pupils travelling to fee-paying schools in Edinburgh whose parents pay the fees is 90.
The parties interested in the educational future of these children after August 1, 1970, will be the authority hitherto providing education, the authority in whose area the pupil lives and the parents. The providing authority—Edinburgh or Glasgow—would, of course, have power to continue to provide education for pupils from other areas, but if this were to be done on a non fee-paying basis they might reasonably be reluctant to incur the expenditure involved. If the authority of the place of residence were willing to contribute to the cost by making an inter-authority payment, it would be possible for them to do so. But an authority in these circumstances might be unwilling to make such a payment on the grounds, again reasonable enough, that they already make available education for all the pupils in their area and there is no reason why they should be put to this additional expense for pupils whose parents have chosen not to take advantage of the facilities available in their area of residence.
It may well be that in many cases the authorities concerned will be able to reach agreement over the future educational responsibility for these children. The point was not raised as a problem arising from the abolition of fee-paying when consultation took place with the local authority associations. None the less, we think that in order to reduce the risk that the difficulties I have just described might lead to interruption of a pupil's secondary education, it is right to include a transitional provision reserving the power of authorities to charge fees for a limited period in certain well defined circumstances.
The effect of the Amendment is to allow an education authority to charge fees in respect of secondary school education after August 1, 1970, in respect of any pupil from outside the area concerned who attended school in the authority's area in 1969–70 as a fee-paying pupil and who is attending a
514
secondary school in the authority's area on October 1, 1970. The Amendment thus covers pupils in secondary education from 1970–71 onwards, including those whose last year of primary education was 1969–70. It does not include younger pupils in similar circumstances in primary schools in the year 1969–70. The parents of those outwith area pupils, and the respective authorities concerned, will have an opportunity in the year 1969–70 to discuss the arrangements that might be made for these pupils.
The date, October 1, 1970, is chosen for the purpose of defining the pupils in respect of whom authorities can continue to charge fees. The register of admission and withdrawal kept at the school under the School (Scotland) (Code) 1956 will be made up by that time, and any pupil who was in Primary VII or in a secondary class in the previous academic year will have had time to register his readmission to the school. This seems to us to be a reasonable temporary departure from the principle which we seek to obtain, because it is important that there ought not to be any interruption in the secondary education of the child, if this can be avoided. So we think it better that we should make these exceptional arrangements in this limited number of cases, rather than have the interruption which would otherwise arise. I beg to move.
5.57 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7 as an Amendment to the Amendment:
Leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the Amendment which he has moved, except, of course, for the first part of it, and may I first say a word about it? Owing to the Amendment which we have just passed it would be virtually inoperative, since different circumstances now apply. I am therefore moving to leave out paragraph (a), and I hope the noble Lord will agree that it would be logical to accept it. The position then will be that we shall have this new paragraph (b), which was intended to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, although the wind has now ceased to glow for the time being. However, I suppose we must contemplate the possibility of the wind blowing again from a different direction and, that being so, we

515
are bound to discuss this clause, since, if we were not to do so and the other place changed the Bill back to what it was, the pupils might be deprived of the facility which the Government are prepared to provide for them.
I entirely agree that if fee-paying schools are to be abolished, then those outwith area pupils who are attending such schools should be able to complete their studies at their present schools, and, as I understand the Amendment, they can do so on two conditions. The first is if they continue to pay fees—and they will be able to continue to pay lees under the paragraph—and the second is if a contribution is made in respect of them by the education authority in whose area they live.
There is one minor question which I should like to ask here. It is conceivable that the education authority in whose area they live may say, "All right, we will pay the balance of the total cost of the education", because I imagine that if a contribution is to be paid it will not be a contribution equating to the fees; it will be a contribution representing the entire cost of the education of a pupil at a secondary school—say, £150 or £160. It may be, of course, that the education authority from which they come will say, "We will pay the balance"—that the parent can go on paying the fees and the education authority in the area where the child lives will pay the balance. But that is prevented under the clause as it is now drafted.
I merely draw attention to this in case the noble Lord may wish to consider whether this would not be a facility which it would be reasonable to provide. I know there are certain illogicalities in it, but one does not go by logic entirely in these matters, so I mention this as a possibility. So far as that is concerned, I am sure that my noble friends would be willing and indeed anxious to accept paragraph (b) of the Amendment which the noble Lord is proposing provided the noble Lord will agree to omit paragraph (a). I beg to move this Amendment to Amendment No. 6.
LORD HUGHES: I must make it quite clear that I think the purpose of Amendment No. 7 is quite wrong, but that is only because I think Amendment No. 3, which has been carried, is wrong. As
516
the noble Lord said, this Amendment would be strictly unnecessary in the Bill as it otherwise would be, but if we do not make it and another place, when they come to consider what your Lordships' Committee has done to this Bill, decide to adhere to their original decision, we should then be in the position that the attendance of these children from the outwith areas would come to an end in circumstances where we should not wish it to happen. I therefore accept what the noble Lord has said: that we should be a little illogical at this stage, in the knowledge that, one way or another, the Bill will finally appear in a form which is completely logical. So, while I think that leaving out paragraph (a) is not a good thing, it is at least consistent with the Bill as it stands that it should come out at this stage, and I certainly would not advise your Lordships to object to Amendment No. 7 at this stage.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provision of museums by education authorities]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 23, at end insert—
("Provided that the governing body of the museum to whom an object has been transferred may at any time require the education authority which transferred it to resume that object if for any reason that object is not, in their opinion, required for retention in any collection in that musuem.")
The noble Lord said: This is a minor Amendment. We are here dealing with the provision of museums by education authorities. The point I had in mind was simply that subsection (1)(c) gives an education authority power
"subject to subsection (3) … to transfer any object vested in them and comprised in any such collection to the governing body of a museum maintained by a person other than the education authority, for the purpose of being included …"
Subsection (1)(d) gives power to the education authority to
"give away or otherwise dispose of any object vested in them …"

517
This power must not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the trust or condition under which the object, which might be an object of art, a mechanical model or anything of the kind, is given to them in the first place.
It seemed to me, then, that if an object were transferred to another museum, that museum might be prevented from disposing of it, should it no longer be required, if there was a condition to that effect in the trust, the deed of gift or in whatever form it was given to the education authority in the first place. So it seemed to me that the right course would be for that other museum, being unable to dispose of it, to return it to the education authority. It would seem to me to be wrong for an education authority to off-load an object it did not want on to another museum if it meant imposing on that museum an obligation to keep it for ever, unless, of course, that other museum was prepared to accept that obligation from the start.
I agree that if the museum had notice of the trust or condition—and this is always essential in trusts or conditions—it would be open to it to refuse to accept the object, but it might be desirable for the object to be exhibited in another museum rather than being stored away. There should therefore be provision for it to be transferred, subject to the condition that it must be returned to the education authority if it is no longer required. It is this point of the notice of trust or condition on which the object is given to the education authority that I would ask the noble Lord to look at particularly. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: While I am to advise the noble Lord not to proceed with this Amendment, I think I can satisfy him that his point will be made. Obviously, it would be wrong for an education authority to be able to compel a museum to accept something which might turn out to be an absolute liability to it a few years ahead or many years ahead, and for that museum to be unable to divest itself of that liability. But it would be equally wrong for a museum willingly to accept such an object and then, when it found these years later that it was an intolerable liability, to be able to thrust it back to the education authority which had the wisdom to get rid of it in the first place. The essence, therefore is that these
518
things should be done only by agreement. The Bill does not give power to an education authority to compel any museum to accept any such object. The transfer, therefore, can be made only with the agreement of the museum to which it is transferred. The conditions of transfer would be negotiated between the authority and the receiving museum, and these could cover the period of the transfer, if it was to be limited, or the conditions, if any, under which it would be returned to the authority.
It would seem to me fairly obvious that if it was some very bulky object the interest of which might have completely disappeared at some time in the future the museum would accept it only under a condition that it would have the right to return it at some time in the future if it no longer wished to have it. Obviously, if the education authority were not prepared to part with it under these conditions then it would have to hang on to it, because the museum would then not have it. If, on the other hand, the receiving museum agreed to accept the object in perpetuity and the ownership was vested in it, there is no reason why, if it turns out in the course of years to have made a mistake, it should have a one-sided right to opt out of its bargain. I would not imagine that it would be impossible, even in these circumstances, for a museum and an education authority to do a deal; but, again, it would have to be voluntary.
If, in good faith, a museum decided to take a thing for all time and then found that, for instance, it was going to frustrate the museum in carrying out its activities in a way which would perhaps be in the best interests of the education authority, the education authority might in those circumstances be willing to re-accept the burden although it was under no legal obligation to do so. The desirable thing is that in the beginning the agreement should be made in a way which the museum thinks is going to be in its long-term interests, and if it is not in its long-term interests then it ought not to be so foolish as to make an agreement. I hope that with that explanation the noble. Lord will feel that only the most foolish, of museum authorities, if there is such a body of people—and I doubt it—are ever going to find themselves in any difficulty with the Bill as it stands.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful for that explanation. I see that the noble Lord the Lord Advocate is here. He will be able to tell us all the legal aspects of this matter. I imagine that in extreme cases one could apply to the courts for alteration of the trust or condition. The point that I have in mind—and I could have drafted the Amendment more simply—is that it will be equally easy to achieve this purpose under subsection 3(a), which reads:
"that object shall, on being transferred under subsection (1)(c) above, be subject to the like trust or condition in the hands of the transferee"—
provided that the transferee has notice of the trust or condition. Otherwise, it seems to me that we shall get into a muddle. I commend this point to the noble Lord and I should be grateful if he would look at it. I know he will consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to:
Clause 6 [Power of education authorities to make payments to persons providing education, etc.]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 14, after ("representation") insert ("or additional representation").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment also concerns a small point, but it may be important. We are here considering the case where an education authority negotiates with the managers of schools and an agreement is reached that a certain number of places will be available in that school to the education authority and that the education authority will pay for those places. It is not unreasonable in those circumstances that the education authority should have representation on the governing body concerned—let us call it the managers' governing board. I recall one such case where the education authority has a representative on the governing body. But if such an arrangement as is contemplated in this clause were to be made, I doubt whether that representation would be considered sufficient. Therefore it seems to me reasonable that in such cases, the Secretary of State should be empowered, on the application of the managers of the
520
schools, to alter the trust deed or other instrument so as to provide for additional representation. This is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. I beg to move No. 9.
LORD HUGHES: I think it is obviously right that an authority making increased payments to an educational establishment should be able, as a condition of the increase, to add to their representation on the governing body. But I am advised that this can already be achieved under the present drafting. On the other hand, I agree that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, makes it abundantly clear that this is so. In the circumstances I am prepared to recommend that your Lordships accept the Amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for proposing this useful change.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 20, after ("representation") insert ("or additional representation")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, after ("representation") insert ("or additional representation, as the case may be").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power of Secretary of State to require education authority to fix a single school commencement or leaving date]:
6.15 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("either of his own accord or").
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendent of rather more consequence. The proviso to be added to Section 33(1) of the 1962 Act empowers the Secretary of State to fix a single date for commencing school attendance and a single school leaving date, in place of the two

521
or more which are provided for in that section; and this proviso empowers him to do so for the area of any education authority. He is empowered to do so either on his own initiative or on the application of the education authority for the area.
To have a single commencing date would affect pupils and parents very seriously. It would mean that many children might be nearly six before they went to school. The advantage of two dates is that the date of birth can be spread throughout the year. With three dates in each term it spreads it even further. This is a matter that requires very careful consideration. By the same token, to have a single school leaving date is not—and I say this very strongly—purely an educational matter. It affects the supply of labour It makes it much more difficult to absorb school-leavers. I think there may be particular circumstances in a particular area which make it desirable to have a single date for commencing school attendance or for school leaving; although I am bound to say that I find it difficult to envisage any such circumstances. But in such circumstances it is surely for the education authority to make a case for it. It seems to me highly undesirable to give the Secretary of State the power to impose it, on his own initiative, in a particular area. It is quite different if the Secretary of State decides to impose it in general, or even to enable any local authority to introduce it without an approach to him or something of that kind. But if the Secretary of State decided that this should be imposed in general, I think there is no doubt that he should come to Parliament for such powers.
The same applies to his imposing it in any particular area if the education authority does not want it. I think it would be much wiser to leave out the power of the Secretary of State to do this of his own volition, and on his own initiative, area by area. If circumstances change so much, it seems to me that this is a sufficiently important matter to come back to Parliament and obtain power in a Bill. I do not like this idea of a Secretary of State taking these powers which I imagine he would be able to exercise without coming to Parliament at all. I may be wrong; but it looks to me from
522
the way the clause is drafted as if that is the intention. I think that that would be wholly wrong. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The effect of the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would be to prevent the Secretary of State from taking the initiative in fixing a single commencing or single leaving date for any authority. I think it would be convenient if we considered the commencing and leaving dates separately, because different problems arise. The Secretary of State has no intention of imposing a single commencing date on every education authority in Scotland. We know, however, that some authorities will wish to have a single commencing date when this becomes legally permissible. Peebles and Glasgow, to take one of the smallest and also the largest of our authorities, are both interested in the possibility and any proposals they make will have to be considered very carefully on their merits.
In matters like this one must look to the future. If the Secretary of State's powers were limited to approving or disapproving proposals made by education authorities, and if, in the future—a future in which, we hope, pre-school education will be more widely available than it has been—the majority of education authorities decide, with the Secretary of State's approval, to avail themselves of the organisational and perhaps educational advantages offered by a single commencing date, parents in the areas of other authorities would be unable to appeal effectively to the Secretary of State to overrule what might seem to them an unjustifiable refusal by the education authority, despite the wishes of parents and perhaps also of teachers, to introduce a single commencing date. I can say that no representations against the proposed assumption of this power by the Secretary of State have been received from education authorities or teachers' associations—or indeed from parents, although there was opposition among parents to Glasgow's proposal to introduce a single commencing date.
A single leaving date, on the other hand, raises different issues altogether. Again, there is at present no intention that the Secretary of State should impose such an arrangement on all authorities, as indeed my right honourable friend made

523
clear on Second Reading in another place. But here again one must look to the future. Some time after the school-leaving age has been raised it may well be accepted as desirable that there should be a move to one leaving date, which would ensure that all pupils finished the school year and the courses on which they had embarked.
If a single school-leaving date is to be introduced in Scotland on any significant scale, there is a case—a stronger case, in fact, than the corresponding case for school commencing dates—for saying that it should be introduced uniformly throughout the country. The educational case for a single leaving date—courses "rounded off" more fully and a closer dovetailing with courses for further education—is essentially a case for taking this step for Scotland as a whole; and for that reason it is desirable that the Secretary of State should have power to require any authority to fix a single leaving date. Also, it could be argued that the introduction of a single leaving date in piecemeal fashion, at the instance of particular authorities, would lead in certain cases to injustice and anomalies as regards access to employment opportunities for school-leavers in different areas. On the other hand, it should at least be open to authorities to seek approval where they considered they had a good case for introducing a single leaving date.
When the possibility of legislation in this sense was discussed with the associations of local authorities and of teachers none of them raised any objection to the proposal that both the Secretary of State and the education authorities should have the power to take the initiative on commencing and leaving dates. Nor have they raised any objections since the Bill was introduced. The Scottish Trades Union Congress, who were consulted separately, also raised no objection.
It seems to me, therefore, that the position is this: that normally these single dates would commence on the initiative of local authorities, and it might well be that the Secretary of State would give approval to this happening in such authorities as sought it. But there might come a point at which the best interests of education in Scotland required that the initiative should be taken by the Secretary
524
of State to apply it to Scotland as a whole. It may be that this will not arise for a very long time. It is impossible to forecast, because at this stage there is no great evidence of any desire on the part of many authorities to have either a single commencing date or a single leaving date. The situation might change very slowly or it might change very quickly; but one thing I can assure your Lordships is that it is exceedingly unlikely that any Secretary of State would wish to move in this matter in advance of what proved to be the opinion of the majority of authorities in Scotland; and he would in fact seek to move only where it was quite obvious that the advantage for the pupils was in favour of his taking the initiative.
It is tempting to accept the advice which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put forward: that if this situation should arise the Secretary of State should come to Parliament and seek another Bill. Unfortunately, as we know only too well, in these matters it so often happens that when the case for legislation becomes abundantly clear the place in the Parliamentary timetable for the legislation is not nearly so obvious; and that instead of doing it when it is necessary one does it one, two, three, four or five years after the time when one would have wished to do it. This is essentially a matter where no Secretary of State could abuse the power which this Bill would give to him—and I say that irrespective of Party. The local authorities and the teaching organisations have raised no objection to these proposals and they do not feel that there is any danger of arbitrary or unjust action being taken either by the present Secretary of State or by any future Secretary of State. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
6.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—as I am sure we all are—for his explanation of this matter. I find myself in some difficulty about this because, frankly, I cannot recall ever having seen a provision of this magnitude left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State without any requirement for prior consultation with education, industry, local authorities or anyone else. I find this very remarkable. However, it seems that another place has been quite content to

525
leave it as it is; and I think that we are bound to concede that the Secretary of State is likely to carry out these consultations—he would be exceedingly foolish if he did not do so. All the same, it is the sort of thing that Parliament likes to have in legislation, just to make certain that it is done.
If the noble Lord will think of this to see whether, from the point of view of the initiative of the Secretary of State, words could be put into this clause requiring such consultation, I think we should be happy. But if the noble Lord feels that this is something which could be left to the Secretary of State in the end without such consultation, I am sure that we would be prepared to take the risk—let me put it that way—and agree that the Secretary of State would be likely to carry out the requisite consultation.
Before we agree to this, I should like to get from the noble Lord the very fullest assurance that consultation will take place in every case where the Secretary of State proposes to act on his own initiative, with an individual authority or with whoever it may be—employers, trade unions, industry as a whole—in individual cases or on a national scale. I think it very important that this should be done both in the case of the school leaving age, which is a matter concerning a very wide range of interests, and in the matter of the commencing age, which concerns parents and children and which, as the noble Lord says, is very largely an organisational matter. I did not quite understand the distinction between an organisational matter and an educational matter. It seems to me that this is purely organisational. For some children you have to decide on which side of the balance they fall. I should have though that this was a purely organisational problem, and it is difficult to make out that it is an educational problem except in the context of organisation. However, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give this assurance, though I would feel more confident still if he were to put it into the Bill at the next stage.
LORD HUGHES: I do not want to elaborate on organisational and educational needs. Let me put it this way. Organisation for the benefit of education is one thing, provided we do not twist education for the benefit of organisation. We think that educational advantages
526
must take precedence over organisational advantages in matters of this kind. The noble Lord said that the Secretary of State would be foolish if he embarked on something of this kind without the fullest consultation. With this remark I am in complete agreement. I will go further and say that I know perfectly well that the present Secretary of State will not embark on anything of that nature, because he is not a foolish Secretary of State. I regard it as inconceivable that any future Prime Minister would deliberately appoint a man who he believed would he a foolish Secretary of State, but I admit that Prime Ministers being no more infallible than other men, it may be that we could land with a foolish Secretary of State. Therefore, I undertake that we shall look at the question to see, without prejudice to the powers, whether anything can be inserted at the next stage. I do not think that the next stage may be very far away, so I will do this quickly and consult with the noble Lord as speedily as possible.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Handicapped children]:
6.32 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 14, at end insert:
("(6) An education authority may reimburse a parent for any expenses that he may reasonably have incurred in complying with an invitation issued under paragraph (a) or a notice served under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section.")
The noble Lord said: I apologise for taking up so much time, but some of these matters are of considerable importance. Here we turn to a totally different question, the treatment of handicapped children. Under this long clause, which brings in a number of new sections to replace sections in the 1962 Act, a duty is placed upon parents to submit children for both medical and psychological examination. Under the present Act a parent has to submit a child only for medical examination. Under the clause, there is a duty on the education

527
authority first to invite the parent to do so, and if the parent fails to do so, then the authority has the duty to serve a notice on him requiring him to do so.
Because the Bill provides for a psychological examination, it seems all the more necessary to ensure that an education authority has power to reimburse the parent for expenses he might reasonably have incurred in complying with an invitation or notice served to submit a child for examination. I do not know what the proceedings are, but I can conceive that a doctor could be sent out to conduct a medical examination on the spot even in remote parts of the country, or else the parent could submit the child to the local medical practitioner. I suspect that for a more complete medical examination, a child would have to be brought in to the clinic, and I am sure this would have to be done for a psychological examination. Where we are dealing with remote parts of the country, if parents have to bring children from, for example, the Islands or parts of the Highlands for medical and psychological examination, it is only right that provision should be made for them to be reimbursed. The Amendment would leave the education authority with discretion as to reimbursing the parent or not. That is normal in the case of providing free ambulances and so forth. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State could secure by administrative action that the parents should be reimbursed only in appropriate circumstances. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: Although I cannot recommend that your Lordships accept these Amendments, I confess that I like the purpose behind them. In practice education authorities have for many years reimbursed parents who incurred substantial expenditure in presenting a child for ascertainment. It may be that authorities treat these expenses as expenditure incurred incidentally in the performance of their functions of ascertainment, but it is difficult to point to any specific authority for this, and the Government accept that there might be advantage in putting this practice on a more secure legal basis. The unfortunate thing is that these Amendments as they stand do not give us the right answer. This will not surprise the noble Lord, because no one
528
appreciates more than he does the difficulty of following up the consequentials of anything of this kind. If specific powers are spelt out in the new Sections 64 and 66, this would throw doubt on the authorities' powers to incur similar expenditure in the case of compulsory medical and dental inspections held under Sections 58 and 58A. In addition, these Amendments deal only with examinations held in connection with original ascertainments and the reviews of decisions that pupils require special education. Corresponding Amendments at page 19, line 6, and page 21, line 45, would be required to cover examinations in connection with the review of children ascertained as unsuitable for education and cases of young people who may benefit by local authority services after leaving a special school. This can be seen in the new Sections 66C and 66E.
In the Government's view, the best way of dealing with this general problem would probably be to make regulations under Section 91(1) of the Act of 1962, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations sanctioning the payment by an education authority of reasonable expenses which are incidental to the proper discharge of their duties. We have been looking at this but, unfortunately, at this stage I cannot say whether it is feasible to do so under the regulations as they stand. However, in asking the noble Lord not to press these Amendments, I would give the undertaking that if it does not prove to be feasible to make regulations to accomplish what he has in mind under Section 91(1) as it stands, the Government will table a suitable Amendment at the next stage to make possible the action which the noble Lord wishes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord once again, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 13, line 35, leave out from ("case") to end of line 42.
The noble Lord said: This is a rather different point. Under subsection (4) of this new clause, if an education authority determine not to revoke a previous decision that a child requires special education, after having revised that decision

529
in accordance with the provisions of the clause, the authority are then obliged to give notice of their determination in accordance with subsection (5) of the clause. That subsection requires notice to be in writing and to be accompanied by and to include information about the parents' right to require the authority to state their reasons for their determination. As I read line 28, the education authority are not obliged to give notice of their determination if a parent had failed to respond to an invitation to submit a child for medical and psychological examination and had had to be required by notice to submit it.
This to me seems very arbitrary. Whether the parent has had to be required to submit the child for examination or not, there surely ought to be a right of appeal against the determination; and if there is, the parent surely has a right to be told about it. Equally, the parent has a right to be told of the outcome of the review on his own child. I may have completely misunderstood this paragraph, but as it is drafted it does not seem to me to be justifiable to distinguish in this way between the case where the parent submits his child voluntarily and the case where the parent is required to do it. I feel that the same rights ought to be vouchsafed to the parent in both cases. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding here. Under the Bill as it is drafted, the parent would have to be told of the result of the review only in those cases where the parent has himself requested the review under Section 66(1)(b), or where the child has had to be submitted for a fresh medical and psychological examination in connection with the review under Section 66(2)(a).
The effect of the Amendment would require a parent to have to be told of the result of every review that took place. The reasons why I cannot recommend the Amendment to your Lordships are these. In some cases the parent will not know that a review has taken place if he himself has not asked for it, or if he has not been involved by having to present his child for examination. To give a parent who does not know that a review has taken place written notice that his child's condition has not improved, and that special education is
530
still necessary, would, it seems to us, merely have the effect of causing the parent unnecessary distress. But in the circumstances where he has knowledge—where he has asked for a review, or the child has had to attend for examination, which the parent also knows—the parent will be told what the position is. But, as I have said, it seems to be inflicting unnecessary grief on a parent just to say: "We have had a review of your child's circumstances, and they have not improved."
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think the proposition which the noble Lord has put forward is arguable. I feel that some parents would be strong-minded enough to want to know the result of an irregular review, especially if they know that regular reviews are being carried out. I was not so much concerned with that, although I take the point the noble Lord has made. I should have thought that it was desirable to give information to the parent in every case. What I was particularly concerned about was to make certain that there was not a distinction between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) in subsection (2). If the noble Lord will look at line 29, the parent is invited under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) to submit the child. Why not "also", or "was required under paragraph (b)", to submit the child for medical and psychological examination; or easier still just to say, "under subsection (2) above", and leave out both the invitation and the submission? That is the point with which I was mainly concerned. I do not understand the treatment of the parent in these two cases.
LORD HUGHES: I will certainly have a look at this point, but, as I understand it and have been informed, the position is that where the parent has requested the review, or where the child has had to be submitted for a fresh examination in connection with the review (and that need not be at the request of the parent) the parent will be informed. I have just been given a note which says that if the child has been required he must have first been invited. So I think the point which the noble Lord is seeking to prevent will not arise.
However, in the light of what he has said, I will discuss this with my advisers and find out whether there is anything which needs to be done. I want to make

531
it quite clear that we wish to withhold information from parents only in circumstances where it is more in their interests that this should be done. We want, in fact, to be certain in all the circumstances where a parent would wish to have the information that he will get it. This would certainly be the kind of case which we both have in mind, and I will try to make sure that that is what the Bill will do.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I gather that there is really no difference of intention here, but I would still query whether head (ii) covers the point that I have in mind. In the case that I have in mind, it is not on the invitation that the child has been submitted; it has been on the notice of requirement. I think this would be likely to be interpreted by many people in the way that I have interpreted it, and it would be better to get it clear.
LORD HUGHES: My final point before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment would be that one of the unfortunate things about drafting is that what the legal meaning of particular words is, and the way in which the noble Lord and I as laymen would interpret them, is so frequently quite different. There is no doubt that we are in agreement as to what should be done, and if in due course I can assure him that the words in the Bill meet the point that he wishes to make, I am sure he will be as content as I am to leave them as they are
LORD DRUMALBYN: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 16, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) if within the said period the parent requires them, under subsection (4) below, to issue to him a statement of the reasons for their decision in relation to the child, earlier than the expiry of the period of twenty-eight days from the date on which that statement was issued,").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 all cover the same point. The first Amendment extends the 28-day period for appeal by a parent
532
(against an authority's decision to issue a report to the local authority that the child is unsuitable for education) in the case where the parent has asked the education authority for a statement of reasons. The other three Amendments are consequential.
As drafted, the new Section 66B(3) in Clause 10 provides that where as a result of an original ascertainment or of the review of a child receiving special education the education authority decide that he is unsuitable for education and accordingly decide to report him to the local authority—so that his special needs can be suitably catered for in a care centre—the report must not be issued earlier than 28 days from the issue to the parents of the notice intimating the education authority's decision. Under Section 66B(4), the parents may appeal to the Secretary of State within the 28-day period, whether or not they have asked for and obtained from the education authority a statement of reasons for their decision.
While the 28-day period for appeal is in any event an improvement on the period of 21 days prescribed in the Act of 1962, we feel that an even longer period should be allowed where the parents have sought and obtained a statement of reasons. In such a case, particularly where the statement is not obtained till the 28-day period has almost expired, the parents may well wish and need an extension of the period, after obtaining the statement of reasons, in which to take advice and consider whether they should appeal to the Secretary of State. The Amendments accordingly allow them an extra 28 days in the circumstances to do this.
The Government's intention in Clause 10, and the Bill as a whole, is that parents should be able to participate to the fullest possible extent in decisions affecting the future of their children, and because of that underlying reason we think that this is a case where an additional 28 days is a reasonable thing to allow. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sure that the whole House will agree that this is a very reasonable Amendment, and I strongly support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to,
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 32, leave out ("the said period") and insert ("either of the said periods").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 41, leave out ("whether or not such a statement is so required").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved
Page 16, line 43, leave out from ("decision") to end of line 44 and insert—

("(a) where such a statement has been so required, within the period of twenty-eight days from the date on which that statement was issued,

(b) where such a statement has not been so required, within the period of twenty-eight days from the date on which the said notice was served.

refer the case to the Secretary of State.")—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN rose to move Amendment No. 20:
Page 21, line 22, after ("provide") insert ("or secure the provision of")
LORD HUGHES: It may help the noble Lord if I intimate to him I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps for for the benefit of other Members of the Committee I might explain that the Amendment is designed to bring the wording of the Bill into line with Section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act. I beg to move.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Power of Secretary of State to make grants to education authorities and others]:
6.53 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 21:
534
Page 23, line 1, after first ("of") insert ("scholarships, bursaries, or other")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really consequential, somewhat indirectly, on Amendment No. 3. The Amendment restores words which are in the 1962 Act but not in this Bill. Section 75(3) of the 1962 Act gives the Secretary of State power to apply, in accordance with regulations made by him, such sums out of monies provided by Parliament as he thinks necessary to a number of purposes specified in Section 75(4). One is:
"payment of sums by way of scholarships, bursaries and other allowances to persons attending courses of education"
Now that we have restored the right to retain fee-paying schools, such bursaries and scholarships, as well as allowances, seem to be required because they are provided in fee-paying schools, and it is provided also in Section 11 that where the bursaries, scholarships or allowances are not less than the fees, the pupil is to to be deemed to be given free education, and so to be entitled to have books, writing materials, stationery, mathematical instruments, practice material and so on, provided free as well. I am not sure whether the words in my Amendment are necessary, but they are in the 1962 Act and I think we should know why they have been left out in the context especially of the provision that we have already made in the Bill by amending it. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I can assure your Lordships that the Amendment is unnecessary, even if the Bill remains in the form in which it now stands. It is true that Section 75(4)(g) includes the words to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn referred, "scholarships, bursaries and other allowances". When we were rewriting Section 75 of the Act we took the opportunity of modernising and simplifying the terminology. In the first place, the term "scholarships" nowadays connotes competition, and I would mention that the scholarships are not paid by the Secretary of State. Secondly, the word "bursaries" is generally restricted to education authority awards. It is therefore appropriate to Section 49(1), but not to Section 75. "Allowances" on the other hand, is a generic term covering all these awards, and it is convenient to use the term in Section 75

535
since all awards from central funds tend to be called "allowances", to distinguish them from education authority "bursaries". The redefinition has nothing at all to do with the abolition or retention of the payment of fees, but is a recognition of the changed use that is being applied to these particular words, and it seemed reasonable to bring the section into line with the usage to which authorities, and everybody concerned with education, are putting these words nowadays.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful for the explanation. I think this is something we shall all be glad to have. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Age of retirement of teachers]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 25, line 30, at beginning insert ("it he attains the age of sixty-five years in the course of a school year, at the end of that year, and in any other case")
The noble Lord said: I will explain the point of this Amendment by reading the clause. Subsection (1) says:
"(1) Except where his employer otherwise determines, every teacher to whom this section applies and who holds a post of special responsibility shall retire from that post
(a) on the date on which he attains the age of sixty-five years, or …"
In place of this I am proposing to make the clause read that he shall retire from that post
"if he attains the age of sixty-five years in the course of the school year, at the end of the year, and in any other case on the date on which he attains the age of sixty-five years."
This was intended to mean, and I hope does mean, that if he attains the age of sixty-five years during the summer holiday before the school year commences he will automatically retire then, except where the employer otherwise determines. So if he started to commence the school year he would carry through the school year and retire at the end of it. This seems to me to be sense. For one thing it is a truism that some people are old at fifty, while others retain their full
536
faculties until their eighties. Therefore any rigid retirement provision has to be looked at very carefully, and looked at in the interests not so much of the individual or his profession as in the interest of those whom the profession serves.
It can hardly be denied that retirement in the middle of the session—more particularly in the middle of a term—is disruptive of the work of a class or department. If the head of a department is also coaching pupils, say for their Highers, and has to give up his post of special responsibility in the middle of the session, he may well not want to carry on in a junior role and may retire from teaching entirely. It seems much more sensible, I should have thought, that the education authority should not employ him at all for the session in which he reaches sixty-five than that he should retire in the course of the school year, or not employ him in the post of responsibility in this case. If he retires at what might be described as a "natural break" in the school year, for example at Christmas, he will have to be replaced, and that will have repercussions on other schools from which a replacement, or a replacement for the teacher promoted to his post, is recruited.
At times when there is a shortage of teachers it seems rather absurd to have a rule of the kind there is in this clause. But the main point is that the pupils must come first, and it seems to me to be wrong to take any avoidable action which may disrupt their work during a school session. I have long felt that this was right, and I should dearly like to see this Amendment carried. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord on this matter, but I cannot for the life of me understand why he is moving the Amendment. Obviously, there could be very considerable inconvenience to a school, and to the pupils, if a teacher in a post of special responsibility had to retire on his 65th birthday in the course of the school year. It might cause considerable hardship to pupils studying for examination; it could cause disruption to the school timetable, quite apart from any hardship to the teacher himself.
The subsection, however, does not require immediate retirement on the age of 65, because the opening words of the

537
subsection—this is why I do not understand why the noble Lord is moving this Amendment, because he has made it quite clear that he has read these words—are
"Except where his employer otherwise determines".
These words leave it open to employing authorities to arrange for retirals from posts of special responsibility on a date which suits the interests of all concerned. I should he most surprised, and equally disappointed, if I thought that local authorities were automatically retiring people on their 65th birthday without regard to the effect it had on these matters. It seems to me that in most cases what will happen is that the teacher will carry on to what is generally agreed to be a suitable date.
Nevertheless, the noble Lord may say, "Why then do we not put it in the Bill in this way?". The noble Lord has pointed out that not everybody ceases to possess his full faculties at the same age. We must also accept that not everybody remains equally acceptable for all time. There could well be circumstances where an authority did not wish to dismiss a teacher who was approaching the age of 65 but where it was in the interests of all concerned that he should not be allowed to stay in the school a day after his 65th birthday. It might well be that it was in the best interests of everybody, except the teacher concerned, that he should be got out of the school at the earliest opportunity.
If in fact we laid it down that such a person had to continue until the end of the session, there might be circumstances in which the local authority would then be forced into the rather unpleasant alternative of seeking to get rid of somebody when it became obvious that they were not going to be able to get rid of him, say, three or four months before the end of the session. In these matters, obviously, the local authorities are the ones best able to determine where the balance of advantage lies: getting a teacher to retire on his 65th birthday if they think that that is the most desirable course, or continuing his services until the end of the session. Either way, the Bill as it stands leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the local authority. They exercise their discretion to let him go or to let him stay;
538
and that, I submit, is the way it ought to be. I therefore invite the noble Lord to let well alone.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not quite certain that it always has been well. From time to time I have met teachers who have told me that in the middle of the session they are leaving, and in circumstances where I had no reason to believe they were leaving under any kind of cloud whatsoever; and it seemed to me highly unsound. I hope that this situation has improved since the days when I was more closely associated with it. In view of what the noble Lord has said—and I must say I am much reassured by what he has said—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask a question on the first line of this subsection, which says:
"Except where his employer otherwise determines"?
May the employer determine on a date prior to the age of 65, or do those words refer only to an extension after 65? In other words, is the employer able to retire a man before he reaches the age of 65?
LORD HUGHES: He can be required to retire before the age of 65 only in certain circumstances. It would probably be as an alternative to dismissal. The man concerned would be allowed to retire on health grounds, and so on. But otherwise I do not think that the authority can require a man to retire below the age of 65 against his will.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Amendment of section 85 of Education (Scotland) Act 1962]:
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I had been intending to say something about this clause, but I have a feeling that in present circumstances, and at this late hour, it would be better to say nothing at all rather than to have a somewhat incomplete debate on what is a very thorny problem.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Schemes for reorganisation of educational endowments: procedure, appeal, making and effect]:
7.7 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 27, line 40, leave out ("one month") and insert ("sixty days").
The noble Lord said: I do not know that this Amendment concerns only a small point. It has to do with the handling of endowment schemes. Subsection (4) of the clause says:
"If the Secretary of State frames a scheme under subsection (3) above, he shall as soon as practicable thereafter—

(a) give to the persons who made the objections or, as the case may be, proposed the amendments to the draft scheme notice in writing of his decision with respect to those objections or amendments",

and so on. Then, in line 40, having framed the scheme, he shall cause to be published a notice:
"stating that, unless not later than the expiry of the period of one month from the first publication of the scheme a petition or appeal is presented to the Court of Session in accordance with the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State proposes by statutory instrument to make the scheme in the terms in which it has been published".
In most cases those affected will have had a chance to see this before, but even so, one month seems to me a very short time in which to prepare a petition to the Court of Session. This is always a highly technical matter. It will often involve getting a decision from the governors. They then have to obtain legal opinion, draft the proceedings and so forth. My noble friend Lord Selkirk will be able to say more about this matter, but I should have thought that in this particular connection one month is too short a period. After all, it takes such a very long time altogether to frame these endowment schemes that one month here or there really does not matter very much. In these circumstances, I should have thought it would be fairer to give a rather longer time in order that those who are concerned and want to present a petition or appeal to the Court of Session would have an adequate time to draft that petition or appeal and to lodge it. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The effect of the first Amendment is to extend from one month to 60 days the period after the framing of a scheme for the reorganisa-
540
tion of an educational endowment by the Secretary of State during which a petition on the merits or an appeal against the legality of the scheme to the Court of Session, or a petition to the Secretary of State may be presented. The second Amendment makes an identical change in the period after the framing of a scheme by the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council; in this case the period exists to allow only an appeal, and not a petition, to the Court of Session.
It may be for your Lordships' convienience if I begin by saying a word or two to clarify these rather complicated provisions in order to explain our opposition to these Amendments. The main purpose of the new Sections 125, 126 and 127 is to streamline and shorten the statutory procedures for schemes for the reorganisation of educational endowments. The present procedure is costly, cumbersome and time-consuming. Under the Act as it stands, a draft scheme is published and, thereafter, one month elapses during which any public bodies or persons interested may make written representation; thereafter, a framed scheme is published and there is a further month for objections and representations. Then, the Secretary of State confirms the scheme and one month must pass before it is presented to the Privy Council for approval. During this time, the governing body may petition the Court of Session for amendment of the scheme, or the governing body and persons having a vested interest in the scheme may appeal to the Court on questions of law, or the governing body, and certain other parties, may petition the Secretary of State to lay the scheme before Parliament.
In the new procedure, provided for in Clause 19, the second period of one month for public representation is eliminated. A draft scheme will be published; there will be a period of one month for the public to make representations; the scheme will then he framed and, in the following period of one month, the governing body will have an opportunity to petition the Court of Session, and the governing body and persons with a vested interest will be able to appeal to the Court of Session, or the governing body and the same parties, as are specified in the 1962 Act, may petition the Secretary of State to lay the scheme before Parliament. Thus, the public interest is still safeguarded and the period of one month,

541
during which petitions may be presented, is the same as in the 1962 Act.
The practice of allowing a period of one month for the formulation of petitions of this kind has been followed since 1945. At no time have we received any representation from a governing body or from any other source that this period is too short a time in which to prepare a petition, and to our knowledge no body with power to make such a petition has been inhibited from doing so because of the period of time involved. There is no evidence therefore of any hardship to any interested party in this connection.
Further, the purpose of the amending legislation is to shorten procedure since there is general agreement that present procedures are clumsy and excessively long. The extension of a one month period to 60 days therefore contradicts the main purpose of the clause. What the Bill does is to substitute two periods of one month in two phases for the present three periods of one month in three phases. What the Amendment would do would be to substitute two periods of two months, so that we would be allowing up to four months for what at the present time we are allowing three months.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It would be one period of one month and one period of 60 days in two cases.
LORD HUGHES: I apologise to the noble Lord; I thought the 60 days was in two periods. Anyway, this is a minor amendment of my remarks. It is keeping the period as it is at the present time by adding to one of the stages another 30 days where up to the present there has been no demand for that to be done. Everyone concerned has found that the period of one month has been quite satisfactory. In these circumstances, while generally I must admit that I incline to the view that we should give more rather than less time, and in the Amendment which I moved some time back, adding 28 days to the periods which parents might have in certain circumstances, I think it is shown that the Government are not trying to keep things down to the minimum. But in this case the purpose of the clause is to get things through more speedily and it does not seem to me that any useful purpose is served by giving people 60 days in which to take action when all the ex-
542
perience is that the present period of one month is perfectly adequate.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not quite follow the noble Lord. Does it mean that in the period of something like three months from the time that the trustees or the people concerned have in which to frame a petition there are three stages? I took it that the petition could be framed almost up to the time of its presentation to the Privy Council. I may be wrong about this. In about 1925 I was sitting on a Committee on the organisation of endowments, and I am slightly surprised that this has not been completed. I do not know whether it will be completed in the future, but I cannot believe that there are many more which require reorganisation.
LORD HUGHES: I cannot say what the position is. I know that when I was on an education authority it seemed to go with the most unconscionable slowness. We were constantly being told that our turn would probably come along either two years from now or three years from now.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I really think it is absurd that we should be talking about streamlining the procedure when it takes such an unconscionable time to get these endowment schemes under way. From the point of view of the Scottish Office, no doubt this seems all right; people do not complain so long as they succeed in getting the thing done in the end. But it has required a lot of scrambling to get some of these things in—of that I am absolutely certain—and now that we have this little additional scope I should have thought one could have eased the burden and been given this extra time. I do not think it is too much to ask. There are many people involved. The governors (or whatever the body is) have to get together, discuss the matter with their lawyers, and they have to brief counsel—and all in 28 days. That seems to be a great deal for them to do in the time. These cases arise very rarely. There was the case of Madras College in my own time, which went to the Court of Session. Although they arise only rarely, these cases do take time. It is absurd to hasten it in this way when it has taken so long to get to that point.
LORD HUGHES: It is said that distance lends enchantment to the view and

543
it is some time now since the noble Lord was a Minister at the Scottish Office. He seems to have forgotten what I think is a principle which any man who is a Minister at the Scottish Office at any given time must know quite clearly; that is, that if nobody in Scotland represents against something at any time it means that they are satisfied with it. Our experience is that the slightest possible cause for discontent brings in hordes of representations, so that when I say that nobody has expressed any discontent with the period of one month it is the clearest possible evidence that the period of one month is adequate.
I agree that having regard to the time it takes to work through these proposals, the actual time that may be spent in between these stages may be the smallest part of it, but the fact is that it happens to be one of the parts which it is within our control to speed up. Sometimes, when everything has got to this stage, the most intolerable part of the annoyance is that you have to wait for lengthy periods which are quite unnecessary and people say, "Why on earth can we not proceed for another two months?" Even if there had been a minimum amount of representation that the month was inadequate, I should have been quite willing to say, "Very well then, if it only happens in one case the point is made". But it has not happened in any case. So why go out of our way to lengthen the procedure, even by a month, when it is unnecessary?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I deprecate the last three words, because I would say that that is not proven. However, I do not want to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Amendments and repeals]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: The Amendment No. 25 is consequential on the main Amendment we have already passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("Part") in line 15 and insert ("Paragraph 7(2) of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
Page 35, line 24, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and Consequential amendments]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment, No. 27, is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 39.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 41, line 10, at end insert—
(". In section 49 (power of education authorities to assist persons to take advantage of educational facilities)—

(a) for the words "primary or secondary", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the word "school";

(b) in subsection (1), for the words "Great Britain", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the word "Scotland".")

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to remove from Section 49 of the 1962 Act references to "primary and secondary education". The Amendment is consequential on the introduction of the expression "school education" in Clause 1 of the Bill and is one of a series of Amendments made by Schedule 2 replacing the words "primary and secondary education" by the words "school education". The substitution is effected by paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) substitutes "Scotland" for "Great Britain". Since the expression "school education" is not used in England and Wales, the section would have been incorrect and inaccurate if it had referred to courses inside or outside Great Britain which are not comparable to school education in Great Britain. The change from "Great Britain" to "Scotland" means that the section now refers to "courses comparable to school education in Scotland" and so makes the section consistent with the remainder of the Act,

545
as amended by the Bill, without changing its meaning or effect. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 29 is a minor drafting Amendment which tills a gap in the 1962 Act by providing a definition in common form of "enactment". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) after paragraph (19) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(19A) 'Enactment' includes an order, regulation, rule or other instrument having effect by virtue of an Act;";")—(Lord Hughes.)
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, leave out line 10.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE REGULATIONS 1969
7.25 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Representation of the People Regulations 1969 be approved and I trust that it will meet your Lordships' convenience if at the same time we consider the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1969 and the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1969.
The purpose of these three sets of Regulations is identical, and they are all in similar terms, allowing for differences to take account of the legal systems in the various parts of the United Kingdom. In order that it should not be thought that I am poaching even momentarily on Scottish preserves I hasten to assure noble Lords that my noble friend
546
Lord Hughes will be happy to deal with any Scottish questions raised, although as I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, seems to have been left, like the boy on the burning deck "whence all but he had fled," it does not appear that we shall have much trouble from Scotland now: my noble friend seems to have exhausted noble Lords from there.
The Regulations are made under powers conferred on my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland by the Representation of the People Act 1949. Their purpose, like that of the earlier Regulations they are to replace, is to spell out in more detail than is desirable in a Statute the detailed procedure to he followed in various electoral matters—in particular, the preparation and publication of the electoral register; absent voting; the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers; and the registration of service voters. In no point do they, or can they, go beyond the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts. We had some fairly strenuous debates earlier in the Session on the Representation of the People Bill. Now that the Bill has passed into law as the Representation of the People Act 1969, I hope that we may leave controversy behind and can treat the Regulations for what they are—a useful piece of necessary, but in itself uncontroversial, machinery. Certainly that is the view which the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House took of the Regulations when examining them last week.
The need for the Regulations is that the passage of the Act of 1969 has rendered obsolete the earlier Regulations which were made in 1950, following the passage of the Representation of the People Act 1949, and which have been several times amended since. The need for new Regulations now is that Parliamentary authority is required for the revised forms prescribed in Schedule 1. I have no doubt that the noble Lord opposite has a copy. Some of these relate to the preparation of the electoral register, and this process will begin in many areas a few weeks from now.
Accordingly, the Regulations now before the House revoke and replace the previous Regulations to which I have referred. To a large extent those previous Regulations are reproduced word for

547
word. The new and amended provisions of the new Regulations have been made in consequence of the passing of the Act of 1969. A few changes have also been made to give effect to recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and of the Home Secretary's Electoral Advisory Conference which, though well within the scope of the Act, did not need to be spelt out in it.
The main changes are listed in the Explanatory Notes appended to each set of Regulations. Your Lordships will note the close similarity, if not identity, of wording in all three cases, and it may be convenient if what I add by way of further explanation is addressed to the first set of Regulations—the Representation of the People Regulations 1969—which apply only to England and Wales. First, however, I may perhaps permit myself a small digression to explain that, whereas the England and Wales Regulations and the Scottish Regulations contain provisions—for example, on registration and absent voting—which apply to local government, as well as to Parliamentary, elections, the Northern Ireland Regulations apply only to Parliamentary elections to the Parliament of Westminster. Elections to the Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont, and to local authorities in the Province, are the direct responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government, and not of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. This difference, incidentally, accounts for the difference in numbering of the Northern Ireland Regulations.
I now turn to the detailed provisions of the England and Wales Regulations. As with the Act of 1969, various parts of the Regulations come into force at different times. No part of them has effect until 14 days after approval by both Houses of Parliament. The greater part of them does not come into effect until February 16, 1970, when the electoral register for 1970 comes into force. But, as I have explained earlier, the Regulations are needed now in order that the preparation of the 1970 register may go ahead.
Perhaps the most interesting provisions are those relating to voting age. I refer to Regulation 8 and Form A, the householder's canvass form prescribed in Schedule 1. Your Lordships will recall
548
that under the new Act the voting age, from February 16 next, is 18 and that electors will be able to vote on and from the date on which they attain that age. Accordingly Regulation 8(2) (this is covered in Form A) provides for annotating the register with the date of the 18th birthday in the cases of those entered in the register who will become 18 during the life of the register; and Form A, in Part 2, is designed to elicit the information necessary if this is to be done.
Another important change is to be found in Regulation 28, which sets out in detail how the electoral registration officer is to go about correcting a register after it has been published, under the increased power conferred on him by Section 7(2) of the Act of 1969. This will still be a limited power, in that it will extend only to putting right clerical or printer's errors that have occurred in the final stages of preparing the register for publication. It will be as necessary as ever that the public, if they want to be sure of being on the register, should inspect the electors lists (which may, under Regulation 10(5) take the form of a single draft register if my right honourable friend the Home Secretary consents) while they are on public display between November 28 and December 16 in each year. If a name is not in the lists and no claim for inclusion is made then, the registration officer will have no power to add the name later by way of correction under the procedure prescribed in Regulation 28. All of us who have been members of another place know at elections how many scores, indeed hundreds, of people suddenly discover that they are not on the register because they did not take the trouble to look at the list when it was important that they should do so.
Regulation 29 makes the detailed provision necessary for giving effect to the extensions of absent voting facilities made by the Act of 1969 to. for example, the wife of an elector who has such facilities on "business" grounds, and to people prevented by religious observance from going in person to the polling station on polling day. Part V of the Regulations deals with the registration of Service voters. That category will now include members of the British Council and their wives—or husbands, as the case may be.

549
Most of these changes, as of the other changes mentioned in the Explanatory Note to the Regulations, result from the Act of 1969. As I said earlier, however, there are one or two changes which do not flow directly from that Act. These are the provisions for a draft register instead of electors' lists (Regulation 10(5)); for replacement of a spoilt postal ballot paper (Regulation 51); and for an increase in the maximum penalties, particularly that for failing to give information, or for giving false information, for registration purposes (Regulation 75). The first of these was suggested by the Electoral Advisory Conference: the other two give effect to recommendations of the Speaker's Conference.
My Lords, I will not weary you with a complete catalogue. As I have indicated, my noble friend Lord Hughes is available to deal with Scottish points; but the Regulations are so clear and the Explanatory Notes so helpful that I hope that there will be little need for this. As I have also indicated, the Regulations as such ought not to be treated as matters of controversy, limited as they are to machinery rather than to policy. I should perhaps add that the England and Wales Regulations were discussed in draft with the Electoral Advisory Conference, and that the other two sets of Regulations have also been the subject of consultation. Finally, may I remind your Lordships that all three sets of Regulations have the blessing of the Special Orders Committee. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Representation of the People Regulations 1969, be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
7.36 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I first of all wish the Minister of State "Many happy returns!"—not in his capacity as Minister of State but in his personal capacity. As your Lordships know, there were parts of the 1969 Act that we on this side did not like; but as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, that is now water under the bridge and I do not intend to object to any of the Regulations—not even those for Scotland. But there is one point that I should like to make in regard to Regulations 15 and 18, which deal with claims and objections to the electoral lists.
550
Regulation 15(2) states that the registration officer may, if he does not like a claim,
"send to the person making the claim or objection a notice stating his opinion and the grounds thereof and that he intends to disallow the claim or objection unless that person gives the registration officer notice within three days from the date of the first mentioned notice … and, if he receives no such notice within the said time, he may disallow the claim or objection."
Again, in Regulation 18, which deals with "Other corrections to the electors lists", there is an opportunity within five days from the date of the objection to do certain things.
These times and dates are, I believe, in force under the present Regulations. I hope that the noble Lord will confirm that these times—the three days and five days in these new Regulations—apply now before the new Regulations come into force. But the present Regulations were brought into force when we had a decent postal service. Now, we have a rotten one—or sometimes it is a rotten one—and three days or five days is not sufficient. Nowadays, often one cannot get an answer in three days, even using the 5d. post. All I am asking is that the Minister of State will have a word with the Home Secretary, to see whether, in the near future, there should not be an Amendment to these Regulations, perhaps allowing a day or two extra.
7.39 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for his kindly reference to myself. It is a matter of some regret that once your birthday gets into The Times it is there for life, and you cannot conceal the fact of the moving finger of time. I am a shade less happy about the noble Lord's reference to the postal service. It is not only the best in the world, but it is at least marginally better than it was in the days of the previous Administration. I have not come here to discuss the Post Office (I have enough trouble without that), but the percentage of deliveries by the first post next morning is higher now than ever it was. The noble Lord has raised a perfectly valid point. My only regret is that he did not raise it six years ago when he occupied the post I now occupy and was moving the same Regulations in the same words. I can only feel

551
happy that as he now has more time on his hands he has at last had time to read the Regulations.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I was not responsible for the Regulations six years ago. If I remember aright, I was at the Board of Trade.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I can only say that this is a duty which has now been wished on to the Minister of State and it is now my responsibility, both administratively and otherwise. Nevertheless, it still is a valid point. I was only indicating—perhaps in a Party sense—that it was a valid point six years ago when the noble Lord might have done something about it, but it is still valid and needs an answer. There are really three Regulations where this matter arises 13(1), 15(2), and 18, and the answer is the same. The three-day limit relates only to objections to last-minute claims. The effect of the three-day limit is really a period of grace—in addition to the time already allowed—for making objections after the last date on which claims may be made.
If the noble Lord will look at Regulation 13(1) he will see precisely what I mean. Normally the lists would close on December 16, and three days more is allowed. These are transactions in which the post is scarcely used at all, and it was never used, because information about claims for inclusion in the register can be got only by going in person to the office of the Electoral Registration Officer, in accordance with Regulation 14. Therefore, if a person is minded to make an objection to a claim, it is almost certain that he will deliver it by hand, and for that three days is enough and always has been. Also these are transactions which are almost entirely the preserve of the local political Party workers, and, as the noble Lord will know, these boys know their political onions and are used to working within a close time limit. Certainly the political Party representatives at the Electoral Advisory Conference did not question this three-day limit, which they have always lived with, when they were considering the Regulation in draft.
The other point is that by December 16 the registration cycle is getting into a critical phase, and a quick calculation
552
will show the noble Lord that another three days added to December 16 means you are within a week of Christmas. Unless the time table is a tight one there is a risk of delay in assembling the final copy for the register, and consequently a risk of delay in printing and even publishing the register. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point because I think it should be raised. The thought might occur to some people, as it did to him, on reading this document, and it is quite right to raise it. I hope that he will feel satisfied with the answer. The representatives of all political Parties are satisfied with these Regulations, and indeed were consulted about them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I too am satisfied now.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND) REGULATIONS 1969
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1969, be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1969
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Scottish Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1969 be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)

BUSINESS
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, my noble friend Lord Crook has decided not to ask tonight his Question on the Reports of the Chief Inspector of Factories and the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.