Sitting of 10 June 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CORN EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed with an Amendment.
  LEVER PARK BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

    St. James's Park
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) whether he will illuminate suitable parts of St. James's Park; and
    (2) what estimate he has made of the capital and annual operational cost of illuminating suitable parts of St. James's Park.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Loughlin): My right hon. Friend is much attracted by this proposal, and he hopes to be able to carry out a modest scheme, costing perhaps £2,000–£3,000, in due course. The
    1204
    operating cost should not be more than £400 a year.
    Mr. Strauss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising hope that something will be done here. Does not he agree that St. James's Park, if skilfully illuminated, would be enchanting and would add greatly to the attractiveness of London? Is there a chance of this being done by next summer?
    Mr. Loughlin: I would not like to commit myself to when it would be done, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that floodlighting would make the park enchanting. However, if we spend money on this project, even though the amount is small, we shall possibly be unable to do something much more essential.

    Palace of Westminster (Cleaning)
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has for cleaning the facade of the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Loughlin: None at present, Sir.
    Mr. Smith: As this is one of the most visited and observed buildings in the country, does not the hon. Gentleman think that great benefit would result, bearing in mind the success with the cleaning of other public buildings in London?
    Mr. Loughlin: Of course some benefit may be derived from cleaning the building, but there is the question of cost, and in this case it would be about £200,000. The time scale would also be long. The Government are not prepared to spend £200,000 on such a project at the moment.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Has the hon. Gentleman any plans for cleaning out the inside of the Palace of Westminster, which would save a lot of cost, by having a General Election?
    Mr. Whitaker: Could not the cost be recouped for the purpose by a son et lumiére performance?
    Mr. Loughlin: I will consider it.

    Labour-only Contracting
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress

    1205
    has been made with studies of labour-only contracting in the building and civil engineering industry.
    Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now publish a White Paper outlining the terms of the Government's proposed legislation on contractual liability for self-employed building workers.
    The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. John Silkin): I am urgently considering these matters in consultation with my colleagues and I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend make this consideration as urgent as possible? Is he aware that many employers are avoiding their responsibilities to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that the considerable growth in labour-only contracting is leading to a deterioration in standards in the building industry generally and in the conditions of those working in it?
    Mr. Silkin: I am aware of those anxieties. The survey will be conducted with great dispatch.
    Mr. Speed: Is the right hon. Gentle-man aware that it is also important to carry responsibile opinion in all parts of the industry with him? Could he consider the suggestion in my Question of a White Paper before legislation is introduced?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is important to consider the views of the industry, but the question of a White Paper is premature.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the building trade unions have given great consideration to this matter and are most anxious that legislation should be brought in at the earliest possible moment to deal with the iniquitous and scandalous operation of labour-only contracting at present?
    Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the trade unions' point of view.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is not the right hon. Gentleman fully aware of the impact of the selective employment tax in this matter and that it is making such legislation so much more urgent?
    Mr. Silkin: This problem antedated the selective employment tax. However, there are a number of Questions on the Order Paper on the taxation aspect and I do not wish to anticipate them.
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on the future of labour-only sub-contracting in private contracts with his Department.
    Mr. John Silkin: No, Sir. Progress on this must be considered as part of the examination of the Phelps Brown Report now in hand. But tinder my Department's existing conditions of contract the use of all sub-contractors must be approved by the superintending officer who is warned about the dangers of using the self-employed type of labour-only sub-contractor and is instructed to avoid this wherever practicable.
    Mr. Judd: I am obliged for that reply, but would my right hon. Friend agree that among his own labour force there are still widespread misgivings about tax irregularities, falling standards of workmanship and hidden subsidies enjoyed by private contracting firms of this kind as a result of using Ministry equipment? Could he give reassurances in this respect?
    Mr. Silkin: I know that my hon Friend has pressed this point vigorously before. My instructions to my Department on this question have recently been strengthened, but we need to consider the whole of the Phelps Brown Report, and this is now in hand.
    Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on a Yorkshire Television programme called "Calendar" last Thursday three labour-only sub-contractors openly admitted to drawing unemployment benefit while working as labour only sub-contractors? Would my right hon. Friend make an investigation to see whether these people were employed on Government contracts by tenderers who might be doing work for the Government?
    Mr. Silkin: This matter has been investigated a good deal and it has been shown that they were not. But the fact that they made those remarks lends

    1207
    point to the need to discuss the whole question.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that S.E.T. is driving ordinary contractors to labour only sub-contracting?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that that is a very good argument, and I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's method of dealing with it. Clearly this is something which should be discouraged. Whatever blame is attached, it should not be done.

    Federation of Carpet Manufacturers (Meeting)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will issue a statement outlining the result of the meeting his head of purchasing organisation had with the Federation of British Carpet Manufacturers.
    Mr. Loughlin: There has been a useful exchange of views and the Department is now awaiting suggestions from the Federation on possible future arrangements for discount contracts.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that a carpet firm in my constituency was very dissatisfied with the reorganisation of the contracts? Is he now telling the House that, as a consequence of this meeting, the disquiet of this firm can now be resolved?
    Mr. Loughlin: The question with which we are dealing is part and parcel of a new policy in our purchasing section to get it running on the most efficient lines, so that we get the best value for money. The firm which my hon. Friend mentioned will be considered when new contracts are ready and are being arranged. Scotland generally should get a greater proportion of the purchases, because three of the six firms now holding discount contracts are north of the Border.

    Price Increases (Early Warning Notification)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many notifications of price increases he has received under the early warning arrangements
    1208
    since the Budget; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards these increases in the light of the balance of payments policy set out in that Budget.
    Mr. John Silkin: Two, Sir. The policy of Her Majesty's Government remains as outlined in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement.
    Mr. Biffen: But even in the modest rôle which the right hon. Gentleman is performing, can he confirm that he accepts sympathetically the argument for the need for price levels which will sustain levels of investment? Has his attention been drawn to the recent speeches of Sir John Reiss and Sir Halford Reddish on this point in respect of the cement industry?
    Mr. Silkin: I am aware of this point, and I think that paragraph 16 of the White Paper on Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy meets the case.

    Brick Supplies (Scotland)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on the availability of bricks in Scotland.
    Mr. John Silkin: I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 21st May in answer to a similar Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie).—[Vol. 784, c. 106.]
    Mr. Taylor: To which planning organisation should we credit the remarkable achievement of a glut of bricks in England and a pretty desperate shortage in Scotland? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that there has been a sharp decline in building starts and completions in Scotland in the first few months of the year? Will he look into this matter as one of great urgency?
    Mr. Silkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman has his facts slightly wrong. In fact, the shortage of bricks in Scotland relates only to the central belt, which is due to internal factors. Some brick makers have been unable to maintain full production through shortages of labour, because the labour has gone into other industries.

    Harcourt Room (Pictures)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Public Building and Works on what criteria the selection of the pictures which are at present hanging in the Harcourt Room is based.
    Mr. Loughlin: The selection is made on the recommendation of the Committee of Members which advises Mr. Speaker and my right hon. Friend on works of art in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have recently entertained several friends from the Commonwealth who have expressed disgust at the low standard of the pictures hanging in this room in the House? Would he confirm that the picture consisting of some straight lines which never meet is a reminder to the Ministry of Transport that the missing link between the M1, the M5 and the M6 is not yet completed?
    Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman and I have a lot in common in this matter. We are both philistines and should leave this to people who understand art.
    Mr. Ogden: While not claiming to be one of those people, as least I know what I enjoy. Would my hon. Friend acknowledge that some of these pictures may be excellent financial investments but provide little enjoyment? Would he consider using his powers of patronage to support living artists rather than dead ones, however eminent?
    Mr. Loughlin: Practically all of the pictures in the Harcourt Room are on loan to us from the Tate Gallery, so they do not cost the House a halfpenny. It is right that all the schools of thought in art should be represented there for the benefit of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance).
    Mr. Strauss: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is highly desirable that hon. Members and their friends should be able to see in a room in this building examples of the outstanding British artists whose work has been bought by the Tate Gallery? Is he aware that the picture referred to in particular by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) is the work of an artist with a very high international reputation?
    Mr. Loughlin: I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are getting very tired of the green lady at the end of the room—I do not know whether she is a former Minister of Transport—who looks as if she is suffering from the effects of the breathalyser?

    Tower of London (Guided Tours)
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will institute a regular system of guides for conducting parties round the Tower of London.
    Mr. John Silkin: I believe that the present arrangements under which Yeoman Warders conduct parties round the Tower as part of their duties are generally favoured by visitors. Organised parties may bring in their own guides.
    Mr. Shaw: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in competing for the services of these Yeomen Warders, school parties particularly are at a disadvantage? Could he not do something special for them.
    Mr. Silkin: This is a very real difficulty. It is, I suppose, a case of too many school parties chasing too few guides. But in the summer season as many as 22,000 visitors go to the Tower in one day. The idea of increasing the number of guides, all of whom would no doubt tell exactly the same story but in conflicting voices, might be a little difficult.
    Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend consider opening the Tower on winter Sundays, including mornings, since this is the only time when many working families have a chance to go there?
    Mr. Silkin: I should have thought that the existing arrangements were good enough, but I will consider that.

    Brick Stockpile
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the current size of the national brick stockpile; and what steps he is taking to reduce it.
    Mr. Silkin: At the end of April stocks of bricks were 926 million. As my predecessor explained to the hon.

    1211
    Member on 22nd April, this is a private enterprise sector of industry and I am not responsible for any over-estimation it may make. I have reason to expect, however, that stocks will be reduced over the summer months.—[Vol. 782, c. 238–9.]
    Mr. Goodhart: Since brick production is now lower than it was when the Labour Government were elected in 1964, and since the brick stockpile is now larger than it has ever been at this time of the year, would the right hon. Gentleman advise the industry to increase or to decrease production?
    Mr. Silkin: I would advise the industry to be aware of the forecasts which are made.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: But is it satisfactory for the Minister to deny responsibility for brick stocks, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said in 1964 that a Labour Government would plan the bricks? Is this the fulfilment of that planning? Is it not his own Government's fault, in view of the fall in housing starts?
    Mr. Silkin: If the correct forecasts are made and disregarded by the industry, the industry itself suffers.
    Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend recognise and inform hon. Members opposite that many new techniques in house and other building are now taking place, and that the same use is not made of bricks?
    Mr. Silkin indicated assent.

    Departmental Committees
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many committees sponsored by his Department are currently in existence which have as members persons outside the Civil Service, and, in particular, builders.
    Mr. Loughlin: 47, of which 23 include builders.
    Mr. Iremonger: Since the terms of reference of the Minister's National Consultative Council are virtually the same as those of the E.D.C.s, would it not be a good thing to start reducing this number by scrapping the latter?
    Mr. Loughlin: No, Sir. There is another Question on this subject which
    1212
    I should not anticipate. The hon. Member's supplementary question does not relate to his Question on the Order Paper.

    British Standard Time
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further steps he has taken to estimate the effect on productivity in the civil engineering industry of British Standard Time; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has now made of the effects on production in the building industry of British Standard Time; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what recent action he has taken to publish evidence on the effects on the building industry of British Standard Time in the winter months.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilsonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what survey he has made of the effects on safety and productivity of building contractors of British Standard Time in midwinter; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Silkin: As my predecessor stated on 22nd April the results of the N.F.B.T.E. survey were passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 26th March, who stated that it was a cogent, well-substantiated and objective report which would carry full weight in the present assessment. No similar representations have been received from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors on this subject. Further studies would not be helpful until the results of his interim assessment are known.—[Vol. 782, c. 240–2].
    Mr. Iremonger: Is not the Minister aware that it is impossible artificially to light many of these building sites? Why should builders on these sites be handicapped by having to start late?
    Mr. Silkin: I am well aware that the N.F.B.T.E. has given examples which it believes affect the whole of this issue. I am also confident that my right hon.

    1213
    Friend the Home Secretary will take all these factors into consideration.
    Mr. Costain: The Minister said that the civil engineers had not made any representations. Would it help him in his representations to the Home Secretary if they did so? He can take it from me that they find this problem very difficult.
    Mr. Silkin: As I have said, this is a matter which can well be left to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wilson: What steps have been taken to pursue this matter with the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Silkin: As I said a moment ago, my right hon. Friend has received the results of the N.F.B.T.E. survey
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend again draw the Home Secretary's attention to this report and to the fact that many hon. Members with deep understanding of the building industry warned when the legislation was introduced that for the building industry it would be an utter failure?
    Mr. Silkin: This and other considerations and matters of balance will all be taken into account by my right hon. Friend. I do not think that he needs me to add to them.

    Civil Engineering Industry
    Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he now proposes to take to ensure continuing financial stability in the civil engineering industry.
    Mr. John Silkin: I shall maintain my predecessor's policy of support for the longer-term planning of civil engineering work in the public sector.
    Mr. Speed: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor acknowledged a particular responsibility of the Government in this, as 90 per cent. of all civil engineering work is for the public sector? As civil engineering contracts do not have fluctuation clauses, would he not agree that firm price contracts are wrecked by constant increases in S.E.T., and will he make further representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Silkin: The inclusion of tax fluctuation clauses is another question.
    Mr. Ashton: As the rolling programme for roads forecast has been a success, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to extend this sort of forecasting into other sectors of the civil engineering industry?
    Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the development of rolling programmes has made headway, especially with roads. The economic development committees are examining the prospects of developing further applications of this technique.

    Selective Employment Tax
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors in regard to the effect of selective employment tax on the civil engineering industry and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. John Silkin: Representatives of the F.C.E.C. have discussed with me the treatment of the impending S.E.T. increase in respect of current contracts, and the more general question of tax fluctuation clauses in civil engineering contracts. I am considering these matters urgently in consultation with my colleagues, and I am not yet in a position to give a final answer.
    Mr. Taylor: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the S.E.T. increases impose serious additional burdens on the whole construction industry? Would he not agree that it will be difficult to get fixed price contracts in future if there is always a danger of such sudden savage increases in tax?
    Mr. Silkin: I am fully aware of the feelings of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors.
    Mr. Donald Williamsasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what increases in the productivity of the construction industry he estimates have taken place as a result of the levying of selective employment tax.
    Mr. John Silkin: Since 1966 output per head on new work has increased at an average annual rate of 6½ per cent. as compared with the previous rate of about 4 per cent., but whether this acceleration is wholly due to S.E.T. I am not in a position to estimate.
    Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the Minister for making that reservation in his Answer, because undoubtedly the result of S.E.T. has been more self-employed direct labour and an increase in the prices of all building products.
    Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the figure which he has given for the increase in productivity has been accomplished with a smaller work force than that employed during 1966?
    Mr. Silkin: That is a very good point. Between 1966 and 1968, the work force of private contractors fell by over 2 per cent. a year while their output increased by an annual rate of nearly 4½ per cent.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main effect of S.E.T. on this industry is a falling-away in apprentices and a considerable increase in labour only subcontracting? Will he take that into account and get something done to relieve the burden on this industry?
    Mr. Silkin: I have heard that suggested, but so far I have had no concrete evidence of a fall-away in apprentices. I am very well aware of the problem of labour only sub-contracting, and I am studying it closely.

    Government Building Corporation
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received to set up a Government Building Corporation; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on his policy regarding the setting up of a Government Building Corporation.
    Mr. John Silkin: I have received no representation from any quarter about a Government Building Corporation, but I am willing to examine any relevant proposals which might lead to improved efficiency in the industry.
    Mr. Goodhart: Can the Minister give an assurance that he will not waste his time on plans for yet another wasteful public corporation, but will instead concentrate his efforts on trying to reduce the burdens that the Government have put on industry, burdens such as S.E.T.?
    Mr. Silkin: I will certainly give the hon. Member an assurance that I will not waste my time, but I do not accept the rest of his question.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if a building corporation were brought into being it would certainly increase building costs? Will he resist such a proposal?
    Mr. Silkin: I would not agree, because in any event I have not yet considered the question, but if the hon. Gentleman would like me to consider it I should be delighted to do so.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a building corporation could well augment the housing programme in the great cities with the most serious housing problems? Will he look sympathetically at any scheme which may be put before him by the trade unions or by individual hon. Members which could help towards that end?
    Mr. Silkin: I will always look sympathetically at any scheme put forward to me by trade unions or individual hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend.

    Marble Imports
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he is aware that the importation of foreign marble into this country amounts to approximately £2 million worth a year; what approximate proportion of such imports are used in buildings for which his department is responsible; and what steps he has taken or proposes to take to use materials of British origin in substitution.
    Mr. Loughlin: Yes, Sir. The volume of marble and marble-type imports in 1968 was 72,000 tons, valued at £1·8 million. So far as the Department is concerned the use of marble is kept to a minimum. The estimated annual use of slab marble and chippings in the Department's buildings is approximately 160 tons, valued at about £1,750.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not suggest that all Government buildings are marble halls, but will the Minister bear in mind that there is now a perfectly adequate British substitute for marble and that we could stop this little drain on our balance of payments?
    Mr. Loughlin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that £1,750 is a little drain. We do our best with our own buildings to ensure that when there is a material which may be substituted for marble, it is used.

    Directly Employed Labour
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made in his studies of the relationship between his Department's directly-employed labour force and the maintenance workers directly employed by local authorities: and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hollandasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on his Department's studies of the possibility of co-operation between his own direct labour force and those of local authorities.
    Mr. John Silkin: I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on 20th May, I do not rule this out.—[Vol. 784, c. 246.]
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that mean that the studies which the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to a Question on 20th May he was to undertake, have started, and when in his estimate will they be completed?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is far too kind to me. Three weeks is not a very long time, especially when two weeks have been spent in Recess. When the various improvements in my D.E.L. as outlined in my statement of 20th May have come into effect, that will be the moment to consider this question.
    Mr. Holland: In view of the failure of a number of these direct labour organisations, is not the best way in which the right hon. Gentleman could give them the consideration his hon. Friend suggests they deserve be to take no further action?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting comment, but it is not a view which is universally shared. Many local authority direct labour organisations are extremely successful and
    1218
    it is interesting to note that many private enterprise undertakings also have efficient direct labour forces.
    Mr. Arnold Shaw: Would net my right hon. Friend agree that it would be an advantage to local authorities if he outlined to them the lessons he has learned from his own D.E.L.?
    Mr. Silkin: There may be lessons not only for local authorities, but for all others in the operation of D.E.L. by my Ministry. I will certainly get in touch with my right hon. Friends about this.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting in the Library a copy of the Labour Party's This Week dated 16th May which contained much more information than the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House in his statement?
    Mr. Silkin: I will always consider anything the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if he is to go into this matter in some depth, he should also consider the number of bankruptcies among private enterprise building firms? The number is legion, higher than for any other industry. Will he also recognise that local authorities provide conditions of employment about 20 per cent. better than those in private enterprise?
    Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend made the same point to me on 20th May and my reply is the same.

    National Consultative Council
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will now review the terms of reference of the National Consultative Council: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Loughlin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Costain: Further to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), is there not a good case for amalgamating these two committees? They do similar work. Would not the committee time be cut if they were amalgamated?
    Mr. Loughlin: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the National

    1219
    Consultative Council and the E.D.C.s. If he looks at the constitutions of both bodies, he will find that they deal with entirely different facets. [Interruption.] I have the constitution before me. It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying "No". There is liaison between both committees to ensure that there is no overlapping of work.

    Construction Industry Research and Information Association
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilsonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on the future of the Construction Industry Research and Information Association.
    Mr. John Silkin: The Construction Industry Research and Information Association has informed me that its income is inadequate for its current and future tasks. My officials are at present discussing the situation with representatives of the industry, and the matter will come before my National Consultative Council on 25th July. I will make a further statement as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is reasonable that the same organisation should be responsible for both research and information? Would it not be better if this difficult problem were dealt with by obtaining a solution from the industry which was agreed and not imposed upon it?
    Mr. Silkin: I acknowledge that the purely voluntary basis of the C.I.R.I.A. has failed and we may have to consider other possibilities.

    Events in 1971 (Working Party)
    Mr. Donald Williamsasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the progress of his Working Party on Events in 1971.
    Mr. Loughlin: The Working Party was set up by the National Consultative Council to co-ordinate events to mark the Golden Jubilee of the Building Research Station. The Working Party has so far held one meeting, and in due course will publish a list of events.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Gas Industry (Legislation)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power whether he will introduce legislation affecting the gas industry in the present session of Parliament.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Free-son): I am not yet able to give a date of the introduction of the legislation.
    Mr. Ridley: Can the hon. Gentleman at least say whether legislation will be introduced this Session or next Session? He has dangled this possibility before the House for some time and it would be of great service to us if we knew when we might expect the legislation.
    Mr. Freeson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am aware of the date involved, but I am not in a position to say when the Bill will be introduced. However, it will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

    British Steel Corporation (Investment Programme)
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Power whether he has yet approved the investment programme of the British Steel Corporation; and if he wil make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is considering it now.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the N.B.P.I. Report on steel prices is a monstrous intereference with the commercial practice of the British Steel Corporation? What effect does he think it will have on the investment programme which his right hon. Friend is currently drawing up?
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend will make a further statement on the Report to the House as soon as possible. In the meantime, I comment in a similar spirit to that in which I answered the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley): I would not accept the hon. Gentleman as the best spokesman for the publicly-owned steel industry.

    Opencast Executive (Land Reclamation)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on his policy regarding the recommendations of the Hunt Committee that the National Coal Board's Opencast Executive should be used as the basis for a land reclamation agency.
    Mr. Freeson: This is a matter primarily for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whose position was explained by the Minister for Planning and Land in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 6th May [Vol. 783, c. 53]. The Opencast Executive is indeed admirably suited to undertake land reclamation, and I hope that more local authorities will call on its expertise and services.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome that reply, but does not my hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to stress the importance of a national land reclamation agency and the great value of the work done by the Opencast Executive?
    Mr. Freeson: I certainly agree, as I have just said, and as I have said previously. The Opencast Executive is well suited to undertake this kind of work, and I hope that it wil be called upon to do more work of this kind; but this is a matter essentially for the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
    Mr. Hooley: Will my hon. Friend initiate discussion with that Ministry to make rapid progress in this matter in view of the great importance laid upon it by the Hunt Committee?
    Mr. Freeson: I am in touch with the National Coal Board on their responsibility in this, and I would like to leave it at that for the moment.

    Electricity (Resale Price)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power what measures he has now considered to increase public awareness of the maximum resale price of electricity.
    Mr. Freeson: I have nothing to add as yet to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on 29th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 1140.]
    Mr. Osborn: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the inquiries being
    1222
    conducted by the Consultative Council, by Manchester University students and at Sheffield, and will he say what is the outcome?
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware of the inquiries of the Consultative Council to which the hon. Gentleman refers and of other consultative council inquiries which are going on, because I have to some extent been involved in initiating those inquiries and have had discussions with the councils concerned.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is not just a question of increasing public awareness of the maximum price at which electricity can be resold, but putting weapons into the hands of consumers who are being victimised so that they can reclaim the amounts by which they are being overcharged?
    Mr. Freeson: I certainly agree that there are a quite large and perhaps unknown number of cases where consumers who are ill-protected are suffering as a result of overcharging. As I have previously said in the House, I am looking into this question as thoroughly as possible.

    Privately installed Electricity Meters
    Mr. Staintonasked the Minister of Power how many representations he has received in the last 12 months from electricity consumers on the prices which they are paying for electricity through privately installed meters.
    Mr. Freeson: Twenty-one individually, but others have come on behalf of classes and groups of consumers.
    Mr. Stainton: May I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I have received in my constituency vastly more complaints than the number which he has received as a Minister? What consultations has he had with his colleagues to make overcharging a criminal offence, as recommended by the Consumer Council?
    Mr. Freeson: As I have said. I have initiated discussions on this matter in many directions; we are looking into the subject. May I say not only to the hon. Member but to other hon. Members that the Department would welcome more evidence of cases of overcharging

    Gas Industry (Unofficial Strikes)
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to ensure that unofficial strikes in the gas industry do not create a situation in which life and property are endangered.
    Mr. Freeson: Strikes at gas works are very rare and are, in the first instance, best left to the good sense of the Gas Boards, employees and trade unions to settle or avoid.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is intolerable that the people of this country should be endangered by unofficial strikes, and when will his Government publish a Bill to deal with this matter?
    Mr. Freeson: May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts down his Question to the appropriate Minister, and contains his simulated indignation on the matter.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is the Minister aware that gas workers who come out on strike are in law guilty of a criminal offence? In view of his reply, with which I wholly agree, does not this show how ridiculous it is to impose penal provisions against those who come out on strike?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Ridley: Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that a compulsory cooling-off period would be appropriate to the gas industry and, if so, will he say whether it will be brought in?
    Hon. Members: Answer.

  COAL

    Miners (Wages)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power what are the current average weekly earnings of the employees of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Freeson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on 17th February, 1969.—[Vol. 778, c. 18.]
    Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the very low relative level to which miners' wages have sunk may well be the reason for the drop in the ability of the Coal Board to hold its labour in
    1224
    the productive coalfields? Is he aware that the arguments put forward about morale might be stronger if the level of miners' wages was a little higher?
    Mr. Freeson: A number of factors are involved in the employment question in the better colliery areas other than the point which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman. In any case, I would not rely on him as a spokesman for the National Union of Mineworkers.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Local Authority Purchasing
    Mr. Bostonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made towards implementing the recommendations of the Joint Review Body on Local Authority Purchasing.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Most of the Joint Review Body's recommendations were addressed to Government Departments and to the local authorities jointly, and my right hon. Friend will first want to discuss them with all concerned. I understand that the local authority associations have now considered the report and will be ready to discuss it with him very soon.
    Mr. Boston: I welcome the progress of the consultations, but will my hon. Friend agree that this is an important matter, not least because of the scope for increasing efficiency, and will he say when he hopes to be in a position to make a fuller statement?
    Mr. MacColl: I share my hon. Friend's view that this is an important Report. My right hon. Friend is anxious to obtain constructive results for his consideration, and he does not therefore wish to over-press the local authority associations. As soon as they come to him, he will be ready to report.

  COMMON MARKET COUNTRIES (VISITS)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister which of the countries of the Common Market he proposes to visit this year.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no immediate plans to visit any of the Common Market countries.
  Mr. Marten: Before the Prime Minister makes any visits or reopens negotiations with the Common Market, will he see that there are published, for the benefit of the country as a whole, economic studies of the effect of Britain joining the Common Market? Would not it be absolute folly to start negotiations from the position of economic weakness in which we are now?
  The Prime Minister: I see no reason in present circumstances to change the general estimates given to the House during the major three-day debate on the Common Market two years ago, but certainly before any final decision is taken to enter into negotiations—and that depends not on us but on others—we would wish to inform the House and consider in those circumstances what further information should be sought.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: If my right hon. Friend reopens negotiations, will he reiterate his pledge by making it clear that Great Britain would not agree to join a Federal Europe? Is not the membership of the Foreign Secretary of a Committee called European Committee inconsistent with that pledge?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As we have all said many times, and certainly in the debate to which I have referred, there is no immediate prospect for a long time to come of that development occurring. Joining the Communities would not involve any action of that kind. We would, of course, be required—and this we have said we are prepared to do—to accept the obligations, including the political obligations, of joining the Common Market, but they do not include either a federation or any military involvement.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CO-ORDINATION)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve the co-ordination of the work of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, the Monopolies Commission, the Restrictive Practices Court and the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
  The Prime Minister: These matters are kept under review but I have no proposals to make at present.
  Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that in certain activities these organisations might be in direct conflict with one another? Is there any formal or informal machinery to ensure that such conflict does not arise, and, if there is not, will he create some?
  The Prime Minister: There has been some public comment that at the margin there could be demarcation difficulties between certain of these bodies, and that is why steps are constantly taken to see that in any decision about a reference to one or other of them there is proper co-ordination to ensure that the matter goes to the right body. There is a problem, and we are looking at it.
  Mr. David Howell: Are there not 11 departments and agencies all trying to interfere with industrial policy, and does not this cast doubt on the value of the Prime Minister's five-year old pledge to streamline Whitehall?
  The Prime Minister: Entirely different functions are covered by the bodies referred to. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has an important job to do in streamlining industry and making industry more effective. It has had tremendous successes in many industries, particularly engineering. The Shipbuilding Industry Board has helped the industry enormously. The Monopolies Commission has the powers given to it by this House, and it has a very different function from that of the N.B.P.I. All these bodies are necessary, and we are trying to some extent to co-ordinate their activities a little more.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Since the Question links the Restrictive Practices Court with three executive bodies, will the Prime Minister make it clear that the Restrictive Practices Court is a judicial body discharging judicial functions under statutory provisions, and that there is no intention on the part of his Government to limit or encroach upon its judicial independence?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although when he uses the words "executive body" to describe the others it could

  1227
  give the wrong impression. The Monopolies Commission, though not a court, is an investigatory body; it has no executive powers. The same is true of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is an operational agency to promote mergers in industry.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister what further communications he has received from the illegal régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what further exchanges he has had recently with the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what was the date of the last communication received from the Rhodesian Prime Minister on a possible settlement on the basis of the "Fearless" proposals or otherwise.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the White Paper (Command 4065) which was published on 3rd June.
  Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, as yesterday the House gave full support to the people of Gibraltar based on the principle of free determination and on our historical association, it would now be the most venal hypocrisy if we did not advocate the same policy towards Rhodesia? Would he ask the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to join him in condemning apartheid and racialism wherever it exists?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that both right hon. Gentlemen had condemned it in the Rhodesia context. So far as self-determination is concerned, we have made it clear—this no doubt has been one of the stumbling blocks in the negotiations—as our predecessors made it clear, that no constitution is acceptable to the British Government or, we believe, to this House which does not give the people of Rhodesia as a whole the opportunity
  1228
  of determining whether they accept it. That is our position and will always be our position.
  Mr. Winnick: In view of what has been said in Rhodesia in the last fortnight, would my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that any agreement between a British Government and the illegal régime would not be worth the paper it was written on? Does he not agree that the courageous statement by the Bishops in Salisbury last week was also a condemnation of the type of race poison which we had from the dishonourable Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) last night?
  The Prime Minister: On the first question, it was because we recognised the tendencies of members of the régime that in the "Fearless" proposals we insisted on watertight proposals and guarantees to ensure fulfilment of the six principles. The "Fearless" proposals were turned down by the other side to the dispute. Mr. Smith has now said in his speech that the new constitution he is proposing is a racialist one. To the extent that he is racialistic it will be condemned by every hon. and right hon. Member of this House.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) referred to one of his Parliamentary colleagues as "the dishonourable Member". He must withdraw that.
  Mr. Faulds: Absolutely correct. That is the Member over there—unprincipled, un-Christian, undemocratic and racialist.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must restrain himself while I am dealing with his colleague.
  Mr. Winnick: I was quite conscious of what I was going to say, and what I said. My quarrel was with the right hon. Gentleman, not with you, Mr. Speaker. If you ask me to withdraw, I have no alternative but to withdraw.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whatever Mr. Smith may say about it, is it not the case that his proposals provide for a multi-racial Parliament? May I ask the Prime Minister, since he cannot impose principles on Rhodesia, whether it was

  1229
  worth while for him to let the "Fearless" negotiations, in which he was supported by this House, fail because of the external safeguards? Did he fully explore the possibility of a treaty between the two countries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does he propose to do nothing between the present time and the holding of the referendum?
  The Prime Minister: Even the hon. Gentleman's continuing apologia for this régime over four years, I should have thought, would have reached its limit when he felt called upon to defend the new constitution on the ground that it is a multi-racial Parliament. It is even described by its author as a racialist constitution. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been among all the other hon. Members of the House in condemning it. But apparently his loyalty to the régime is greater than his loyalty to the six principles. So far as the last part of the question is concerned, we took the initiative in the face of great criticism in this House and abroad in initiating the "Fearless" discussions. We put forward fair propositions to them. We can now see why they have not been accepted in the light of the statement. They did not founder on the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It was always clear that we were prepared to accept any alternative effective second safeguard.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister suggested that I have loyalty to a Government other than Her Majesty's Government. All that I have done in the matter of Rhodesia has been directed to British interests as I have seen them. Mr. Speaker, will you ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a point of political argument between the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Delargy: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the protests made in Rhodesia by Anglican and Catholic bishops and by Methodist leaders in expressing their abhorrence at the Rhodesian Government's handling of the constitution issue, in expressing their detestation of the terms of the referendum, and in calling on people everywhere
  1230
  who cherish tolerance to join with them in their protest?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. I saw first on one day the protest by the Roman Catholic archbishop and four bishops, and on the second I saw the statement by all the Churches, except the Dutch Reformed Church, on this question. I would pay tribute, as I am sure would the House, to the great courage shown by the Churches in Rhodesia, not only during this last weekend, but even before U.D.I. in their very strong warning of the effects. I imagine that there is no hon. Member who does not deplore the treatment by the régime and its racialist supporters of the Anglican bishops in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider as a matter of urgency what additional steps can be taken before 20th June, other than a short-wave broadcast, to draw the attention of the white electors of Rhodesia to the almost universal abhorrence and condemnation in the United Kingdom of this racialist constitution?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that what has been said in this House this afternoon will be reported in Rhodesia. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made a very strong speech on this subject this afternoon. I hope that early copies will be available to hon. Members; they certainly will be available in Rhodesia. Other methods are being considered.
  I am quite certain that if all parties in the House were unequivocal in condemning the new constitution and in making clear that we can have no dealings with that kind of situation, this of itself would have a profound effect in Rhodesia. It would express, on behalf of the whole House, our recognition of our trusteeship for the 4 million people who will not be voting in the referendum.
  Mr. Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that Smith's latest move merely underlines what some of us have always maintained—that he had no intention of reaching a settlement on the six principles, that he is an avowed racialist and that he always was, still is, and presumably, short of Christian conversion, always will be, an unprincipled twister?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware that my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends warned me against getting into negotiations with him. I still think that it was right to have the negotiations on board H.M.S. "Fearless". At the time there was no reason to think that he was not negotiating in good faith. I believe that if he had been able to work out the agreement and he could have got it through the racialist majority of his party, he would have signed the agreement and stuck to it. But it was clear that, when the chance came after H.M.S. "Tiger", he ran away under the racialist pressure of his own Right wing.
  Mr. Amery: Could the Prime Minister explain why the Government appear to have made no attempt to explore the alternative possible second safeguards, such as a treaty, and those which were proposed by Sir Albert Robinson, in which Mr. Smith appeared to show some interest after the return from Salisbury of the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson).
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Smith occasionally appears to show interest, until you get him round the negotiating table. So far as a question of a treaty is concerned, we discussed it with him in 1965, not only here but in Rhodesia. In the end he turned it down and said realistically that what is important is what is in the treaty. We could not reach agreement. We offered him a number of alternatives to the safeguards, which he would not accept, including the possibility of safeguards confined to the internal Rhodesian position requiring no external safeguards. But he turned down the treaty on H.M.S. "Tiger" on the ground that it would have to be registered in the United Nations—not his favourite body.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. King, to ask Question No. 4.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

  LAND COMMISSION
  Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister if he will transfer supervision of the Land Commission from the
  1232
  Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the Treasury.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. King: Has not Treasury pressure turned this levy into little more than a tax, and, in so far as it now depends upon a chance date in the calendar, has it not become almost a game of chance? If not the Treasury, would the Prime Ministr consider putting it under the Minister responsible for sport?
  The Prime Minister: That is very funny, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the view that he has expressed. Indeed, he has expressed it before. However, in Question and Answer at Question Time I have no hope of converting him. But he will be aware that we have had two major debates on this matter and, more recently, when Clauses 36 and 38 of the Finance Bill were debated, all these points were argued. I cannot add anything to what was said by my right hon. Friends in those debates.
  Mr. Graham Page: Is it not a fact that the Land Commission is insolvent? Has it not borrowed millions of £s more than the value of the land that it holds? Would it not be wise to hand over to the Treasury this insolvent undertaking and prevent its inept meddling in land development in the future?
  The Prime Minister: Again, these matters were dealt with in the debates to which I have referred. For reasons which the hon. Gentleman knows, the land acquisition programme has proceeded more slowly than we hoped. I know the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to return to a free market in land, under which vast profits would be made. They were made for 13 years, and the then Government refused to do anything about the situation when we pressed them. Millions of pounds were made out of local authorities and owner-occupiers.
  Mr. Hooley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the major purpose of the Land Commission is to acquire land for socially useful purposes and that it could play a useful part in dealing with the general problem of dereliction? Will he resist all attempts to turn it into a tax collecting unit?
  The Prime Minister: As I have said, we know the reasons why the land acquisition programme has proceeded slowly. It has been a question of the release by local authorities of land for development. As that is improving, and as the release increases, the Commission can take on the principal function entrusted to it by Parliament.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Rodgers, to answer Question No. 74.

  RIGHT HON. MEMBER FOR WOLVERHAMPTON, SOUTH-WEST
  Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter of grave public importance. Is there any way in which the Christian right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) can be induced to discuss in this Chamber—which he has so far failed to have the courage to do—the matters upon which he always pontificates before sympathetic audiences wherever he can find them? Is there any way in which we can do this?
  Mr. Speaker: This is a point of political criticism, and political criticism is not unknown in Britain. It is not a point of order for Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. William Rodgers, to answer Question No. 74.
  Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must temper his enthusiasm. I have ruled on his point of order.
  Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must by now know what Parliamentary behaviour is. I have ruled on his point of order.
  Mr. Faulds: This is another point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Another point of order.
  Mr. Faulds: You have refused to countenance discussion of my point of order, Mr. Speaker, because you have
  1234
  said that it is a matter of political disagreement. This question, which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West raises whenever he feels that there is some use that he can make of it for his political ambitions, is a fundamental, moral problem and not a political one. In those terms are not we allowed to discuss it?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Any hon. Member can discuss almost anything on the proper Parliamentary occasion. The hon. Gentleman has said that the right hon. Gentleman has raised a moral point. Mr. Speaker is not a moral judge—
  Mr. Faulds: I had hoped that you were, Sir.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker cannot compel any hon. Member to speak in the House of Commons. Indeed, one of his jobs is sometimes to try to resist hon. Members who wish to speak.
  Mr. Rodgers, to answer Question No. 74.

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, MUNICH (REPORT OF INQUIRY)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. VAN STRAUBENZEE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make public the findings of the Second Fay inquiry into the circumstances of the Munich air crash of 1958; and whether he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 74.
The report of Mr. Fay's inquiry is being published this afternoon.
Mr. Fay and his colleagues were asked to consider whether blame for the Munich accident of February, 1958, was to be imputed to Captain Thain. Following protracted and exhaustive examination of all the available evidence which included re-examination of a number of the witnesses, the inquiry has concluded that

1. The cause of the accident was slush on the runway.

2. It is possible but unlikely that wing icing was a contributory cause

1235

3. Captain Thain was not at fault with regard to runway slush.

4. Captain Thain was at fault with regard to wing icing, but, because wing icing is unlikely to have been a contributory cause of the accident, blame for the accident cannot in this respect be imputed to him.

5. Captain Thain was at fault in permitting Captain Rayment to occupy the captain's seat, but this played no part in causing the accident.

Mr. Fay and his assessors, in accordance with their terms of reference, have, therefore, reported that in their opinion Captain Thain cannot be blamed for the accident.
Her Majesty's Government accept this finding and the Government of the Federal German Republic have been so informed.
We are very grateful to Mr. Fay and to his assessors, Professor Collar and Captain Jeffrey, for the extremely thorough examination they have made of the whole question. Their report has, I believe, now established as far as will ever be possible the full circumstances of this tragic accident.
I am sure that the House would wish me to congratulate Captain Thain on the successful outcome to his long campaign.
Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the Minister understand how grateful are all those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been concerned with this matter over 10 years for the statement that he has just made? Will he regard it as appropriate at this moment to record the name of Mr. Peter Remnant, my predecessor, upon whose sturdy interest in the matter at the start much of this outcome turns?
Will the hon. Gentleman also say whether, in informing the Federal German Government of the outcome of this report, he will suggest to them that the findings should in some way be inscribed upon the findings of their own original inquiry, which itself was the cause of the 10 years of tension and anxiety under which Captain Thain has been living?
Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about his predecessor.
1236
Credit is also due to the hon. Gentleman himself for what he has done to keep the matter alive. The outcome fully justifies the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a year ago to hold this inquiry.
As for the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, we have let the Federal German Government know the form of the report, but it is too early to have a reaction from them. I am sure that they will take note of all that is said in the House today. I know that we shall have such further consultations with them as may be necessary.
Mr. Alfred Morris: May I congratulate my right hon. Friends on their wisdom in setting up this inquiry? Is my hon Friend aware that the people of Man chester and elsewhere who mourned the loss of many of our city's great sportsmen in that disaster will welcome the outcome of the inquiry and the availability now of facts that were not previously known?
Mr. Rodgers: Yes. There will be considerable relief at the outcome of the inquiry in view of the tragic circumstances of 11 years ago. We can only regret that it has taken such a very long time.
Mr. Corfield: While very much welcoming the findings of the Fay Committee, may I ask the Minister whether I am right in assuming that the findings depend very much on evidence that was available to the Federal German authorities, but was not, in fact, taken into account by them? If this is true, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Federal German authorities that this has led, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has said, to 10 years of very acute anxiety on the part of Captain Thain?
Finally, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations which the hon. Gentleman has extended to Captain Thain. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and others, whether there is some means by which a British subject in this kind of situation, who eventually clears himself, may be recuperated to some extent for some of the considerable cost that this has entailed.
Mr. Rodgers: On the first point, it is very difficult, 11 years after the event, to know exactly what the outcome of the first German inquiry might have been if all the evidence which has since become available had been available then. As the House will know, evidence on the effects of slush on runways was a fairly late discovery, and largely the result of work done at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. We have taken note of the point that the hon. Gentleman has in mind about evidence which was only partially available, and we have drawn this to the attention of the Federal German Government.
On the second point, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. No compensation can fully redress the sense of grievance which Captain Thain must have. We shall look sympathetically at what might possibly be done for him. Any question of compensation from the Federal German Government would be a matter initially for Captain Thain.
Mr. Lubbock: We should like to associate ourselves with the congratulations that the Minister expressed on behalf of the House to Captain Thain in the successful conclusion of his 11-year fight to clear his name.
Might I suggest, in relation to the attitude of the Federal German Government, that the hon. Gentleman should offer to send experts from the Board of Trade to discuss the latest findings with the Federal German authorities to see whether their agreement might be obtained to the report which has just been published so that everyone will be on the same wavelength and Captain Thain will also be cleared by the Federal German authorities as well as by our own inquiry?
Mr. Rodgers: That is the kind of procedure which might be appropriate in the circumstances.
Sir A. V. Harvey: While appreciating what the Minister has just said in answer to the question about compensation by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), may we take it that if the Federal German Government are not prepared to compensate Captain Thain, who has shown great restraint and dignity over all those years, he will be taken care of on a reasonable basis by B.E.A. or the
1238
Government, as he worked for a nationalised industry?
Mr. Rodgers: It is too early to make any assumption about how the Federal German Government may react. Difficult questions are involved because, as the hon. Gentleman may know, the circumstances of Captain Thain's dismissal were not directly concerned with the specific cause of the accident. Obviously, everyone will look sympathetically at the position in which Captain Thain finds himself.

NATIONAL INSURANCE, INDUSTRIAL INJURIES, SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS AND WAR PENSIONS (BENEFITS AND CONTRIBUTIONS)
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about improvements in national insurance and industrial injuries benefits, supplementary benefits and war pensions and about increases in the contributions of the insurance schemes.
I have presented today a Bill to increase benefits and contributions under the national insurance and industrial injuries schemes. A Financial Memorandum is attached to the Bill. An explanatory White Paper and a report by the Government Actuary will be available later this afternoon.
The House already knows that the Government proposes to increase the main standard benefit rates of the national insurance scheme by 10s. a week for a single person and 16s. for a married couple. This will restore to the flat-rate benefits the value lost because of the rise in prices in the two years since the last increase in October, 1967. The cost of the total increase, including industrial injuries, will be about £247 million in the first full year. It is proposed that the new rates of benefit should come into effect at the beginning of November.
The levels of supplementary benefits will be increased at the same time. For the two main categories—the single householder and the married couple—increases of 5s. and 8s. are proposed. Taking into account the first instalment they have been receiving since October. 1968, they will then have had increases

1239
of 10s. and 16s. respectively since October, 1967—the same increases as are now proposed in the standard rates of national insurance benefits, which have remained unchanged since that date.
Supplementary benefit levels for other categories, including children, will also be increased. Draft regulations to provide for all these changes will be laid for approval by the House in due course.
There will also be increases in war pensions.
I will, with permission, circulate a list of the principal proposals for supplementary benefits and changes in war pensions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I now turn to contributions which need to be increased not only because of higher benefits, but owing to two other factors: the greatly increased number of pensioners and the higher cost of short-term benefits.
As the House already knows, the total required in a full year is about £430 million. With the Exchequer contribution remaining at 18 per cent., i.e. £70 million, this leaves about £360 million to be found from increased contributions. The traditional way of raising this sum would have been by putting the whole burden on the flat-rate contribution. This would have meant an increase of 3s. 4d. each for employer and employee.
The Government rejected this as an intolerable imposition on the lower-paid worker. Instead, we thought it right to move towards the new scheme of national superannuation by raising most of the additional contribution on an earnings related basis. The flat-rate increase for an employed man, including industrial injuries, has been held down to 1s. a week and for an employed woman to 11d., whereas the present ½ per cent. graduated contribution on earnings between £18 and £30 a week will be raised by 2¾ per cent.
The biggest increase—for a man earning £30 or more a week—will be 7s. 7d. a week, made up of 1s. flat-rate contribution and 6s. 7d. graduated contribution. On the other hand, about 6 million employees who earn less than £18 a week will have only the 1s. flat-rate increase to pay.
I now turn to the benefits which employees will receive from these increased
1240
contributions. Let me emphasise that these additional graduated contributions, which will apply all across the board, both those in the State scheme and those contracted-out, will earn additional pension rights. But the greatest weakness of the graduated scheme introduced by our predecessors in 1961 was that it included no device for making these graduated pensions inflation-proof. Indeed, ever since 1961 their value has been shrinking year by year.
The Government have, therefore, decided that from 1972, when the new scheme comes into operation, the biennial review will guarantee the value not only of new scheme earnings-related pensions and the present flat-rate pensions as indicated in the White Paper, but also of the small graduated element in the present scheme which is earned by all those who pay graduated contributions. This will apply not only to pension entitlement earned in the three years between now and 1972, but also to the pension earned in the last eight years.
I should warn the House that this decision may cause problems to some employers and contracted-out workers. I should make it clear, however, that contracted out employers will not be required to revalue the equivalent pension benefits for employees who have left or may leave their employment before retiring age. But it will be for the employer to decide whether any improvement should be made in the light of all the circumstances and, since the decision will not take effect until after 1972, this will leave ample time for further consultations on this complex issue.
On the other hand, the decision to revalue the 1961 graduated element of the present pensions scheme will, I am sure, be welcomed by all those whose graduated pension rights have been frozen by the previous Government's legislation. Now they will be able, for the first time, to look forward in their retirement to graduated pensions that will be revealed in the light of changes in the value of money and the level of earnings.
Lord Balniel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will welcome the fact that at long last the

1241
long saga of evasion is coming to an end, and that the public will soon be aware of the full implications of the Budget speech?
First on the level of benefits, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the £4 10s. pension of October, 1967, has declined in value by 9s., so that the 10s. increase, even if it came into operation straight away, would only just restore the value to the 1967 level? Is it not clear that by the time seven months have elapsed, and the present trend of price increases has continued, the 10s. increase in the benefit will hardly raise it to the 1967 level? Therefore, this vast increase in contribution will only just compensate for the rapid erosion of the pension which is occurring today.
Second, am I right in thinking that a man with average earnings of £23 a week will have to pay an extra 3s. 8d. a week—1s. flat rate, and 2s. 8d. graduated contribution?
Third, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the fourth measure since October, 1967, to correct a miscalculated deficit in the National Insurance Fund, and that with such major short-term miscalculations we can have no confidence at all in the honesty of the long-term projects included in the right hon. Gentleman's earnings-related pension scheme?
Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says about the level of benefits. We are restoring the value to that of October, 1967, and next November, when we pay the first pension, we shall be paying a pension 20 per cent. higher in real terms than the pension paid by the Tories when they were in power.
Second, my calculation of the increase to be paid by the average wage-earner—the figures are in the White Paper in detail—and I have only the group between £18 and £21, is that it will be a total of between 2s. 10d. and 3s.
The hon. Gentleman's third question related to what he called the miscalculated deficit. He is right in saying that the amount to be spent was under-calculated. The major factor was a demographic miscalculation, and perhaps I might give the House the figures, because they are remarkable. Twelve years ago there were 4¾ million pensioners; now
1242
there are more than 7 million. Between March, 1967, and the end of 1968, a period of 21 months, the number of pensioners increased by more than half a million, from 6·49 million to 7 million. It is true that a great miscalculation was made about the longevity of people. The major cause of the increased cost is the increased number of pensioners.
Mrs. Lena Jeger: My right hon. Friend has referred to increases for the war disabled and industrially injured. Is he saying that there will be nothing in the Bill to help the thousands of civilian disabled, particularly disabled housewives, who have been in touch with him on many occasions to ask for the help that seems to be their due?
Mr. Crossman: I think that I explain in the White Paper, and I explain to my hon. Friend, that the new constant attend ance allowance for the totally disabled housewife is part of our new scheme and cannot be introduced until that scheme is introduced.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position in respect of those workers who are contracted out of the 1959 Act scheme? Are they to pay graduated contributions on top of the contributions they pay to their employers' scheme? Are they also to get graduated benefits on top of the benefits of that scheme? If so, has the right hon. Gentleman worked out the effect on the private schemes? Second, is the income tax allowance for employees to be increased in view of the substantial increase which they are making in contributions?
Mr. Crossman: The answer to the second question is that there is no change. The answer to the first question, about contracted-out employees, is that we are taking the ½ per cent. which they are paying at present for sickness and unemployment and increasing it by 2¾ per cent. In return, as on the ½ per cent., they will receive their full pension entitlement. Everybody will get a pension entitlement for the increased graduated contribution, whether they are inside or outside the scheme.
Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend say what the extra amount would have been if supplementary benefits had been increased by the same amount as the

1243
pension? As I think my right hon. Friend knows, this is a source of great irritation and criticism, and I think we are entitled to some explanation about it.
As regards the graduated scheme, many of us support this basis of graduating the amount, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not fair for the £20 to £30 a week worker necessarily indefinitely to carry the lower-paid worker because—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be reasonably brief. Long questions mean fewer questions.
Mr. Orme: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but I am thinking of the payment of family allowances, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has not set the figure too low in saying that the middle income group is £20 to £30 a week?
Mr. Crossman: If my right hon. Friend reads my statement he will see that I have given a careful explanation about supplementary benefits. The explanation is that those on supplementary benefit received the first instalment of their increase, namely, 5s., last year when national insurance rates were not increased. Therefore, to make the two equal, they take the second part of their instalment this year when the national insurance beneficiary gets the total 10s.
I am surprised at my hon. Friend's attitude about higher paid workers. I thought that there was agreement on our side that the flat-rate imposition was intolerable, that for the last 10 years we had steadily increased the proportion of the income paid by the lower-paid worker, and that the higher-paid worker had not paid his share. We had sought to do what we can to see that the benefits under the present graduated scheme are made more real than they were under previous Governments. Under the new scheme a worker receiving less than £30 a week will, in return for increased contributions, get substantially improved benefits.
Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Liberal Bench agree that the flat-rate contribution is intolerable? In view of that, why does
1244
he not scrap it and go over to an earnings-related contribution?
Second, will the right hon. Gentleman set up an inquiry into the reasons for earlier retirement and increased sickness absenteeism to see whether there is a way to combat social tension?
Mr. Crossman: On the first question, all I can say is that that is the precise purpose of the major scheme of national superannuation which we shall be introducing in our big Bill next Session. That will totally abolish all flat-rate contributions and the stamp, but we cannot do that this time. This is an up-rating in which we are seeking to move towards an earnings-related scheme as far as we can within the existing framework.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the figures for sickness. I think that we all ought to look at these figures with great care. During the last two years there has been a considerable increase in sickness benefit, and special inquiries are now under way. We must all take seriously an increase of that kind.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully again the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) about the effect on supplementary benefit recipients, in that apparently they are only receiving half the increase? We accept my right hon. Friend's argument that the instalment system gives them over a period the full increase, but as this is the sector of greatest need, will he consider perhaps on this occasion giving them the full increase?
Mr. Crossman: This is a very difficult question. We have a choice. Either we bring the two rates together over 24 months, in which case leap-frogging does not occur, or—and I find this preferable—we conduct, in the cases of greatest need, virtually an annual review to ensure that those hardest hit do not suffer through increases in the cost of living. The disadvantage of the annual supplementary review and the biennial national insurance review is apparently the leap-frogging.
Sir Hamar Nicholls: Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage new contributions from the self-employed? As he is guaranteeing values, does he envisage that

1245
the Exchequer contribution percentage will go up every year?
Mr. Crossman: There is no change in the method of contribution paid by the self-employed or in the Exchequer contribution which is 18 per cent. of the total including the graduated element and not only the flat-rate.
Mr. Marks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whatever the Government's decision on the method of raising money to meet this necessary increase sections of the House would have found fault? His decision to keep the flat-rate increase down to 1s, will be welcomed by several million people who earn less than £18 a week and by all of those who are concerned for their particular problems. Will he take the opportunity in the Bill to make a further easement in the earnings rule for retirement pensioners?
Mr. Crossman: We intend to arrange that the first £7 10s. of earnings will not lead to any reduction of pension. That is a considerable improvement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the lower-paid workers. The figures here are encouraging. Six million workers earning under £18 a week will only pay 1s. a week extra and another 2 million will only be paying 2s. 6d. a week extra. Thus 8 million workers will be paying 2s. 6d. a week extra or less. We have succeeded here in taking the burden off the backs of those who have borne it for too long.
Mr. Fortescue: The right hon. Gentleman has said remarkably little about the employers' contributions. How great an additional burden on industry will the Bill place? Secondly, when making his inquiry into the dramatic increase in sickness benefit over the last two years, will he make a similar inquiry into the dramatic increase in unemployment benefit?
Mr. Crossman: The employers' contributions will be 50–50 with the employees' contributions, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced. They will be exactly the same rates. The hon. Gentleman will find them all in the White Paper. I am prepared to institute an inquiry into unemployment as well, but it is not as
1246
grave or mysterious a problem as that of sickness benefit.
Mr. Alfred Morris: In view of the animus injected into these exchanges by the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), has my right hon. Friend been able to discover how the Opposition would be able to pay for the increased benefits? Indeed, can he tell us whether, as far as he knows, the Opposition are in favour of these increased benefits or whether their interest is merely cynical?
Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend can draw his own conclusions from the Opposition's attitude. It is a big assumption to believe that the increases we made in 1964–65 would have been made by the Opposition; and, secondly, that they would also have made the move to earnings-related unemployment and sickness benefit, which has added substantially to the bill. It is because of these factors that we are paying an increased burden, but we are getting better value for money than has ever been paid in the history of the British people.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this important change to graduated contributions is, in effect, a form of income tax and ought to be called such? Does not he also agree that the cost of these benefits, which hon. Members on both sides find inadequate in many cases, is so high that we should move from the system of giving flat-rate increases of this sort to giving more substantial increases to those who really need them?
Mr. Crossman: Such questions are often put to me at Question Time and hardly relate to the uprating today. It is a great mistake, however, to assume that this is equivalent to an increase in income tax. To confirm that, the hon. Gentleman should ask the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who first introduced graduated contributions and certainly did not regard them as income tax, nor, indeed, the benefit as unimportant.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)? This is a very important question. Many old-age pensioners, while welcoming the scheme, as we do, nevertheless feel cheated. I ask my right hon.

1247
Friend to have another look at the question of supplementary benefit, which is a very important one for these people.
Mr. Crossman: Of course I will consider it, but my hon. Friend must face the fact that the choice is between keeping the rates going regularly and altering them only once in two years. If we alter the supplementary benefit rate before we alter the national insurance rate and keep on moving it ahead, the net result will be an ever wider gap between supplementary benefit and the national insurance pension.
Mr. Younger: What is the estimate of the total cost of the employers' contributions to industry? How much of this will be passed on to the public in the form of increased prices?
Mr. Crossman: Hon. Members must make their own estimates about increased prices. One of the reasons I was against putting the burden on the employers as against making it equal between employers and employees was that I did not want to see an increase in prices.
Mr. Hooley: Will the Bill include provision for death grant in respect of handicapped and other people who cannot qualify under normal contribution arrangements?
Mr. Crossman: I am glad to say that we have been able to make one minor modification with regard to death grant. In future, it will be paid, on the insurance of close relatives, for handicapped people who have never been able to support themselves. This is a cause which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends

PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT RATES

Present Weekly Rate

Proposed Weekly Rate

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Ordinary Scale

(a) Husband and wife

…

…

7

9

0

7

17

0

(b) Single householder

…

…

4

11

0

4

16

0

(c) Any other person aged:—

(i) not less than 21 years

…

…

3

14

0

3

17

0

(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years

…

…

3

1

0

3

4

0

(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years

…

…

2

13

0

2

16

0

(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years

…

…

2

1

0

2

4

0

(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years

…

…

1

19

0

2

1

0

(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years

…

…

1

12

0

1

13

0

(vii) less than 5 years

…

…

1

7

0

1

8

0

have had at heart for years and I am glad that we are able to do something about it.
Mr. J. H. Osborn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all parties, especially when in power, enjoy raising these benefits and wish to do so? Can he give an assurance that he has carried out actuarial calculations, that they were approved by the Treasury and perhaps by the I.M.F. and that this does not inject a purchasing power into the country greater than we can afford, with consequences on the balance of payments and prices? Will he now say what the cost will be to industry and what the effect will be on prices?
Mr. Crossman: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the White Paper and the Government Actuary's report, both of which give the calculations.
Mr. Woodburn: Can my right hon. Friend clarify something which seems to have left some doubt in the minds of some hon. Members? Is it the case that, if supplementary benefit and old-age pensions are increased at the same time, this deprives the supplementary beneficiary of the year in which he now gets half in advance?
Mr. Crossman: That is true. If we have an annual review the loss in the value of pension in the first year is something that we make up at the end of 12 months, whereas if there is a biennial review the loss is that much greater
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

Blind Scale

(a) Husband and wife:—

(i) if one blind

…

…

8

13

6

9

2

0

(ii) if both blind

…

…

9

9

6

9

18

0

(b) Any other blind person aged:—

(i) not less than 21 years

…

…

5

15

6

6

1

0

(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years

…

…

4

1

0

4

4

0

(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years

…

…

3

9

0

3

12

0

(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years

…

…

2

1

0

2

4

0

(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years

…

…

1

19

0

2

1

0

(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years

…

…

1

12

0

1

13

0

(vii) less than 5 years

…

…

1

7

0

1

8

0

Notes:

(i) An allowance for rent is added to the above rates.

(ii) Both the existing and the proposed rates given above exclude the 10s. long-term addition which is added to the requirements of persons over pensionable age and to those of persons under pensionable age (other than the unemployed) who have received supplementary benefit for a period of two years.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Christopher John Chataway, esquire, for Chichester.
BILL PRESENTED
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2)
  Bill to amend the provisions of the National Insurance Act 1965, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 and the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1967 as to the rate or amount of contributions and benefit; to make further provision as to death grant under the National Insurance Act 1965, as to the assessment of disablement under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 and, for purposes of those and certain other Acts, as to the introduction of a decimal currency; to make temporary provision consequential on or related to the matters aforesaid; and for other purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Cross-man; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs. Castle, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Thomas, Mr. John Diamond, Mr. David Ennals, Mr. Norman Pentland, and Mr. Julian Snow; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

LABELLING OF CIGARETTE PACKETS
4.10 p.m.
Dr. John Dunwoody: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the labelling of cigarette packets in such a way as to inform the public of the health hazards resulting from cigarette smoking.
Last year in Great Britain 32,010 men and women died as a result of lung cancer. This is a disease which is largely preventable. A great majority of these deaths occured because these people were smoking cigarettes, and in many cases smoking cigarettes heavily. This is the greatest public health problem, in my view, that this country has ever had to face. We have a steadily rising toll year by year from diseases that are linked to cigarette smoking.
In my Bill I am attempting to produce at least one more weapon in the fight against these diseases. Warning notices printed on the cigarette packets that are sold in the country will bring home to at least some of those smoking cigarettes the personal risks that they are running. The magnitude of the problem we face is almost beyond comprehension. Indeed, a sense of apathy and helplessness seems to have arisen. People seem to be hypnotised into inactivity by the size of the problem—32,000 people every year, 88 men and women dying of lung cancer alone, every day of the week, every week of the month every month of the year.
This would mean, for each Member of the House, that we lose 50 of our constituents from this cause in a year, one constituent every week. Five times as many people are killed by lung cancer as are killed on the roads in Britain today. These are not old men and women; on average, they are dying 13 to 14 years earlier than they would from other causes, many of them in the prime of life. It is not only cancer which cigarettes cause, but diseases like bronchitis, heart diseases and gastric troubles. There must be few of us in this House who do not know of friends or relatives or of political colleagues whose lives have been cut short as a result of cigarette smoking.

1253
I want, in my Bill, to label cigarette packets with warning notices in an attempt to give a personal direct warning to the individual. There is no doubt that the great majority of people accept that there is a health risk from smoking cigarettes, but hardly anyone accepts that it applies to him or her personally. It is always the other man or the other woman who will run into trouble. I want to label cigarette packets because this is the sort of area that has not so far been covered by Government expressions of intentions to legislate and it is something where private Members can play a part.
The Government are committed to introduce legislation to take powers to ban cigarette coupons and to control or ban other advertising. They are empowering themselves to forbid or limit certain sorts of advertisements and to limit expenditure on the advertising of cigarettes. All of this I welcome. To me, it is a tragedy that nothing has been done since the Government announced their intentions in October, 1967. The tragedy is felt particularly by the families of the 50,000 men and women who have died of those diseases since the Government expressed their intention to bring in legislation.
In my Bill I propose to label cigarettes in a direct and unambiguous way, with wording that is easily understandable. I propose that cigarette packets should be labelled thus:
"Danger. These cigarettes can harm your health. Cigarettes are known to cause lung cancer, bronchitis and heart disease."
I also want the Bill to give to the Minister responsible the power to vary the wording from time to time. For example, perhaps we could consider whether the tar content of the various tobaccos used in cigarettes should be described on the packets. We should certainly seriously consider whether the weight of the tobacco in the cigarettes should not also be on the outside of the packet.
In my Bill I want to make this provision for the whole of the United Kingdom and I want the Bill, when it comes into force, to be enforced for a period of five years to give us a reasonable length of time to see what effect the proposal will have. I want to have a waiting period of six months, an interval of six months
1254
after the Measure is passed and before it comes into force to give the industry time to set up the machinery and the printing, and so on.
The question that is inevitably asked is: what effect would a proposal like this, if it were introduced, have? We have to be frank—we do not know. The only experience that we can quote from is that of the Americans. It is certainly true to say that neither my Bill nor the other public health education measures that have been introduced in America, or, for that matter, in this country, have had any dramatic effect on cigarette consumption. Nevertheless, in 1968 cigarette consumption fell in the United States for only the second year in the last 15 to 20 years.
I believe that it fell—and this is the opinion of authorities in America—because of the combined propaganda offensive that has been launched in that country. One element in this offensive is the labelling of cigarette packets with warning notices, although I feel that the American warning notice is a rather innocuous one and not as strong as that which I am proposing. It is certainly impossible for anyone to deny that this may well have had a beneficial effect and it is inconceivable that the sort of warning notice that I am talking about could have any harmful effect.
The other set of objections raised are that there are practical difficulties to do with the printing of notices on the outside of packets and the cost involved. I do not accept this. Many of the cigarette producers are today printing warning notices on the outside of the packets of cigarettes that they are exporting to the United States. I ask leave to bring in the Bill because I believe that it can have a significant effect on the most dangerous and deadly form of addiction in Britain today. I ask leave to bring in the Bill so that Parliament can commit itself on this issue and signify to the Government and the country its very great and real concern at the enormous misery, suffering and death that is caused in Britain today by smoking cigarettes.
4.19 p.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member wish to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Cooke: Yes.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Shame.
Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member says "Shame" because I rise to oppose the Motion. I would like to explain my position straight away. I am a nonsmoker, an anti-smoker and I have a great deal of sympathy with the undoubtedly pure motives of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody).
The House would be wrong to give the hon. Member leave to bring in the Bill, although I suppose that it does not make much difference one way or the other now, from the point of view of his chances of success, because he has brought in his Bill very late in the Session. This must be to some extent a publicity opportunity for the views he holds. I believe that the House would be wrong to associate itself, to wholly commit itself to a scheme which appears to deal only with part of the problem.
The hon. Member particularly mentions cigarettes, and gave details of what he wants printed on the cigarette packet. He could easily have told us what he thought about the other forms of tobacco, and I wonder why he did not. We are told that pipes and cigars are less noxious to smokers and that possibly the risks of getting some of the ailments which the hon. Gentleman mentioned are smaller, but surely these instruments of torture—as they are to the non-smoker—the pipe and the cigar, are far more noxious for those who do not want the benefit of the activities of the smoker. The hon. Gentleman should have brought that within the scope of his proposed Bill.
I am not entirely happy about the wording which he proposes to put on the cigarette packet. We should strive to see that people do not indulge in this stimulus to excess—[Interruption.] I know that we must be careful to stick within the rules, but it is the excessive use of these stimulants which is generally accepted to
1256
be dangerous to the users. They are more dangerous to some people than to others, and the individual's doctor might know more about it than someone who laid down the printing on a packet.
The hon. Gentleman might have mentioned the immense amount of time, money and energy which is put into research into the effects, good and bad, of tobacco. I hold no brief for the tobacco companies, but I took the trouble to find out how much was spent on research. A total of £1 million is invested in the Tobacco Research Council's laboratories. £1 million a year is spent on research through the Council and a further £1 million a year in companies' own laboratories or on work which the companies support outside. A good quarter of this work is research into lung cancer in particular. Hardly any research projects which ask for assistance are turned down, and, if they are, it is on scientific and not financial grounds.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the undoubted danger of tobacco stimulants, but he has not painted the whole picture and it would be wrong for the House to attach undue significance to his speech. It would be utterly pointless to give him leave to introduce a Bill which could not possibly succeed this Session.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. John Dunwoody, Mr. John Ellis, Sir G Nabarro, Mr. Pavitt, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, and Dr. Winstanley.

LABELLING OF CIGARETTE PACKETS
  LABELLING OF CIGARETTE PACKETS
  Bill to provide for the labelling of cigarette packets in such a way as to inform the public of the health hazards resulting from cigarette smoking, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EDUCATON (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I have posted up my revised selection of Amendments. The House will see that I have added two starred Amendments, Nos. 57 and 58, which will be taken together at the appropriate time.

  EDUCATON (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Clause 10

      HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 31, leave out 'and a psychological examination'.
      Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time, Amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 33, leave out 'either or both of the examinations' and insert 'that examination'; and Amendment No. 12, in page 11, line 9, leave out 'either or both of the examinations' and insert 'the medical examination'.
      These three Amendments make an improvement in the new Section 64 of the 1962 Act. They would remove the right of a parent to be present during a psychological examination when that is part of an education authority's ascertainment procedure. It was generally felt in Committee that there were disadvantages to writing into the Bill the right of a parent to be present at a psychological, as distinct from a medical, examination, and I undertook to make the appropriate Amendment.
      Mr. John Brewis: As it was I who moved similar Amendments in Committee, I should like to thank the Under-Secretary for accepting them in principle and producing these Amendments. We all want parents to take as large a part as possible in the examination with which we are dealing, so it is entirely right that they should be entitled to attend any medical examination which is necessary. But somewhat different considerations apply to the psychological examination.
      1258
      This is a science which is increasing in importance in the ascertainment of handicaps to children, and some of the tests of educational psychologists involve putting children in unfamiliar surroundings to see their reactions. It may, therefore, be contrary to the intentions if parents can communicate to the children their anxiety or change the atmosphere of the tests. There is no doubt that when this is not the case, we should all wish parents to be present.
      I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for making the position clear and, probably, making the examinations occasionally more effective because parents are not present.
      Mr. John Rankin: I agree completely with the Under-Secretary and with the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), but while we are removing the reference to the psychological examination in subsection (2) it will apparently be retained in three places in subsection (1). Could my hon. Friend make that clear?
      Mr. Millan: There is no question of our removing the psychological examination. We are concerned with the question of the parents' presence at that examination. The parent will be entitled to be present at a medical examination but not statutorily entitled to be present at a psychological examination. There may be circumstances in which no harm would be done if the parent were present and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening, but he will not have a statutory right to be present as he has for a medical examination. I have made the reason for that clear, as has the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis).
      Mr. Ian MacArthur: We greatly appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman has fulfilled his undertaking in Committee, when we dealt with a difficult problem, the delicate relationship between parents and child in these circumstances. I am certain that the Amendment is a marked improvement which shows proper care for this relationship, and that the House should accept it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 11, in page 10, line 33, leave out "either or both of the examinations"and insert "that examination".
      No. 12, in page 11, line 9, leave out "either or both of the examinations" and insert "the medical examination",—[Mr. Millan.]
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in line 34, leave out from 'thereafter' to end of line 6 on page 14 and insert:
      'either—

      (i) revoke the said decision, in which case they shall forthwith give to the parent of the child notice in writing of its revocation, and their duty to ensure that any education provided by them for the child is special education shall thereupon cease; or

      (ii) determine not to revoke the decision, in which case, if either the review was carried out in pursuance of a request made to them by the parent of the child by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above or the parent was invited, under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above, to submit the child for medical and psychological examination in connection with the review, they shall forthwith give to the parent such notice of their determination as is mentioned in subsection (5) below; or

      (iii) subject to subsection (6) below, revoke the decision but decide that the child is suffering from a disability of such a nature or to such an extent as is mentioned in paragraph (ii) of section 63(1) of this Act and that a report to the local authority should be issued by them under section 66B of this Act with respect to the child.'.

      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, the following Amendments: Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 54.
      Mr. Millan: Although these Amendments are long, I hope that hon. Members will not find them difficult to understand. They introduce a specific procedure for the transfer of children already receiving special education who, as a result of a review under Section 66, are found to be suffering from a disability making them unsuitable for special education to the category of children unsuitable for education.
      The procedure introduced in the new Section 66 requires an education authority to keep under review cases in which it has decided that a child requires special education. The main purpose of reviews is to let authorities consider from time to time whether children are ready
      1260
      to return to ordinary education or whether they should, in their own interests, continue to receive special education.
      There are cases in which the original decision may later turn out to have been optimistic. Indeed, there is a good deal to be said—education authorities often take this view—for giving a child a chance, first of all, in a special school before deciding that he is unsuitable for special education, thereby making the matter the responsibility of the health authority and, subsequently, of the social work authority.
      While the Clause as drafted sets out the detail of the procedure in ascertainment and review cases, we believe, after considering the matter, that it does not cater adequately for the type of case where, during a review of a child's circumstances, it is decided that he should be transferred from the education authority.
      As the Bill stands, if that decision were made, it would be necessary to go through the normal ascertainment procedure for the child who, it is decided, is unsuitable for education, and that would require another medical and psychological examination, which would be undesirable and unduly distressing to the child and his parents. It is, therefore, necessary to have a bridging procedure, and this is provided for as one of the major aims of the Amendment.
      Amendment No. 13, which amends Section 66(4), makes it clear that an education authority must make one of three kinds of determination at the end of a review. The first may be a revocation of the decision that the child should receive special education. The second may be a decision that a child should continue to receive special education. The third is a new kind of determination. Subject to certain conditions, it may be a determination deciding that the child should be reported to the local authority as unsuitable for education and revoking the original decision that the child requires special education.
      Amendment No. 14 is a minor and consequential proposal.
      Amendment No. 15 limits the circumstances in which a child ascertained as requiring special education can be reported to the local authority. The first limitation is that the child should be

      1261
      over the age of two. This is consistent with earlier parts of the provision. The second is that the review should have been initiated by the education authority. This is to protect parents who may request a review and subsequently find that it has, from their point of view, had an adverse result.
      That cannot happen under this provision, for the review would have to be initiated not by a parent but by an education authority, so that parents need not feel inhibited in asking for a review in the fear that it might have an adverse result. The third condition is that the child should have undergone a medical and psychological examination.
      Amendment No. 15 also sets out a new subsection (7) to Section 66, definining "local authority" for the purpose of the Section. This replaces a definition which appears at another point in the Bill. Because of the Amendments which we are making, it is more appropriate to have this definition at this point in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 16 is another linking proposal which I need not explain in detail.
      Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 concern Section 66B in regard to ascertainment by a local authority of children suffering from disabilities so serious as to make them unsuitable for any kind of education or training. As it stood, the Section did not set out with sufficient precision and detail the decisions which the Secretary of State might reach on any such reference or of the consequences for the local education authority and the child of each such decision. Nor did it, for example, provide for a parent to obtain from the education authority a statement of the reasons for its decision, information which some parents might wish to consider before deciding to refer their children's cases to the Secretary of State.
      Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, therefore, provide a considerable elaboration of this provision, but they do so specifically with the aim, first, of making the Section clear and, secondly, of setting out parental rights more clearly than is the position under the existing draft. Amendment No. 17 requires an authority to inform the parent of his rights to require the authority to issue a statement containing the
      1262
      reasons for its decision in relation to the child.
      Amendment No. 18 adds six new subsections (3) to (8), to Section 66B. The new subsection (3) provides for the ascertainment of a statement of reasons, if required by the parent. Subsection (4) sets out the decisions which the Secretary of State may reach on any appeal. Subsection (5) requires an authority to comply with a direction to report the child under subsection (4)(a).
      Subsection (6) provides that where the Secretary of State overturns a decision, made by an authority following a review, that a child previously ascertained as requiring special education has become unsuitable for education, the authority must continue to ensure that any education provided by it is special education. In other words, the child reverts to the position that he is suitable for special education.
      The new subsection (7) places a duty on an authority to provide special education for a child not previously ascertained as requiring special education and in respect of whom the Secretary of State substitutes under subsection (4) a decision that he requires special education for the decision that he should be reported. The new subsection (8) requires an authority to give the parent notice in writing of any decision made by the Secretary of State and of the effect of that decision.
      Amendment No. 54 inserts a new paragraph to define "local authority" for the purpose of paragraph 7 of Schedule 4, which is a transitional Schedule.
      As I said at the outset, these Amendments are rather elaborate. However, if they are read carefully they are not too difficult to follow. They represent a considerable improvement in the clarity of this part of the Bill, which is necessarily somewhat long and involved. They also give parental rights a good deal more clearly than under the existing draft. I felt in Committee, when this part of the Bill was discussed, that we had not got the matter quite right. These Amendments make for greater clarity.
      Mr. Esmond Wright: I thank the Minister for his statement, but I do so with some reservation because this is a quite elaborate addition to

      1263
      make to the Bill at this stage. There is material here that would much more appropriately have been dealt with in the Standing Committee. However, having sounded that note of some asperity, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
      We all meet these very difficult, worrying and often embarrassing cases of the child of 7, 8 or 9 years in a special school, for whom that school can do nothing. We also meet instances where a great improvement has resulted, and where there is a case for a transfer back to the normal school system. What the Minister seeks to do here is appropriate, but I wish to put to him three specific questions.
      First, what does the Minister intend under Amendment No. 15 in relation to the determination of children from the ages of 2 to 5? We are here discussing Scottish education, but it also touches on the whole field of the social services and social work in Scotland. The same Amendments states:
      "(7) In this section and in sections 66B, 66C, 66D and 66E of this Act the expression local authority' shall have the same meaning as in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.…"
      Can we be assured that education authorities are in touch with and working in harmony with the social work departments now being set up, and do we know where the responsibility lies as between social work and education? I feel that what the Amendment refers to is far more appropriate to social work than to education proper.
      Thirdly, the proposed subsection (8) in Amendment No. 18 refers to parents getting notice in writing of any decision. Can we be assured that there will be long, full, frank but confidential discussions with the parents, and not merely a communication in writing? This is a subject which agonises parents, and agonises all of us who have to talk to parents about it. We want to be sure that there will be full discussion with the parents, as well as there being this simple and rather heartless sounding statement about giving notice in writing of the decision.
      Mr. George Younger: Having looked at these Amendments as well as I could in the time available, I agree
      1264
      that they should make a considerable improvement in the methods of dealing with these difficult cases. The Minister has told us that if the result of a review is adverse, it cannot be acted upon detrimentally to the child unless the review has first been requested by the local authority. Is there anything to prevent such a review taking place at the request of the parent? If the result of that review is adverse in the view of the parents, I suppose that there is nothing to prevent the local authority then immediately going through the necessary procedure by itself requesting a review.
      4.45 p.m.
      I also welcome the provision for parents being absolutely certain of getting notice of the decision. No aspect is more important than the absolute certainty in the minds of parents that they will get written reasons. A previous Clause provides that whether or not a local authority wants a psychological examination to be made, parents may request such an examination. In the new provisions and procedures envisaged by these Amendments I do not find it specifically stated that parents may have an expert in child psychology, for instance, present at the examination if they so wish.
      Can this be done either under this Measure or under the previous enactment? Further, in the event of parents being poor—perhaps living on supplementary benefits—can they be assisted in having such psychological advice at their elbow during the examination?
      Miss Harvie Anderson: Amendment No. 13 provides that a parent shall be given notice in writing of the revocation of the decision. It is very difficult for those of us who were not members of the Standing Committee to take up Committee points in some detail now, but my experience is that the real trouble starts when the decision is that the child shall not be educated. I am not quite clear whether this Amendment puts that matter right. The parents want to know the reason: is it the intention that they shall be given the reason? The parents' reaction is always the same. "Why should the child's education stop at this point?".
      I am not very clear whether the Amendment means that when the parents

      1265
      are given written notice of the revocation they are also given the reason for the revocation. The difficulty does not arise when the decision is to continue the education of the child. It nearly always arises in cases where the education is to stop.
      Amendment No. 15 provides that the child must have attained the age of two years at the date of determination, but what happens before that age? I have had correspondence with the Minister of State on this point, relating to a difficult case that has caused considerable anxiety in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman looks as though he knows that that anxiety continues. The local authority has set up a very elaborate arrangement which is presently operated by the health department, whereby ascertainment can begin at any age and continue to any age. At present, the health department clearly has a responsibility and I continue to believe that there is advantage in this arrangement. It means that the child can be considered appropriate at whatever age it may be.
      Most of us who have experience of local authority work know that in cases of children brought into care this is nearly always done at an age of a few months because there arises at that age the question of whether or not a child will prove suitable for adoption. The ascertainment age which is really important is an age of weeks or months rather than years. At present, this is a continuous process under the same authority and many medical officers of health support this strongly.
      In the Bill we say what is to happen when the child reaches the age of 2, but we leave to other legislation what is to happen before that age. We are leaving a fairly wide opportunity for difficulties to arise within the administrative arrangements of the authority. I should, therefore, be glad if the Under-Secretary would explain what is to happen before the age of 2 and whether the process of ascertainment will be a continuous one which will be satisfactory from an administration point of view.
      There is probably an explanation in the Social Work (Scotland) Act, but three partners of an authority will have responsibility for something which is extremely important in relation to these children and which at present is done by one part
      1266
      of the administration of a local authority. I am very unhappy about this Amendment unless we can have a definite explanation of the process. We should not put ourselves into the position of judging whether this is suitable administration to follow, but rather into the position of the parent because when children are taken into care the parent has a particular interest throughout. Parents will be confused unless there is one person to whom they can refer.
      I would be grateful if the Minister could give a reassurance on Amendment No. 13, with reference to subsection (1), and Amendment No. 15, with reference to subsection (6)(a).
      Mr. Hector Monro: The Under-Secretary will remember that in Committee we had a very instructive and informative debate on the problem of children who were either mentally handicapped or psychiatrically sick. We are all doing our best for the parents of such children who in most cases are in an unfortunate position. One problem which worried us most was the facilities available for treating these children.
      When the Under-Secretary replies, can he say a little more about whether there has been further development since March in the facilities he thinks could be made available in the next few years? We all agree that, generally, while there may be sufficient places for mentally retarded children throughout Scotland, those facilities are not always exactly where they are wanted, particularly for children in rural areas who have the difficulty of being transported daily to those facilities.
      More seriously, we were worried about the facilities for children who are psychiatrically sick and who, while not strictly being educated by a local authority, are being educated under the auspices of a hospital board. They do not strictly come within the limits of the Education (Scotland) Bill, but we are in a position of co-ordinating all three services if we include, as we must the social work services which will be coming into play in Scotland more and more as the year goes by and will be at a most important level in 12 months' time.
      There is a very critical balance question for the parent, and, of course, for

      1267
      the medical officers, as to when a child should be sent to a hospital or can be educated through local authority facilities. This balance would be made easier in many ways if there were adequate facilities for both classes of child. This is something we are all most concerned about. I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us a little more of his thinking on how facilities will be available in the next few years.
      Mr. Millan: I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said about facilities being extremely important. He will appreciate, however, that they are not particularly relevant to this series of Amendments. The statutory framework for social work authority facilities was laid down in the Act passed last year. On the question of education in hospital, there is a sub-committee of the Scottish Standing Medical Advisory Committee looking into various matters of which this forms a part. I am well aware of this problem which is something I am anxious to keep under review and we are looking into it at this time, although strictly speaking these are not matters dealt with by these Amendments.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) made a point about the complexity of these Amendments and I accept that. They have been on the Notice Paper for a rather long time and I hope that most hon. Members have been able to study and understand them. I wrote to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) as long ago as 29th April explaining what I was trying to do with this series of Amendments. I hope that he found the letter completely intelligible. He has not got in touch with me since then.
      Mr. MacArthur: I thank the Under-Secretary very much for his letter, which was, indeed, helpful. He will appreciate that these are complicated Amendments. Despite his helpful letter, there were still a number of points about which we had to ask. I am nevertheless, much obliged to him for writing to me.
      Mr. Millan: I accept that the Amendments are difficult and I shall try to answer the points which have been raised about them.
      1268
      The first point raised by the hon. Member for Pollok was about the limitation to children of 2 years and over. This was also raised by the hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). There may be a slight misunderstanding here. We are dealing with statutory ascertainment. It would be undesirable, and certainly would be resented by parents, if even before the age of 2 a child could be statutorily ascertained as unsuitable for educational training. That would be very hurtful and quite unnecessary.
      It is important that the health authority and the social work authority, or whatever authority is responsible, should make provision for children of every age. There is no limitation on that. The social work authority, which will be providing care facilities, will have an obligation for dealing with children however young, just as the medical services have an obligation for dealing with physical and other disabilities whatever age the child may be. It would be wrong statutorily to ascertain a child before 2 as being unsuitable for education or training. That is why we do not do so in subsection (6) of the Clause. But I agree absolutely that the sooner one discovers the disability of any child and begins to find out whether one can put it right medically or in whatever way may be available, and the sooner we provide facilities for putting it right, the better it will be for the child and its parents.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: In the case of adoption—and I am thinking of children under care—is it not sometimes necessary to have statutory ascertainment? Suppose that somebody wants to adopt a very attractive child and there is good reason why the child should not be adopted without the prospective parents knowing that it is not likely to be educable. In such cases I thought that it was necessary to have statutory ascertainment so that it might be presented to the prospective parents as the only valid evidence that the child was likely to be ineducable.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Millan: I should not like to answer off the cuff a point about the adoption law, which is very complicated. We are not very happy with it and we are at present considering whether it should be reviewed. But I should be

      1269
      very surprised if, in the adoption legislation, there were anything approaching the statutory ascertainment procedure with which we are dealing. From the point of the Bill, it is not necessary to follow the statutory ascertainment procedure for adoption purposes. I should have to consider specifically what is said in the adoption legislation.
      On the second point which the hon. Gentleman raised, after the social work departments are set up on 17th November this year the local authority will be responsible for social work purposes. But there are transitional arrangements to enable the local health authority to act in the comparatively short period between the implementation of the Bill and the operation of the social work departments in November this year. I know from my experience of local authorities that they are well aware of the need for their social work departments to co-ordinate their activities and to liaise with education departments and other departments of the local authority.
      The third point which the hon. Gentleman raised concerned the notice in writing. He was concerned that this might come as a bolt from the blue to the parent if there were no preliminary consultation. But Section 66B provides that before the education authority does anything it will consider
      "in accordance with section 65(1) of this Act, the advice and any reports or other information received by them with respect to any child …"
      Under Clause 65(1), the local authority, before it acts, must take account of the views of the parent. There is, therefore, no question of the authority acting arbitrarily. It must take account of all the reports and information it is able to obtain and of the views of the parents before making an ascertainment decision. There must, therefore, be preliminary consultation before a decision is made.
      The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) asked whether the local authority, not having taken the initiative in the review but having decided that the child should be ascertained as unsuitable for education, could act after the review carried out by the parents. That is so under the Bill because, under Section 66, the education authority can act when it thinks it "expedient". But we must
      1270
      beware of making this sound very formal and legalistic and must take account of the fact that in a situation of this kind the relationship between the education authority and the parents should be such as to enable them to discuss matters relating to the child frankly and should not depend on the legalistic arrangements in the Bill. The legal arrangements basically are for the protection of the parent and the child.
      The hon. Gentleman wondered whether the authorities would always be bound to give reasons. The answer is "No". The parent can request reasons. There is a good explanation for this provision. It may be very distressing in certain cases for the local authority, at the beginning of the ascertainment, to have to give the medical and other reasons why it has decided that a child is unsuitable for education or training. It is not right that it should be able to withhold that information from the parent, but in dealing with very difficult cases it is better that the parent should be told that he can ask for the reasons. The reasons will not necessarily be given unless he asks for them. Whenever the parent wishes the reasons to be given, there can be no question of the authority withholding them from him.
      I turn to the point about the parent having advice from his own expert. Under Section 65(1) the education authority must take account of
      "any other reports or information which they are able to obtain with respect to the ability or aptitude of the child".
      Therefore, if the parent has a medical adviser, or any other adviser, who has a view about the child's capabilities, it is proper for the parent to ensure that that view is put in the hands of the education authority which must take it into account—it need not necessarily accept it—before reaching its decision. All these decisions are subject to appeal to the Secretary of State. Therefore, my right hon. Friend would have regard to all the views expressed about the child.
      The question of an independent expert being present at an examination is more difficult. This would be basically at the discretion of the local authority. I can visualise considerable difficulties arising in medical protocol, if nothing else, in laying this down statutorily, but there is nothing to prevent it from happening at the discretion of the local authority. The

      1271
      views of an independent adviser, medical or otherwise, must be taken into account.
      I hope that I have answered the points which have been raised. I think that it is generally accepted that the Amendments improve the Clause.
      Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but there is perhaps one small point which he has overlooked. What is the position if a parent finds that he can get the advice which he feels necessary only by paying for it?
      Mr. Millan: I doubt whether that situation is ever likely to arise. A more common occurrence would be this. There may be a dispute between the authority's medical adviser and the parents' medical adviser. In all the circumstances that I can think of, that would be possible under the National Health Service. I can think of one case in which this arose. The consultant concerned was a Health Service consultant. There is no provision here for providing special medical arrangements outside the Health Service. This must come within the general compass of the Health Service.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 14, page 14, line 9, after 'shall', insert 'in writing and shall'.
      Amendment No. 15, page 14, line 14 at end insert:
      (6) An education authority shall not make, in relation to any child, a determination under paragraph (iii) of subsection (4) above unless—

      (a) the child has attained the age of two years at the date of the determination, and

      (b) the review was carried out in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, and

      (c) the child has undergone a medical examination and a psychological examination in connection with the review.

      (7) In this section and in sections 66B, 66C, 66D and 66E of this Act the expression 'local authority' shall have the same meaning as in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968:
      Provided that until section 1(4) of the said Act of 1968 comes into operation the expression 'local authority' shall mean a local health authority within the meaning of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 (including a joint committee or board constituted under section 20 of that Act).
      Amendment No. 16, page 15, line 19, leave out from 'Act' to 'issue" in line 21 and insert:
      (1A) Where an education authority decide as aforesaid in relation to any child, either
      1272
      under subsection (1) above or under paragraph (iii) of section 66(4) of this Act, they shall, subject to the following provisions of this section,
      Amendment No. 17, page 15, line 40, after 'section', insert:
      to require the authority to issue to him a statement of the reasons for their decision in relation to the child, and of his right under those provisions'.
      Amendment No. 18, page 16, leave out lines 4 to 14 and insert:
      (3) Where an education authority have given notice to the parent of any child in pursuance of subsection (2) above, they shall, if so required by the parent within the period of twenty-eight days from the date on which the notice was served, issue to the parent a statement of the reasons for their decision in relation to the child, and whether or not such a statement is so required the parent may, if he is aggrieved by the decision, within the said period refer the case to the Secretary of State.
      (4) On any reference under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State shall either—

      (a) direct the education authority to issue to the local authority a report under this section with respect to the child in question; or

      (b) refuse to direct the education authority to issue such a report; or

      (c) in the case of a child who the education authority have decided under subsection (1) above is suffering from a disability of such a nature or to such an extent as is mentioned in paragraph (ii) of section 63(1) of this Act, refuse to direct the authority to issue such a report but substitute for that decision a decision that the child requires special education; or

      (d) in the case of a child in relation to whom the education authority have decided as aforesaid under paragraph (iii) of section 66(4) of this Act, refuse to direct the authority to issue such a report but confirm their determination under that paragraph so far as relating to the revocation of the decision that the child requires special education.

      (5) Where under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above the Secretary of State directs an education authority to issue to the local authority a report under this section with respect to any child, the education authority shall forthwith comply with that direction.
      (6) Where under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above the Secretary of State refuses to direct an education authority to issue such a report with respect to any child, being a child who the authority have decided, under paragraph (iii) of section 66(4) of this Act, is suffering from a disability of such a nature or to such an extent as is mentioned in paragraph (ii) of section 63(1) of this Act, the authority shall be deemed not to have revoked their decision that the child requires special education and shall continue to ensure that any education provided by them for the child is special education.
      (7) Where under paragraph (c) of subsection (4) above the Secretary of State substitutes for

      1273
      any decision of an education authority in relation to any child a decision that the child requires special education, the authority shall be deemed to have decided under section 65(1) of this Act that the child requires special education and shall thereafter ensure that any education provided by them for the child is special education.
      (8) An education authority shall as soon as practicable give to the parent of any child notice in writing of any decision made by the Secretary of State in relation to that child on a reference under subsection (3) above and of the effect of that decision.—[Mr. Millan.]
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 17, line 21, leave out 'received by them' and insert:
      'which they are able to obtain'.
      The effect is to substitute the words
      "which they are able to obtain".
      for the words "received by them" in the new Section 66C(4)(b). The present wording has a rather passive implication. In other words, it suggests that an authority would wait for reports to be received by it. We intend this to be a more active procedure.
      In other parts of the Section we talk about the authority being able to obtain reports, which suggests that it must do so—and this takes up a point made in our last discussion—and must take the initiative in getting all the available advice and reports before making a decision about the child. We think that the original wording was unfortunate and the new wording will give a more active rôle to the authority and make it clear that it is expected to ask those concerned for the reports it needs for the ascertainment procedure.
      Mr. Younger: I welcome both the Amendment and the way in which the Under-Secretary has moved it, because I am certain that making this a more positive instruction is important.
      However, it raises one disturbing matter. I applaud this movement towards getting authorities more positively concerned with the problems which these special children present, but I am disturbed that there may not be sufficient qualified advisers available to local authorities even to play their present somewhat passive rôle and certainly not the more positive rôle which we hope they will have.
      For instance, in a case brought to my notice not long ago, parents approached
      1274
      a local authority with a view to getting the ascertainment process under way and in the course of three interviews over a period of three or four months they saw three different people. I do not remember the details, but I think that the first went somewhere else and the second went to another authority. I do not blame anyone for this but this is the sort of thing that concerns me.
      I should like the Minister to address himself to the question whether, in his own Department, at any rate, sufficient adequate staff are available for local authorities to play the more positive rôle which we are rightly giving to them. If there are not sufficient available, and I believe that there are not, I hope that he will closely consider the reasons. Is it because they are not paid enough, or do they just not exist?
      All the excellent provisions being written into the Bill, and all these excellent Amendments, will be of no value if there are not the qualified people on the spot to do the work. This is an important consideration and we should not allow the Amendment to pass without directing the Minister's attention to this problem, although I am sure that he will have already met it.
      Mr. Millan: I am not sure who are these individuals of whom local authorities are said to be scarce. Authorities have medical officers of health to undertake medical examinations and virtually every authority employs at least one educational psychologist, while many employ more. Those who do not employ them directly, and one or two smaller authorities may not do so, will certainly have access to them from other authorities by arrangement. Even in big authorities employing several medical officers of health reports may be needed from medical specialists not employed by the authority, but that is perfectly possible and is done under the present legislation.
      Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that after November educational psychologists will come from an authority's social work department?
      Mr. Millan: No, they will not. They will remain employed by education authorities. Certain arrangements are made for combining premises for certain assessment purposes connected with child guidance, but educational psychologists

      1275
      will continue to be employed by education authorities.
      5.15 p.m.
      I am not aware of general difficulties. Where appropriate, medical authorities will be able to draw on the resources of the whole of the National Health Service A clinical psychologist would also be able to do so. The hon. Member may have information about individual cases and I should be glad to look into it, but my impression is that this is not an important difficulty, remembering that those authorities with small staffs, because they themselves are small, will necessarily be dealing with only a few cases in a year and able to get outside advice.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: This takes me back to my original point, that ascertainment is not necessarily something which occurs at one interview. I have in mind the work of Dr. Isabel Mair, who is well known in Scotland for her excellent work in dealing with the children we are discussing. She has had great success in the process of ascertainment, but that is a process undertaken not in one interview, or two, or sometimes even in one year. Somehow we have to plan for a continuing process being available for parents so that they know to whom to turn and who is a link among the departments with a degree of responsibility.
      Since he last replied to me, I have written the Under-Secretary a letter which, I hope, he will get tomorrow. I am still not very happy about this. I do not think that it is right to say that just one person will be able to finish this process at one interview. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has raised a matter of extreme importance.
      Mr. Millan: I did not say that it would be necessarily one person who would be engaged on this work. A continuing review is precisely what the Clause provides for the first time. For the first time we are placing on authorities an obligation to keep children under regular review. Previously, once the ascertainment procedure had taken place, no obligation was placed on the local authority to keep the case under regular review. That obligation is being imposed for the first time and I think that we all agree that it should be imposed.
      1276
      However, I am not aware that this will impose strains on an education authority's medical resources or on the educational psychologist.
      I am not saying that local authorities could not employ more staff in this way. I dare say that authorities generally could employ more educational psychologists. This is a service which has been considerably built up in recent years. But it should not be by any means impossible for local authorities to do the job for these children which we are now imposing on them, and the authorities are happy to accept these provisions.
      Mr. Younger: I welcome what the Under-Secretary is trying to do. All I ask him to do is to undertake to look closely behind the paper figures and the educational psychologists when he may find that, because of the burden of work, or frequent changes of personnel, there is often not the continuity of personal attention and skill which we all think should be directed to these cases. He will satisfy me if he will say that he will look carefully into this.
      Mr. Millan: One cannot guarantee in any local authority service that there will be continuity of staff over a period of years, for that depends on a number of factors, including the propensities of individual members of the staff themselves. But the service is being built up and I do not think that we are placing any obligation on the local authorities under this Clause that they will not be able effectively to discharge. Having said that, I shall be happy if, in some of these activities, the local authorities are able to build up their staffs to an even greater extent than they have been able to over the last few years.
      Mr. MacArthur: As the hon. Gentleman said, the Amendment appears to be fairly small in effect, simply replacing three words by six others. But it removes what I may describe as a rather casual tone from subsection (4)(b) and introduces a clear obligation on the local authority to search out the information required in reviewing the future of a child in its care.
      It is not our purpose to obstruct the Amendment. We believe that it is an improvement on the present wording of the Clause and that it should be accepted.

      1277
      At the same time, we must know what we are doing and what the extent of this additional responsibility is that we are placing on the local authority. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) for raising the question of the possible strain on the present staff of local authorities which this proposal might impose.
      We are dealing here with a critical part of a most important Clause of the Bill. This new provision sets out the procedure whereby the education authority shall review the decisions made by that authority about the special education of a child in need of care. There is a limitation early in the Clause on the extent to which a parent or a guardian may intervene in decisions of this kind. Quite rightly, the parent may not request the education authority to review a decision about a child in less than 12 months and requests thereafter may not be made more frequently than once in 12 months.
      I believe that this is right because, if a child is to benefit from the special care provided by the education authority, it is reasonable to expect that it should be able to plan the care of the child properly and comprehensively over a fairly long period, and it is also right that it should not be disturbed unnecessarily by over-anxious parental inquiry more frequently than once a year. But, having said that, there is an obligation on the education authority to review the care given to the child if requested to do so under the terms set out at the beginning of the Clause.
      The effect of the Amendment is that when a local education authority reviews the care given to the child in response to a request made under subsection (1) it should go out of its way to obtain reports or other information with respect to the child from the parent or the local authority or from
      "… any authority or body responsible for the management of an institution in which such child is under care …"
      or from any other person. Originally, the Clause did not place this requirement on the local education authority. The requirement, such as it was, was on these other bodies and people to communicate with the local education authority and to provide voluntarily the information
      1278
      they felt necessary for the review to take place properly. Quite rightly, the subsection is now to be strengthened by the transference of this responsibility from people outside to the centre—the local education authority itself.
      If the local education authority is to perform the function which it is going to be required by Statute to perform, it must have adequate staff. The obligation to be placed upon the local education authority by the Amendment is that it must try to obtain reports or other information about the child from a wide range of people. This will require a very wide research and investigation. I believe that the requirement is right but it will place a substantial strain on local authority staff.
      I have spelt this out at length because we are facing uncertainties over the whole area of the management of local authorities in Scotland. We are awaiting publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. We go on waiting for it month after month. We do not know what shape local authorities will have in future but we do know that, in a recent major reform of local government, we have encountered certain difficulties to which we drew attention—the reform of local authority welfare services as a result of the Social Work (Scotland) Act.
      We know now how difficult it is to staff the local authority social work departments adequately, how many posts are still vacant, and that directors of social work in some local authorities have still not been appointed because suitable candidates cannot be found. Many of us have grave doubts about whether the staffing of these social work departments is adequate to discharge the additional functions quite properly put on local authorities.
      Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we not now straying into the realm of another Measure which has already been before the House and is now an Act of Parliament? Should we not devote our attention to the Bill?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) should leave it to the Chair to decide whether the rules of order are being maintained.
      Mr. W. Baxter: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to know what are the rules of order if we can now have a debate on the social services.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is in order up to now.
      Mr. MacArthur: I wish simply to emphasise the important matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. He questioned whether the present staffing of local authorities was adequate to perform this new function which is quite rightly to be placed upon them. I am simply calling attention to the difficulties being encountered in Scotland as a result of the passage of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, which covers an equivalent activity in social welfare. I have stressed that the local authorities are going to find it hard to carry out their responsibilities properly because of the problem of staffing. I intervened earlier—
      Mr. George Lawson: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us of any highly-skilled occupation for which there is no scarcity of staff?
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. MacArthur: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because it is an extension of what I am saying. Of course there is a shortage of skill. There is a shortage of skill in social work and the hon. Gentleman has called attention to this. In Committee we pointed to the problems which would confront Scottish local authorities in that many of the social work departments would have to be staffed from the director of social work downwards.
      We have already had practical experience in Scotland of the difficulties that can arise when additional requirements are placed on local authorities, requirements which all of us wish to see fulfilled properly, particularly in social work, where the local authority decision is absolutely critical to the future of the child in its care. It is for that reason that I hope that the Minister can give us more information about the load of work this will represent for the local education authorities.
      Perhaps he can also tell us the extent to which social work departments will be
      1280
      involved. I asked earlier whether the educational psychologist would be a member of the social work department and the Minister said that this would not be the case. As I understand the position, in every case the educational psychologist would be employed by the local education authority. Does this mean that we are to have two streams of educational psychologists, in the education authorities on the one hand and the social work department on the other? This is an important point. We support the Amendment and believe that it is right to lay such an obligation on the local authority. It would clearly be wrong if the requirement were to be a hollow one simply because local authority staffing in Scotland was not adequate to discharge the responsibility placed on it by the Amendment.
      Mr. Lawson: So often the hon. Gentle man or his hon. Friends come along and tell the House that they support this that or the other, that this is an excellent step, these are the kind of moves that they would be making if they were the Government, yet there is always the kick in the pants. The hon. Gentleman always comes up with the objections which are usally far greater than his commendations. I can recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who is net here now but who has been present for most of the time, pressing for a long time—I tried to help her—for care to be taken of these handicapped children.
      We were well aware that in our own area handicapped children were often hidden away. It was difficult to know how many there were. Here is a positive obligation with which we all agree and which we all welcome. We recognise that there are difficulties in finding staff and money but we want these things.
      Mr. MacArthur: I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman, whose views I greatly respect, should take this line. He acknowledges that we support the Amendment, but it would be quite wrong if we were to allow it to go through without asking certain fundamental questions about its effect. We are placing a statutory requirement on local authorities and it is right that we should have regard to what we are asking them to do, particularly in view of the difficulties we

      1281
      are encountering following the passage of the Social Work (Scotland) Act.
      Mr. Lawson: All that I am saying is that listening to the hon. Gentleman it seems that he is always disagreeing always objecting. We recognise that there are these difficulties, and that local authorities are being told by Parliament that these difficulties have to be surmounted. Money requires to be found to train and to pay for these people. We should be honest on both sides and say that when we require certain things to be done we recognise that there must be expense. These proposals will cost money, but we are telling local authorities to get on with it because we think these things should be done. My criticism of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends is that they like to say they were in favour of all these desirable things, but on so many occasions they point to the difficulties and talk about squander-mongering and so on. If the hon. Gentleman tells me I am wrong and that he is sincerely backing the Government, I will take back half of what I have said—but only half.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): We have been making a great deal of unnecessary fuss about this. What we are doing is putting some words into the Clause as previous Amendments have put those words into two other Clauses. If all this hullabaloo is essential now why did we not have it earlier? We are replacing the words "received by them" with the words "they are able to obtain". If all these high-powered points are relevant I presume that they were raised in Committee. If they were, they would have been answered there. We are dealing with the review by an education authority of cases of children unsuitable for education. The question of the medical and psychological examinations is not covered by this at all, so from that point of view there was a certain measure of irrelevance.
      That is covered by subsection (a) and since there are no Amendments to that I gather that the wording is adequate. Subsection (4) states:
      "In reviewing under subsection (1) above, their decision in relation to any child an education authority shall take into consideration—
      (a)"
      1282
      That is the point about the medical and psychological examinations. Then it would go on:
      "(b) any reports and other information with respect to the child that they are able to obtain from the parents of the child …"
      This is the point that we are dealing with. I do not think that there will be any great difficulty about staff in respect of the parents of the child. The next point reads:
      "… or from the local authority, or from any authority or body responsible for the management of an institution in which the child is under care".
      If the child is already in management and under care in an institution the person in charge of them is there and there is no great burden upon the staff or on anyone else.
      Here we are improving the whole procedure for dealing with a very difficult situation, and we have enough important matters to deal with without dragging in things that are not of the importance some hon. Members seem to think. I sincerely hope that the House will accept the Amendment—
      Mr. Younger: I know that the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are as good as anyone else's but by the tone he has adopted he has largely undone the sympathetic words spoken by his hon. Friend. Irrespective of what has been said or how it has been said, will he please accept that this is a genuine concern expressed about this problem? Whether it has been rightly expressed, will he please look sympathetically into it?
      Mr. Ross: I should be delighted to explain to the hon. Gentleman that we are not placing any burden upon local authorities which they cannot carry in respect of this Amendment and the change that we are making in the words of the Bill. We are concerned with the change and whether we should put in these words. Putting them in will not have the effect that some people have suggested.
      We have very important and sensitive matters to deal with, but let us keep our sense of proportion in the way that we address ourselves to them. Listening to some of the speeches, it is apparent that hon. Members opposite are tending to go overboard. I am happy with the change that we are making.

      1283
      The new wording will not place a burden upon the local authorities which they are unable to carry out. What we are doing makes the wording in this Clause consistent with that in the two previous Clauses, which were agreed to in Amendments that the House accepted without objection.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 20, in line 44, at end insert 'or.'.—[Mr. Millan]

    Clause 15

      POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS PROVIDING FURTHER EDUCATION
      Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 23, line 15, at end insert:
      (5) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with the managers of any grant-aided college affected thereby and in making the regulations he shall have regard to any representations made by them.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 58, in Clause 23, page 29, line 22, at beginning insert 'Subject to the provisions of section 15(5) of this Act'.
      Mr. MacArthur: Perhaps I might open this debate by saying how grateful we are to Mr. Speaker for selecting the Amendment. It appears on the Order Paper as a starred Amendment, but the House will understand that it was presented a few days ago, during the Recess.
      I would normally apologise for springing a starred Amendment on the Government with little notice, but I do not think that the Minister expects an apology on this occasion because the appearance of the Amendment is in response to a semi-invitation that he gave us in Committee. I mention that to remind my hon. Friends of the debates that we had on Clause 16, as it then was, and on Clause 24.
      5.45 p.m.
      In Committee, my hon. Friends and I were concerned about the strength of representations made to us by the central
      1284
      institutions in Scotland on a major change proposed in the Bill. The position today is that any regulations made by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Education Act are subject to the requirements set out in Section 144(2) of the 1962 Act. That provides that before the Secretary of State makes regulations under the Act he shall, not less than 40 days before making those regulations, cause a draft of the regulations to be published. The subsection goes on to put upon the Secretary of State the requirement to send a copy of any draft regulations to every education authority. It also requires the Secretary of State to have regard to any representation made by an education authority or by any person interested before he makes the regulations.
      It is proposed elsewhere in the Bill to remove that provision. From the date of the passing of this Bill, the statutory position will be that no draft regulations will have to be published and no consultation will be required statutorily. Understandably, the central institutions are concerned about that.
      When we debated Clauses 16 and 24 in Committee, we tried to raise the matter. Perhaps I might say in passing how much I regret the way in which the Minister treated our Amendments on that occasion. I said at the time that he was playing fast and loose with the Committee, and I repeat the charge. I trust that his approach to this Amendment will be a little more understanding, and I hope that he will be a little more courteous today than he was in dealing with our previous Amendments.
      I accept at once that our earlier Amendments were regarded as defective. In Committee, we proposed that the whole subsection should be retained. We believed that the way to protect the consultation which has to take place at present would be by retaining the whole subsection. In reply, the Minister referred to the heavy and clumsy requirement of the subsection which was that not only was consultation required but that draft regulations should be published 40 days in advance, which he felt to be unnecessary.
      I explained carefully to the Minister, though he refused to comprehend the point, that we were not so much concerned about the publication of draft

      1285
      regulations as about the statutory requirement that consultations should take place. As a result, we have drafted a simpler Amendment which restricts the requirement to the need for consultation. The Minister will recognise that we are no longer proposing that draft regulations should be published 40 days in advance. All that we are asking the Minister to do is write into the Bill the statutory requirement that, before making any regulations under the Clause, the Secretary of State shall consult with the managers of any grant-aided college affected by them. We go on to put upon him the requirement that in making the regulations, he shall have regard to any representations made by them.
      What could be more reasonable and simple? What could be more in accord with the declared intentions of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary? On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that it was his intention to consult with the central institutions and that there would be no question of steam-rolling them with regulations of which they had no previous notice. I noted with pleasure that a large part of the right hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech was devoted to this very Clause, and he gave a lot of emphasis to his intention to hold these consultations. I do not question the integrity of a statement of that kind.
      On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "I give a firm assurance now that no regulations will be made under this Clause with regard to the constitution and the general functions of the governing bodies of central institutions before the existing bodies have been fully consulted; and that goes for regulations made after the new bodies have been created, too."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 282.]
      That was a straightforward and categorical assurance. The Under-Secretary of State said this:
      "I give the asurance again that, obviously, we shall consult all the bodies interested before we produce regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March, 1969; c. 631.]
      I suppose the hon. Gentleman might say that we are being impertinent in proposing to the Government that an assurance given on Second Reading and again in Committee should be underwritten and confirmed by being written into the Bill.
      1286
      I will in a moment give the hon. Gentleman irrefutable evidence why this requirement should be written into the Bill, but before doing so I would remind the House of the powers which are placed in the hands of the Secretary of State by Clause 15. The powers are enormous and, if the Amendment is not made, there will be no provision for consultation between the Secretary of State and the central institutions, whose total life and structure could be affected or removed completely by regulations introduced without consultation statutorily by the Secretary of State. Of course, I accept that the Secretary of State would have consultations. I do not question the honesty of the word given in the House and in Committee, but I see no reason why he should not continue his declaration of good-will and good faith by writing the requirement into the Bill.
      Let us look at some of the powers which Clause 15 gives to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to grant-aided colleges, which include central institutions, covering the following matters. The regulations may make provision with regard to the constitution of the governing bodies of such colleges; in other words, the Secretary of State may lay down who should be a member of the governing body or who should be removed from that governing body.
      The Secretary of State may produce regulations which prescribe the general functions to be discharged by the governing bodies and confer on them such powers as the Secretary of State may consider necessary or expedient for the efficient discharge of those functions. This must mean that the Secretary of State may by regulation, without any statutory need for consultation, dictate to the colleges just how they should run their own affairs and what their functions should be.
      The Clause goes on to state that by regulation the Secretary of State may prescribe the administrative and other arrangements to be adopted by the governing bodies for the purpose of discharging their functions. He may provide for the appointment, remuneration, discipline and dismissal by the governing bodies of administrative, teaching and other staff. So by regulation, without any statutory requirement to consult, the Secretary of

      1287
      State may dictate to the colleges what their administrative and other arrangements should be. He may determine the appointment, the pay, the disciplining and the dismissal of teachers and administrators employed by the colleges.
      By regulation, without any statutory requirement to consult, the Secretary of State may make provision with regard to fees and other payments to be made by students. The regulations may also provide for the constitutional bodies representative of students in attendance at such colleges, may confer on any such bodies such functions as may be prescribed in the regulations, and may, without any statutory requirement to consult, prescribe the procedure to be followed in cases of alleged breach of discipline by students in attendance at such colleges.
      Subsection (2) provides that regulations may be introduced which establish institutions for the provision of any form of further education. To round it all off, under subsection (3) the Secretary of State may be regulation dissolve any grant-aided college.
      These are terrifying powers. The Secretary of State has set himself up as the Pooh-Bah of grant-aided colleges. He may create them, he may kill them; he may determine who does and who does not sit on the governing bodies; he may decide how the teachers should be disciplined if they misbehave and he may even decide whether they have misbehaved at all. It is up to him to dictate the whole shape, content and life of the colleges, the people who administer them, the teachers who teach in them and the students who work in them. And if he does not like them, he can abolish the lot.
      There is no requirement in the Clause or in the Bill that there should be consultation with the colleges. Indeed, the Bill goes out of its way to remove the requirement for consultation which exists in Section 144(2) of the parent Act.—[Interruption.] The Minister mutters that there is no requirement for consultation. He may perhaps be interpreting consultation in a dictionary sense, but the purport of that subsection is quite clear. The effect of the subsection is that if the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations about the life, the conduct, the
      1288
      future and the very existence of these colleges, he has to publish the regulations in draft 40 days in advance and must send a copy of them to everybody concerned.
      Mr. Millan: He does not.
      Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman is muttering. I will read the subsection:
      "Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, the Secretary of State shall, not less than forty days before making regulations under this Act, cause a draft of the regulations to be published …"
      The Minister will be with me up to this point. Before making the regulations they must be published in draft 40 days in advance:
      "… and send a copy thereof to every education authority."
      The Minister will agree that a copy of the draft regulation has to be sent to every education authority. The Minister mutters that this has nothing to do with the central institutions, but perhaps he will stop muttering and listen. From that point on, the Secretary of State:
      "… shall have regard to any representations made by an education authority or by any person interested before he makes the regulations."
      Of course that covers the central institutions and could well cover any student. It could cover any of the people over whose lives and future the Secretary of State has taken such wide powers in Clause 15. The Minister says, quite rightly, that this is not consultation. But if there are to be no draft regulations—and we do not require that there should be—then there must be a process of consultation, and the Minister must see this.
      I hope that the Minister will take note of the words I am about to use. There is a simple reason for putting these words in the Bill. It is that their purpose has been announced already. It was announced by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and there seems to be every argument for removing any possible uncertainty about the Government's intentions in this matter. The best way of doing that is to put the requirement in the Bill, and that is what we are doing by this Amendment.
      6.0 p.m.
      I suggest that those words will be familiar to the Minister since they are a

      1289
      slight adaptation of his own words on the last day of the Report stage of the Bill, when the debate collapsed ignominiously because the Government lost their supporters. The hon. Gentleman then, in relation to another Amendment, said:
      "There is a simple reason for putting the date in the Bill. It is that the date has been announced already. It was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and there seems to be every argument for removing any possible uncertainty about the Government's intentions in this matter. The best way of doing that is to put the date in the Bill, and that is what we are doing by this Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May 1969; Vol. 783, c. 524.]
      If it was right to put the date in the Bill—and we do not believe that it was right—in order to remove uncertainty, then it must be equally right to accept our Amendment so as to write its requirement into the Bill, since the circumstances are precisely the same.
      I will not open again the whole debate on Clause 1, but perhaps I will remind the House that when we debated the Bill on Report on 7th May, the Government introduced the date of 1st August, 1970, as the date when fee paying was to be abolished in Edinburgh and Glasgow. We had no indication that this date was to be written into the Bill. The Government in reply said, "We announced this on Second Reading, we made it clear in Committee, and to remove any uncertainty we are now putting the date in the Bill."
      That is a precise parallel with the consultation provision which we wish to write into the Bill. Just as the Secretary of State announced the date at Second Reading, so he announced his intention to consult. Just as this date was repeated in Committee, so was the intention to consult. Just as the Minister thought it right to put the date into the Bill in order to remove uncertainty, so we believe that the requirement to consult should be written into the Bill in order to remove uncertainty. The uncertainty is there, and it is a large one extending to all the colleges in Scotland. Hon. Members will remember the volume of correspondence which we all received from the colleges during our earlier debates on the Bill.
      I have said that I accept the good faith of the Secretary of State and of the Government generally in saying that there will be consultation. Although I
      1290
      accept the good faith of the Government, they have not made a good start in convincing the central institutions that consultation will be genuine, widespread and effective. Nor have they given the central institutions any indication that the points of view of the central institutions will be taken into account by the Government.
      I should like to remind the House that we are not dealing with trivial matters, but with the structure of the colleges. We are dealing with the structure of their governing bodies, with their teaching staffs and their student organisations, and with the very existence and survival of the colleges themselves.
      I have learned through one of my hon Friends that one of the central institutions, a very well known institution, as recently as only last month expressed considerable surprise at what the Government are doing in the Bill. They had no idea at all, even at the beginning of last month, that the requirement to hear representations was to be removes, Indeed, the letter, under the heading "Legislation affecting Central Institutions", dated 2nd May, said:
      "No information with regard to this legislation has come to us direct from the Scottish Education Department, but on inouiry I found that the Education (Scotland) Bill has passed the Committee stage in the House of Commons and is now at the Report stage."
      I accept that there was no requirement for the Government to consult with the central institutions about the proposals in this Bill.
      Mr. Millan: Would the hon. Member say which central institution did not know that this particular Clause was in the Bill?
      Mr. MacArthur: Certainly it was one of the central institutions. Perhaps I could hand the letter privately to the Minister now. Here it is.
      Mr. Millan: I do not want to read it.
      Mr. MacArthur: It is from the principal of one of the central institutions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] I am not going to say. The hon. Gentleman will see the letter. It was written to one of my hon. Friends. It is perfectly proper that I should make no further reference to the matter than that. The fact is that the principal of this very well known college has stated, in the letter dated 2nd

      1291
      May, that he had no information direct from the Scottish Education Department about the legislation. The hon. Gentleman can have the letter if he wishes.
      This reflects the uncertainty in the minds of the central institutions. I know that they will join with me in accepting the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration. But declarations are not enough. If we are to remove the requirement of publishing draft regulations which already exists, if in Clause 15 we are to give vast powers to the Secretary of State, it is only reasonable to require consultation between the Government and the grant-aided colleges before the regulations are put into effect. I know that this is the Government's own wish. Therefore, I ask them to show their good faith by accepting the Amendment and by writing these protective words into the Bill.
      Mr. Younger: I cannot begin to match the eloquence of my hon. Friend; indeed, I shall be wise not to try to do so. I add my support to what he has said about the necessity for this Amendment.
      I would go a little further and say that I should be very disappointed if the Minister does not accept the Amendment. I raised the matter originally in Committee and, having had an unsatisfactory answer from the Minister, my hon. Friends and I went out of our way to produce an Amendment which would meet the arguments which were deployed by the Minister in Committee. That is why Amendment No. 57 does not go nearly as far as the previous Amendment which was discussed in Committee. The Amendment seeks to keep down the obligation to what is reasonable and minimal in carrying out the expressed intention of the Secretary of State on Second Reading and the Minister's words in Committee to consult with these institutions.
      I make no allegation that the consultation between the Department and the central institutions is not adequate. My limited experience is that it is extremely good, and there is a close link in most cases. Consultation takes place one way and the other well and satisfactorily. But I want to draw attention to the key paragraph in what the Under-Secretary said in Committee. In the columns which he filled in trying to answer this argument,
      1292
      without much enthusiasm from those pressing the argument, there was one paragraph which tried to put his objection. And that argument seems to be largely met by the form of this present Amendment. He said:
      "When one considers the variety of regulations we have to produce under the Education Acts and the very large number and variety of bodies interested in education legislation it is difficult to impose a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult which either is not too restrictive, on the one side, so that large numbers of interested people are omitted from the process of consultation, or so wide a responsibility on the other hand that it becomes completely impossible".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March, 1969; c. 636.]
      That is a good argument and deserves answering, which is why great care has been taken in this Amendment to see that the Secretary of State is obliged to consult only the managers of any grant-aided college affected by the regulations proposed.
      Surely that is not an intolerable administrative burden. It will not cause a great influx of extra staff and give great expense and bother merely to ensure that, as of right, they must consult a grant-aided institution affected by a regulation. One could not make it more sensible or more pointed. If that is not acceptable, the only possible conclusion is that the Minister wants the right to produce regulations without consultation. If that is not the conclusion, I should like to know what is. He and all his successors down the years, until the Bill is amended, will be bound by the statement of the Secretary of State on Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman's own statement in Committee and any that he may make tonight, yet the Government are not prepared to be bound by Statute.
      The only possible conclusion is that they foresee an occasion—I am sure that their desire to consult is genuine—when it would be necessary for the Department not to consult such a grant-aided college. We are entitled to some idea of such an occasion. Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of an occasion on which he would wish to produce regulations affecting a college without consulting it? I do not expect him to tie himself to describing every such occasion, but let him give us one example of what is worrying him about having this written in.

      1293
      I hope that the Under-Secretary will not regard this Amendment as produced for its own sake or simply to ventilate a point of view. He may understand this better if he puts himself in the position of a governor of one of these institutions. Of course, virtually all the financing of these institutions is provided by the Government, whether by student grants or grants direct from the Department. A great deal of the policy is decided by Government, by Acts of Parliament, by administrative actions and by trends in education controlled by the Secretary of State.
      6.15 p.m.
      Yet very distinguished and excellent men and women sit on the governing bodies and there is a real problem, even today—it will grow in future—of giving these busy people a real job which they regard as worth while. All those to whom I have spoken—I know quite a number—feel that they are doing a worthwhile job, because they know that they are given the consultation which people of their calibre should have in running these institutions, entirely voluntarily and with great care and attention. If it were ever felt that there was an area of policy in the detailed running of these institutions where consultation was not possible, if there were any feeling among these people that their views might occasionally not be sought or not be wanted, this will create a doubt in some of their minds about whether they will do such a useful and public-spirited job in future.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully consider the thoughts behind the Amendment. I cannot believe that its acceptance will add one iota to the work which his Department must do to keep its relations with these institutions as they should be. He will lose nothing by accepting. If he accepted it, he would not only be responding to one of the proper and genuine jobs which Parliament should do—the raising of an issue which should be raised before the Government of the day—but would be making a real gesture of confidence towards these governing bodies, now and in future.
      Even if he must play for time again, as he did in Committee, and decline to accept this particular Amendment, I beg him to carry on his consultation procedures in the weeks to come, and if necessary, amend the Bill in another
      1294
      place as we suggest. I hope that he will address himself above all to this key question—what occasion can he perceive when he will introduce a regulation affecting the detailed running of a grant-aided college when he will not consult it beforehand? Let him tell us that convincingly, and I would view the Amendment differently. However, as it stands, I am certain that the Amendment would lose nothing for the Government and would gain for them a great deal of good will. It should be accepted, and I hope that it will be.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: I support the Amendment because it is extremely important that we give reassurance to those who are greatly concerned that this has been omitted from the Bill.
      I first raised this matter on Second Reading with the Secretary of State, or at least one aspect of the matter, and I still have great anxiety.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) rightly argued that the Govrnment have twice said that they will consult those concerned. If this is indeed their intention and they will consult, then surely they can accept the Amendment as simply putting into print the undertaking which has been given. I should be very surprised if any Government would wish to give a serious undertaking in this House and then not agree to write it into the Bill.
      I speak on this Amendment because I have been a student at one of the institutions concerned and I have been a governor of another. It is important to carry the good will of these institutions at all times. There have been times, with respect to successive Secretaries of State, when good will has not been the keynote of negotiations over important matters. Nobody doubts the need for consultation. The evidence of this is the commitment made by two Ministers that there shall be consultation.
      The central institutions have a very difficult rôle to play. At present they are, broadly speaking, divided in Scotland between the old institutions which are highly specialised and the new institutions which are developing very fast indeed. The governors do particularly good work, and it is important that the governors selected to do this work should include a number

      1295
      of specialists quite unique in their knowledge of the matter concerned. I should like to think that part of the consultation will be in the appointment of the governors and of successive governors. We have some particularly distinguished people in Scotland, and I hope that the Minister will always have them in mind.
      There may be a time when one of our outstanding persons of distinction in, for example, music might be available to govern a college. I should like to think that this will be continued if possible. I can think of others equaliy important to the new and developing institutions of which I have also spoken. I do not think that the governors at present have the confidence that they will be taken into consultation on this point. It is of the greatest importance to them and it is equally important again in the art school.
      The Secretary of State gave me some assurance on Second Reading that this would be done, but I should like the Minister, if he will be courteous enough to give me his attention, to reinforce what was said by the Secretary of State on Second Reading and give me an assurance that there will be consultation on this point.
      My final point concerns the developing need for communication with students. "Communication" has become a very popular word. It is curious that the Government today are apparently not prepared to look at a very simple method of communication by writing into the Bill that there shall be consultation on important matters. But if there is a need for communication today, there is an urgent need for communication between the staff and students, between the staff and the Government of the day and between the governors and all three. We are endeavouring to write into the Bill the certainty that there will be consultation which will include, if necessary, participation by students and by staff.
      I hope that the Minister will treat the Amendment with the seriousness that it deserves, which is a very high rating indeed reckoned by anyone who has personal knowledge of these institutions.
      However satisfied the Minister may feel that assurances have been given, this is not the feeling in the institutions concerned and amongst those most closely connected with them. If, by accepting the
      1296
      Amendment, the Minister can add to the good will upon which these institutions depend so much, it will certainly strengthen the Bill, and I cannot see that it could in any way weaken the hand of this or any successive Government.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) in his opening remarks more than once accused the Minister of muttering. Whether this is a justified charge or not, it is certainly not a case of the pot calling the kettle black. In my short career in this House I have seldom heard so much synthetic anger and fury over such a comparatively minor Amendment. The only way in which the hon. Gentleman's performance fell short of his usual standard was in terms of staying power. On a comparatively minor Amendment, the hon. Gentleman fell short of 30 minutes by a couple of points. This is not the form of which we know he is capable.
      I have some sympathy with the arguments which have been put forward. It seems to me that this is a matter merely of reassurance, not of substance. Putting the case in simple terms, there is a genuine worry among the managers and governors of the central institutions. This I know, because in my area they have come to talk to me on this issue. If we accept that there is this level of concern, why not give them the statutory words merely as a form of reassurance? Put in those terms it is attractive, but when we get down to the implications and difficulties we see that this is an oversimplification. There is no point in writing in a form of statutory words unless it will clarify the situation and strengthen the position of the central institutions. I do not think it will.
      In the past I have listened to debates about whether consultation is adequate. There has been consultation. Hon. Members opposite have said that it has merely been a form of words; it has merely been lip service. The statutory duty does not remove grievances if the Government ultimately take a decision which goes against the wishes of some of the people concerned. So we shall not definitively end discontent or discord by writing in a duty to consult.
      What is the meaning of the phrase,
      "he shall have regard to any representations made"?

      1297
      Its meaning completely defeats my imagination. The phrase "shall have regard to", presumably does not mean that the recommendations which have been made must be accepted. The matter is further befogged and clouded by those words. I am prepared to accept that the intention is to reassure the governors of the central institutions but that reassurance is worth nothing.
      Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman will have regard to the fact that these words appear in the 1962 Act. The requirement on the Minister to have regard to representations appears throughout every form of statute that we have. It is not new.
      Mr. Dewar: It is not new. This kind of argument will rage on and on. Those who wish to make speeches can always find an excuse on this kind of issue. The fact that it has appeared in statutes in the past seems to suggest that it does not have the kind of magic powers which have been suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      Mr. MacArthur: My point is that the Bill in its present form is removing that requirement completely. We wish to restore that requirement.
      Mr. Dewar: My point is that we can write into the Bill the duty to consult, but that does not end the problems. Consultation can be, I repeat, a fairly meaningless process. Consultation will in any case take place. The hon. Gentleman went out of his way to say that he did not doubt the good intentions of the Government. There seemed to be some disunity in the Conservative camp on that matter which I should think would have been straightened out after a long Committee stage. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire seeks to assure the House that he did not doubt the good intentions of the Government Front Bench, but the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) indeed, seemed to doubt them. He got himself into the position of saying in effect that he did not trust this Government but he distrusted some future Government. That has an interesting implication given his biased views on Britain's political future over the next few years.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Younger: I asked to be told of the occasions on which, if any, a regulation would be produced which was not the subject of consultation.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member tot Perth and East Perthshire said that he accepted that there always would be consultation, and he added that assurances had been given to this effect. The hon. Member for Ayr is either accepting the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire has vouched for the Government's bona fides and he is distrusting some other future Government, or he is going counter to the views of his own Front Bench. The whole argument is shot with fallacies, and will not do anything to help the situation.
      Prime facie there is something to be said for reassurances in a situation like this, but if the Government and the central institutions were to look at what the reassurance would amount to they would realise that it was a matter of no substance. If, on every possible occasion when it would be reasonable to do so and when one would expect any reasonable Government to be anxious to explore and discuss possible reforms, we were to write that in as a statutory duty, we should clutter the Statute Book with an enormous number of words which are utterly unnecessary.
      For that reason, and because at the end of the day what is suggested will not usefully or materially strengthen the position of the central institutions in the negotiations which it has been admitted will almost certainly take place, I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I waited with interest to hear what line the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) would take, because his determination to support the Government on every possible occasion, whatever the case, excites the admiration of anybody who admires people who support a lost cause with so much enthusiasm. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's argument was even weaker than I have heard him advance in the past. All it came down to was that if this requirement were put in the Bill the consultations could still be inadequate. That

      1299
      happens whatever legislation is passed. It may not work. People may break the law. The fact remains that it is our job to pass legislation in as good a form as we can get it.
      When the hon. Gentleman says that to start putting in this statutory requirement amounts to introducing something new, he is misrepresenting the situation. What is happening here, and what we are trying to prevent, is that the requirement to consult is being withdrawn.
      Mr. Millan: We considered this matter at some length in Committee, but I am happy to go over some of the arguments again. Perhaps we can start by looking at Section 144 of the 1962 Act, which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) specifically mentioned. That section provided for provisional regulations, but it did not do a number of things which the hon. Gentleman suggested it did. For example, it did not lay down matters for statutory consultation, which is what the hon. Gentleman suggested it did. Nor, for that matter, did it provide that a copy of draft regulations should be sent to everybody who was interested in them, or could be affected by them. If we had accepted the proposition put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee that we should retain Section 144(2), the central institutions would never have received a copy of the draft regulations, because all that that subsection refers to is sending a copy of the draft to the education authority. It was therefore misconceived, as I said in Committee, to wish to retain that subsection.
      Mr. MacArthur Mr. MacArthur rose—
      Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman spoke for nearly half an hour. I have hardly started, and I have not the slightest intention of speaking for anything like that long. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Report. We are not in Committee.
      Mr. Millan: As I said, the argument in Committee about Section 144 was misconceived, but we have now dealt with that section. We have eliminated subsection (2), which provided for the making of regulations in draft. Incidentally, we have also eliminated subsection (3) of that section, which provided for
      1300
      the making of provisional regulations for reasons of urgency.
      The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) suggested that there could never be circumstances in which the Secretary of State would want to make regulations so urgently that he would not have time to go through the necessary statutory processes. The fact is that such an occasion arose within the last two or three years in connection with the General Teaching Council, when, as the Government, we used Section 144(3). We shall no longer have the opportunity of using that subsection, because we have eliminated it in the Amendment to Clause 23.
      We have settled the argument about Section 144, and there are no other Amendments to Clause 23. If hon. Gentlemen opposite feel so strongly about this question of consultation, I am surprised that they have not introduced the argument in relation to Clause 23, where we could look at the whole question, but have chosen instead to raise the issue on this Clause where we are considering the matter only in relation to the grant-aided colleges which are covered by this Clause.
      That is really one of the basic difficulties about the proposition being put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I accept, and I made this clear on Second Reading, as did my right hon. Friend, and I made it clear again in Committee, and I do so once more now, that there is an obligation on the Government to consult the institutions and bodies affected by regulations which we intend to make This is part and parcel of the normal process of government at the present time We regularly consult local education authorities, teachers associations, and so on, and we shall continue to do that, and in the new circumstances where the central institutions specifically are coming under that regulatory power we shall consult them, too.
      It would be very odd to include in an obligation under this Clause to consult the bodies concerned with it, an obligation statutorily to consult when in the Bill as it is now, and as it will be even if the Amendment is accepted, there is no obligation to consult local education authorities or teachers associations on any matter which is the subject of regulations, even though those regulations may have important consequences for the education authorities and the teachers associations

      1301
      If the Amendment is accepted, there will be a statutory obligation to consult the bodies concerned under this Clause about the effects of this Clause, but no statutory obligation to consult the larger number of bodies which may be concerned with matters raised not only under the Bill but under education legislation generally. It seems to me that that would be an absurd position, and for that reason alone I could not possibly accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Younger: Surely the Minister is going against his own argument? If we had said that the Minister should consult everybody concerned about every subject he could say that it would be hopeless to try to consult so many people so often, but it is in the interests of narrowing this consultation to the vital area that can be coped with that the Amendment has been drawn so closely.
      Mr. Millan: As my right hon. Friend said, that is a phoney point, because in particular circumstances we could narrow down the regulations even to particular individuals, certainly to teachers associations, and in some instances to local education authorities and others. That disposes of the hon. Gentleman's argument earlier about the Opposition's Amendment being narrowly drawn.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: Surely the point is that there are alternative roads for the other people the Minister has mentioned through their associations—the Association of County Councils in Scotland, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, and so on? But there is no direct consultation with the institutions and that is why it is reasonable to provide the administrative possibility by narrowing the Amendment as we have, and the Minister's argument is fallacious for that reason.
      Mr. Millan: There is, in fact, an association of central institutions, though I do not place any particular emphasis on that, and the governing bodies meet together and consult about matters of common concern.
      The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire read out at great length all the various matters on which the Secretary of State has regulatory power under the Clause. It is an impressive, even
      1302
      formidable list, but the Secretary of State's present powers to make regulations about the colleges of education are virtually just as comprehensive; there may be differences in wording, but in practice they are as comprehensive as anything in the Clause.
      It was interesting that all the arguments put on the Amendment today kept referring to the central institutions. The Clause deals not only with the central institutions but also with the colleges of education. The difference between the central institutions and the colleges of education in this respect is very simple. It is that the colleges of education have already been subject to regulation, whereas the central institutions are being brought under the regulation-making power of the Secretary of State for the first time, something that I understand has the support of the whole House.
      I suggest that one of the reasons why we have had so many representations by the central institutions—and I recognise that they have been sincerely made—is that they have no experience of the normal process of consultation that goes on between Government and bodies subject to regulations, because they have never been subject to regulations. It is significant that the local education authorities, for example, have not asked for a statutory obligation to consult to be written into the Bill, because they know that as a matter of course the Government consult them before regulations affecting them are put into operation. Similarly, the colleges of education, which are bodies just as distinguished as the boards of governors of central institutions, have made no representations on this point, because they know from their experience that when we are dealing with matters affecting colleges of education we consult them, although there is no statutory obligation to do so, and we shall continue to consult them.
      Therefore, I think that what the central institutions require is not something written into the Bill, which would be at odds with everything else we are doing for other bodies concerned with regulations, but a reassurance, which I am glad to give again, that in practice they need not worry about the process of consultation, because consultation there certainly will be.

      1303
      The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire read a letter from an undisclosed central institution—he was extremely coy about giving me its name—which suggested, although what he said to us was rather obscure on this point, that the principal of the institution had no knowledge of the Clause, and did not know that this kind of thing was being written into the legislation. If there is a principal of any central institution in Scotland who does not know about the Clause, he is a remarkably ignorant man; we discussed the Clause with the central institutions even before the Bill was published, and consultations are going on with the central institutions about the possible content of the regulations when the Bill is enacted. Therefore, I do not accept for one moment that any principal of a central institution should be in any doubt about the contents of the Clause and the Government's views on what might go into the regulations. Certainly, there should be no principal of a central institution in any doubt about the commitment which the Government have made, and which I have just repeated, to have consultations with the governors before regulations are introduced.
      Mr. A. Woodburn: Are there many central institutions? Can my hon. Friend give us some examples of those that would be consulted?
      Mr. Millan: We have consulted them all. It depends on exactly what we include, but I think there are 10. They include Robert Gordon's Institute in Aberdeen, the Dundee Institute of Art and Technology, the Paisley College of Technology and the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, which I visited the other day, when this point was not even mentioned to me, never mind raised as a matter of great concern. There are the colleges of domestic education, Leith Nautical College, the Woollen Institute at Galashiels, and perhaps one or two others. We have already had consultations with them as to what might go into the regulations.
      Only one other point was raised. The hon. Member for Renfrew, East spoke about the importance of good communication between staff and students and so on. I am glad she raised this point, because the regulations dealing with the
      1304
      colleges of education at present include references to the student body, student discipline and so on. It is interesting that none of the instruments of government of the central institutions has any reference to students, and as far as I recollect none of them has any provision in its constitution for staff to serve as governors of the body concerned. So far from the power given here taking away from the communication between staff and students or between staff and governors, it will give us the opportunity to make specific provision for these matters for the central institutions in a way similar to that which we have already made for the colleges of education.
      Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendments. In saying that, I in no way attribute insincerity to the governors of the institutions concerned. I am not saying that they have had assurances which it is wrong for them not to have accepted. I can understand that they are in a period of uncertainty and that they may well feel that they require something written into the Bill. But I do not believe that they do need it written in, and to write it in would be a great mistake, with considerable implications. To write it in for them would mean that we should have to write it in for everyone, which would be very undesirable.
      For all these reasons, I must ask the House to reject the Amendments.
      Mr. MacArthur: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may make some comments on what the Minister has said.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need the leave of the House.
      Mr. MacArthur: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, may I say as a matter of courtesy to you that I do not intend to detain the House for long.
      The hon. Gentleman has given a very disappointing reply to our Amendments. I particularly regret the way in which he gives the impression of playing a sort of game of catch-as-catch-can. So often he said in Committee that we should not do a thing one way but should do it another, and then if we did it that way he said that we should do it in yet another way. He did this jumping from

      1305
      Clause to Clause in Committee, and today he has returned to that habit, which I find rather disagreeable.
      The Under-Secretary fails to understand why this protection should be written into the Bill. I remind him yet again that Section 144(2) of the 1962 Act will be abolished when this Measure is enacted. There will, therefore, be no process whereby those who are concerned about these regulations can make representations to the Secretary of State.
      The hon. Gentleman said that consultations will take place. The same was said by the Secretary of State. I accept their good faith, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) pointed out, unless they can foresee a situation in which it might be inconvenient for consultations to take place, there is no reason why they should not agree to write this simple protection into the Bill.
      I was not trying to make a great deal of the letter from the principal, but it is worth reiterating that in his correspondence of May he pointed out:
      "No information with regard to this legislation has come to us direct from the Scottish Education Department …"
      That may have referred to the progress of the legislation, but the fact remains that the principal did not feel that adequate consultation had taken place. Despite the assurances given by the Government at the meeting last November—I gather that that was the meeting to which the Under-Secretary referred—the colleges are not content with the position and want this protection written into the Bill.
      While I do not wish to detain the House, it is interesting to note what some of the letters that we have received have said. [Interruption.] I do not know how many such letters hon. Gentlemen opposite have received. It is important that we take note of representations of this kind and, while I would be in order in reading them all, I will quote from only two. One says:
      "They"—
      that is, the governors of this college—
      "agree that the assurance given by the Secretary of State … and by Mr. Millan … go a long way to allay the uneasiness
      1306
      felt by the Governors. However, they find it hard to understand why the Government is unwilling to give this assurance the necessary statutory backing by having it included in a suitable form within the Bill. They feel that their position will only be fully protected if an appropriate clause is inserted at the Committee stage indicating that such consultations must be carried out before any regulations are made under the Clause.
      Another letter reads:
      "At a meeting in St. Andrew's House … an assurance was given (and repeated by the Secretary of State in the debate on the Second Reading) that such prior consultation would take place, but we are all disappointed that no such assurance has been written into the Bill."
      All the other letters make the same point. I therefore cannot understand why the Government will not insert this protection, particularly in view of the wide powers that are being taken by the Secretary of State in Clause 15. Indeed, as the Under-Secretary said, there is a formidable list of powers, which I will not detail again.
      This point distinguishes the central institutions from the other bodies. These powers are enormous and, because they are so great and because they can be invoked by regulations—which no longer need to be circulated and about which representations can no longer be made—it is important that a process of consultation should exist.
      I am surprised and disappointed that the Under-Secretary did not refer to the precisely parallel case to which I referred earlier.
      Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. This being Report stage, is it permissible for the hon. Gentleman to make a second major speech?
      Mr. Speaker: It is not for Mr. Speaker to say what speeches are major and what are minor.
      Mr. Lawson: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is a starred Amendment applying to a subject which was extensively debated in Committee upstairs, are we obliged to listen yet again to a repetition of the arguments at such length?
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to know that he must listen patiently to remarks of which he may disapprove.
      Mr. MacArthur: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and assure him that we should be only too happy if our arguments could be got into the Minister's head simply and rapidly. Unfortunately that has not been our experience throughout the discussion of the Bill. I regret that I must make certain points a second or third time. I was about to bring my remarks to a close when the hon. Gentleman rose on a point of order. If he had not interrupted me I should have been finished by now.
      The parallel to this Amendment is the Amendment moved by the Government recently when they introduced a date into Clause 1 with the aim of removing doubt. That was done despite a firm
      assurance given on Second Reading that such a date would, without its being written into the Bill, be the date when the fee-paying schools would be abolished. That date was given to remove doubt. The Amendment should be accepted for the same reason in precisely the same way to underline precisely the assurance given by the Government. Because I am disappointed with the content and terms of the Under-Secretary's reply, I must ask my hon. Friends to divide the House.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 174.

      Division No. 239.]

      AYES

      [6.55 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Gower, Raymond

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Grant, Anthony

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Astor, John

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Grieve, Percy

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Bell, Ronald

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Biffen, John

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Pym, Francis

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hawkins, Paul

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Blaker, Peter

      Heseltine, Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Body, Richard

      Hiley, Joseph

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Holland, Philip

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Brewis, John

      Hornby, Richard

      Sharples, Richard

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hunt, John

      Silvester, Frederick

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Jopling, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

      Chataway, Christopher

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Clegg, Walter

      Lubbock, Eric

      Temple, John M.

      Cooke, Robert

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      MacArthur, Ian

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Corfield, F. V.

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Waddington, David

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Wainwright, Richard (Coins Valley)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Maddan, Martin

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Dean, Paul

      Marten, Neil

      Weatherill, Bernard

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

      Maude, Angus

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Mawby, Ray

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Drayson, G. B.

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Elliott, R. W. (N'c'le-upon-Tyne, N.)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Emery, Peter

      Monro, Hector

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      More, Jasper

      Wright, Esmond

      Fisher, Nigel

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Wylie, N. R.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Fortescue, Tim

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Foster, Sir John

      Murton, Oscar

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Mr. Reginald Eyre and

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Nott, John

      Mr. Timothy Kitson.

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Binns, John

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Blackburn, F.

      Anderson, Donald

      Barnett, Joel

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Archer, Peter

      Baxter, William

      Boston, Terence

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Bence, Cyril

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Bradley, Tom

      Hilton, W. S.

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Hooley, Frank

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Brooks, Edwin

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Pavitt, Laurence

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Buchan, Norman

      Hunter, Adam

      Pentland, Norman

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

      Hynd, John

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cant, R. B.

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

      Probert, Arthur

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rankin, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Chapman, Donald

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Richard, Ivor

      Coleman, Donald

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Judd, Frank

      Rogers, George (Kensington. N.)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lawson, George

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Luard, Evan

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

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Silverman, Julius

      Dempsey, James

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Slater, Joseph

      Dewar, Donald

      McCann, John

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dobson, Ray

      MacColl, James

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Doig, Peter

      MacDermot, Niall

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Dunnett, Jack

      McGuire, Michael

      Summerskill, Hn, Dr. Shirley

      Eadie, Alex

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Thornton, Ernest

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Tinn, James

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mackie, John

      Tuck, Raphael

      English, Michael

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Urwin, T. W.

      Ensor, David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Varley, Eric G.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

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

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Faulds, Andrew

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Weitzman, David

      Foley, Maurice

      Manuel, Archie

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ford, Ben

      Mapp, Charles

      Whitaker, Ben

      Forrester, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Fowler, Gerry

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Whitlock, William

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Millan, Bruce

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Gregory, Arnold

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Moyle, Roland

      Winnick, David

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Neal, Harold

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Norwood, Christopher

      Woof, Robert

      Harper, Joseph

      Oram, Albert E.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Oswald, Thomas

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Haseldine, Norman

      Padley, Walter

      Mr. Neil McBride and

      Hazell, Bert

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Mr. J. D. Concannon

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Paget, R. T.

    Clause 16

      AGE OF RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS
      Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 23, line 25, leave out 'on the date on' and insert:
      'at the end of the school term during'.
      This is an important Clause for those teachers in posts of responsibility who have already reached the age of 65 or who may be approaching it. It is difficult to be certain how many teachers will be affected by this provision, because the reply given by the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 10th March was that the numbers were not available but that a computer was busily working them out. Whether or
      1310
      not the answer is now available. I do not know.
      The point is that under the Clause as it stands, except for the important provision in the first line
      "Except where his employer otherwise determines …"
      a teacher in a post of responsibility will have to give up that post, and if necessary leave the school, on his 65th birthday. Those who are presently 65 will have to give up their posts on the date of the enactment of this Measure. I readily appreciate, of course, that unless Amendment No. 22 is agreed, this provision will be put into effect by means of a Statutory Instrument.
      Those of us who have worked on the Bill or who are interested in teaching in any form realise the importance of

      1311
      these posts of responsibility, and feel it wrong that teachers in those posts should be forced to retire in mid-term. For that reason, we seek to alter the date of retirement from the 65th birthday to the end of the term. We have earlier argued at length about the importance of continuity in relation to the single leaving date of pupils, and this principle of continuity is equally important in relation to teachers in posts of responsibility. It disrupts school life in many ways if these teachers have to leave in the middle of the term. To me, I admit, it is almost unthinkable that a local authority would ask a teacher to retire in the middle of a term, and because it is so unthinkable I have every hope that the Secretary of State will accept the Amendment.
      I accept, too, that there is always concern, particularly among the younger members of the profession, that there must be no blockage of promotion; that when a teacher reaches the age which the Government and local authorities have determined as the age of retirement, that should be it, and there should be opportunity of promotion. Nevertheless, we feel that for a matter of two or three months that principle should give way in favour of the Amendment. That the teacher should not retire until the end of the term would be good for the teacher, good for the local authority as it would prevent disruption in posts of responsibility, and good for the pupils.
      I should like the Secretary of State to go a little further and accept that the date of retirement should be at the end of the holidays following the terms when the teacher reaches age 65. A teacher should be entitled to his holiday on full pay following the term in which he finishes his work. Because what is proposed by the Amendment is likely to happen in practice, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Brewis: I support the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). We should be considering the interests of the child in education. I cannot believe that it would be right for a teacher holding such a post to be changed arbitrarily on the day he reaches 65, or, in other cases, when he reaches 70. I should be prepared to go further and say that it should be at the end of the school year in which the teacher reaches that age. Only
      1312
      a month or two maybe concerned and this would affect his pension. Many teachers who are nearing 65 or 70 had difficulties about getting jobs in the thirties. There was great difficult for certificated teachers to get employment then. An extra few months might make a serious effect to their pensions.
      Mr. Ross: I have every sympathy with the intentions of the Amendment. I was touched with the point about the difficulty for teachers in getting jobs in the thirties. That was the time when I was trying to get a job as a teacher. However, I think the dangers of a break in continuity in the teaching process from the point of view of pupils is something which will be seized upon by education authorities themselves.
      That is the main reason why the words quoted by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)
      "except where his employer otherwise determines".
      are there. Those words give complete flexibility to the local education authority to continue employment of a teacher for so long as need be and within the necessary limits in the position of a post of special responsibility. We have to bear in mind that the subsection as it stands does not require immediate retirement at age 65. That is the purpose of its opening words.
      7.15 p.m.
      There is in any event a defect in the Amendment because it says
      "at the end of the school term".
      It is not entirely clear what would happen if the teacher became 65 during the holidays which is not during the school term. I think I can allay the fears of the mover and supporter of the Amendment about the damage which they feel might possibly be done. We have to leave this to the good sense of local authorities and follow the advice we have had in our consultations on the principles of the Bill. We consulted the Association of County Councils, which asked that the age of 65 should replace the previous requirement of the completion of 45 years' service. The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association supported that change.

      1313
      Bearing in mind that the subsection does not prevent an employer keeping a teacher in post after he is 65 we should retain this flexibility for good educational practice. From the point of view of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) it is interesting to note that the E.I.S. asks for mandatory resignation from promoted posts in all cases on attaining the age of 65, but we prefer flexibility for local education authorities because there might otherwise be disruption. Anyone who is aware of the practice of education authorities knows that they are very reasonable. I do not visualise great difficulty. The hon. Member for Dumfries asked for numbers but I am afraid I cannot give them at present. Retiral for men is about 65 and for women about 63. Bearing in mind the actual practice of local education authorities in exercising the flexibility which will be in the Clause as it stands we do not see any great difficulty occurring. I am afraid I cannot ask the House to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman appeared to accept the principle which my hon. Friends have put forward and said that there was flexibility for the local authorities themselves to decide on the date. The Under-Secretary in Committee also gave the impression that he was in favour of flexibility as suggested in this Amendment and that local authorities would not require a resignation to take place in the middle of a term. It is, therefore, disappointing that the Secretary of State has not been able to accept this Amendment nor to say that he would accept a similar one after suggesting that there is something faulty in the wording of this one. Its object is quite clear.
      The point made about pensions struck a sympathetic chord in him when my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) pointed out that retirement at the end of the term could have an effect on the pension for which a teacher was eligible. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not said his last word on this proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) referred to holidays at the end of the term in which a teacher becomes 65. That point should be in the minds of local authorities. The Government appear to have accepted, in Committee and today,
      1314
      that local authorities ought not to terminate a teacher's employment in the middle of a term or at some other inappropriate date. They have said that the local authority can itself extend the period in which the teacher is employed. But then the local authority would have to defer in every such case on every occasion. This would make unnecessary work.
      Surely it would be better to include in the Bill the principle, which the Secretary of State himself accepts, making it perfectly clear that local authorities would not require resignation in the middle of a term.
      Mr. Woodburn: I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Bill is wide enough to give discretion to the local authorities.
      This works both ways. It is sometimes desirable that local authorities should not be under pressure to continue in a job somebody who should not be in the job. Naturally, authorities will be anxious to retain good teachers, but in some cases it is important that there should be a break, without any reflection on the person concerned or on the authority, and without any argument about whether it is right to allow him to continue in office. It may be a good thing for the pupils that a teacher should retire at 65. But in my experience, local authorities are glad to retain good teachers in their posts, and very often not only until the end of the term. If a person has not taken up his career as a teacher at the earliest possible moment, he may reach 65 with a year or two to go before he can benefit from his pension. Local authorities are sympathetic in the case of good teachers and, as in the Civil Service, they may allow them to work out their time.
      There is the problem of the pressure of people wanting promotion. One of the difficulties of asking teachers and civil servants to work beyond the age of 60 is that if the age is increased to 65 it stops promotion for five years. Therefore, teachers who think that they are better than their colleagues at the job press for promotion. It is a mistake for Parliament to legislate when it does not know the facts. It is better to leave it to the people who are responsible for doing the job to make a judgment. I am sure that we can trust local education

      1315
      authorities. They are extremely considerate with teachers and they are anxious to ensure that pupils get the best education.
      Teachers are not necessarily good for the pupils. I know of a girl who passed every examination except the mathematics examination. Fortunately for her, her teacher became ill. Therefore, she got a new teacher and passed the examination with flying colours. It may be good for the school if a teacher retires at 65, but we must leave it to the people responsible to judge.
      Mr. Younger: I very much appreciate the sympathetic way in which the Secretary of State answered the debate. What he said was absolutely right. However, I wonder whether, looking ahead to another place, he would be prepared to bend a little in this case. I think we all agree that the Bill allows local education authorities to do exactly what we would wish namely, to allow teachers to carry on to the end of the term in which they come of retirement age. We all accept that this is what will probably happen in every case at the local authority's discretion. Is it not better to legislate for that eventuality and not for one which we all know will hardly occur? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider this point again.
      I agreed with what the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said. It is necessary that a retirement date should be established. It is invidious for some people to be selected for retirement at one date and others to be kept on. Naturally, it is not acceptable to the person who is retired because he does not appreciate that the education authority may desire to keep on another person. As we are all sympathetic to the idea, perhaps the Amendment could be redrafted and brought forward in another place to give effect to what we know will happen in practice. That would make for better legislation.
      Mr. Rankin: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not yield in the slightest to the Opposition pressure. I wish to deal with one point which arises in almost every school and which over the years local authorities have been doing their best to deal with.
      1316
      In primary schools in Scotland there is scarcely a male teacher other than the head teacher. This problem of the paucity of male teachers in primary schools is due solely to the lack of promoted posts. Local authorities which have tried to attract and keep male teachers in primary schools have created posts of special responsibility carrying higher payments to keep up the number of male teachers in primary schools.
      The problem is more obvious in secondary schools. During the recess I visited one of Glasgow's largest secondary schools, which is in my division. Almost every department in that school has a promoted person for some specific purpose, with a corresponding increase in his salary. If we interfere with the present retiral age we shall re-create the feeling which used to pervade many schools that there is no room for the up-and-coming younger men and that the older ones are clinging to their jobs, with the support of this House. That is wrong. The local authorities are trying to solve this problem in their own way. We should support what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes in the Bill and help local authorities in the work that they are doing to maintain the number of male teachers in the schools.
      Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: There is a lot to be said for the Amendment. Some flexibility is necessary in this case. Most authorities allow teachers, and particularly head masters, to carry on to the end of the school year, and not the school term, because it may disrupt the life of the school if a headmaster or principal teacher comes into the school at some other time during the year.
      The Secretary of State said that the good sense of the education authority should prevail. If this is always the case, there is nothing to worry about. If an authority thinks that a teacher is carrying out his duties effectively, he should retire at the end of the school year and not at the end of the school term. I agree that if a headmaster or teacher has given long service it is not too much to expect that holidays should count in the period of service.
      I agree that we do not want to hold up promotion. One of the drawbacks in the teaching profession is that there are so few chances of promotion. But I do

      1317
      no see how permitting a teacher to finish the school year would hold up promotion in a way that would affect the profession. I will support the Amendment, unless the Secretary of State can give an assurance that the good sense of the education authorities will always prevail in this matter.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. W. Baxter: I counsel my right hon. Friend to stand by the Clause as it is. I have had almost 30 years' experience of a local authority and have always found it—and I am sure that this applies to others—very considerable to its employees. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has indicated, there are occasions when it is to the advantage of the pupils and to the education system of an area that a teacher should be permitted to retire at the earliest possible moment.
      Surely the good sense of a local authority is as good as that of hon. Members. Surely a local authority can reasonably decide that a teacher should have his term of office extended for a few months if it would be to the advantage not only of himself but of the pupils. It would be wrong to make it more or less mandatory on local authorities to do this, that or the other. That would be the negation of the democratic system about which we hear so much and would suggest that we in this House, are the only people who have the good sense to know what should be done. We must recognise that people responsible for local government are, as in national government, entitled to a certain degree of trust that they do their best in the prevailing circumstances.
      My experience by and large is that members of local authorities and of education committees and directors of education do their best on behalf of teachers as well as pupils. The Amendment should be withdrawn as ample power is already vested in the local authority to extend the period of a teacher's employment if it so desires.
      Mr. Monro: I am sorry that right hon. and hon. Members oposite have made such heavy weather of the Amendment. We all agree that this is what is going to happen in practice. We agree that teachers will, because of the discretion allowed in the Clause, be allowed to
      1318
      retain their posts and responsibilties until the end of term. If that is so, the argument put by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) falls flat because the promotion opportunity will still be delayed for two or three months. The Amendment would make no difference as far as promotion is concerned.
      I find it difficult to understand why the Government are so reluctant to put into the Bill what is going to happen in practice. This is an insurance policy, a little additional security for the teachers. For this reason, I feel strongly that the Amendment should be accepted. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say that he would redraft it in another place, I would withdraw it, but if not, I feel strongly enough to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby.
      Mr. Woodburn: In a case where the whole school—the headmaster and everyone else—is waiting for a man to leave the staff, have we any right to say that the authority must keep him on after the time when, for the benefit of the school, he should go?
      Mr. Monro: I am reluctant to believe that any school is at such loggerheads with its headmaster. That is not an argument worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot believe that it is right for a teacher in a promoted post to leave in a middle of term.
      Mr. Rankin: Surely the issue is not whether to give freedom for two or three months but whether or not we break the fixed date of retirement. Once we do that, the whole show is flung wide open.
      Mr. Monro: I cannot agree. It is not as wide as that. This is a simple Amendment to give a teacher another two or three months, perhaps only a few weeks, between his 65th birthday and the end of term. It is surely logical.
      Mr. Ross: I do not think that this merits a Division of the House of Commons. I smiled when the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) made his plea to me because I have in my recollection the memory of headmasters in the local authority whose area he represents who were kept on not to the end of term but for years. It is far better to leave this to

      1319
      the good sense of the local authorities. They know the problems of the individual and the school and the whole staffing aspect. This is a matter in which I trust the local authorities, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will do so too. I hope that
      he will not insist on voting on an Amendment which does not make sense.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 165.

      Division No. 240.]

      AYES

      [7.36 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Percival, Ian

      Astor, John

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Awdry, Daniel

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bell, Ronald

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Pym, Francis

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Heseltine, Michael

      Rees-Davies, w. R.

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hiley, Joseph

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Blaker, Peter

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Body, Richard

      Holland, Philip

      Royle, Anthony

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Hornby, Richard

      Scott, Nicholas

      Brewis, John

      Hunt, John

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Jopling, Michael

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Bryan, Paul

      Kershaw, Anthony

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

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Speed, Keith

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Kitson, Timothy

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Lubbock, Eric

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

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Clegg, Walter

      MacArthur, Ian

      Temple, John M.

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Corfield, F. V.

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Maddan, Martin

      Waddington, David

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Dean, Paul

      Marten, Neil

      Ward, Dame Irene

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

      Maude, Angus

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Mawby, Ray

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Emery, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Monro, Hector

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Fisher, Nigel

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wright, Esmond

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      More, Jasper

      Wylie, N. R.

      Fortescue, Tim

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Foster, Sir John

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Murton, Oscar

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gower, Raymond

      Nott, John

      Mr. Humphrey Atkins and

      Grant, Anthony

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Cant, R. B.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fernyhough, E.

      Anderson, Donald

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Foley, Maurice

      Archer, Peter

      Chapman, Donald

      Ford, Ben

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Coleman, Donald

      Forrester, John

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Fowler, Gerry

      Bagier, Cordon A. T.

      Conlan, Bernard

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Barnett, Joel

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Baxter, William

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Gregory, Arnold

      Bence, Cyril

      Dalyell, Tam

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Binns, John

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Blackburn, F.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Dempsey, James

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Boston, Terence

      Dewar, Donald

      Harper, Joseph

      Boyden, James

      Dobson, Ray

      Haseldine, Norman

      Bradley, Tom

      Doig, Peter

      Hazell, Bert

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Eadie, Alex

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Brooks, Edwin

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Hilton, W. S.

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

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Hooley, Frank

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

      English, Michael

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Buchan, Norman

      Ensor, David

      Huckfield, Leslie

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

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

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

      Hunter, Adam

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Hynd, John

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Silverman, Julius

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

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Slater, Joseph

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

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Moyle, Roland

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Neal, Harold

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Judd, Frank

      Norwood, Christopher

      Symonds, J. B.

      Lawson, George

      Ogden, Eric

      Thornton, Ernest

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Oram, Albert E.

      Tinn, James

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Tuck, Raphael

      Loughlin, Charles

      Padley, Walter

      Urwin, T. W.

      Luard, Evan

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Paget, R. T.

      Varley, Eric G.

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      McBride, Neil

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      MacColl, James

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      MacDermot, Niall

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      McGuire, Michael

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Weitzman, David

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mackie, John

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Pentland, Norman

      Whitlock, William

      Maclennan, Robert

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughtoh)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Rankin, John

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootte)

      Richard, Ivor

      Winnick, David

      Manuel, Archie

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Mapp, Charles

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Mr. John McCann and

      Millan, Bruce

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Mr. Walter Harrison.

      Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 24, line 11, at end insert:
      'being a date not earlier than 1st August, 1970'.
      This is not dissimilar from the last Amendment in that it is trying to get some definite information for the teaching profession. As members of the Committee will know, this Clause, which affects the retirement of teachers comes into effect only with the introduction of the Statutory Instrument. From what the Minister said in Committee the moment of the introduction of the Instrument might not be so very far away. The words he used were "fairly soon". Until this Statutory Instrument is introduced—and perhaps he can say tonight when it will be introduced and at what date it will come into effect—there will be a great deal of uncertainty among teachers bordering the age of 65, just under and just over, as to when they might have to retire.
      The Amendment would remove this uncertainty and it would be the end of the school session 1970. This would be most beneficial and would relieve the minds of those likely to retire at some stage next year very considerably. I know from experience, because I have been approached about it, that some teachers in posts of responsibility have been considering their future next year and whether to retire at the end of this
      1322
      term or next term or next spring—certainly before August 1970—because of this uncertainty.
      I accept that there is flexibility in the Clause, in that it is entirely up to the local authority when it wishes to implement the retirement date. I do not want to see an unnecessary drop in experienced teachers, which I balance against any drop in promotion. I do not think that delay in implementing this Clause in August, 1970, would have a major effect in that direction. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment and allay the fears nagging away at a number of teachers in posts of responsibility.
      Mr. Millan: I could not recommend the House to accept the Amendment, simply because it would introduce another and completely unnecessary element of inflexibility. When the Bill is passed, we shall have to consult the teachers' associations and the local authorities about the timing of the commencement of the Clause. Subsection (4) is in the Clause because we want to have a certain control over the timing, for otherwise the Clause might come into operation in the middle of a term, say.
      At one time it appeared that the Bill might go through rather more quickly than has been the case and the Clause might have come into operation at an awkward time when it would have imposed on local authorities the burden of considering the position of the individual

      1323
      teachers concerned and making decisions about them and discussing their positions with them and so on. We thought that that was undesirable and that it would be better to have a specific commencement Order for the Clause so that the timing could be under some kind of control.
      When the Bill is passed, we shall have to discuss this matter with the teachers and the authorities. At this stage, I am not able to anticipate their reactions. However, if there is a feeling of uncertainty among teachers, if there are numbers of teachers who would like the Clause to be delayed for as much as a year, no doubt those feelings will be made known to the teachers' associations and in turn to the Secretary of State, and certainly we should consider any representations of that sort carefully.
      However, no one has asked for this Amendment. The local authority associations have not said that they hope that the Clause will not come into force before next year. The teachers' associations have not said that they hope that there will be a year's delay before the Clause is brought into operation. It would be undesirable to discover in our discussions with the associations concerned that they were perfectly happy for the Clause to be brought into operation quickly, but that, because of the Amendment, we were unable to bring it into operation. For that reason I could not possibly accept the Amendment.
      If it turns out in our discussions that no one wants the Clause to operate before August, 1970, if there is a strong feeling about that on either side, we shall obviously take that feeling seriously into account, but it would be undesirable, having given ourselves flexibility, to remove it.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is a matter which affects the lives of a number of persons holding important posts and it is reasonable for them to have some notice of what is to happen. Putting a date of about a year ahead into the Bill would give those affected the assurance that the Clause would not operate until they had been able to consider their own situations and the effect of the Clause upon them.
      The Under-Secretary said that the Government wished to have flexibility because
      1324
      they were not sure when the Bill would be passed and did not want this provision to come into effect until they had had proper consultations. But the Amendment would not cause the loss of any flexibility after this date in about a year's time. The operation of the Clause would not be tied to any particular date after 1st August, 1970, and the Government could consider with the organisations concerned, looking at the calendar year, what would be the most suitable starting date.
      This would be an assurance to those affected that there will be plenty of time for consultation and that this provision will not be suddenly sprung upon them within a few weeks or months of the passing of the Bill. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter and not take the rather stubborn attitude which the Under-Secretary has shown.
      Mr. Millan: It is not a question of taking a stubborn attitude. The hon. Gentleman may be under some misunderstanding and may believe that this is a new provision and that there has not been previous legislation deeming retirement ages. However, the Third Schedule of the 1962 Act, for example, lays down provisions about retirement from posts of special responsibility, and so this provision is nothing new. The requirements under the Third Schedule of the 1962 Act were abolished by the Teachers Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1968, because they came in a Schedule which dealt with superannuation. We are now replacing those requirements of the 1962 Act by new requirements, which are admittedly expressed in rather different terms. But the idea of the statutory control of retirement from posts of special responsibility is not new and is not something which has been sprung on teachers. Only a short time ago, there were similar provisions in the 1962 Act and in any event the Bill has been under consideration for some time.
      If the teachers' associations find that there is uncertainty and worry about these provisions, no doubt they will convey that feeling to us and we shall seriously consider it, but I have no evidence that that is now the situation. For that reason and having explained the background, which the hon. Member may not have fully understood, I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Monro: I would not have suggested the Amendment in the first place if I had not had representations from teachers in posts of special responsibility who were uncertain about their future next year. It was to allay those fears that I suggested the Amendment.
      The Minister will agree that in practical terms consultation with the teaching profession is unlikely before perhaps late September. With negotiations to follow, it might well be November or December before he reached a position when he was able to lay a Statutory Instrument. Therefore, for the best part of six months teachers will be left not knowing exactly when they may have to retire.
      Retiring is a critical moment in one's career at any age, in this case 65, because there is the probability of buying a new house and settling down to prepare for
      the years of retirement and the possibility of another job. All these things need careful planning and thought.
      All my Amendment does is to give these good and worthy teachers who have served us for many years the right to know that nothing is likely to prejudice their position between now and August, 1970. It may be only a few months up to the Statutory Instrument, but I strongly feel that we should give the teachers the reassurance that they need not worry, about the coming months, and that is why I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 171.

      Division No. 241.]

      AYES

      [7.58 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Grant, Anthony

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Percival, Ian

      Astor, John

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bell, Ronald

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Pym, Francis

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hawkins, Paul

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Blaker, Peter

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Body, Richard

      Heseltine, Michael

      Royle, Anthony

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Hiley, Joseph

      Scott, Nicholas

      Brewis, John

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Sharples, Richard

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Holland, Philip

      Silvester, Frederick

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hornby, Richard

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Bryan, Paul

      Hunt, John

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

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

      Jenkins, Patrick (Woodford)

      Speed, Keith

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Jopling, Michael

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Kimball, Marcus

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

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Kitson, Timothy

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Temple, John M.

      Clegg, Walter

      Lubbock, Eric

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Cooke, Robert

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      MacArthur, Ian

      Waddington, David

      Corfield, F. V.

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      McNair-Wilson Michael

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Maddan, Martin

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Dean, Paul

      Maginnis, John E.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

      Marten, Neil

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Maude, Angus

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Drayson, G. B.

      Mawby, Ray

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Emery, Peter

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Errington, Sir Eric

      More, Jasper

      Wright, Esmond

      Eyre, Reginald

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Wylie, N. R.

      Fisher, Nigel

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Younger, Hn. George

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Murton, Oscar

      Fortescue, Tim

      Nott, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Foster, Sir John

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Mr. Hector Monro and

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Humphrey Atkins

      Gower, Raymond

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Archer, Peter

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Barnett, Joel

      Anderson, Donald

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Baxter, William

      Bence, Cyril

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Ogden, Eric

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Oram, Albert E.

      Binns, John

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Blackburn, F.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, w.)

      Padley, Walter

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Boston, Terence

      Haseldine, Norman

      Paget, R. T.

      Boyden, James

      Hazell, Bert

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bradley, Tom

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Hilton, W. S.

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Brooks, Edwin

      Hooley, Frank

      Pavitt, Laurence

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

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pentland, Norman

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

      Hunter, Adam

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Hynd, John

      Price, Thomas (Westhougton)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cant, R. B.

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

      Probert, Arthur

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rankin, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Chapman, Donald

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Richard, Ivor

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Judd, Frank

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lawson, George

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sheldon, Robert

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Silverman, Julius

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Slater, Joseph

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Luard, Evan

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Dempsey, James

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Dewar, Donald

      McBride, Neil

      Thornton, Ernest

      Dobson, Ray

      MacColl, James

      Tinn, James

      Doig, Peter

      MacDermot, Niall

      Tuck, Raphael

      Dunnett, Jack

      McGuire, Michael

      Urwin, T. W.

      Eadie, Alex

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Edelman, Maurice

      Mackie, John

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      English, Michael

      MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Ensor, David

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Weitzman, David

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Wellbeloved, James

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

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Whitlock, William

      Faulds, Andrew

      Manuel, Archie

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mapp, Charles

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Ford, Ben

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Forrester, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Fowler, Gerry

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Winnick, David

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gregory, Arnold

      Moyle, Roland

      Mr. John McCann and

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Neal, Harold

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Norwood, Christopher

    Clause 18

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 85 OF EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1962
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The next Amendment selected is No. 23, with which we may discuss Amendment No. 24, in page 24, line 23, at end insert:
      (3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.
      Mr, J. Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 24, line 21, leave out from 'education' to end of line 23.
      The purpose of the Amendment is to withdraw the provision in subsection (2)
      1328
      by which the Secretary of State is taking power to withdraw from teachers in further education at some future date their exemption under the first part of the subsection from the obligation to register in order to continue to enjoy certain privileges accorded to them under the 1962 Act.
      My preference was clearly for the withdrawal of the whole Clause—that was the case I argued in Committee—but, since we must now face the fact that the Clause as a whole stands, it is essential to delete the latter part of the subsection.
      The question we must decide is whether the Secretary of State should be given power at a future date in effect to extend the obligation of registration with the General Teaching Council to teachers in

      1329
      further education. My contention is that the answer to this question should be a firm and emphatic "No", and I will endeavour to explain why.
      The House is entitled to an explanation from the Government why this part of the subsection was ever inserted in the Bill. No explanation has yet been given in any of our discussions on the Clause and on the Bill, either on Second Reading or in Committee. The Under-Secretary simply pointed out, quite correctly and fairly, that the first part of subsection (2) is designed to protect the position of teachers in further education, and that without it they would lose the privileges which they enjoy as certificated teachers under the principal Act of 1962, in the same way as other teachers. Teachers in the schools lose those privileges to the extent that they are not registered with the General Teaching Council under the Clause. It may be a little clearer if I quote what the Under-Secretary said:
      "The intention of subsection (2) is not to pave the way to registration for further education teachers but to protect them in a situation in which they are not at present required to be registered. If the recommendations about the registration of further education teachers which have been made to the Secretary of State by the General Teaching Council are not brought forward, the full protection of certification given in Section 85 of the 1962 Act will continue. If the Secretary of State accepts that further education teachers should also be registered as an obligation on them, apart from the Regulations provided for that, we shall have to take steps to discontinue subsection (2) of this Clause.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March, 1969; c. 619.]
      He ended by saying that there would be ample opportunity to discuss the rights or demerits of registration of further education teachers, but he did not, either then or on Second Reading, and neither did his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, explain the arguments which had led him to conclude that what I described in Committee as a paving Clause, in the sense that it prepares for future action by the Secretary of State, should be included, beyond saying that there had been this recommendation from the General Teaching Council which the Government would consider, and implying that the Clause had been drafted in this way in the light of that recommendation. We need an explanation of the motivation behind the Government's drafting.
      1330
      The Wheatley Committee on whose recommendations the Clause is based was not considering the position of teachers in further education and not making any recommendations about teachers in further education. I am strongly opposed to any further extension of compulsory registration and any further withdrawal of the rights of certificated teachers who are not now registered under the 1962 Act.
      8.15 p.m.
      What would be the purpose of extending the remit of the General Teaching Council to teachers in further education? The purpose of the G.T.C., as recommended by the Wheatley Committee and throughout our discussions, is to enhance the status and to protect and improve the calibre of the teaching profession, but, in considering what has happened since the General Teaching Council was set up in relation to teachers in schools, we must have considerable reservations about the desirability of extending its responsibilities to teachers in further education.
      The setting up of the General Teaching Council has led within the past year to the dismissal of at least a score of highly qualified and experienced teachers in schools, and to a position where about 7,000 highly qualified and experienced teachers are currently facing the threat of immediate dismissal. On the other hand, it has led to several hundred teachers who are unable to obtain the qualifications necessary for registration, and who are in some cases unlikely ever to be able to obtain such qualifications, being retained in the schools. If this is a method of protecting the status and enhancing the calibre of the profession, it is a mighty odd one, and that is why I do not think we should extend the operations of the G.T.C., and, in particularly, the obligation upon teachers to register with the G.T.C. if they wish to preserve their rights under Section 85 of the 1962 Act, to teachers in further education.
      Do we wish to see a situation among teachers in further education where some who choose to defy the Government's attempts to bully them into registration in one year get sacked for so doing, and where other teachers in the following year who commit precisely the same so-called "crime" get away with it with impunity?

      1331
      Is this the sort of mock justice that we want to extend to teachers in institutes of further education? I believe that we should have no part in it, and that is why I have put down Amendment No. 23. I am unalterably opposed to the procedures of bullying teachers and the arm-twisting of local authorities which has gone on during the last year in respect of teachers in schools being extended to teachers in further education. Our experience during the past year should lead us to think again before accepting the wording of the Clause unless my Amendment is accepted.
      I accept Amendment No. 24. I hope that we shall be able to have separate Divisions on the two Amendments. Amendment No. 24 provides a useful further safeguard, in that it would require any order of the Secretary of State to annul the provisions of subsection (2) of the Clause at a future date to be subject to the affirmative procedures of the House. That would be an improvement on the Bill as drafted. But this is not the moment for the Government to accord such powers, even in embryo.
      We have seen beyond a shadow of doubt that the Under-Secretary of State is more concerned with saving his own face and in resisting the evidence of his eyes than in protecting the interests of the teaching profession and the interests of children at school. For that reason it would be wrong to give the Government these powers.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: I should like to support what my hon. Friend has said on Amendment No. 23, and I would suggest that Amendment No. 24 offers an alternative and is an improvement on the Clause as it now stands.
      Amendment No. 24 would ensure approval by Parliament before an order made by the Secretary of State came into effect. It would give oportunity for a full explanation by the Government on the necessity for such an order, and there could be full discussion both in this House and in the other place. We could then consider, in the light of the circumstances at that time, whether there was a real requirement for registration to be introduced for teachers in further education.
      It is unnecessary, and indeed wrong, to give the Secretary of State discretion to
      1332
      act without any further need to consult Parliament. Recent experience leads us to feel that the matter should be considered in the light of what has happened. If the Secretary of State felt that he wanted to introduce an order in a year or two, we should be in a much better position to consider the reasons why he felt it to be necessary and would have a chance to consider his proposal.
      We see Amendment No. 24 as a reasonable provision to give the House the opportunity to consider any such proposal as the Secretary of State of the day might think necessary to deal with the registration of teachers in further education. If the Minister sees objection in Amendment No. 23, then I hope he will look favourably upon Amendment No 24.
      Mr. John Robertson: Without examining the attendance list of hon. Members during the Committee stage when the registration provision was introduced, I should not like to comment upon the attitude of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) at that time. I know that nobody on the Opposition benches opposed the idea of compulsory registration when it was introduced. Indeed, I can claim that at that time I was the only member of the Committee to sound the warning. Therefore, it comes ill from hon. Members opposite to try to make political capital out of the point. All we are doing is perpetuating the difficulties.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does not the hon. Member recall an Amendment which was moved in Committee stage seeking exemption from registration of those with deep-rooted conscientious or religious objections? Does he not recall that that suggestion did not meet with a great deal of support from the Labour benches?
      Mr. Robertson: I do not know the purpose of that intervention; I cannot understand the point. The principle of compulsory registration had the complete support of the other side of the House; indeed, it had the support of my side too. But I was the one exception, and, therefore, I claim the right to comment. It may well be that the hon. Member for South Angus was not on the Committee at that time. If he was on the

      1333
      Committee, he did not raise his voice. Why stir up trouble on Report when one remembers that this provision was at the request of the teaching profession, who wished to include in the Statute the principle of compulsory registration. The proposal was not dreamed up by either Members of Parliament or the Government.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I must remind the House that the debate on registration cannot be reopened except as related to the Amendment, which is concerned with teachers in further education and the powers of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Robertson: I was going on to relate the point. Extension is being sought to the powers, but to begin with one had to deal with the general powers.
      Mr. George Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely Amendment No. 23 proposes to leave out the word "register". Does it not raise the whole controversy of whether or not there should be registration?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Amendment clearly is related to teachers in further education and the powers of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. With great respect, that is not quite true. The first Amendment, No. 23, seeks to leave out from "education" to the end of line 23. That raises the matter of certification as opposed to registration.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I must stand by my Ruling. Mr. Robertson.
      Mr. Robertson: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this matter, and I accept that the Amendment deals with the extension of the Secretary of State's powers. However, I felt that the question of compulsory registration ought to be dealt with. It is obvious that, having established the principle of compulsory registration at the express request of the teaching profession, it is natural that, to complete the picture, the registration should now be extended.
      I find it objectionable that hon. Members opposite at one time give wholehearted support to the principle and then
      1334
      seek to object to extension of the principle. I could not accept such an Amendment.
      Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) asked why we had subsection (2) of Clause 18 in the Bill at all. The quotation that he made from my speech in Committee explained quite admirably why we needed the subsection. It is to protect the further education teacher at the moment when there is no requirement for registration from the situation in which the protection of Section 85 would otherwise be taken away from him by the Clause.
      The qualifying phrase to which he is objecting now certainly looks forward to the day when there might be an extension of registration to further education as well as to teachers in the schools. That is all that I can say at the moment. The hon. Gentleman suggested that this would go beyond what was intended by the Wheatley Committee and by the Act. It is fairly obvious that it cannot go beyond what was intended by the Act, otherwise the G.T.C. would not be able to make recommendations to the Secretary of State in the first place and there could be no question of the Secretary of State accepting them. Therefore, it must have been known when the Act went through in 1965 that the extension of registration to further education was included in the terms of the Act and was a possibility. It is also clear from reading paragraph 130 of the Wheatley Report that that Committee also expected at an appropriate stage that registration would be extended to teachers in further education.
      8.30 p.m.
      The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would give the protection of Section 85 of the 1962 Act permanently to teachers in further education even if they became subject to registration in the same way as teachers in the schools. Obviously that is completely illogical. There is no reason why protection should persist for teachers in further education which, by this Clause, has already been taken away from teachers in the schools unless they register, as they are bound to do under the 1965 Act. Therefore, I could not possibly accept his Amendment. If it were accepted, it would mean that, if and when we extended registration to

      1335
      further education, some further legislative adjustment would be required to bring teachers in further education into line with their colleagues in the primary and secondary schools.
      It is true that the General Teaching Council has been considering the extension of registration to further education, but the proposals so far are not accepted by the Secretary of State. We are considering them at the moment. There are still a number of matters to be discussed. If the proposals were accepted, regulations would be required.
      That brings me to Amendment No. 24. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) does not seem to understand what the Clause is saying. He suggested that it would be necessary to have his kind of Amendment to get discussion in the House of the order bringing further education teachers within the scope of registration. That is not so. It would not be the regulations or the order under this Clause that would bring in further education teachers, but regulations made under other powers. They would be regulations amending the Further Education (Scotland) Regulations, 1959–68. These regulations would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. In other words, the substantive regulations which would bring further education teachers into registration would be subject only to the negative resolution procedure.
      In those circumstances, having taken the substantive decision by negative procedure regulations, it would be absurd then to provide that a purely consequential Amendment concerned with the timing of the change in the law were to be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is why I could not accept the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn, either.
      The kind of order with which we are dealing here is simply a timing order to bring into operation something which has been discussed and decided upon by the House already. Such an order is never subject to the affirmative procedure. All the precedents are that an order of that sort is subject to the ordinary negative procedure. It is simply a consequential order about timing. It does not raise the substantive issue.
      1336
      Therefore it would be completely illogical and against the rules which one normally applies for the affirmative procedure if I were to accept the Amendments.
      For those various reasons, I must ask the House to reject both of them.
      Mr. James Dempsey: I do not find it easy to follow the point made by the Minister about negatives, substantive regulations, affirmative procedure and one thing and another. If it becomes the intention of the Secretary of State to incorporate further education teachers in the General Teaching Council, does it mean that regulations will be laid before this House so that we can debate them?
      Mr. Millan: Certainly; and these regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. That means that they can be discussed in the House, and I imagine they would almost certainly be discussed. We would have an opportunity to discuss the regulations twice. The first regulations would be discussed when they were introduced. The consequential regulations and the order involved in the Clause would also be subject to the negative Resolution procedure and, therefore, could be discussed again. To some extent at least the matter in substance on both occasions could be discussed. It could certainly be discussed in substance on the first occasion and on the second occasion it would probably be in order to cover a good part of the ground again. There is no question of anything happening in this sphere without Parliament having a full and adequate opportunity to discuss it.
      Mr. MacArthur: I am certain that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining why he has advised us not to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). However, I am not satisfied with the reason that he has advanced.
      The concern which my hon. Friends and I feel about the Clause is that the Secretary of State, as I understand it, could, by the negative procedure, pave the way for teachers employed in further education to be subject to the registration requirement. I understand that the Minister feels that that procedure would be adequate for Parliament to seek to debate the situation at that time, should it wish to do so. That is a reasonable

      1337
      statement, but I suggest that the experience that we have had in the general matter of registration over these last months gives us on this side reason to recommend that the procedure to be followed for the implementation of the intent in Clause 18 should be subject to the affirmative proedure.
      Clearly, it is possible for the Opposition or any private Member to be put in some embarrassment if a Statutory Instrument is laid during a long recess. We have had experience of this. We could find that we were not able to raise a Prayer on the Statutory Instrument until after the regulations had taken effect. That is precisely the difficulty that we encountered in the regulations which we debated at the beginning of this Session—I think early in November. By the time that the Government had made it possible for us to move our Prayer, the regulations in question were already in force although we sought to raise the Prayer within a day or two of them first being laid. That is a point to be borne in mind. That is a good reason for proposing that we should seek the affirmative procedure, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.
      The Minister was right to remind us that the Wheatley Report envisaged that one day the registration procedure might well extend to teachers in further education. I want to make it clear to the Minister, to the House, and indeed to people outside the House, that I have no objection in principle to that proposal. If the G.T.C. is to work as we want it to work the principle of registration must be adhered to, and it may well have to be extended in this way, but I believe that it would be a mistake for it to be extended to teachers in further education now or in the near future. I was relieved to hear what the Minister said about that a moment ago. It would be a mistake if that were to happen because the Council, and indeed the whole question of registration and the procedure of registration, has been going through what I might charitably and kindly describe as a period of growing pains.
      We are faced today with a situation which I can only describe as one of extreme delicacy. I prefer not to say more than that, beyond reiterating support for the Council, my pleasure that the Secretary of State belatedly agreed that
      1338
      the constitution and functions of the G.T.C. should be reviewed, and my regret that possibly many teachers have not yet re-registered as they are required to do. The fact that possibly a substantial number of teachers have not reregistered has given rise to this—
      Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is going far beyond either of the two Amendments on the Notice Paper.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Lady probably saw me edging to the forward part of my seat to intervene. The hon. Member is getting wide of the Amendment.
      Mr. MacArthur: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate what you say, but I am sure you will appreciate that I am trying to relate this passing reference to the reason why I do not believe it right that the principle of registration should at this time be extended to teachers in further education.
      Before the right hon. Lady intervened, I was trying to explain that one reason for that is the delicacy of the position with which we are confronted today. I believe that there is some inequity here, and that is perhaps putting it mildly. I do not propose to belabour the Government about that now, but I very much hope that the Minister will shortly address himself to the problem and consider very carefully the inequity which exists.
      The time may well come when registration will need to be extended as proposed in this Clause. In view of the experience that we have had, and in view of the genuine interest which every hon. Member has in the development and success of the G.T.C., and in the development of further education, I believe it right that the procedure provided for in this Clause should not be the negative procedure as the Minister claims, but should be the affirmative procedure which my hon. Friend recommends in his Amendment.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) upbraided me in particular for not having opposed registration when it was first

      1339
      introduced. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). It is not the principle of registration to which I object; it is the way in which the Government have decided to enforce it. If I had had any idea that the Government were seriously going to attempt to bulldoze teachers into registration by threatening them with the loss of their livelihood, it would never have entered my head to do other than oppose it hook, line, and sinker.
      Mr. John Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the decisions of the G.T.C. were made at the direction of a Government Department, the Scottish Office? Are the Government responsible for the decisions of the G.T.C.?
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: We are not discussing the decisions of the G.T.C.; we are discussing the way in which the Government chose, in their wisdom or unwisdom, to attempt to enforce compulsory registration on teachers already in the profession. This was the action of the Government, not the G.T.C.
      I have no objection to the principle of registration. I go along with my hon. Friend entirely in envisaging the extension of that principle to teachers in further education. What I cannot accept is the proposition that we should extend this system of bullying and blackmail, in which the Government have been indulging in the past nine months, to another large group of teachers, that we should face the possibility of another situation where we have thousands of teachers in further education, highly qualified and experienced teachers, being thrown out because they refuse to succumb to this attempt by the Government to bully them. That is the point.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member has plausibly explained that he had no method of knowing that this was to happen when he approved the principle of registration. Will he accept that the Wheatley Commission made it perfectly clear, in words of one syllable, that it was talking about compulsory registration? What did he think "compulsory" meant if it did not mean that teachers would have to join?
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Wheatley Commission in paragraph 128 said:
      "We cannot recommend in present circumstances that it should be an offence for an unregistered person to be employed in teaching."
      That, at least, to put it mildly, leaves a certain margin for uncertainty about how exactly the Government might try to enforce registration. I am prepared to admit that I should have been aware earlier of what was to be involved in this process, and to the extent that I was not I plead guilty. If I had had any idea that the Government were to go about it in this monstrous manner I should have voted against it and opposed it all the way. I suspect that some other hon. Members might have some second thoughts about it too.
      We could not have expected that the Government would be as hamfisted as they have been, and we did not have quite the same experience of the Under-Secretary and his little ways as we have today. The Under-Secretary's reply was unsatisfactory even by his standards. He gave us no explanation why the particular phrase which I am seeking to delete from the subsection was inserted. He simply said that it would follow; he did not say under what circumstances the extension of registration would follow; he did not say when; he did not give any indication about the way in which an extension might be applied.
      The hon. Gentleman did not even, and one might at least have expected this, acknowledge that as and when registration was extended to teachers in further education, the Government, at least learning by bitter experience, would not try to bulldoze them into registration by threatening them with the loss of their livelihood. He gave us no explanation that he had understood the unwisdom of repeating the errors which he has already committed.
      The Under-Secretary of State made a very revealing comment in reply to my hon. Friend's Amendment. He said that, in any case, the implementation of the powers extended to the Secretary of State in the second part of the Clause would be purely a consequential matter—to have another few thousand teachers driven out of employment to the detriment of our institutes of further education, instead of our schools. If he calls

      1341
      that a purely consequential matter, I cannot agree with him.
      There is nothing to match the obstinacy of some members of the present Government when they have made a mistake and lack the honesty and courage to admit it. [Interruption.] We have had tragedy enough in this matter. We should not do anything now which might have the result of repeating tragedies of this kind, particularly while the present Ministers hold office.
      Miss Herbison: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but, having listened to two discreditable speeches from the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), I feel obliged to intervene.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had made a mistake but lacked the honesty to admit it. It would seem that in that statement he is supported by the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). I wonder what the vast majority of Scottish teachers believe? They certainly do not accept that the Government have made a mistake.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: How do you know?
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I made my position clear in a full speech on Second Reading. I do not depart from what I said on that occasion. I argued my case then, and I certainly did not argue it in a discreditable way. If the right hon. Lady will refer to my remarks I am sure that she will agree that I was constructive. As for any agreement that I might have with the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), I assure her that I start, as I did when I made my speech on Second Reading, from the basis that qualified teachers should not have been dismissed.
      Miss Herbison: I was not referring to the hon. Lady's speech on Second Reading. I had in mind what happened only moments ago when the hon. Member for South Angus accused the Government of having made a mistake and lacking the honesty to admit it. I understood that the hon. Lady said "Hear, hear" at that point.
      Mrs. Ewing Mrs. Ewing rose—
      Miss Herbison: I will not give way again because it is important that we get on with this matter, which is of vital importance to Scottish education. I assure the hon. Lady that I was not referring to any speech which she made earlier.
      The hon. Member for South Angus is a wonderful representative of those people in the Scottish education profession who are against the General Teaching Council. The language he uses is not unlike the language they use from time to time in Scotland, particularly his reference to "bulldozing teachers".
      I wonder whether the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) will intervene to give the point of view of the vast majority of teachers in Scotland. After all, he is the representative of an honourable body of people, the Educational Institute of Scotland, and when an attack has been made on the Government concerning the G.T.C., a body which has the full support of the Educational Institute of Scotland, he should put the record straight and explain that the vast majority of teachers in Scotland are in favour of the Government in this matter.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—
      Miss Herbison: I will not give way. I would at no time use such shocking words as "bulldozing" and "blackmailing" in the context in which the hon. Gentleman used them.
      If the hon. Member had read the Wheatley Report at all he would know that both sides of the House voted in favour of the recommendation for compulsory registration. As I said before, I believe that improvements must be made in the G.T.C.—most of us believe that—but because a small minority of Scottish teachers do not like it, the hon. Member apparently wishes to assume the right to stop the Government proceeding, and to accuse this Labour Government of things for which they are not responsible at all. I hope that those on the Front Bench opposite will not support their hon. Friend the Member for South Angus; and that both of these Amendments will be rejected.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In view of what has been said relating to—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I again remind the House that we cannot go into the whole question of the integrity of Scottish teachers or, indeed, into the question of registration. I allowed the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) some scope to reply to a point that was made, but all hon. Members must relate their remarks to the Amendments.
      Mr. Taylor: If a previous speaker was out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it does not mean that I, who have yet said nothing, will also stray.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise for being so suspicious.
      Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was seeking to imply that those teachers, whether in further education or in schools, who were not prepared to register were doing so, perhaps, because of bigotry or unreasonableness, or because they were being difficult—[Interruption.] That was the whole implication of the right hon. Lady's remarks. I suggest that when we are considering the position of further education teachers we should bear in mind that some of them, perhaps a considerable number of them, may not wish to register
      because they have strong, deep-rooted, conscientious or other objections to doing so.
      I therefore plead with the Government that in view of what has been said, they will in another place try to avoid a very real tragedy in respect of a small number of teachers by inserting a conscience Clause in the Bill. My hon Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was absolutely right in saying that we should do all we can to avoid the same tragedy as we had in relation to ordinary teachers. Although, admittedly, only a small number of teachers are concerned, the Government should at least bear in mind the fact that some of them object to registration on principle, and, in another place, make some provision for them.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 24, line 23, at end insert:
      (3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]
      Question put, That the Amendment he made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 182.

      Division No. 242.]

      AYES

      [9.0 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Astor, John

      Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

      Kitson, Timothy

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

      Emery, Peter

      Lews, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Longden, Gilbert

      Bell, Ronald

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Lubbock, Eric.

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Eyre, Reginald

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Fisher, Nigel

      MacArthur, Ian

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Fortescue, Tim

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Foster, Sir John

      Maddan, Martin

      Blaker, Peter

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Maginnis, John E.

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Gower, Raymond

      Marten, Neil

      Body, Richard

      Grant, Anthony

      Maude, Angus

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Mawby, Ray

      Brewis, John

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Bryan, Paul

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      More, Jasper

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Murton, Oscar

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Heseltine, Michael

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Clegg, Walter

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Nott, John

      Cooke, Robert

      Hiley, Joseph

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Corfield, F. V.

      Holland, Philip

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Percival, Ian

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Hornby, Richard

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Dean, Paul

      Hunt, John

      Pink, R. Bonner

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

      Jenkin, Partick (Woodford)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Jopling, Michael

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Doughty, Charles

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Pym, Francis

      Speed, Keith

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Wiggin, A. w.

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Royle, Anthony

      Temple, John M.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Wright, Esmond

      Scott, Nicholas

      Tilney, John

      Wylie, N. R.

      Sharples, Richard

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Younger, Hn. George

      Silvester, Frederick

      Waddington, David

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Smith, Dud'ey (W'wick & L'mington)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Weils, John (Maidstone)

      Mr. Hector Monro.

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Fowler, Gerry

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Anderson, Donald

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Archer, Peter

      Gardner, Tony

      Moyle, Roland

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Neal, Harold

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Newens, Stan

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Gregory, Arnold

      Norwood, Christopher

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Ogden, Eric

      Barnett, Joel

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Oram, Albert E.

      Baxter, William

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Orme, Stanley

      Bence, Cyril

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Padley, Walter

      Binns, John

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Blackburn, F.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Haseldine, Norman

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hazell, Bert

      Park, Trevor

      Booth, Albert

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Boston, Terence

      Hilton, W. S.

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Boyden, James

      Hooley, Frank

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Bradley, Tom

      Horner, John

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Brooks, Edwin

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Pentland, Norman

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hunter, Adam

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Hynd, John

      Probert, Arthur

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

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Rankin, John

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

      Richard, Ivor

      Cant, R. B.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Carmichael, Neil

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

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Chapman, Donald

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Ross, Rt, Hn. William

      Coleman, Donald

      Judd, Frank

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, s.)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

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

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silverman, Julius

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Slater, Joseph

      Dalyell, Tam

      Loughlin, Charles

      Small, William

      Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Luard, Evan

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Summenkill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Dempsey, James

      McBride, Neil

      Tinn, James

      Dewar, Donald

      MacColl, James

      Tuck, Raphael

      Dickens, James

      MacDermot, Niall

      Urwin, T. W.

      Dobson, Ray

      McGuire, Michael

      Varley, Eric G.

      Doig, Peter

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mackie, John

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Eadie, Alex

      Maclennan, Robert

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

      Weitzman, David

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ellis, John

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      English, Michael

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Whitlock, William

      Ensor, David

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Manuel, Archie

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

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

      Mapp, Charles

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Faulds, Andrew

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Winnick, David

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Millan, Bruce

      Foley, Maurice

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Mr. John McCann and

      Ford, Ben

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Forrester, John

      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 24, line 23, at end insert:
      (3) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall have the effect of infringing the right of a teacher who has been dismissed for failure to register or re-register to enjoy superannuation benefits which would otherwise have accrued to him on retirement.
      The purpose of the Amendment is to protect the right of a teacher who has been dismissed for no other reason than failure to register or re-register with the General Teaching Council to enjoy superannuation benefits not only to the point at which he is dismissed under this bizarre procedure but to the point at which he would have retired in the normal way and become entitled to superannuation.
      I see one flaw in my Amendment, in that it refers to
      "… benefits which would otherwise have accrued to him …"
      I hope that the House will accept that "her" is subsumed in "him", and that no masculine bias is intended.
      I cannot now debate the merits of the manner in which a group of highly qualified and experienced teachers were sacked last year and another and much larger group are facing the threat of imminent dismissal this year. But I feel that we need clear assurances and explanations from the Government about the pension rights of these teachers, who have become the victims of the extraordinary mechanisms thought up in his bath or somewhere by the Under-Secretary of State.
      The scale of the matter should be emphasised. Last year, a score of highly qualified and experienced teachers were thrown out of employment and we are now asking about their pension rights. Currently, 7,000 teachers in Scottish schools have not re-registered since 1st April and should theoretically, by the letter of the Act, already have received notices of dismissal. Perhaps even at this late stage we can hear something about this from the hon. Gentleman, although that may be too much to expect. Perhaps the Government have cold feet. They should have done by now. But we have to assume that these 7,000 teachers, or a substantial proportion of them, may be thrown out of their employment, as their fellows were last year, and it is therefore
      1348
      all the more important that we should know what their rights and entitlement to superannuation will be.
      Paragraph 171 of the Wheatley Report suggested that certain rights, such as those of superannuation in relation to past service, would be preserved but that teachers must become registered in order, for example, to continue within the superannuation scheme for the future. If the Government had taken the line, as Wheatley suggested, that teachers already in employment and with years of experience but who decline to register would find their superannuations suffering there-from but not their employment as such that might have been an argument worthy of serious consideration, but the position is the other way round. The Government, like all weak Governments, have attempted to wield a blunderbuss. They have preferred the technique of dismissal and in this situation the question of superannuation entitlement becomes of prime importance.
      I understand that these people who have been or may be sacked will be entitled on reaching pensionable age to superannuation benefits accumulated by service up to the moment of their dismissal. But that is not good enough and I drafted the Amendment with a view to ensuring that if these people are to be sacked in this ludicrous manner, at least they should be entitled to continue to accumulate superannuation benefits as they would have done if they had been retained in employment from which they had been sacked for no character defect or shortcomings in their teaching ability until the point that they are due to receive such superannuation benefits in the normal course of events.
      9.15 p.m.
      I should like to think that the Under-Secretary will accept the Amendment, but, unfortunately, I know him better than that. Certainly we ought to have a clear explanation of what the pension position of these people is. I hope that hon. Members will feel that, in view of the circumstances of their dismissal, they should be treated in a particularly generous manner.
      Mr. Millan: I could not recommend the House to accept the Amendment despite the beguiling way in which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) moved it. Teachers who are

      1349
      dismissed for failure to register or reregister are in precisely the same superannuation position as teachers who leave the profession for any other reason; that is to say, if they have sufficient pensionable service to qualify for a pension, they will be entitled to receive a pension, and, if they do not, they will, like other people who leave the service, be entitled to repayment of the superannuation contributions they have made. That seems to be a very fair position and I would not recommend that we change it in any way.
      The hon. Gentleman suggests that people who leave the profession because of failure to register with the General Teaching Council should be treated particularly favourably and should get privileges under the superannuation scheme which are not available to people who leave the profession for any other reason. I could not recommend that to the House.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Under-Secretary's reply was as unsatisfactory as it was expected. He said that it was only fair that these teachers should be treated in the same manner as teachers leaving the profession in any other circumstances. I do not agree. Teachers may leave the profession in all sorts of circumstances, of their own free will, or because they are guilty of some offence, or have disqualified themselves by some action which effectively diminishes their ability to teach. These people are being thrown out of the profession for no reason other than their refusal to succumb to Government bullying and threats. For those reasons they are entitled to special consideration.
      I am dissatisfied with the proposition that some may not have achieved sufficient years of service to obtain a pension at the point at which this sledge hammer has been thrown at them by the Under-Secretary. In those circumstances, I should be much happier if the Amendment were included, because it would do some small thing to rectify a disgraceful injustice.
      Mr. Woodburn: The teachers wanted the scheme modelled on the General Medical Council, which has the right to ensure that doctors are registered and can compel them to be so registered before they can practise. Does the hon. Gentleman propose that this scheme of his
      1350
      should be applied to the medical profession as well, and should take away the rights of the General Medical Council?
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not sure that I would be in order to answer that. My answer is that, of course it is one thing to require people entering a particular profession, as doctors are required, to undertake a particular form of registration as one of the procedures involved in entering the profession. It is quite another thing not only to impose a similar obligation on people of many years' experience and qualification already in the profession, but to go around saying, "We will drum you out of the profession unless you sign on the dotted line tomorrow or the next day." That is the real point and that is where unfairness arises.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 19

      SCHEMES FOR REORGANISATION OF EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS: PROCEDURE, APPEAL, MAKING AND EFFECT.
      Amendment made: No. 27, in page 26, line 9, leave out 'subject to subsection (6) below'.—[Mr. Millan.]
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 27, line 23, at end insert:
      (9) Where the Secretary of State causes a draft scheme or a scheme to be published under this section, he shall cause to be prefixed to that draft scheme or scheme a memorandum setting out—

      (a) the reasons why, in his view, the reorganisation of the endowment to which the draft scheme or scheme relates is necessary;

      (b) the respects in which the draft scheme or scheme involves any substantial alteration of the purposes to which the said endowment is applied or applicable; and

      (c) the reasons for any such alteration;

      and for the purposes of the provisions of this section relating to publication, that memorandum shall be deemed to be part of the draft scheme or scheme, as the case may be.

      Procedure in preparation of reorganisation schemes by Scottish Universities Committee of Privy Council by virtue of s. 118(5).

      125A.—(1) Before making, by virtue of section 118(5)of this Act, a scheme for the reorganisation of any endowment the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council (hereafter in this section called 'the Committee') shall prepare a draft scheme and shall—

      (a) send copies of the draft scheme to the governing body of the endowment to which the draft scheme relates; and

      1351
      (b) cause the draft scheme to be published in such manner as it thinks sufficient for giving information to all persons interested in the scheme;
      and the governing body of that endowment or any other person interested in the scheme may, not later than the expiry of the period of one month from the first publication of the draft scheme, send in writing to the Committee objections to the draft scheme, or proposed amendments thereto, or both.
      (2) If within the period referred to in subsection (1) above no objection and no proposed amendment to the draft scheme is received by it, the Committee may make the scheme in the terms of the draft scheme published under that subsection, and it shall be lawful for Her Majesty by Order in Council to approve the scheme so made.
      (3) If within the said period objections or proposed amendments to the draft scheme are received by it, the Committee shall consider those objections and proposed amendments and may thereafter, if it thinks fit, frame a scheme in such form as it thinks expedient.
      (4) If the Committee frames a scheme under subsection (3) above, it 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 its decision with respect to those objections or amendments;

      (b) send copies of the scheme to the governing body of the endowment to which the scheme relates;

      (c) cause the scheme to be published in such manner as it thinks sufficient for giving information to all persons interested in the scheme;

      (d) cause to be published, along with the scheme, a notice—

      (i) stating that, unless not later than the expiry of the period of one month from the first publication of the scheme an appeal is presented to the Court of Session in accordance with the following provisions of this section, the Committee proposes to make the scheme in the terms in which it has been published, and that the scheme when so made may be approved by Her Majesty by Order in Council; and

      (ii) drawing attention to the provisions of subsection (6) below in such a way as to inform all persons concerned of their right under that subsection to present a petition to the Committee and of the effect of their so doing.

      (5) If within the period referred to in paragraph (d)(i) of subsection (4) above no appeal is presented as aforesaid to the Court of Session, or if any appeal so presented is refused by the Court, the Committee may make the scheme in the terms in which it was published under that subsection, and, subject to subsection (6) below, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty by Order in Council to approve the scheme so made.
      (6) If within the said period a petition praying that the scheme be laid before
      1352
      Parliament is presented to the Committee by any of the persons mentioned below, the Committee shall cause the scheme to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, after the scheme has so lain for forty days (in reckoning which period no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days), by Order in Council to approve the scheme unless within that period either House has resolved that the scheme shall not be proceeded with, in which case no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice, however, to the making of a new scheme.
      The persons referred to above in relation to a scheme under this section are those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 125(6) of this Act in relation to a scheme under that section.
      (7) Subsection (8) of section 125 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section, with the substitution, for the references to the Secretary of State and to subsections (4) to (7) and (3) of that section, of references to the Committee and to subsections (4) to (6) and (3) of this section respectively.
      (8) Subsection (9) of section 125 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section, with the substitution, for the references to the Secretary of State and to that section, of references to the Committee and to this section respectively.
      (9) For the purposes of this section, references to an endowment shall be construed as references to a university endowment or the Carnegie Trust and references to the governing body of an endowment shall be construed as references to the founder or the governing body or the university court of any university, with respect to a university endowment, and to the Carnegie Trustees, with respect to the Carnegie Trust.
      Perhaps it be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss Amendments 29 to 31, 47, 55 and 56.
      Mr. Speaker: I have no objection if the Opposition have none. I am guided by the Opposition—unanimity.
      Mr. Millan: Rather unexpected, but we have it for once.
      These Amendments are necessarily lengthy and set out the procedure for the making of schemes or the reorganisation of endowments by the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council. When we were dealing with other Amendments in Committee to do with the reorganisation of endowment schemes I said that I did not think that we had got the provisions right for the application of the procedure for the reorganisation of the endowment schemes

      1353
      of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Coucil and, therefore, we might have to put down Amendments on Report.
      These Amendments are necessary to get the procedure right. The background to this is that under Section 118 of the 1962 Act and the Bill as it stands, the Scottish Universities Committee has like powers in relation to the university endowment schemes and the Carnegie Trust as the Secretary of State has in relation to educational endowments. I thought it necessary to set out in detail what the powers of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council were. The new Section included in the first Amendment does that. The procedure is quite similar, though not identical, to that in the new Section. The main difference is that university endowment schemes will continue to be made by the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council and approved by Her Majesty by Order in Council, and educational endowment schemes will now be made by Statutory Instrument and such approval will be unnecessary.
      It would be simplest if I were to say a word about each Amendment so as to get it on the record for those hon. Gentlemen who are interested. I deal first with Amendment 28. The new subsection (9) of the Section 125, which is the first part of this Amendment, reproduces the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 127 as set out in Clause 19. The previous reference is taken out by a subsequent Amendment. The new Section 125A is rather lengthy. Subsection (1) sets out the procedure to be followed by the Scottish Universities Committee in preparing a draft scheme. Subsection (2) provides for the making and approving of a scheme when no objections are sent to the Committee. Subsection (3) deals with the procedure for framing a scheme when objections or proposed amendments are sent to the Committee. Subsection (4) deals with the procedure after a scheme has been framed. It provides for the publication and circulation of the scheme and for the giving of notice that, unless an appeal under subsection (2) is presented to the Court of Session or a petition is presented to the Committee within one month of publication, the scheme will be made and approved by Order in Council.
      1354
      Subsection (5) provides that when no appeal is presented to the Court of Session, or if any appeal is refused by the Court, the scheme may be made and, if the scheme is not required to be laid before Parliament, approved. Subsection (6) provides for the laying of the scheme before both Houses of Parliament if a petition is presented to the Committee. Unless either House resolves, within 40 sitting days, that the scheme shall not be proceeded with, it may be approved by Order in Council. Subsection (7) deals with the position when the Court of Session decides, on appeal, that a scheme is contrary to law. Subsection (8) provides for the publication, with a draft scheme or scheme, of a memorandum explaining its purpose. Subsection (9) defines, for the purposes of the Clause, "endowment" and "governing body".
      Amendment No. 29 is consequential on Amendment No. 28. Amendment No. 30 is also a consequential drafting Amendment. Amendment No. 31 has the effect of deleting the proposed Section 127. As I have said, subsection (1) of the proposed Section 127 is included in Amendment No. 28. Subsection (2) is omitted because, in our view, it is not necessary to provide specifically for endowment inquiries. There is already provision in education legislation.
      Section 68 of the 1962 Act enables the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry for the purpose of the exercise of any of his functions under the Act, and in future any endowment inquiries will be held under Section 68. Therefore, no special provision is required. Amendments Nos. 47, 55 and 56 are drafting and consequential Amendments.
      This is a rather elaborate matter, but it seemed better that we should lay out the procedure in full than try to deal with it by reference to the other procedure with perhaps a good deal of amendment which would make it unintelligible. The Amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 28, constitute a consecutive story of the means for reorganising the university endowments concerned, and I hope that the House will accept them.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Wright: I should like the Under-Secretary of State to clarify one or two points. I accept that he warned us in Committee that he was not sure that we

      1355
      were right about the application of the new procedure to the powers of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council. In the preceding paragraph he admitted that he did not expect members of the Standing Committee to follow with absolute understanding every word of what he said. I doubt whether tonight the House followed with absolute understanding every word of what he said. For this reason, I should like to ask three questions.
      I accept that the new subsection (9) is the old Clause 127. However, the Minister will appreciate that by putting it in this form he is giving to the Secretary of State, as a preliminary rôle, a function which precedes the work of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council. Are we to understand that all initiative must emanate from the Secretary of State or the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council? This is an important point to which I shall return later.
      I should like to get clear that this is the sequence in which action will be taken by the Minister, and not merely a descriptive piece on the processes of legislation.
      Secondly, may I be absolutely clear that there is no threat to the whole question of university endowment? It is not proper for us to discuss that, but the House will understand that this is a subject in which universities are very much involved. They are all going through the process of rethinking their endowments. I imagine that one reason why the Carnegie Trust is mentioned is that this, too, is under discussion. I should like to be assured that the autonomy of universities still exists, and that this is not the thin end of the wedge of gradual erosion of university freedom.
      May we be reminded about the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council? Does the Committee consist of university people or officials of the Department of the Secretary of State? I hope the Minister will not mind if I say that I would prefer it to be more strongly representative of university people than of officials of the Secretary of State.
      These are basic changes. The Under-Secretary of State will accept that no mention was made of this except in the
      1356
      paragraph to which he referred. I doubt whether I fully understood, for instance, that the Carnegie Trust would be included in this broad remit. This matter affects not only the original universities under the Carnegie Trust but all the new universities, since this has been the subject of legislation and of discussion in the courts. I therefore press him on the point.
      I am particularly worried by subsection (9):
      "For the purposes of this section, references to an endowment shall be construed as references to a university endowment or the Carnegie Trust".
      This is tackling the whole character of private benefaction to the universities which has continued for more than 400 years, and I should not like this to be transferred to the Secretary of State.
      Finally, will the Under-Secretary assure us that there was full consultation with the universities and with the Carnegie Trust before this new Clause was introduced?
      Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned subsection (9). I think he has misplaced that subsection, since if he looks again he will see that it comes at the end of new Clause 125 and does not come in as a preliminary to the provisions dealing with university endowments which are in Clause 125A. The Amendment consists of two pieces, but since it runs consecutively it is put down altogether. The two parts are separate, and the first part relates to the previous Clause. He can be reassured on that point.
      The hon. Gentleman asked who takes the initiative. The initiative is taken not by the Secretary of State but by the universities and the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council. There is no change in the basic relationship, and there is, therefore, no question that these provisions will diminish university autonomy. We are simply revising the procedure for reorganisation and, I hope, making it basically simpler. I cannot off-hand explain all the points of simplification, but the hon. Gentleman will remember that we have cut down an elaborate procedure on educational endowments into a procedure which is still elaborate but not quite as bad as it was before. It is a similar kind of process with which we are dealing.

      1357
      Similarly, the Carnegie Trust has already been subject to the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council. There is nothing here which introduces anything new in regard to that Trust.
      Obviously, these matters are discussed with the bodies concerned. I am not aware of when the discussions took place or of how elaborate they were, but I have no reason to suppose that the universities are in any way unhappy about our proposals. The general balance of initiative remains as it is at present.
      The hon. Member also asked me how Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council is made up. It is a slightly complicated matter, but basically the constitution of the Committee is covered by Section 9 of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889.
      The Committee is not composed in the way the hon. Gentleman feared or expected. It is composed of the Lord President; the Secretary of State; the Lord Justice General, if a member of the Privy Council; the Lord Advocate, if a member of the Privy Council; the Chancellor of each of the universities, if members of the Privy Council—in many instances they will not be—the Lord Rector of each of the universities, if a member of the Privy Council; one member at least of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and such other members as may be appointed by Her Majesty. The powers and duties may be exercised by any three members, one of whom should be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or one of Her Majesty's Senators of the College of Justice.
      At present the three members for this purpose are the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate and Lord Guest, who is
      a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They all seem eminently respectable people, and I am sure that they have very much at heart the interests of the universities.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 29, in line 24, leave out from 'made' to 'in' in line 27 and insert:
      'or approved under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall come into operation—

      (a) except as provided in paragraph (b) below, on the date of the making of the statutory or other instrument containing, or (as the case may be) the Order in Council approving, the scheme;

      (b) in the case of a scheme contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament in pursuance of section 125(6) of this Act, on such date as may be specified in that statutory instrument;

      and shall have effect'.
      No. 30, in line 33, leave out from 'statutory' to end of line 36 and insert:
      'or other instrument containing a scheme made (otherwise than by the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council), or an Order in Council or other instrument approving a scheme, under this Part of this Act'.
      No. 31, in line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on Page 28.—[Mr. Millan.]

    Clause 27

      AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
      Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 30, line 25, leave out from 'until' to 'and' in line 27 and insert '1st August, 1970'.—[Mr. Millan.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 124.

      Division No. 243.]

      AYES

      [9.37 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Booth, Albert

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Anderson, Donald

      Boston, Terence

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Archer, Peter

      Boyden, James

      Dalyell, Tam

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Bradley, Tom

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston. N.)

      Brooks, Edwin

      Davidson, James (Abenfeenshire, W.)

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

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

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Barnett, Joel

      Buchan, Norman

      Davits, Ifor (Gower)

      Baxter, William

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

      Dempsey, James

      Bence, Cyril

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Dewar, Donald

      Benn, Rt. Hn, Anthony Wedgwood

      Cant, R. B.

      Dickens, James

      Binns, John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dobson, Ray

      Blackburn, F.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Doig, Peter

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Coleman, Donald

      Dunnett, Jack

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

      Judd, Frank

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Eadie, Alex

      Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lawson, George

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Ellis, John

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      English, Michael

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Ensor, David

      Loughlin, Charles

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Luard, Evan

      Probert, Arthur

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

      Lubbock, Eric

      Rankin, John

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Richard, Ivor

      Fernyhough, E.

      McBride, Neil

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      McCann, John

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      MacColl, James

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Foley, Maurice

      MacDermot, Niall

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      McGuire, Michael

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Ford, Ben

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Forrester, John

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

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

      Fowler, Gerry

      Mackie, John

      Silverman, Julius

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Slater, Joseph

      Gardner, Tony

      Maclennan, Robert

      Small, William

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire. W.)

      Gregory, Arnold

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Tinn, James

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Manuel, Archie

      Tuck, Raphael

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mapp, Charles

      Urwin, T. W.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Varley, Eric G.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Haseldene, Norman

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Hazell, Bert

      Millan, Bruce

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Hilton, W. S.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Weitzman, David

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Horner, John

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Moyle, Roland

      Whitlock, William

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Neal, Harold

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Newens, Stan

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Hunter, Adam

      Norwood, Christopher

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Hynd, John

      Ogden, Eric

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Oram, Albert E.

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Orme, Stanley

      Winnick, David

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Oswald, Thomas

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P

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

      Padley, Walter

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

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

      Paget, R. T.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Mr. J. D. Concannon and

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Park, Trevor

      NOES

      Allsen, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Doughty, Charles

      Jopling, Michael

      Astor, John

      Drayson, G. B.

      Kershaw, Anthony

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

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Awdry, Daniel

      Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Emery, Peter

      Kitson, Timothy

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Longden, Gilbert

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Fisher, Nigel

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      MacArthur, Ian

      Blaker, Peter

      Fortescue, Tim

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Foster, Sir John

      Maddan, Martin

      Body, Richard

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Maginnis, John E.

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Gower, Raymond

      Marten, Neil

      Brewis, John

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Maude, Angus

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mawby, Ray

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Bryan, Paul

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Monro, Hector

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      More, Jasper

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Heseltine, Michael

      Murton, Oscar

      Clegg, Walter

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Cooke, Robert

      Hiley, Joseph

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Corfield, F. V.

      Holland, Philip

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clirheroe)

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Hornby, Richard

      Percival, Ian

      Dean, Paul

      Hunt, John

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      1360

      1361

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Pounder, Rafton

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

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Smith, John (London & W'mineter)

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Pym, Francis

      Speed, Keith

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Rees-Davies, w. R.

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Renton, Rt. Hn, Sir David

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

      Wright, Esmond

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Temple, John M.

      Wylie, N. R.

      Royle, Anthony

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Younger, Hn. George

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Tilney, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Sharples, Richard

      Waddington, David

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Silvester, Frederick

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Mr. Anthony Grant.

      Amendment proposed; No. 33, in page 30, line 36, leave out from 'until' to end of line 38 and insert '1st August, 1970'.—[Mr. Millan.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 131.

      Division No. 244.]

      AYES

      [9.50 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Mapp, Charles

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Ford, Ben

      Marks, Kenneth

      Anderson, Donald

      Forrester, John

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Archer, Peter

      Fowler, Gerry

      Mikardo, Ian

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Millan, Bruce

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Gardner, Tony

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Barnett, Joel

      Gregory, Arnold

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Baxter, William

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Bence, Cyril

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Moyle, Roland

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Neal, Harold

      Binns, John

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Newens, Stan

      Blackburn, F.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Norwood, Christopher

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Ogden, Eric

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Haseldine, Norman

      Oram, Albert E.

      Booth, Albert

      Hazell, Bert

      Oswald, Thomas

      Boston, Terence

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Padley, Walter

      Boyden, James

      Hilton, W. S.

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Bradley, Tom

      Hooley, Frank

      Paget, R. T.

      Brooks, Edwin

      Horner, John

      Palmer, Arthur

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

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Park, Trevor

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

      Hunter, Adam

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Hynd, John

      Pearson, Arthur (Ponypridd)

      Cant, R. B.

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Janner, sir Barnett

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Coleman, Donald

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

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Probert, Arthur

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

      Rankin, John

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Richard, Ivor

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lawson, George

      Host, Rt. Hn. William

      Dempsey, James

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Dewar, Donald

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Dickens, James

      Loughlin, Charles

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

      Dobson, Ray

      Luard, Evan

      Silverman, Julius

      Doig, Peter

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Slater, Joseph

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Small, William

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

      McBricle, Neil

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Eadie, Alex

      McCann, John

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      MacColl, James

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      MacDermot, Niall

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Ellis, John

      McGuire, Michael

      Tinn, James

      English, Michael

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Ensor, David

      Mackie, John

      Urwin, T. W.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Varley, Eric G.

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

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Istes)

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Faulds, Andrew

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Fernyhough, E.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Weitzman, David

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Whitlock, William

      Foley, Maurice

      Manuel, Archie

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea. W.)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Mr. J. D. Concannon.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Astor, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Pearson, Sir Fank (Clitheroe)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Percival, Ian

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Pounder, Rafton

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Niger

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Heseltine, Michael

      Pym, Francis

      Blaker, Peter

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Body, Richard

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Holland, Philip

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Brewis, John

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Royle, Anthony

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hornby, Richard

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hunt, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Bryan, Paul

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Sharples, Richard

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Jopling, Michael

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Kershaw, Anthony

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

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      King, Evelyn (Dorset. S.)

      Speed, Keith

      Clegg, Walter

      Kitson, Timothy

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Cooke, Robert

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Longden, Gilbert

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

      Corfield, F. V.

      Lubbock, Eric

      Temple, John M.

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Tilney, John

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Dean, Paul

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Waddington, David

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

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne valley)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Maddan, Martin

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Doughty, Charles

      Maginnis, John E.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Marten, Neil

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Maude, Angus

      Wiggm, A. W.

      Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

      Mawby, Ray

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Mitcheil, David (Basingstoke)

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Fisher, Nigel

      Monro, Hector

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wright, Esmond

      Fortescue, Tim

      More, Jasper

      Wylie, N. R.

      Foster, Sir John

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Gower, Raymond

      Murton, Oscar

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grant, Anthony

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Nott, John

      Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

    Schedule 2

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 33, line 33, leave out paragraph 5.
      In Committee, with the support of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) and the late Mrs. Alice Cullen, I proposed a new Clause providing that if any Scottish local authority was to reduce significantly the amount of time devoted in its curricula to religious instruction, it would be required to go through the referendum procedure provided in Section 8 of the 1962 Education (Scotland) Act. This referendum provision exists initially so that if any local authority decides to remove absolutely religious instruction
      1364
      from a school curricula it will have to go through a referendum and all the electors of the county will be consulted.
      When we were discussing the new Clause the Under-Secretary, in a very full reply, said in column 651:
      "It is a pity we are dealing with this matter as a new Clause rather than on the proposal in the Schedule for the elimination of Section 9(2) of the 1962 ACt."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March 1968; c. 651.]
      For this reason a Division on the new Clause did not occur.
      We have tabled the Amendment to avoid the repeal, which the Government propose, of Section 9(2) of the 1962 Education (Scotland) Act.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Concannon.]

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Mr. Taylor: When discussing the new Clause, the Minister gave several reasons, which appeared to be valid, why we should have no concern about repealing Section 9(2) of the 1962 Act. However, many people in Scotland view with conscern the removal of what appears to be a safeguard for the continuance of religious instruction in Scottish schools.
  In Committee the Minister explained that Section 9(2) was introduced last century not with the intention of trying to achieve the objects which those who had tabled the new Clause had in mind. It had not been introduced, he said, for the retention of religious instruction but to protect children of minority denominations from having their secular education undermined by the holding of religious instruction at indiscriminate periods throughout the day.
  On the other hand, with the passage of time, Section 9(2) has come to be regarded as a safeguard which could be operated in the event of a local authority seeking to reduce to negligible proportions the amount of religious instruction given in its schools. I am not suggesting—indeed, I have no information which would lead me to believe this—that any Scottish local authority has plans at present to take such a course.
  Mr. Dempsey: If a local authority decided to reduce the amount of time devoted to religious instruction in a school, how would Section 9(2) of the 1962 Act operate as a safeguard?
  Mr. Taylor: Section 9(2) says:
  "The time or times during which any religious observance is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school shall be specified in a table approved by the Secretary of State."
  Thus, if a local authority at any time in the future had plans to make such a
  1366
  reduction, then, if the Secretary of State was prepared to operate Section 9(2)—which calls on local authorities to submit their religious instruction timetables to him for approval—it would operate as a safeguard.
  In Committee it was clearly pointed out that for many years Section 9(2) had not been used and that it was not envisaged that there would be circumstances in which it would be operated because no local authority had a proposal for such a reduction. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind the peculiar situation in Scotland whereby the only safeguard we have against the removal or great curtailment of religious instruction operated by local authorities is Section 8, which will continue in existence and which says, in effect, that if a local authority seeks to remove religious instruction, there must be a referendum of the local electors. However, this is only one safeguard and I believe that the retention of Section 9(2) could be a more effective safeguard in the second event; that is, should a local authority seek to reduce religious instruction time substantially.
  Earlier in Committee concern was expressed in a letter which the Archbishop of Glasgow had sent to all hon. Members of the Committee. Dated 12th February, it pointed out that Schedule 3 of the Bill proposed to repeal Section 9(2) of the 1962 Act and added:
  "I ask that this subsection be retained. I understand that up to present this subsection has not been observed and the Secretary of State has not been asked to approve a time table for religious instruction. It is feared that if the subsection be repealed, a Headmaster might be in a position to reduce to almost negligible proportions the time for religious instruction or observance, particularly in Schools which were not provided by the Local Authority under Section 17(2) of the 1962 Act and which are Public Schools used by Catholic children."
  Concern was also expressed by members of the Church of Scotland, and the Minister indicated that discussions would be held following the Committee stage. On 30th April I asked the Minister the outcome of those discussions, and the right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "Representatives of the Education Committee of the Church of Scotland discussed the proposal … with officers of my Department on 20th March. They accepted the Department's assurances that the repeal of this obsolete provision would in no way jeopardise the statutory safeguards in Section 8 of the

  1367
  Act, for the continuance of religious observance and instruction in Scottish schools."
  That was never contested. It was never suggested that repeal would remove the essential safeguard contained in Section 8 of the 1962 Act, which stated that no local authority could stop religious instruction altogether. That has never been in doubt, and the Minister's statement was a fair statement of fact. But his Answer went on:
  "No further meeting has been held with the Roman Catholic authorities since the meeting of 7th February at which they expressed reservations about the proposed repeal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1969: Vol. 782, c. 243.]
  In view of the letter we all had, the statement that no discussions had been held since 7th February, when the Roman Catholic authorities expressed reservations about the proposed repeal, causes concern.
  In Committee we had another such matter, which was the Government's proposal to remove the safeguard for transfer to denominational schools. The Government then said that the provision was of no great significance or of any great relevance, but we pointed out that in the minds of the authorities it was a safeguard. The Government then readily, and courageously, admitted that they might have made a mistake, changed their minds, and retained the position. We are now dealing with something that is almost identical. This safeguard has not been used for years and it may never have to be used, but it certainly does no harm, and its retention would give comfort to a substantial number of people in Scotland. In those circumstances I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to its retention.
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he has had any representations that Section 9(2) should be removed. He may think that removal is essential for tidying up purposes and that it should be done in review legislation, but I suggest that he will have had few, if any, representations to that effect from any authority or from any person.
  It is important to remember the very special situation we have in Scotland, which is quite different from that in England and Wales, in respect of the provision of religious instruction, which would certainly be affected by this
  1368
  Amendment. South of the Border, Her Majesty's Inspectors have a specific and statutory responsibility for ensuring that religious instruction is provided in State schools. The various G.C.E. examination boards conduct examinations in the subject. I understand that in England and Wales in 1963 about 72,000 candidates were presented for "O" level in religious knowledge, and that about 41,000 passed.
  The position in Scotland is quite different. We have no inspection whatever. We are prevented by our law, for historical reasons which are important and, I think, correct, from having any inspection of religious instruction. Our teacher training regulations make no provision for training in religious instruction. We have no examinations under the old law, and the new Scottish Examination Board has not approved an examination in religious instruction. In those special circumstances, which are so completely different from those in England and Wales where there is inspection and examination, it is important that we should have this safeguard
  Sir Myer Galpern: Will the hon. Member tell the House how many chaplains are specifically appointed in Scottish schools to deal with religious instruction?
  Mr. Taylor: Most of the schools in Glasgow have honorary chaplains and that is the situation throughout most of Scotland. There is a move in Glasgow to try to extend the work of specialist teachers of religious knowledge A statement was made in a public speech on 19th January by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is responsible for education in England, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) that this was a time when those concerned with retaining religious instruction should "man the barricades"
  Since then there has been an Adjournment debate which was promoted by the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) in which he put forward a case for abolition of religious instruction in schools. This is a matter of concern in England, but how much more signfiicant is it in Scotland where we do not have the protection of inspection and examination? This little safeguard should be retained.

  1369
  The Secretary of State may say that we have protection through the local authorities, which are elected by the people, and any decision on a matter like this would have to be taken by local authorities. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) rightly said, the school chaplains perform a valuable function in the schools. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind the concern in many areas about the quality of religious instruction. Many hon. Members who were at school 25 years ago will be concerned about the way in which time for religious instruction in the curricula is used. In some places it is used splendidly, but in others it is used merely for swotting for examinations. This is not to be encouraged.
  The Secretary of State said that a committee had been appointed under Professor Miller to review the whole question of religious instruction in schools. We await its findings with interest. In view of the concern expressed by an important church in Scotland, the concern by the religious instruction subcommittee of Glasgow Education Committee, which decided unanimously that the safeguard should be retained, and in view of the growing ground swell of the Humanist movement in our community, this safeguard should be kept.
  The Secretary of State might say that it is not a great safeguard, but it does allow him to call for time-tables and to approve or disapprove them. To that extent it is a safeguard. If he thinks it is not an ideal or important safeguard and that it would not be of real value if it came to the crunch, would he be prepared at a future stage to insert some other safeguard? The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), the late Mrs. Cullen and I put forward an alternative. I hope that the Government will propose another one if they are not to keep the provision of Section 9(2). The Government would be well advised to leave things as they are. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: This is not a party matter in any sense. It is of great importance to many people in Scotland, irrespective of their political
  1370
  allegiance. The present practice should be continued, because there is a good deal of flexibility. If teachers are not prepared to give religious instruction, they are not forced to do so, but there are enough teachers in Scotland who are sufficiently interested in religious education and are more than willing to give such instruction.
  What we really want are the necessary safeguards, and I am very pleased to see the Secretary of State on the Front Bench opposite, because I know his interest in these matters. If he is prepared to give us an assurance that all will be well, that religious teaching will be safeguarded, that the necessary time will be devoted to it, and that the time allocated to the subject will never be reduced to negligible proportions, I, and I think my hon. Friends, will support him. I shall be very interested in what he has to say.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I should like to add my support to the Amendment, because I think that it is widely regarded as a safeguard. The provision may not be called into use very often, but there is no doubt from the volume of correspondence that I and I am sure other Members, including the Secretary of State, have had, that this is a matter about which many people feel deeply. It strikes at the heart of much of the history of the whole of Scottish education, and it is worth while paying particular attention to this.
  I received a letter in this evening's post from a teacher in what she describes as the largest primary school in Europe. It is certainly the largest in Glasgow. She expresses very well the anxiety felt not only by the many parents who have written to us but by the many teachers who do so much to make the religious instruction in schools worth while.
  It is also important to remember that we have all had a letter from the Archbishop of Glasgow pointing out the strength of feeling in his community. I doubt whether any other Scottish Member has been convenor of a Catholic school for more than 10 years. My close association with education in those days has made me fully aware of the importance of religious instruction in such

  1371
  schools. The link between the church and the school in every town and village in Scotland in this respect is remarkably impressive, and should be retained. We should pay attention to people when they feel as strongly as they do in this connection.
  I know that the Church of Scotland feels more confident about the continuance of its educational opportunities in the schools. But if it does, that is partly because of the system of appointing chaplains, which is much more universally accepted by the Church of Scotland than it is in the Catholic schools.
  Those concerned with Catholic education in Scotland, which has a long and honourable history, should recognise that if this safeguard, as they regard it, is to be removed a very strong assurance is required from the Secretary of State, or, better still, an alternative provision in the Bill should be accepted. I urge the right hon. Gentleman most strongly that this be done.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I ask the Secretary of State to consider carefully what has been said in favour of the Amendment. All changes are not necessarily good and I cannot see why this provision was ever included in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it has caused a great deal of concern. I have had many letters from constituents on the subject. I do not know whether they are Roman Catholics. It is impossible to tell. But they have expressed concern and they are right to do so.
  There may be nothing sinister about this provision but it looks as though perhaps it is something sinister at a time when there is so much humanist talk about and also when everyone is aware of the dangers of the permissive society. Surely that sort of time is the very last time in which a change should be made which seems to undermine religious instruction in schools.
  Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment, I hope that he will at least say that he will reconsider the matter and see what can be done at a later stage of the Bill.
  Mr. William Hamilton: It would be unfortunate if this debate were to conclude without the other side of the coin being presented. I was brought up in a very religious home. I was given and I myself gave religious instruction in school and I would deprecate failure to give religious instruction to children of school age and above. But I doubt whether school is the right place to do it. There is a strong case for regarding this duty as that of the parents and of the churches, and I must say that the letters I have received have been few in number. Some have expressed the view that children ought not to be put in the position of having to be taken out of religious instruction because the parents object to their having it in school. That kind of situation can be disastrous for the balance of the child. Its temperament may be disturbed by being singled out because of the prejudices—if you like—of the parents.
  This could be avoided by not making it obligatory on education authorities to have religious instruction in the schools. I repeat that I quite see, as we all do, that moral and ethical standards should be taught to children, and it need not necessarily be called religious instruction and need not, indeed, be based on biblical teaching. In my experience in schools, very often the religious instruction has not been based on biblical teaching. Often, people giving religious instruction or presumed to be giving it were in fact simply teaching moral standards, teaching the children how to behave as decent human citizens without reference to biblical connotations of any kind.
  We should be very careful not to seek to brain-wash children at this or any age without their being in a position to challenge what is being taught. The word "sinister" has been used and it could be used on both sides of the argument. We should be very careful before we seek to do this sort of thing to children. If their parents feel sufficiently strongly about the matter, they will see that, outside school hours, the children are given such religious instruction as they think right and proper to give them, and that should be in the home and in the church to which the parents belong.
  Mr. Dempsey: I was not a member of the Committee when this matter was discussed, but I have paid close attention to the benign views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). However, I am sure that he would be the first to admit that not all parents are as responsible and as thoughtful as he is about religious tuition. I am sure that he would also be the first to admit that one of the most important subjects to be taught in any school is the subject of the Law of God. I can think of many other subjects which are not so nearly important as the subject of believing in the Almighty and understanding His ways.
  I am not evangelising, but I say sincerely that when on a Sunday I am coming home from my church and I see people who never move out of the door on a Sunday and who never send their kiddies to church, I am convinced that if these children had to depend on religious instruction in churches, many of them would never even hear of the Word of God. I often say that but for the evangelist on a Sunday, in my own part of the country some of the children would not know that God existed.
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: So what?
  Mr. Dempsey: So what? We have to get back to God. If we believe, and I hope that we do, that the Law of God and the Word of God and the Deeds of the Almighty are important to the life of our community and our society, I can think of nothing more important at the present time. It is our duty to teach the children in school, in church, in the home, and in all other places, and I hope that the House will approach the problem from that point of view.
  Why is this safeguard in process of being removed? The present Secretary of State for Scotland is a man of great integrity and character and acknowledged to be one of the most religious persons not only in the House, but in Scotland. I am convinced that he would be the last ever to submit or condescend to reducing the amount of religious instruction in schools. I make that absolutely clear. I am therefore anxious to ascertain what has led him to take
  1374
  this view, and that is the problem with which I am trying to wrestle.
  Is he completely satisfied that this provision is unnecessary? This is what we all want to know. Ministers change and next month he may be the Foreign Secretary for all we know and we may have a new Secretary of State for Scotland. We therefore have to legislate with a degree of security about the teaching of religious instruction in the schools. This is the view which I have strongly held all my life, not only since I came to the House of Commons, but when I was a boy. Even before my school days I believed in religious instruction. I have tried to see that my children got religious instruction at school, that they went to church and had it there, and we ensured that they had it at home. It moulds their character and makes them fine citizens.
  Both churches in Scotland have some degree of reservation about this provision. Both have met my right hon. Friend. One has accepted his assurances and the other has had some reservations. They have obviously been co-operative with Governments and local authorities and there must be some valid reason why they are uncertain about the need for the removal of this safeguard.
  The alternative suggested has been a referendum among parents. Time after time the House has rejected referenda as a system of assessing the opinions of the people of Scotland. We rejected a proposal for a referendum only a few weeks ago and I am surprised that there is talk of a referendum as a possible safeguard.
  I know for a fact that the churches are now spending a considerable sum on training clergymen to be full-time chaplains. Only recently I met one who was training at a college in London to be a full-time chaplain to play his part in moulding the minds and opinions and characters of young people as an antidote for society in general against vandalism and hooliganism and the other ugly experiences of a minority of young people in this country.
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would my hon. Friend like to cite the evidence to support his assertion that the teaching of religious instruction has any effect on the social behaviour of young people? Having looked at this matter in some detail, I

  1375
  assure him that there is no evidence. If he looks at the evidence of young people going to Catholic schools, where the level of religious instruction is very high, he will find that there is a much higher delinquency rate among those groups than among children who receive very little religious instruction.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Dempsey: If my hon. Friend approaches the matter from another point of view and considers the percentages of people committing acts of violence and other crimes, he will find that those who have been taught religion are much better behaved. I could take him to a place where there is deep religious tuition, and one could leave anything a mile outside the town and go back later and get it. Nobody would dream of touching it simply because the people there always remember the Ten Commandments, which are extremely important in moulding the characteristics of young people. In the area from which I come the converse is the case. The cause which leads the majority of people to misbehave and misconduct themselves is bad parenthood. There is a parental problem here because the children are not taught right from wrong at home or anywhere else.
  Let us be fair and frank. Surely we all agree that religious tuition cannot do any harm, but must do some good. I believe that my right hon. Friend has no intention of reducing the amount of religious instruction in schools. If he has no such intention, and he decides to remove this safeguard, would he say what he intends to put in its place? This is extremely important. This could be a fateful decision in the history, not only of Scotland, but of the rest of the United Kingdom. Everyone should declare his interest. I get letters from all sort of people and of all denominations asking me to give them an undertaking. I shall strive with might and main to retain religious instruction in the schools.
  From the Midlands I was asked to become a patron of a society formed to retain religious instruction in the schools. It is non-denominational. I believe in Christian religion and Christian instruction in the schools. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that there is no danger of religious education being interfered
  1376
  with by any Secretary of State or any Government in this country.
  Mr. Ross: I am crowded down by a sense of Scottish history, and I must contain myself about religious education in Scottish schools. The Church of Scotland was built up on the basis that the State had no hand in it. It claims the great privilege of being a national church and yet a free church. The expressions of the history of the development of the church are there equally in respect of my powers concerning religious education in the schools. I am an instrument of the State. This is why there is a difference between the position in Scotland and the position in England.
  I have no power to hold examinations in Scottish schools. But all these things are written in history and no one has tried to change them and no one has suggested that we should change them. The real safeguard for Scottish religious education is in Section 8 of the Education Act, 1962, not Section 9, and I assure hon. Members that this Secretary of State will not tamper with it. If hon. Members on both sides had been paying attention to what we have been doing about this matter since we became the Government, they will have noted that, because I was dissatisfied with the quality of religious education in schools, I set up a Committee to go into it and to advise me on ways of improving it.
  Fifteen representations in favour of the preservation of religious observance and instruction have been received by my office in the last eight weeks. They have all been in general terms, with no mention of Section 9(2). I am sure that the writers have been disturbed by general discussion of this matter here, rather than in relation to anything that has happened in Scotland.
  I make it quite clear that I would not have taken the decision to leave out paragraph 5 if in any way it removed a safeguard for religious education in Scottish schools. We have heard speeches by three hon. Members who have been members of local education authorities. Who are supposed to send timetables to the Secretary of State of Scotland for approval? The answer is the local authorities. They have never sent any such timetables. As for the education authority of which the hon. Member for

  1377
  Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was a member, no request for approval of timetables has been seen over the last 20 or 30 years. What kind of safeguard is this? It just has not been used.
  Why was it put in? It was put in because of the situation which I described earlier. Section 9 is called the conscience clause. Every public school and grant-aided school in Scotland is open to pupils of all denominations and any pupil may be withdrawn by his parents for any instruction in religious subjects.
  I remember that when I was a boy at school some of the pupils did not appear for the bible period. The requirement in respect of timetables was that they should be approved for religious instruction, and there did not seem to be an undue loss of secular education concerning the times at which religious instruction was given. It was not a safeguard for religious instruction, but a safeguard for those who did not want religious instruction.
  It should not be suggested that this provision provides a safeguard for the maintenance of religious instruction. The safeguard for the maintenance of religious instruction is in Section 8, and in respect of education authorities there is a statutory requirement about who shall be members. Included in the ad hoc committee of the education authority are members of both the main denominations of Scotland, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic communities.
  There has been a great deal of misleading information as to what is intended and what will be the effect. If this really were a safeguard then hon. Members would have been demanding, long before I was Secretary of State, that their local authorities should send timetables to the Secretary of State for approval and that they should be approved by him. Local authorities have never done so. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart never even knew of its existence until he saw this Schedule. This is a strange kind of safeguard, if indeed it is a safeguard at all. No timetables have been submitted or approved for many years. The provision is in complete disuse.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: Surely the safeguard lies in the fact that any parent
  1378
  who wishes to complain that religious instruction is not being included in the curriculum can go to one of the committees—the parents' committee or the convenor of the school or whoever it is—and say that this is not being done so that the safeguard can be brought into operation and the matter referred to the Secretary of State. This is how I, as a local authority member, always regarded it. I have always regarded the fact that it was never used as part of the fact that it remained a safeguard.
  Mr. Ross: The words are perfectly clear:
  "The time or times during which any religious observance is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school"—
  that is the 3,000 schools in Scotland—
  "shall be specified in a table approved by the Secretary of State."
  It is a statutory responsibility placed upon those in control of the schools to send it to the Secretary of State for approval, and it is for the Secretary of State to approve or disapprove it. There has been no case of any of these tables being sent to the Secretary of State over the last 20 or 30 years. It should be a matter for approval by hon. Gentlemen opposite who, like myself, have been concerned about the continuing efficacy of religious education in schools, that this safeguard to allow children to be withdrawn from religious education is no longer being used.
  As the Joint Under-Secretary of State indicated in Committee, it is significant that it is included in the conscience clause. Its inclusion there was intended to separate religious from secular instruction, and to regulate the time during which religious instruction was given, or religious observance practised, in order that dissenting parents could exercise their right to withdraw their children.
  In Glasgow, religious instruction took place between 9 o'clock and 9.30 on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. On Friday, it was temperance, morals and manners. I know it, because I taught it. Certainly no one in my classes ever withdrew from religious instruction. They knew that it was the right thing to be done.
  I think that there is and should be more concern about the quality of religious instruction taught in our secondary

  1379
  schools, but that is not affected by the Amendment. It was not, as has sometimes been suggested, designed to provide a safeguard against any attempt by an education authority or a head teacher to curtail the time set aside for religious instruction. Nor, indeed, has it ever been invoked for this purpose. The real safeguards for religious observance and instruction are in Section 8 of the 1962 Act and in the education authorities themselves.
  My officials have discussed the proposed repeal of Section 9(2) with the Roman Catholic hierarchy and representatives of the Education Committee of the Church of Scotland. The letter from the Church of Scotland following these discussions reads:
  "In the first place I should have written to thank you for receiving Dr. Bigwood and myself on the 20th March to discuss the clarification of the intention to repeal subsection (2) of Section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962. Dr. Bigwood has asked me to say how much he appreciated the courteous way in which we were received, and I personally am very grateful to you and your colleagues for the consideration you gave to our representations. So our reassurances were accepted. If it is acceptable to the Church of Scotland I do not think it can be suggested that what we are doing is so deleterious to religious education in Scotland."
  The Roman Catholic authorities, at a meeting on 7th February, expressed reservations about the repeal. It is, however, fair to point out that the statutory safeguards for religious instruction and observance in denominational transferred schools—and the Roman Catholic schools of Scotland are dealt with by the local education authority since we are much more enlightened than south of the Border—are to the satisfaction of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
  10.45 p.m.
  Religious education is carried on, and the safeguard is in Section 21 of the 1962 Act which makes it clear that the time set apart for religious instruction in any such schools
  "shall not be less than that so set apart according to the use and wont of the former management of the school."
  There are also provisions for the appointment of supervisors of religious instruction, without remuneration, and
  1380
  so on. This has always been satisfactory to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and is today, and we have applied de facto to the schools which have been built since then exactly the same circumstances in relation to religious instruction.
  I do not want anyone to raise—and I hope that no one in Scotland will—this false point about an attack on religious instruction in Scottish schools. That is not the case. The membership of the committee which has been set up is, I think, such as to command a certain measure of confidence in its ability to look realistically into the matter, and I hope that following the advice which I shall receive from it we shall be able to make provision for improving the quality of the religious education in schools.
  I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in these matters, and I hope that he will appreciate mine, too, but in the light of that explanation I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I asked four questions, and we have not received the clarification that we require. The right hon. Gentleman said that the real safeguard lay in Section 8 of the 1962 Act, which contains a provision for a referendum in the event of the total withdrawal of religious instruction. Subsection (2) contains a slight safeguard against reducing the amount of religious instruction to negligible proportions. If Section 9(2) goes, what safeguard will there be against a local authority some time in the distant future reducing the amount of time allowed for religious instruction to negligible proportions—not withdrawing it; reducing it to negligible proportions?
  Section 9(2) provides a slight safeguard. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is no safeguard. If it is no safeguard at all, why is it that all the appointed members from the churches in the Glasgow Education Committee area unanimously asked for it to be retained? If it is not a safeguard, why do the Archbishop of Glasgow and the Roman Catholic authorities wish it to be retained? Are they wrong, and have they no grounds for concern?

  1381
  Next, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, not the question of denominational schools, where there is full protection under Section 21, but the position in those areas where there are no denominational schools and where Roman Catholic children have to go to ordinary State schools? What protection will there be for the religious instruction of these children if the time is reduced? This was the principal point in the Archbishop's letter.
  The last thing in the world that we want is a vote on an issue like this. I want to avoid it at all costs, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear those matters in mind? What protection is there against a local authority reducing the time for religious instruction to negligible proportions? Once Section 9(2) goes, what protection will there be?
  Mr. Ross: What protection is there in approving or disapproving time tables? I cannot force timetables upon them. It is not within my power as Secretary of State so to do. What happens if I disapprove? Let us follow this through.
  Mr. Younger: I presume that if they are obliged to submit a programme for the right hon. Gentleman's approval and he disapproves that programme they have not carried out the undertaking laid down in the Act?
  Mr. Ross: They have not done that for 30 years.
  Mr. Younger: They have not been asked to.
  Mr. Ross: It is not because they have not been asked to. This is a statutory requirement, but they have not done so for 30 years. We are getting on to some false points. This was something to allow it so to be arranged that people could withdraw their children from religious instruction without any effect on their secular education. It was for their consideration that this was done. But there has been no demand for this provision, because parents have not withdrawn their children from religious instruction. [Interruption.] I am talking about Scotland. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) may smile about England, but we have a different set of standards in Scotland.
  1382
  The hon. Member for Cathcart asks what the safeguard is. I return to the point that it is in Section 8, and in the quality of local authorities. We must appreciate that point and maintain their quality. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) will fully appreciate that.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart has done us a good service in making clear that there is no attack upon religious education in Scottish schools; nor is there likely to be. That being so, I hope that he will not cloud the issue by creating a division where there is no need for one.
  Mr. Galbraith: Why does the right hon. Gentleman introduce this change? Why not leave things as they are?
  Mr. Ross: Because this is obsolete. No one has been sending me these timetables. Why clutter up the law in this way?
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I am not happy with the reply of the Minister. We have had an assurance, but I am not happy. I put down the Amendment on my own and I am grateful for the support that I have received from my hon. Friends. Although I am not happy, it would be very unfortunate to have a vote on the matter, and with a great deal of reservation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 34, line 5, at end insert:
  (c) in subsection (3), for the words from 'training' to the end there shall be substituted the words education or training provided by the authority under section 1(3) of this Act, articles of clothing suitable for such physical education or training'.
  This is a minor drafting Amendment to paragraph 7 of Part I of the Schedule. It brings the wording of subsection (3) of Section 11 of the 1962 Act into line with the wording used elsewhere.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 34, line 22, after 'authorities)', insert—(a).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it would be convenient to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 37 and 48. All three go together.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): If that is the wish of the House, so be it.
  Mr. Millan: The Amendments provide for the repeal of subsection (2) of Section 15 of the 1962 Act. That subsection empowers the Secretary of State, after due inquiry, to issue an order transferring an endowed school to the education authority for the area, provided that the annual revenue of the school is less than £1,000. This provision was originally made in the Act of 1908, at a time when intermediate and secondary education was being developed. It presumably served the dual purpose of enabling the Department to put the smaller and less efficient endowed intermediate and secondary schools out of business and of providing the school boards with school buildings which they would otherwise have had to provide themselves.
  If that was the purpose, it is not relevant to present-day standards. I am sure that no hon. Member would expect us compulsorily to transfer any endowed school to the education authority for the area concerned. It would not make any sense to try to bring this up to date by putting in a different figure from £1,000. It is completely obsolete.
  For that reason these Amendments eliminate this provision.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 37, in page 34, line 23, at end insert:
  (b) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Millan.]
  No. 38, in line 32, at end insert:
  (a) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Millan.]
  Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 34, line 36, leave out
  'school, junior college or other'.
  With the leave of the House, I suggest that with this Amendment we also discuss Amendments Nos. 40, 41, and 42.
  The effect of these purely drafting Amendments is to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) during the Committee stage. They omit references to schools and junior colleges from the revised subsections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the 1962 Act contained in paragraph 12 of Part 1 of Schedule 2, and are thus intended to
  1384
  achieve consistency of wording in the Section as amended. Subsections (3) and (4) as amended will refer to 'educational establishments' instead of 'schools, junior colleges or educational establishments'. Since the definition of 'educational establishment' in Section 145 of the Act includes schools and junior colleges, the Amendment involves no substantive change.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 40, in page 34, line 39, leave out 'school, college or'.
  No. 41, in line 41, leave out 'schools, junior colleges and'.
  No. 42, in line 46, to leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 35 and insert:
  (b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  '(4) Where the premises or equipment of any educational establishment under the management of an education authority do not conform to the standards or requirements applicable to that establishment or are not maintained as mentioned in subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the authority, direct that the premises or equipment be brought into conformity with the said standards or requirements or into the state of maintenance mentioned in that subsection (as the case may be) within a period to be specified in the direction; and it shall thereupon be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction.'
  No. 43, in page 35, line 5, at end insert:
  13. In section 20 (acquisition of land and execution of works), in subsection (1), after the word 'may' there shall be inserted the words 'subject to the provisions of subsection (1A) below,'.—[Mr. Millan.]
  Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 35, leave out lines 6 to 11.
  I would suggest that with this Amendment we also discuss Amendments No. 49 and 51 in Schedule 3.
  These Amendments are consequential on the decision of the Standing Committee to remove Clause 3 as originally presented; that is, the Clause which repealed Section 16 of the 1962 Act which relates to the transfer of denominational schools to education authorities. The reference to Section 16 in Sections 21 and 22 of the 1962 Act, which respectively

  1385
  set out the privileges accorded to transferred schools and provide for their discontinuance, are restored, and Section 16 is removed from the list of enactments repealed in Schedule 3.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 35, line 23, leave out paragraph 16.
  With the permission of the House I would also discuss at the same time Amendment No. 52.
  The effect of these Amendments is to preserve the existing wording of Section 27 of the 1962 Act which gives education authorities power to conduct or assist the conduct of educational research. The present Amendment to Section 27 deletes the words,
  'or assisting the conduct of'.
  This Amendment was made on the assumption that the words were unnecessary since the new Section 25 set out in Clause 5 gives an education authority power to make payments to any person to assist the carrying out of educational research. On reflection, however, we think that a power to make payments is too narrow. An authority might assist research, not by making payments, but by making facilities available; for example, facilities such as schools. It is not absolutely clear that that kind of assistance would be covered if we deleted those words. Therefore we have reinstated them here. This is an enhancement of the local authority's powers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Millan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 46, in page 37, line 16, at end insert:
  32. Section 98 (service of notices) shall cease to have effect.
  With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 53, if the House agrees.
  These Amendments provide for the repeal of Section 98 of the 1962 Act. That Section set out the procedure for serving notices or other documents under the Act. However, Clause 24 of the present Bill provides for the service of notices under the Bill, and under the principal Act, and we no longer require Section 98 of the 1962 Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 47, in page 37, line 19, leave out from 'words' to end of line 22 and insert:
  '"and—

  (a) except as mentioned in paragraph (b) below, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply for that purpose;

  (b) section 125A of this Act shall apply in place of section 125 thereof in relation to the procedure to be followed by the Scottish Universities Committee in preparing a scheme under this Part of this Act."'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Schedule 3

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED
  Amendments made: No. 48, in page 42, line 39, column 3, at end insert ', and subsection (2)'.
  No. 49, leave out line 40.
  No. 50, in line 45, column 3, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (2) and'.
  No. 51, leave out lines 46 to 52.
  No. 52, in page 43, column 3, leave out lines 3 and 4.
  No. 53, in line 23, column 3, at end insert Section 98.—[Mr. Millan.]

Schedule 4

  TRANSITIONAL AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 54, in page 45, line 40, at end insert:
  (2) In this paragraph the expression 'local authority' shall have the same meaning as in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968:
  Provided that until section 1(4) of the said Act of 1968 comes into operation the expression 'local authority' shall mean a local health authority within the meaning of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 (including a joint committee or board constituted under section 20 of that Act).
  No. 55, in page 46, line 6, leave out from 'made' to 'of' in line 8 and insert:
  'or approved under the corresponding provision of Part VI'.
  No. 56, in line 10, after 'State', insert:
  'or the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council'.—[Mr. Millan.]
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  As I said in moving the Second Reading, I regard this as a valuable Bill which recognises that the reforms and developments which are constantly

  1387
  taking place in education and in educational practice must be reflected in statute. The only provision that has provoked long discussion is that which will do away with fee paying in schools run by education authorities in Scotland as from 1st August, 1970.
  I do not propose to rehearse the arguments in favour of this very necessary change. They have been fully covered on Second Reading and in Committee. We on this side of the House have no doubt that the continuance of fee paying in education authority secondary schools is undesirable in itself and impossible to reconcile with the Government's aim of comprehensive secondary education, or with Scotland's tradition of education. It would be unfortunate, however, if this Bill were regarded solely as the Bill that did that—abolish fees in about 20 Scottish schools or in the three Edinburgh and five Glasgow secondary schools on whose future the arguments on this provision have mainly turned. It is concerned with much more than that—with the education of all our children and young people.
  One of the most important Clauses is Clause 10 which sets out in detail a new and improved procedure for the ascertainment of children requiring special education or who are so severely handicapped that they cannot be educated and trained at all. In devising this new procedure we have had two main principles in mind—to safeguard the interests of these unfortunate children and to ensure that their parents are fully informed and given specific rights to appeal to the Secretary of State when decisions are taken. In all this we are not imposing on education authorities a new attitude to these proposals or a new relationship with the parents of handicapped children. We are trying to ensure as far as we can by statute that all attain the high standards of sympathetic concern and careful ascertainment which the best of them already practise.
  The new power in Clause 15 to prescribe the constitution and functions of the governing bodies of grant-aided colleges by regulations will enable us to modernise more quickly and effectively the constitutions of our central institutions. It is, I hope, unnecessary for me to repeat that we shall consult the existing
  1388
  governing bodies of central institutions before the new regulations are drafted. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said on Report, preliminary consultations are already in train.
  I do not propose to go through all the other provisions of the Bill in detail. It takes account of the changes which are taking place in education, recognising the essential unity of school education and accepting that a child guidance service is now a necessary part of the provision in many areas. I express my thanks to those hon. Members who paid particular attention to efforts to improve the Bill. They were not always successful in having accepted what they thought were the right ideas, but I thank them, and I commend the efforts of the Under-Secretary of State, whose work has been arduous and whose ability to clarify obscure issues has been a constant advantage to the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I shall state again, fairly briefly, on Third Reading, that we object strongly to the proposal in Clause 1 in which the Government are deliberately attempting to abolish the category of local authority fee-paying schools. We have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we are strongly opposed to the wanton destruction of this category of schools which over many years have built up standards and traditions of excellence in education in Scotland. It is easy to destroy what is good or outstanding, but it takes effort and work over many years to create or re-create.
  During the passage of the Bill, I am sorry to say, the Government have made this provision even worse, because on Report stage they have written into the Bill a date, just over a year's time, by which, if the Bill is enacted in this form, the abolition of these schools will be automatic instead of the matter being left to an order which the Secretary of State might or might not bring forward later. This means that if the Bill is enacted in this form, fee-paying schools are due to be abolished on 1st August, 1970, no matter what happens in the meantime, for example the arrival of another Government with different views.
  This will happen unless there is amending legislation, and I therefore state categorically that the next Conservative

  1389
  Government will introduce that amending legislation in order to restore the tight to local authorities to charge fees if they wish to do so. The choice will again be at the discretion of the local authorities.
  We are opposed to the attempt to impose a uniform pattern of education on all areas and all local authorities in Scotland. Different combinations and a different organisation are appropriate to different areas in Scotland. For example, in some rural areas where there is a scattered population the best arrangements are often different from what is appropriate to cities and large towns.
  It is schools in Edinburgh and Glasgow which are now threatened by this Bill. The whole nature of these schools will be changed. It is beyond doubt that the Government are determined to stamp out this kind of school. Naturally there is selection, but it is based on the ability of the pupils alone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has demonstrated, the parents of these pupils come from just about every occupation. The Secretary of State must be aware of the widespread opposition in Edinburgh and Glasgow to what he is proposing in the Bill. That opposition comes from all sections of the community.
  It is depressing to think that Parliament should be asked to pass a Measure aimed at deliberately extinguishing schools which have achieved the highest standards of excellence in education, schools with outstanding records of achievement. We in Scotland cannot afford to throw away such assets. We have resources of brains and ability. They should not be deprived of some of the opportunities that are now available to them.
  The Bill is not only bad for Scotland—remembering that to a great extent we shall in future depend on our young people of today and tomorrow—but it gives a misleading impression that in Scotland we do not value the excellence of education. The people of Scotland have always valued excellence in education and they will not willingly jettison it for doctrinaire reasons. We need to encourage establishments that can do so much for our promising young people, for Scotland's future will be largely in
  1390
  their hands in the coming years. We cannot allow the Government's philistine and destructive designs to pass without the strongest protest.
  On the payment question, in Glasgow it amounts to £25 a year. This is not an inhibiting factor, being equivalent to two packets of cigarettes a week.
  I repeat that the next Conservative Government will introduce the necessary amending legislation to restore the rights of local authorities to charge fees if they so wish. In the meantime, we thoroughly deplore the Government's attitude.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Woodburn: I completely refute the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). It is nonsense to say that the selection of pupils for these schools is made on merit alone. In any event, the inference is that all the others who do not get to these schools do not have merit. One must consider the question of parents who wish to pay the fees but whose children do not have the merit and of the children who have the merit but whose parents do not wish to pay the fees. This proves that many children are excluded from these schools, which means that there is no justification in the hon. Gentleman's argument that selection is based on merit alone.
  Moreover, in arguing in the way he does, the hon. Gentleman condemns the schools throughout Scotland, schools which have produced students who have gone to every part of the world and have distinguished themselves and Scotland. Many of those who take the hon. Gentleman's point of view never went to Scottish schools. I did not attend a Scottish fee-paying school. I was educated at a public school, in the Scottish use of the phrase, and the education provided at that and the other schools throughout Scotland was and is in no way inferior to the education provided in any school in Britain. That applies to a great many of our Scottish public schools, from which the great majority of Scots have come, and many of whom have then gone, to our nation's credit, to places all over the world. To seek to put a slur on them by saying that the only people of distinction have come from the few fee-paying schools is a disgrace to those who do so.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt unwittingly, saying what I did not say. I did not say that all the people of distinction come from certain schools, but I did say that those schools have made a remarkable contribution to Scottish education.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: I cannot let the no doubt well-intentioned remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) pass without saying that he spoke with great sincerity but totally off the whole point of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). If one is trying to make a point, it is the simplest thing in the world to do so by demolishing an argument that has never been put forward. I could do the same thing, but I do not propose to waste the time of the House in doing so.
  I agree with the Secretary of State that it would be a pity if the Bill were to be thought of only as destroying the fee-paying schools. There is much in it that is good. I refer particularly to the improved arrangements for assessing and dealing with handicapped children.
  I support what my hon. Friend has said about the truly deplorable move to destroy the right of local authorities to have fee-paying schools if they so wish. After what has gone on earlier, it is strange to find a complete somersault by the Treasury Bench. In reply to Amendments moved from this side, Ministers have said again and again that it is good that local authorities should be able to decide matters for themselves. They have asked why we cannot leave the local authorities to decide about religious education, and all the rest. Then we have the somersault, and it is suddenly wrong for local authorities to decide in favour of fee-paying schools. I can assure the Government that they have not heard the last on that point.
  What about the financial effects of the Bill? Here we have a Government which can afford to do hardly anything, now throwing away £¼ million. Plenty of things that need to be done in Scotland could be done with that amount of money. The Secretary of State chooses this time to take £¼ million out of the education service. Is he so rich, so well endowed,
  1392
  so well able to look after the needs of the country that he can afford to throw back such a sum to those who are willing to pay it? I am sure that he can look forward in the next few months to suggestions about how £¼ million could be used in various ways in Scotland.
  What about the removal of choice? The Government may think that they have got away with the Bill, but I ask right hon. and hon. Members opposite to put themselves in the position of parents living in one of those parts of Scotland which are desperately short of teachers, where the schools are inadequate, and schooling is only part-time. If their child is academically bright, those parents at present at least have the chance, be it large or small, of getting that child into a school where the teaching and the amount of education will be adequate to get it to university. After the Bill is enacted, that chance will have gone. The child will have to stay at the school to which it is allocated, even if the staff is inadequate and the education is only part-time.
  Where is the equality there? The only solution these parents will have is to move to one of the areas where education is good. Where can they find money to do that? It is all right if a parent is well-off. Then he can buy a house in Bearsden where education is better, but these parents cannot do that. This will be the effect of destroying the fee-paying schools. The people it will hit will be those who have not the means to move from council houses and from areas where education is not so good.
  I hope that the Government will realise that they should change their priorities of spending to bring schools up to the staffing standards we need. No doubt they have impressed on themselves that this is a great reforming Measure, but I think it means a reduction in the quality of education which can be offered. It is certainly a reduction in freedom of choice and a steam-rollering of local authorities which wish to run schooling in a different way from that of the Secretary of State. This is a very irrelevant vicious and destructive Measure which has been opposed by many thousands in the cities and by the Opposition. It should be opposed by everyone until local authorities are given back the freedom to have these schools if they wish. I am certain the Government will regret this action.
  11.22 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: As a Member for one of the constituencies in the city most affected, I wish to speak about fee-paying schools. Edinburgh has probably more fee-paying schools than any other town in the country. If all the arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite in favour of fee paying are sound, for heaven's sake let them get back to their areas and advocate it there—in Moray and Nairn, or Ayrshire, for instance. Areas outside Edinburgh and Glasgow do not have these schools, but are people in those areas at a disadvantage? If so, hon. Members opposite should be fighting for them.
  Mr. Younger: I am sure that the right hon. Member would want to be fair. I advocate that local authorities everywhere should have the right to fee-paying schools if they wish to have them.
  Mr. Willis: In the last six months I have not read any speeches by hon. Members opposite directed to their local authorities telling them of the great benefits to be derived from this form of education. It is a comment on the paucity of policy of hon. Members opposite that they should go to the barricades almost on this one issue. This is the sole educational issue on which they are prepared to go to the barricades. What is the issue?
  Mr. MacArthur: Freedom.
  Mr. Willis: Why does the hon. Member not fight for freedom in his constituency? Leave Edinburgh alone; we shall fight for freedom in Edinburgh. The freedom hon. Members opposite talk about is that a small minority of people should be allowed to continue to purchase an educational cachet for their children which will exempt them from most of the undesirable tasks in society. That is what hon. Members opposite are fighting for.
  Those people are obtaining that educational privilege at the expense of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. The poor people that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—I have thousands of them in my constituency—are paying through their rates and taxes for the minority to enjoy this privilege. Hon. Members opposite say that it is not a large fee—£25. It those people want that education, let them
  1394
  pay the full price, which is £400. Who pays the other £375? The taxpayer and the ratepayer, irrespective of their income. The Supplementary Benefits Commission pays through its supplementary benefits payment of rent and rates and goodness knows what so that a small group shall retain an out-dated privilege.
  I have made long speeches about this in the past, but now I would only congratulate the Government on at last having grasped the nettle, on at last trying to introduce at least into the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh a system that is fair and meets the needs of modern society in which we live. We cannot have a modern system of education in Edinburgh unless we make this change.
  Hon. Members: Rubbish.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Members who say "Rubbish" do not live in Edinburgh.
  Mr. N. R. Wylie: I live in Edinburgh, and I shouted "Rubbish".
  Mr. Willis: The hon. and learned Gentleman is one of the misguided few in Edinburgh who support fee-paying. But even the Education Committee in Edinburgh supported the Bill. It was the Burgh Council that turned it down, not the education experts on the Education Committee.
  Mr. MacArthur: Talk to them now.
  Mr. Willis: The Education Committee was not against the proposal.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend and hope that the change will be made in Edinburgh as quickly as possible, so that we can have a sensible system of education.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) rightly said that the two local authorities most directly concerned are Glasgow and Edinburgh. The main arguments have been fully canvassed in Committee, but I should like to put two points about Glasgow.
  Can the Minister now say anything about the physical problems that will arise in Glasgow as a result of the change? Almost all our fee-paying selective schools are concentrated in or near the city centre, where a small

  1395
  number of people in relation to our total population live. Precisely how can the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Glasgow Education Authority can change its system to territorial comprehensives by using these schools? We have no surplus of accommodation and no surplus of teachers; we have a shortage of teachers.
  Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that the only way is by a major bussing operation, by bringing children from the suburbs in buses to attend schools in the city centres and calling them territorial comprehensives when they are nothing of the sort? This is not comprehensive education. It is not a territorial comprehensive system if children are brought in buses from miles outside in the suburbs into the city. What could he the territorial area for the Boys High School, for Allan Glen's, for Notre Dame?
  The right hon. Gentleman may abolish fee-paying schools. He may abolish selective schools, but he cannot in Glasgow, at least for 30, 40 or 50 years, create a proper territorial comprehensive system with the stock of schools we have. Mention has been made of fees. Fees are not the major issue. If they are, why do not hon. Members opposite agitate against the schools with big fees? If big fees create privileged education, why not agitate against those schools which charge £200, £300, £400 or £500? Instead, they go for schools where the fee is 10s. a week. There may be a tiny fraction of the population which cannot afford even that fee but there are many thousands of children whose parents cannot afford the Gordonstouns of this world. If fees matter, why not go to the barricades and attack the high fee schools? Why go for the schools in Edinburgh and Glasgow where the fees are so small?
  The truth is that the Government are out to destroy selective education—that is the issue. In Committee, I offered to vote with the Government if, in exchange for the abolition of these fees, they would agree to retain the schools in their present form as selective schools, some as single-sex schools. It would be a good bargain to bring stability to education and we would not have what could be the appalling situation with schools
  1396
  switching backwards and forwards from selective to comprehensive and fee-paying to non-fee-paying. It is important to avoid this switching about in Scottish education. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept a compromise and allow selection to remain while abolishing fees?
  We object so strongly to this proposal because it will not bring equality—far from it. It will entrench inequality. I have no basis for these figures but I estimate that more than nine out of ten parents in Glasgow could, with a little sacrifice, afford to present their children for entry to these schools. Indeed, it might be 19 out of 20 parents. But at any rate it is the vast majority.
  What are the Government replacing this system with? They will no longer have the situation where bright kids from different areas go to these schools. Instead of academic selection, there will be rigid class selection, in which the best education, with no shortage of teachers, will be concentrated in nice areas. Instead of asking themselves whether they can afford to spend 10s. a week in fees, parents will ask whether they can afford £6,000 or £7,000 to buy a bungalow in a nice part of Edinburgh or Glasgow.
  One of the problems is that the way our cities are planned means that society is becoming more and more stratified. We have the working-class areas, the executive areas—in this part of England, the stockbroker belt. Opportunities for social mix are becoming less and less. If we are to have a competitive society with equality of opportunity, we must get away from rigid class divisions. But more rigid class divisions will be created in Edinburgh and Glasgow by this proposal. We have some of it already. In some areas, there is a bad teacher shortage; in other areas there is not. In some areas, a large proportion of the children stay on after school-leaving age; in other areas a higher proportion leave.
  The Government's proposals will make the problem worse. It will be utterly impossible for someone in a rough, tough area, where there are unavoidably, poor education and facilities, to break through. It will be impossible to have schools like the Boys' High School, Allan Glen's and Notre Dame where there is now a good social mix with kids

  1397
  from all sort of areas. We delude ourselves if we say that the fees matter; they do not. Fees could be abolished tomorrow without reducing the problem. The real problem is selective education which the Bill is to abolish. That is what the Government are after. They will create more rigid class divisions in our society.
  This is what we must battle against. We must oppose the Bill with all our strength. [Laughter.] English hon. Members opposite may think that this is funny, but it is not. The Government are creating a tragedy for the community of the year 1990 or 2000. We ought to try to break down the class divisions in our society. More important, we ought to try to provide equality of opportunity for everyone.
  We shall not be able to do that so long as we have some areas where the education problems are concentrated and we shall not overcome those problems by saying that we will give 50 quid for teachers in tough areas. These problems cannot be overcome unless there is social mix.
  I look forward to the day when we have selective education throughout. Of course it has its problems, for no system is perfect. But the Bill is a tragedy, for it creates more class divisions. The Government are making a terrible blunder and I wish that they would reconsider the Bill. We will not suffer for it and most of our children will not suffer for it, but the consequences of the Government's blunder will be seen in 20 or 30 years.
  11.37 p.m.
  Mr. Dewar: One or two hon. Members have already said that they are sorry that the debate has concentrated on the one issue of fee-paying schools. If that is a tragedy, it is a tragedy which the Opposition are making, for they have fought and agitated about practically nothing else. I do not entirely blame them for that, because I recognise that it is an extraordinarily emotive and important issue.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) that in this argument fees are comparatively unimportant. We are talking when discussing this small group of schools about our attitude to the development of the education system in Scotland
  1398
  and about the future of, for example, selection.
  I make no bones about it: I am unashamedly proud to say that I do not approve of selective education as it is represented by these schools. I do not think that an efficient system of selective education can be run. There are far too many distorting factors which are bound to enter into it. The child from the literate home, from the middle-class home, from the home which is educationally aware and educationally ambitious, will always have enormous advantages over the child from the housing scheme area, the child who does not come from that sort of background. With the best will in the world, if an education system is run on out and out selective lines, it has a built-in mix of children from the middle income groups who strive because that is their tradition. That is not necessarily a good thing.
  I am sure, too, that on the whole these schools are socially divisive. I recognise much of what has been said about the social mix in one or two of these schools, but many of them inculcate and encourage attitudes which are socially divisive. No one who has mixed with their products and their pupils would disagree with that.
  I recognise that there are many divisions, educational and social, in society. I recognise that the comprehensive system, for example, as the hon. Member for Cathcart said, means that we will get one area where there is a low education tradition and where only a small percentage of children are likely to go on to higher education and that a school in such an area may become an unfashionable comprehensive. This kind of demarcation may be built in by unfortunate zoning policies, or perhaps inevitable zoning policies, but this fault could be eradicated in many areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] In the system that hon. Members opposite defend and would perpetuate, educational apartheid, the build-in is inevitable. There the creaming off would take place and the élitist, separatist school would be set up and established. That is a much more dangerous and more certain educational stride than the occasional unfortunate—and I agree they may be unfortunate—unsatisfactory zoning arrangements.

  1399
  Take my city of Aberdeen where we are about to have 10 all-through comprehensive schools. There are two areas out of the 10 where we might say that the kind of satisfactory social mix that we all want does not exist. I regret that. But the system which these schools will replace is riddled with educational apartheid and distinctions about which we shall never do anything unless we are prepared to put through the educational reform for which the Government, by this Bill, are preparing the groundwork.
  I do not accept very many of these arguments. There is a tendency, again possibly an understandable tendency, for hon. Members opposite to say that these schools are good schools according to their standards. They may be. I have dissented from that view. But even if it were true, and even if they were desirable in themselves, we must look at the system as a whole. I am sure that the continuance of these schools would have an unfortunate and disastrous effect.
  We cannot run an efficient education system on comprehensive lines—and even on the benches opposite there are people who pay lip-service to the idea of comprehensive education—if in a city like Edinburgh or, to a lesser but still significant extent Glasgow we take from every area of the city all those children who are intellectually able and ambitious and cream them off into a small group of élitist schools in the centre. That would not work. The argument is not about whether we are victimising—and I think that we are not—the small group of people who get into these schools at the moment.
  We should be thinking about what we are doing for the whole of the education system and the tens and twenties of thousands of children who every year do not get the chance to opt into these privileged institutions but just have to go into the massive schools which, as the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said, are under-staffed and underprivileged and educationally inefficient. Those children cannot get out. They are stuck. These schools will continue to be in this state for much longer if the parent who is educationally aware is allowed to opt out and to say, "It is not my business because my little Jennie will not suffer".
  1400
  I want to harness the ambition which exists among these people, and which is rightly praised by hon. Members opposite, for the benefit of all the schools and children in Scotland.
  I am convinced that the Bill is an essential and necessary first step. People have said that this is the thin end of a wedge. I watch with interest and await with hope the report of the Commission on grant-aided schools. I hope that it will not be such an anti-climatic let-down as the report on the public schools. In one sense, for me this is not so much a fear as a hope.
  The Bill is a limited step forward. But it is an essential step forward, and I wholeheartedly welcome it and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Front Bench on having had the courage to make a start on an extraordinarily difficult and emotional topic.
  11.44 p.m.
  Mrs. Ewing: On Second Reading I expressed the view that comprehensive education is a good old Scottish custom. In so far as the Bill reverts to this tradition, the principle cannot be under serious attack. Concerning the time scale, criticism could be made and opinions could vary about how it should be put into operation. I have made my comments on that and I will not repeat them. However, that is not a sufficiently strong criticism to enable me to vote against the Bill.
  I cannot vote for the Bill because of the existence of Clause 18. I feel strongly and sincerely on the matter of the dismissal of certain teachers. The dismissal of a minority cannot be waved away by the argument that it is just a minority. When minorities have strong principles they are important and their rights must be considered.
  I wish to make two brief points. The first relates to entrance into the profession. A new entrant to the teaching profession knows that it will involve registration and he or she knows the present situation in regard to the G.T.C. When he enters the profession he makes a contract on a known basis. He can have no particular grievance, and it would be up to him to change the situation from within. But worthy of consideration are those who

  1401
  entered the teaching profession on a certain basis which was later changed without their consent.
  Their fault is that they committed the human error of not reading the small print. They should have studied a report which vitally concerned them and should have expressed disagreement. It is the lawyers who are accustomed to reading the small print; they are suspicious of it. But the teachers' attitude was one of trust. They did not feel it necessary to become lawyers and to study the matter as they should have done.
  My second point is that, fortunately, in the end only a small minority was dismissed. There is strong evidence, if one studies Parliamentary Questions and Answers over the period, to support the view that vast numbers of teachers registered reluctantly and against their principles. Should people be asked to act against their principles and to alter the basis on which many had been teaching for a lifetime?
  Bitterness has been caused in a profession which should be without bitterness. It is a profession which has so many other problems, staff shortages, large classes and other difficulties. Hon. Members will have received countless letters from teachers who had no particular scruple against registration but who deplored the dismissal of their qualified colleagues. Petitions were sent to me, as I am sure they have been sent to other hon. Members, and were handed over.
  Whatever solution is found to the problem, it cannot have been right to dismiss qualified teachers. I feel so strongly about the matter that I cannot support the Bill. I say so with the utmost sincerity. The situation is delicate and could get worse. The whole issue is alive again. It is not dead and buried. It may affect the training colleges and entrants may go into the profession with feelings of bitterness.
  There must be a solution. Clever draftsmen must be able to find a way out so as not to cause injustice to entrants. Surely an amnesty could yet be offered to the teachers who were dismissed. I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to consider the matter. I am sure that he is a clever Minister in framing Clauses. I appeal to him to find a solution to enable these teachers to be brought back into a short-staffed profession.
  1402
  Anyone who suggests that the teachers were insincere in what they did would do them an injustice. Many of them were in my constituency. One was a headmaster, and others were members of E.I.S. They did not feel it right that their contract of service should be altered. It is unusual for a person of repute to be dismissed not for an act of commission, but for doing nothing. That cannot be right. It is not common sense. We have large classes and a shortage of teachers. Perhaps the Minister will consider that he has made a mistake in the matter and will try to find a solution.
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: It would be churlish of some of us if we did not welcome the Bill. It is not generally known that even in England in 1944 there was a decision to get rid of fee-paying schools. The educational set up in England is different from that of Scotland, but we on this side would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend for bringing forward a reforming Measure which England abolished in 1944.
  We are grateful for the setting up of a General Teaching Council, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was an education administrator. I remember how the teaching profession longed so much for a General Teaching Council. It longed for professional status. It longed for the time when it would receive professional recognition on the lines of the British Medical Association—the B.M.A. as it is known.
  We do not challenge people's sincerity on this issue. When a person finds himself at variance with his colleagues, it is wrong that he should find himself out in the cold because he does not want to join the majority.
  Perhaps I might give an analogy from my experience as a miner. My trade union decided that a miner should not be allowed to go underground unless he wore a hard hat. Some said that they would not wear a hard hat. They were good, honest, decent people, but we had to say to them: "If you will not wear a hard hat you cannot go underground." This was not an infringement of freedom: this was a decision made by the majority.

  1403
  When we went further and decided that men should not smoke underground, some said that they wanted to smoke underground. But the majority said: "You will not smoke underground. If you want to become part of the industry you will have to do what the majority want to do."
  It is a rather strange argument that a minority can complain of having their freedom taken away from them because the majority have made what I should consider to be a sensible decision.
  I will not pursue this argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I see that you are rather anxious about the point that I am making. But in discussing freedom and decency, I should point out that those people in the mining industry were just as decent as those in the teaching profession. If people decide to go out-with it, they go outwith it because they themselves have decided in their own consciences to do so.
  Some significant facts emerged during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) came out firmly in favour of the principle of selective education. We on this side of the House do not accept that principle.
  One of the amazing points brought cut by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was that we were not only discussing fee-paying schools, but the question of the 11-plus, or the 12-plus as it is known in Scotland, and the five-plus. We consider that this is a ridiculous concept to apply in modern twentieth century education. To talk of freedom of choice and freedom in education is absurd when some of these fee-paying schools are applying the policy and principle of selectivity. Where is the freedom in education there?
  We have argued against selectivity and against the idea that we should have a system of education that writes off 60 per cent. of the school population and decides that only 40 per cent. may go on to some spheres of higher education. One of my greatest pleasures as an education administrator in my county was to see the abolition of primary and post-primary schooling.
  Some of us on this side of the House have as much experience of education
  1404
  as hon. Gentlemen opposite have. We do not challenge their sincerity, but some hon. Gentlemen opposite have not had the advantage of Scottish education. Some of them turned their backs on our system, and it is therefore difficult for us sometimes to listen to lectures on the kind of educational policy that we should have in Scotland.
  I know that my constituents would not want to go back to fee-paying schools. I know that the constituents of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) do not want to go back to them, either. I was for a time Chairman of the Education Committee in Fife, and I know that even in the great town of St. Andrews, the seat of the university, the people there do not want to go back to primary or post-primary fee-paying education. I played a part in abolishing the fee-paying system in that county.
  I said in Committee, and on Second Reading, that the Opposition had taken a trouncing on the basics of the argument. The people of Scotland do not want fee-paying schools. They do not want selectivity in education. They want a system of education which will give real equality of opportunity to the children. Since this Government have been in power the output of students from the universities has been greater than ever before. I have tabled Questions which show that the number of children going for "O" level certificates is higher than ever before. The policy against selectivity, and for comprehensive education, is paying off to the extent that it is opening a real gateway of opportunity for the education of our children. I give the Bill a very warm welcome, and I congratulate my right hon. Gentleman and hon. Friend on carrying it through the House.
  11.58 p.m.
  Earl of Dalkeith: The arguments for and against fee-paying schools have been deployed over and over again. I do not propose to imitate the gramophone record performance of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) who has treated us to the same performance on many occasions.
  Mr. Willis: A very good one, too.
  Earl of Dalkeith: I rise merely to place on record a final protest, in the

  1405
  strongest possible terms, on behalf of the many parents in my constituency, and throughout Edinburgh, who are deeply distressed at the Government's action in abolishing fee-paying schools. I believe that a great many of them—and many more parents outside—recognise this manœuvre for what it is—a pure Socialist doctrinaire, levelling-down policy to deprive parents of any form of freedom.
  This will do the Government no good at all when the votes are counted. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. He can afford to ignore public opinion in Edinburgh, because he is not standing for election again. He can leave it to his wretched successor to carry the burden.
  If the Government want to hammer nails into their own coffin, who am I to stop them? But I bitterly resent the fact that they are doing it at the expense of children and parents and their freedom, and, what is more important, the freedom of responsible local authorities to decide what sort of education they want to provide. I therefore register my protest in the strongest possible terms.
  Mr. Millan: The Bill generally has had a welcome from the House. It contains many useful provisions. At this late hour I shall not attempt to outline them, but I am glad that they have had a general welcome. I want to say a few things in reply to the points raised about the abolition of fee paying—not the abolition of fee-paying schools, which rather suggests that the schools are to be blown up or otherwise demolished at the date when the Bill comes into operation, but the abolition of fee-paying in local authority schools in Scotland.
  I can say for the Opposition, at least on this point, that they have maintained a consistent attitude all the way through. They started in a state of hysteria about this modest proposal, and this lasted right to the end. That attitude seems to come pretty naturally from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), but I was slightly surprised at some of his right hon. and hon Friends. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) repeated the pledge that a future Conservative Government would restore the right to have fee paying.
  1406
  It would be out of order for me to deal with such a hypothetical and wildly improbable set of circumstances as the return of a Conservative Government, but I find this pledge quite remarkable, apart from anything else, in the light of the history of this issue in England and Wales. English and Welsh Members opposite—if there are any Welsh Members opposite—must find it strange to hear this pledge apparently being given on behalf of a Conservative Opposition.
  I should be a little more impressed by this pledge if I thought that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn and his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire had attempted to persuade their own local education authorities to introduce fee paying in their areas. I know that their local education authorities are not interested in this, and that the hon. Members would get short shrift if they suggested that their local education authorities should introduce fee paying in their areas.
  All the way through, the burden of the argument of hon. Members opposite has been that in the absence of a certain element of fee paying in local authority schools there was a deficiency in the education provided by local education authorities. If they do not accept that proposition I find it rather difficult to understand what all the fuss has been about.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Gentleman might have listened to my opening speech, which I kept short owing to the lateness of the hour. I made it clear that in rural areas in the North of Scotland—such as the area that I represent—where the population is dispersed, different systems are appropriate. We say that local authorities should be able to do what is best for their areas.
  Mr. Millan: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member's evangelical fervour does not extend to his own constituency. All that I would say, in company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—and I speak as a Glasgow Member—is "Please leave Glasgow alone."
  The issue, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has recognised almost exclusively among his hon. Friends, is that of selection. I have never made any secret of

  1407
  that proposition. I should have found it easier to argue with the Opposition on this issue—and would have respected such arguments as we have heard from them rather more—if we had ever had from them a clear statement of their views about the selective system. We have gone through a tremendous amount of argument on the Bill and at the end of it I am as unclear of the Opposition's policy on selection as I was at the beginning.
  Mr. Willis: So are they.
  Mr. Millan: So are they—as my right hon. Friend says.
  I have made my view clear on many occasions. I look forward very much to the abolition of the selective system. That is the basis of Government policy. Its object is the promotion of comprehensive education in secondary schools. In the light of that policy, I make no excuse for the fact that I find fee paying inconsistent with our philosophy and, from the point of view of this Government, a complete anachronism. I am, therefore, happy to have been associated with this Bill and the abolition of fee paying. Parental choice is important, of course it is, but the selective system does not provide parental choice. I would except the need for the widening of choice but this can be done through the comprehensive system which, in Scotland, is more part of the tradition than it is in England, and we want to see it extended.
  The Opposition appears to be thinking in élitist terms. The hon. Member for
  Moray and Nairn talked tonight of producing able pupils and I spoke of the need to value excellence, I agree, but we must not look for ability and excellence in a small minority of children to whom the whole educational system is directed. We cannot run the kind of economy we have in this country at present unless we produce large numbers of capable children from our educational institutions, and that is the aim of the present Government and one which we have, in fact, demonstrated we are achieving.
  I accept that there are inequalities in the educational system and not all these inequalities arise only from the selective system or from fee paying arrangements. There are other inequalities, for example, those which arise from differences in home backgrounds. Those are something else and much more difficult to eradicate, but the difference between Her Majesty's present Government and the Opposition is that we wish to abolish these inequalities while right hon. and hon. Members opposite advocate policies which would perpetuate those inequalities. That is the difference between us, and this modest proposal which we make goes some way towards reducing the inequalities in our Scottish educational system.
  It is not, in itself, a major proposal, but it is in a Bill containing many other useful proposals and it is on that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 107.

  Division No. 245.]

  AYES

  [12.8 a.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Concannon, J. D.

  Foley, Maurice

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Anderson, Donald

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ford, Ben

  Archer, Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Forrester, John

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Gardner, Tony

  Barnett, Joel

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Binns, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Blackburn, F.

  Dempsey, James

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dewar, Donald

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dobson, Ray

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Booth, Albert

  Doig, Peter

  Harper, Joseph

  Boston, Terence

  Dunnett, Jack

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Boyden, James

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

  Haseldine, Norman

  Brooks, Edwin

  Eadie, Alex

  Hazell, Bert

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

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

  Ellis, John

  Hilton, W. S.

  Buchan, Norman

  English, Michael

  Hooley, Frank

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

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Horner, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fernyhough, E.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Coleman, Donald

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Hunter, Adam

  Hynd, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rowlands, E.

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Manuel, Archie

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Mapp, Charles

  Sheldon, Robert

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Marks, Kenneth

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

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

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Small, William

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Millan, Brucs

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Judd, Frank

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Molloy, William

  Tinn, James

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lawson, George

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Moyle, Roland

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Luard, Evan

  Neal, Harold

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Newens, Stan

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  McBride, Neil

  Norwood, Christopher

  Wellbeloved, James

  McCann, John

  Oram, Albert E.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  MacColl, James

  Orme, Stanley

  Whitlock, William

  MacDermot, Niall

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilkins, W. A.

  McGuire, Michael

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Palmer, Arthur

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Park, Trevor

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mackie, John

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Winnick, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Richard, Ivor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Grant-Ferris, B.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Astor, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Pym, Francis

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Blaker, Peter

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Royle, Anthony

  Body, Richard

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Boyle, R. Hn. Sir Edward

  Heseltine, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Brewis, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Sharples, Richard

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Holland, Philip

  Silvester, Frederick

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hornby, Richard

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hunt, John

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

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Smith, John (London & Westminster)

  Clegg, Walter

  Kimball, Marcus

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Cooke, Robert

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Maddan, Martin

  Tilney, John

  Dean, Paul

  Marten, Neil

  Waddington, David

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

  Maude, Angus

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Mawby, Ray

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Emery, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Eyre, Reginald

  More, Jasper

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fisher, Nigel

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wright, Esmond

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Murton, Oscar

  Wylie, N. R.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Younger, Hn. George

  Foster, Sir John

  Nott, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gower, Raymond

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Grant, Anthony

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL
  Not 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.

  AGRICULTURE (SPRING TRAPS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  AGRICULTURE (SPRING TRAPS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Clause 2

      MEANING OF APPOINTED DAY
      Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 1, line 13, leave out "the foregoing section" and insert "section 1 of this Act".
      12.15 a.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Marcus Kimball: May we have an explanation whether there is an approved trap for otters?
      Mr. Buchan: There is no approved trap, as was made clear throughout the Committee stage.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  VEHICLE AND DRIVING LICENCES BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  VEHICLE AND DRIVING LICENCES BILL
    Clause 2

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 1
      Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 2, line 21, at end insert—
      "() The Minister shall not make an order under the foregoing subsection with respect to the transfer of premises appearing to him to form part of premises held by a local authority for the purposes of relevant and other functions unless he has given notice to the authority of his proposal to make the order and has specified in the notice the time within which the authority may request that the order shall be in accordance with the following provisions of this subsection; and where the authority does so request and the Minister decides to make the order, then—

      (a) the order shall secure that the transfer is for such period only as the Minister may determine, being a period ending not later than the end of the period of seven years beginning with the transfer date; and

      (b) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the other terms of the transfer shall be such as may be specified in the order."

      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Michael Heseltine: In welcoming the Amendment I suggest that it is distressing that it has taken the Government so long to accept a point advanced first in Committee in this House, then on Report and again in Committee in another place. Finally the Government saw fit to accept the arguments which had been put forward—and they did so on Report in the House of Lords.
      This is a classic example of the success of the Opposition in the face of an immense amount of obstruction from the Government, who have taken so long to realise the rightness of the reasonable arguments which my hon. Friends adduced. We are naturally glad to support the Amendment, but it would have been more helpful had the Government accepted our case in the first place.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 8

      SURRENDER OF LICENCES
      Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 9, line 7, leave out "of duty" and insert:
      "by reference to which duty was".
      Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The purpose of the Amendment, which was moved by the Government in Committee in the Lords, is to put beyond doubt the intention that rebates of duty paid on surrendered vehicle licences should be calculated on the basis of the annual rate.
      Question put and agreed to [Special Entry].
      Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 10, line 3, at end insert new Clause "A":
      "A. For the purposes of sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1962 and of any other provision of that Act and any subsequent enactment relating to the keeping of mechanically propelled vehicles on public roads (including such an enactment contained in this Act and in particular section 10(3) of this Act), a person keeps such a vehicle on a public road if

      1413
      he causes it to be on such a road for any period, however short, when it is not in use there."
      Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The purpose of the new Clause, which was moved by the Government in Committee in the Lords, is to define the phrase "keeping a vehicle on a public road" in the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962 and subsequent enactments, with the result that duty is chargeable on a vehicle when it is kept on a public road for any period, however short.
      Mr. Michael Heseltine: I understand that the Government wish to introduce this provision because, as a result of recent cases in the courts, it has proved impossible to make certain charges stick when it has been argued that keeping a vehicle on the public highway meant, in fact, keeping it on the public highway for a very long period. I gather that it has not been possible to demonstrate precisely how long was constituted by "keeping" in this context and that the courts have not been prepared to find cases of this kind proved.
      Having taken another look at the legislation, the Government have come up with the new Clause. In other words, instead of trying to find a reasonable way of dealing with the matter—a way which would have enabled the Government to make the Bill enforceable and at the same time protect the individual who keeps his vehicle on the public highway for a very short period—the Government have, in an effort to get the legislation through speedily, trodden on the rights of the individual by saying that anybody who keeps a vehicle on the public highway for even a split second shall be liable to pay the duty.
      This is, to say the least, a careless way of drafting legislation. The Government should have devised a form of words which would have protected, say, the person who literally pushes a vehicle on to the highway and then immediately removes it. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that it is not intended to take action against people whose vehicles appear on the highway for such a short period, although I appreciate that even an assurance of that kind will not form part of the Bill.
      Mr. John Nott: I oppose the new Clause, and I will explain why at considerable length.
      By the means of an Adjournment debate, I tried to raise in the House for the second time the problems which face my constituents in the Isles of Scilly. I have failed to do so because Mr. Speaker has fairly pointed out that while this Measure was in the course of proceeding through Parliament, it was necessary for the matter to be raised on the Bill rather than in an Adjournment debate.
      It may be wondered how it is possible within the rules of order for me to bring the Isles of Scilly into a discussion of this Amendment, and I shall explain how I intend to do so.
      In the first place, the Amendment relates to the "keeping" and that is the crucial word
      "… of mechanically propelled vehicles on public roads …".
      I believe that the Amendment has been put down partially out of spite against my constituents in the Isles of Scilly, and I shall say why I believe that to be the case.
      When, in another place, Lord Winter-bottom moved this Amendment, he stated:
      "The difficulty with the word 'keeping' is that it implies keeping for an unspecified period of time, and this was made explicit by a ruling in the course of a Divisional Court hearing in 1962 of an appeal against conviction for the unlicensed keeping of a vehicle. It is becoming difficult to bring prosecutions and will increasingly become so if the Amendment is not agreed to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th March, 1969; Vol. 300, col. 1041.]
      The Government have produced this Amendment because in certain circumstances it is not at present possible successfully to prosecute a vehicle owner who has kept a vehicle on a public road.
      During the Report stage, I said:
      "The yield"—
      from taxing vehicles in the Isles of Scilly:
      "is likely to be very small, for an important reason. Section 6(6) of the Vehicle (Excise) Act, 1962, exempts vehicles from road fund licence which are intended to be used on public roads only in passing from land in a person's occupation to other land in his occupation. More importantly, Section 24 defines a public road as,
      'a road which is repairable at public expense.'

      1415
      On the mainland it is the presumption of law that where a road is being maintained by the inhabitants it is a highway maintained at public expense, but in the Isles of Scilly the land is almost wholly owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, a Crown body established under its own management Acts, and nine-tenths of the roads in the Isles of Scilly may not rank as public roads' at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1189.]
      An official of the Ministry of Transport wrote to the Clerk of the Council of the Isles of Scilly describing the position there. In the second paragraph, he said, quite accurately:
      "As I see it, the position may be summed up as follows: there seems to be no dispute that the roads in Hugh Town are public roads, and, accordingly, any vehicle used or kept on those roads must be licensed, if it not exempt under the provisions of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962. If the other roads cannot be shown to be public roads, then any vehicle used only on those roads would not need to be licensed."
      12.30 a.m.
      Nine-tenths of the roads in the islands are possibly not public roads, although this is a matter which in due course will no doubt be elucidated by access to counsel and further discussions with the Ministry. If they are public roads, vehicle licensing will apply for the first time to a large number of my constituents in the Isles of Scilly unless this Amendment is rejected. If it is not, vehicles will not be able to be kept in Hugh Town, which is the main town in the islands and where the only public roads on the islands exist. In Section 6(6)(b) of the 1962 Act—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will link what he is saying with the Amendment we are discussing, I hope.
      Mr. Nott: Certainly; I was trying to do so. I was trying to point out that we are dealing here with the definition of vehicles kept on public roads. In the Vehicles Licensing Act, 1962, to which this Amendment refers, it is quite clear that if a county council is satisfied that a mechanically propelled vehicle is intended to be used on public roads for distances not exceeding in the aggregate six miles in any calendar week, the vehicle may not be eligible for licensing.
      Here we have a part of the United Kingdom where nine-tenths of the roads may not be public roads, for certain legal reasons and because they have been
      1416
      built by the local inhabitants with their own labour and wholly at their own expense. On the remaining one-tenth of the roads it is most unlikely any inhabitant of the islands will use them for more than six miles in any calendar week. Therefore, if this Amendment is carried, many of my constituents in the islands will not be able to avoid, quite legally, paying taxation because their vehicles may not be kept in Hugh Town.
      I make a final appeal to the Minister. This is the last occasion on which I shall have an opportunity to raise this matter. I understand the wish of the Minister and his Department to arrive at a neat blanket coverage of the whole United Kingdom for license duty, but nine-tenths of these roads were built by the inhabitants and no public money was involved. Only a small fraction of the roads in the islands may be classified as public roads, and if the Amendment is carried the inhabitants will not be able to keep their cars in Hugh Town. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member who interrupted wishes to make a comment he should come into the House to do so.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member may make an intervention when outside the House.
      Mr. Nott: I hope the Ministry will use its discretion, if it has any, to allow these inhabitants to use their own roads without paying the licence fee. I hope the Minister will try to understand the unique situation in this part of the United Kingdom where the cost of living is infinitely higher than elsewhere. In the Scottish Highlands the main services are heavily subsidised, but there is no subsidy to St. Mary's in the Isles of Scilly. The cost of many items is up to 50 per cent. more than on the mainland.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the economy of Scilly on the Amendment.
      Mr. Nott: I shall come to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker. I said earlier that I had sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment, but was understandably told by you that I could not raise this point while the Bill was going through the House. So I am relating my remarks to the Amendment—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman but,

      1417
      with all the sympathy in the world, he must keep in order.
      Mr. Nott: Could the Minister tell me why the Amendment has to go through in this form? If it must, is he still able to exercise his discretion in some way to ensure that the islanders are not unfairly being forced to pay a tax? Why cannot his Department recognise the unique situation of this part of the United Kingdom and the disgraceful manner in which it is being treated?
      Mr. Carmichael: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.
      There are two ways of looking at the problem the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has raised. One is the way in which he looked at it, which is that the islanders are being treated unfairly in being asked to pay the tax. We should pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in raising this tonight, and the sincere way in which he did so. The other way is that of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who pointed out on Report that the islanders have always needed to pay road tax, but because of an administrative difficulty, the Isles of Scilly being neither a county nor a county borough, not coming within a county or county borough, they have been excused. They have been allowed this concession because of the accident of the law for a fairly long time.
      This is not just a question of making a neat and tidy solution giving coverage over the whole country. Now that under the Bill the Minister instead of the county councils or county boroughs will be responsible for the collection of tax there is no way of legally excluding the Isles of Scilly.
      Therefore, while I have every sympathy for anyone who has been in the position of the islanders for such a long time, there appears to me to be no way of excusing them from paying the tax. The amount of public roads on the islands does not really enter into the matter. The question of the six miles per week applies to specially-licensed vehicles travelling perhaps between different parts of a farm, or between one works and another over a very short distance. Tax in respect of such vehicles will be paid at the rate applicable to agricultural vehicles, some types of public works vehicles or contractors' plant.
      1418
      I am sorry I cannot be more forthcoming. The matter was discussed at great length in Committee and on Report, and I do not see any possibility of our reaching agreement, because of the historic nature of the case and the fact that the Bill merely catches up with a discrepancy under the previous Act.
      The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) asked for an assurance that a person who merely brought his vehicle on to the road would not be liable under this new provision. It is not for me to give such an assurance. That is a matter for the courts. The difficulty is that the word "keeping" implies keeping for a period of time. This was made explicit in a 1962 finding by a Divisional Court hearing of an appeal against a conviction for the unlicensed keeping of a vehicle on the road. The court interpreted the word "keeping" in that case in a way detrimental to the Minister and the intention of the Act.
      I am sure that the courts, in their wisdom, will be anxious, as always, to interpret correctly when assessing cases of persons merely parking vehicles on the roads, but, obviously, I cannot define this matter for them. I cannot even envisage a situation in which it would be possible to define the intention of the individual taking his vehicle on to the road.
      Question put and agreed to [Special Entry].

    Clause 11

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 10
      Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 12, line 34, leave out "earlier" and insert "first-mentioned".
      Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we can discuss the following two Lords Amendments, No. 5 and No. 6.
      Mr. Carmichael: These are drafting Amendments to subsection (2) of Clause 11, moved by the Government in Committee in the Lords. They all achieve the same end. They make it clear that the reference is, as intended, to a notice

      1419
      of non-mechanical propulsion, and not to a subsequent revocation of that notice.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 13, line 16, after "period" insert "or at any time".
      Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment, which was moved by the Government in Committee in another place, rectifies a minor error.
      Question put and agreed to [Special Entry].

    Clause 12

      ALTERATION OF PROVISIONS AS TO PHYSICAL FITNESS OF DRIVERS
      Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 15, line 30, leave out from "means" to second "of" in line 31 and insert:
      "any such test of competence as is mentioned in section 99(1)(a)."
      Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Lords Amendments No. 9 and 33.
      Mr. Carmichael: These Amendments, which were moved by the Government in Committee in another place, relate to the provisions governing tests which authorise the granting of driving licences.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries].

    Clause 16

      REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSFER AND IDENTIFICATION OF VEHICLES.
      Lords Amendment No. 24: In page 22, line 15, leave out "prescribed" and insert:
      "determined by or under the regulations".
      12.45 a.m.
      Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The effect of the Amendment is to enable the Minister to "determine" the persons to whom he may provide information from the vehicle records "by or under" regulations.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 26

      ADMISSIBILITY OF RECORDS AS EVIDENCE
      Lords Amendment No. 31: In page 30, line 12, after "Act" insert:
      "or a part of any other records maintained by the Minister with respect to vehicles."
      Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it may be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 32, in page 30, line 17, leave out "the authority in question" and insert:
      ", in the case of records maintained by a local authority, by the authority".
      Mr. Carmichael: The purpose of these Amendments is to enable a statement in a document purporting to be an extract of the records maintained by the Minister with respect to the plating and testing of goods vehicles to be admissible as evidence in any prosecution brought under Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Road Safety Act, 1967.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

    Schedule 2

      AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS OF ACT OF 1960 RELATING TO DRIVERS, ETC.
      Lords Amendment No. 35: In page 41, line 46, at end insert—
      "… At the end of paragraph 1 of Schedule 15 (which contains transitional provisions for the grant of drivers' licences for heavy goods vehicles to persons in the habit of driving such vehicles) there shall be inserted the following:—
      The reference in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph to the driving of a heavy

      1421
      goods vehicle does not include a reference to the driving of such a vehicle of a prescribed class or of such a vehicle while it is being used in prescribed circumstances."
      Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent drivers of specialised vehicles from obtaining a general heavy goods vehicle driving licence simply by virtue of their driving experience of a particular specialised vehicle, for instance, engineering plant. Such a possibility would be contrary to the interests of road safety. Such drivers should have to take a driving test.
      Question put and agreed to.

  WAITING RESTRICTION (CHORLEY ROAD, SWINTON)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  12.50 a.m.
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am sorry at this late hour to delay the House, but I have a rather important constituency matter which I wish to raise, namely, the parking ban in Chorley Road, in Swinton, which is causing a great deal of anxiety to a large number of my constituents. I am an unrepentant believer in the right of a public inquiry at all times, and even though since 1930 a large number and variety of Ministers of Transport of Conservative and Labour colour have used these powers, I still do not think they are morally right. Perhaps I could refer briefly to them.
  By section 7(4) of the Roads Act, 1920, the Minister was empowered to make orders prohibiting and restricting the use of roads by vehicles, subject to certain exemptions: (a) on application by a county council, and (b)—this is the important factor—after holding a public inquiry. The situation in 1920 seemed to me to be eminently satisfactory, and had it prevailed today my constituents would have had no cause for worry and anxiety. But, unfortunately, the Road Traffic Act, 1930, revoked the section to which I have referred and replaced it with Section 46, under which the Minister's power to hold a public inquiry became discretionary. It is the discretionary element which has
  1422
  caused the anxiety in my constituency. Despite the fact that a large number of Ministers of Transport, both Conservative and Labour, have used these powers, I still feel that morally it is indefensible.
  For reasons best known to themselves, certain people have made what might be termed inaccurate and misleading statements about this problem which have not been very helpful to me in my fight with the Ministry to obtain a public inquiry. Perhaps we should get the record straight, because it has been stated that this ban is a public scandal which was imposed in the face of strong opposition from the local council by Whitehall by some men in the Ministry of Transport who possibly had never seen the area.
  The facts are that the council has never opposed the ban. In fact, it asked for the ban, and it even asked for its extension. When the critical decision was taken in the council chamber, it was carried without opposition. No councillor spoke against it and nobody voted against it. It was the council which wrote to the Ministry of Transport stating that it would like the order for the ban to come into effect on 14th March.
  If a public inquiry had been held—and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can still find it in his power even at this late hour to grant a public inquiry—it would have allowed both sides to state their views. I have been informed since the ban has been in force that a considerable number of people have been impressed with the smooth working of traffic and believe the ban to be a good thing. Nevertheless, without any doubt, there is considerable opposition to the ban by a large number of people in my constituency, and this is revealed by the very substantial petition which has been handed in to the Ministry.
  The ban has been under discussion since 1964. The delay in introducing the ban from 1964 until the present time may have caused tradespeople to feel that it would not be introduced. The time lag may have been a contributory factor in causing people not to ask at the appropriate time for a public inquiry. This point must be borne in mind.
  Despite statements to the contrary, the council minutes and the correspondence clearly reveal that the parking of heavy

  1423
  vehicles in Chorley Road has been causing anxiety for some time and was the larger single major factor behind the imposition of the ban in the first instance.
  I should like the Minister to look again at the type of notice which is printed to indicate that a ban is to be introduced. They look like official or semi-official documents and are not easily understood by the public at whom they are directed. I hope the Ministry will look again at the wording and the publication of the ban to make sure that it is explicit enough to allow ordinary people to know what action to take.
  In the correspondence that has passed between the Minister and some of my constituents, Mr. Charnley's letter reveals strong and clear arguments why there should have been a public inquiry. Mr. Charnley may not in terms, have asked for a public inquiry, but it is implicit in the wording of his letter. Therefore, his letter should have been given further consideration.
  I realise that the council asked for the ban to be introduced, to come into force on 14th March. But in response to a letter by Mrs. Adams, a shopkeeper in the street—a letter signed by over 30 fellow shopkeepers—I approached the Ministry to ask them to delay the ban and to hold a public inquiry so that both sides could state their views. The council agreed to support me in my request.
  I appreciate that all due procedures have been followed, but I am an unrepentant believer in the need for and importance of a public inquiry into each and every parking ban in which there is the slightest opposition. In a democracy people who either approve of or disapprove of a ban should be given the opportunity to state their views clearly. I very much hope that the Ministry will agree to hold a public inquiry.
  12.58 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting his case so clearly. I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining fully why it was necessary to impose restrictions on waiting by vehicles in Chorley Road, Swinton.
  1424
  I would first remind my hon. Friend that Chorley Road is part of the A.6 London to Carlisle trunk road and is, therefore, an important part of the national freight route system along which the free flow of traffic must be maintained.
  I am, of course, well aware that in those cases where a trunk road passes through an urban area, such as is the case at Swinton, there can be some clash of interest between the need to keep traffic moving and the interests of local residents and traders. In these circumstances, I am very conscious of the need not only to impose the minimum of restriction necessary to achieve the desired result, but also, in framing the regulations, that local interests should be fully consulted at an early stage and their views taken into account.
  For some years parked vehicles at or near the junction of Chorley Road and Station Road caused congestion and impeded the free flow of traffic. With the ever increasing number of vehicles coming on to the roads this congestion gradually got worse and it became apparent that something would soon have to be done to ease the position. In particular, in recent times parked vehicles at this junction hampered the proper operation of traffic lights and prevented the safe and free flow of traffic on this busy trunk road.
  As long ago as 1964, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House, we thought that some restrictions on waiting would have to be introduced. The divisional road engineer—who is closely in touch with the local situation and who knows his area in some detail—therefore discussed on the site what we had in mind with officers of the Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council. He also consulted the police.
  Following these discussions the Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council approved in principle that measures were needed to deal with the situation, and at a subsequent meeting held on 10th January, 1966, the council endorsed the proposals. Further consideration to the scheme was given by the divisional road engineer, the council's officers, and the police and finally on 10th June 1968 the town clerk wrote to the divisional road engineer confirming that the council had no objection to the revised proposals,

  1425
  which had now been designed to cover the stretch of trunk road from Station Road to Cemetery Road. This was an extension of the scheme originally proposed in 1966. In passing, I should tell my hon. Friend that the council asked for the extension of the scheme.
  In September, 1968, a public notice of the intention to make the necessary traffic regulation order was published in the local press and in the London Gazette and, in addition, the local council, acting as our agents, posted notices on the length of road concerned. Three weeks were then allowed for the receipt of any objections to these proposals.
  My hon. Friend has made reference to the type of notice that is posted on lamp posts and so on in the proposed area of restriction. To some extent this is a legal document. Nevertheless, I will look into the matter to see whether we can simplify it for the general public.
  Following this wide local publicity, only six objections were received, each of which came from local traders who feared the imposition of these restrictions would have an adverse effect on their trade. None of the objectors mentioned or sought a public inquiry. In view of the nature and number of the objections received, we did not consider that such an inquiry would produce any new evidence and considered that it was not, therefore, justified. Having regard to the large numbers of orders which are now made every year, it would be administratively unworkable to hold a public inquiry into each and every order, as was at one time required under the 1920 Roads Act. It would mean well over 1,000 inquiries a year on traffic orders alone. My hon. Friend will realise that conditions have changed very much since the days of the 1920 Roads Act.
  My right hon. Friend decided to make the order as advertised and to impose waiting restrictions from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily but, except between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive, to allow vehicles to wait to load and unload. The decision to make the order was conveyed to each of the objectors on 8th November, 1968, and during the four months that elapsed between that date and the making of the order there was no further reaction either
  1426
  from the original objectors or anyone else.
  The order was made on 6th March, 1969, and it was only after that date that we received the first request for a public inquiry. This was contained in a letter from one of the local traders—a newsagent—which was forwarded by my hon. Friend. Since the order came into operation there has been a considerable volume of correspondence concerning these restrictions, but no further evidence has come to our notice which had not already been fully considered.
  I am given to understand that local residents and traders have said that they are now willing themselves to meet the full costs of a public inquiry if my right hon. Friend would agree to its being held. But the question of cost is not the real issue. If we thought that a public inquiry was necessary or desirable, public funds would be made available, but this is not the case. We believe that very full publicity has been given to these proposed restrictions over the past four years, and that no new facts would be brought to light at such an inquiry. I again emphasise that these restrictions have been imposed only following full and detailed investigation on the site by the Minister's local representative in full collaboration with the local authority and the police.
  I would make the point that for a number of traders conditions are no more difficult since the imposition of the restrictions because a number of traders' customers were already prevented from parking their cars in front of their premises owing to parked lorries. I should make it clear that waiting is still permitted in the adjacent side-streets. An off-street car park is available between Crompton Street and Church Street, about 300 to 400 yards east of the shops concerned.
  It is true to say that with the ever-increasing volume of traffic coming on to our roads it is difficult not to cause a clash of interests when taking the steps necessary to deal with traffic congestion. This is always a problem, and often an inescapable one. It causes us particular concern, and we always seek to find the solution which will bring benefit to the greatest number of people. I believe

  1427
  that the restrictions we have been discussing are the best answer for Chorley Road.
  I should like, now, to make some reference to inflammatory and irresponsible statements reported in the local Press. The Manchester Evening News of 12th April this year reported a local Tory councillor as having said:
  "Even though the Swinton and Pendlebury Council had opposed the ban it had still been imposed."
  I now quote from the minutes of the highways and lighting committee of the local council at its meeting on 13th May, 1968:
  "Details were submitted of the No Waiting and No Loading and Unloading Order proposed by the Ministry of Transport in respect of Chorley Road, Swinton.… It was resolved that the divisional road engineer's proposals be approved."
  There is no question there of any opposition from the council.
  The Swinton Journal of 17th April last, reporting a protest made by local shopkeepers, quoted a London Tory as saying:
  1428
  "The fight is not with the local council. It is with Whitehall who seem to be afflicted with this yellow line madness. Some man in the Ministry of Transport who possibly has never seen the area felt that he knew better."
  I strongly resent someone domiciled in London speaking in those derogatory terms about civil servants in my Department. I say without fear of contradiction that the D.R.E. and his staff know their area very well indeed.
  My hon. Friend has faithfully put to me the case made by his constituents about the need for a public inquiry, but for the reasons which I have outlined this evening I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will now understand why there will be no inquiry. The shopkeepers concerned might well find, as shopkeepers all over the country have found, that parking restrictions bring increased business when people find that they can get about the streets in safety.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past One o'clock.

PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Metrication Board
  Metrication Board
  Non-Industrial Civil Service (Offices)
  Non-Industrial Civil Service (Offices)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Building Contracts (Metrication)
  Building Contracts (Metrication)
  National Federation of Building Trades Employers (Consultations)
  National Federation of Building Trades Employers (Consultations)
  Building Maintenance (Studies)
  Building Maintenance (Studies)
  Kensington Gardens (Disused Building)
  Kensington Gardens (Disused Building)
  Government Building Corporation
  Government Building Corporation
  Steel Corporation (Internal Borrowing)
  Steel Corporation (Internal Borrowing)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Nationalised Industries (Overseas Loans)
  Nationalised Industries (Overseas Loans)
  Steel Corporation (National Loans Fund Borrowing)
  Steel Corporation (National Loans Fund Borrowing)
COAL
  Coal Developments (Crude oil and Gasification)
  Coal Developments (Crude oil and Gasification)
  Coke
  Coke
  Pit Ponies
  Pit Ponies
  Pricing Review
  Pricing Review
ELECTRICITY
  Supply Industry (Reorganisation)
  Supply Industry (Reorganisation)
  Privately-installed Meters (Charges)
  Privately-installed Meters (Charges)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Home Helps (Insurance)
  Home Helps (Insurance)
  Oil Pollution, Essex Coast
  Oil Pollution, Essex Coast
  Great Copse, Leigh Park (Roads and Sewers)
  Great Copse, Leigh Park (Roads and Sewers)
  Planning Decisions
  Planning Decisions
HOUSING
  Mortgages (Repayment)
  Mortgages (Repayment)
  Unoccupied Houses (New Towns)
  Unoccupied Houses (New Towns)
  Housing Subsidy (New Town Development Corporations)
  Housing Subsidy (New Town Development Corporations)
  Land, Outer Metropolitan Area
  Land, Outer Metropolitan Area
  Private Housebuilding, Outer Metropolitan Area
  Private Housebuilding, Outer Metropolitan Area
WALES
  Roads
  Roads
  Welsh Forms
  Welsh Forms
  Bridges, Tunnels and Roads (Tolls)
  Bridges, Tunnels and Roads (Tolls)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Gains Tax (Value of £ Sterling)
  Capital Gains Tax (Value of £ Sterling)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Net Wealth (New Acquisitions)
  Net Wealth (New Acquisitions)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Official Overseas Net Liabilities
  Official Overseas Net Liabilities
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Index of Industrial Production
  Index of Industrial Production
  Selective Employment Tax (Construction Industry)
  Selective Employment Tax (Construction Industry)
  Decimal Coinage
  Decimal Coinage
  International Financial and Economic Organisations
  International Financial and Economic Organisations
  Service Pensions (Underpayments)
  Service Pensions (Underpayments)
  Lloyds Bank (Special Deposits)
  Lloyds Bank (Special Deposits)
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Cars (Credit Restrictions)
  Cars (Credit Restrictions)
  Stationery Office (Trade Dispute)
  Stationery Office (Trade Dispute)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices (Selective Employment Tax)
  Food Prices (Selective Employment Tax)
POST OFFICE
  Public Departments (Mail Costs)
  Public Departments (Mail Costs)
  Premium Savings Bonds Draw (Television)
  Premium Savings Bonds Draw (Television)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Employment Vouchers (Commonwealth Citizens)
  Employment Vouchers (Commonwealth Citizens)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Reports)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Reports)
SCOTLAND
  Salmon and Trout (Hunter Committee's Report)
  Salmon and Trout (Hunter Committee's Report)
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Redevelopment Town Plans (Lanarkshire)
  Redevelopment Town Plans (Lanarkshire)
  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1968
  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1968
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (PAYMASTER-GENERAL'S SPEECH)
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (PAYMASTER-GENERAL'S SPEECH)
  DISTRIBUTORS' MARGINS
  DISTRIBUTORS' MARGINS
  PRESIDENT SARAGAT AND SIGNOR NENNI (TALKS)
  PRESIDENT SARAGAT AND SIGNOR NENNI (TALKS)
  FRENCH GOVERNMENT (DISCUSSIONS)
  FRENCH GOVERNMENT (DISCUSSIONS)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CO-ORDINATION)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CO-ORDINATION)
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS GENERAL COUNCIL (DISCUSSIONS)
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS GENERAL COUNCIL (DISCUSSIONS)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY COUNTRIES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY COUNTRIES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  CIVIL DEBTS (ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS)
  CIVIL DEBTS (ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  United States Hercules Transport Aircraft (Search Cost)
  United States Hercules Transport Aircraft (Search Cost)
  F111 Aircraft (Cancellation Cost)
  F111 Aircraft (Cancellation Cost)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  National Library (Dainton Committee's Report)
  National Library (Dainton Committee's Report)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Catering Staff (Dismissals)
  Catering Staff (Dismissals)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  South America
  South America
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Earnings-related Pensions (Contracting Out)
  Earnings-related Pensions (Contracting Out)

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

PEERS AND DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
LORD BALOGH: 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 the Leader of the House what rules are laid down for Peers to disclose property, business and professional involvement when participating in debates.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, there are no Standing Orders governing this matter. It is a long-standing custom of this House that noble Lords speak always on their personal honour. It follows from this that if a Peer decides that it is proper for him to take part in a debate on a subject in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, he should declare it. The House will recall that when on March 26 last I repeated a Statement by the Prime Minister about declaration of interest in another place, I undertook to have talks through the usual channels about the subject, so far as this House was concerned. I have consulted certain of your Lordships, and following these discussions I should like to recommend that the question of clarifying the issues arising out of declaration of interest should be referred to the Procedure Committee at an appropriate moment, taking into account the progress of the consideration of this subject in another place.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say whether the same rules apply to Starred and Unstarred Questions?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, they apply, of course, at all times. The noble Lord's Question refers particularly
524
to debates. As a matter of common sense, I think it might be difficult if noble Lords were to declare an interest every time they asked a supplementary question. The interests of some noble Lords are so well known that they do not always need declaring. But the principle, I think, remains the same.

EMPLOYMENT OF SCIENCE GRADUATES
2.38 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: 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 are satisfied that science graduates are being employed to the best advantage.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): No, my Lords. For instance, there is some evidence that in industry too many qualified scientists and engineers are in research and development and not enough in management, design, production and marketing. The Government are doing what they can to improve matters.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that Mr. Brian Ford carried out some investigations into this matter, the result of which was published in the New Scientist on May 1? His evidence rather suggested that there are a great many qualified graduates who are either wholly unemployed or in unskilled jobs. Would the noble Lord be prepared to look at this question?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the article in question is well known to my right honourable friend, and it may be that a certain amount of journalistic licence has been permitted to creep into the assessment of the sample there referred to.

NUCLEAR FALL-OUT SAFEGUARDS
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they contemplate for protection against nuclear fall-out in the event of a war in which we ourselves are not involved.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the measures necessary for protection against nuclear fall-out in a war involving this country could also be applied, if necessary, during a war in which we were not involved. The most important element in such protection is a system for detecting the existence and forecasting the movement of radioactive fall-out and for giving warning to the public. This service is provided by the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that Answer, but what I am asking has to do particularly with protection rather than with warning. May I ask whether there are any measures in contemplation for the actual protection of the public in the event of nuclear fall-out travelling around the world?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, including of course the 24,000 warning points, has been preserved at operational readiness. We have the posts manned by the Royal Observer Corps, and collectively, including help from our NATO Allies, they monitor and forecast the movement and intensity of radioactive fall-out and give warning to the public. When those warnings are given, so far as protection is concerned the best protection is to get under cover and to remain under cover until the fall-out is no longer intense: and information will be conveyed to the public by the B.B.C. and other sources.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would not agree that the only way to prevent damage from nuclear warfare is to abolish nuclear warfare? Would he also not agree with me, therefore, that the step that we might take is to prevent the Government spokesman from proclaiming to the world that Britain is prepared to engage in nuclear warfare?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would say that my noble friend's first proposition was sound. With regard to the second part of her question, this country and Government have always taken the lead, and continue to take the initiative, towards the step we all desire.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, in a supplementary question, may I ask whether my noble friend has not observed in the newspapers that our Government representative said only last week that if such and such a thing did happen we should have to engage in nuclear warfare? Am I not correct?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am not able to say whether my noble friend is correct or not. I am quite sure that what she has asked does not arise out of this Question.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, to refer to my noble friend's original Question, may I ask the Government whether they are sure that their destruction of the Civil Defence Service in this country has not destroyed an essential link between the monitoring organisation and the general public?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, no, I am quite certain that that is not so. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has great knowledge of these matters, and I am answering a question which poses the hypothesis of a distant attack in which we are not involved. Whether it is a distant attack, or an attack on this country, the organisation to which I have referred is operational and remains operational, and the warnings I have mentioned and the assistance I referred to could and would be given.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the warning system is in full force. My noble friend's original Question asked what steps the Government are taking for protection, which is not at all the same thing.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I also answered the question about protection in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, but again I must inform the noble Lord that I am answering a Question about an attack in which this country is not involved, not an attack on this country. As he will recall, if there were likelihood

527
of nuclear attack on this country, we expect that there would be some warning of it, and the Government of the day would take whatever steps, additional steps, were necessary to protect the people of this country.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, do the Government really think there would be the time?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there has been a change of thinking about this matter? When the Civil Defence was in full operation, it was always represented to us as protection against nuclear fall-out, whether we were engaged in the war or not. It was a very serious problem and one against which protection was extremely difficult. Now from the noble Lord's reply one gathers that all one has to do is to stay indoors and listen to one's radio.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, no; as so often occurs when the noble Lord puts a supplementary question, he endeavours to introduce a note of levity which does not come off. I must remind him that I am referring to and answering a Question about nuclear fall-out arising from a nuclear explosion in a war in which this country is not involved. The question the noble Lord puts refers to one where this country is involved in a nuclear war.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, he poses the question of a nuclear attack. If we are talking in reply to the noble Earl's Question, I say we have in existence something which could be activated, whatever protection is necessary, to protect the people of this country from radioactive fall-out occurring from a distant explosion.

GIFTED CHILDREN: WOMEN AND TEACHING INQUIRY
2.46 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the number of women members ap-
528
pointed to the Working Party set up by the National Schools Council to consider the teaching of gifted children in primary schools.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government understand from the Schools Council for the Curriculum and Examinations, which is an independent body, that there are at present no women members of the Working Party. The Working Party is, however, considering co-opting additional members, and some of these may be women.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. May I ask whether consideration may be given to adding some women members to this Working Party? And will my noble friend ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to use his influence to ensure that when any other Working Party is set up it shall include representatives of the women in the service of education who have given such outstanding service—particularly, if I may say so, in the field of primary education.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that supplementary question. Were I permitted to do so by Standing Orders (I am not quite clear whether I am permitted to do so) I would have thanked him for the original Question. I heartily endorse all he has said about the contribution of women teachers at all levels, and women generally in the cause of education. I will certainly convey his views to my right honourable friend. But the Working Party is of course an independent body, so the views of the Minister must be conveyed to it, and the Working Party, of course, has to come to the ultimate decision.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could my noble friend answer this simple question? In view of the fact that 75 or 80 per cent. of the teachers in this country are women, how is it that when recommendations are called for, the Civil Service forgets there are two sexes in this country?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I naturally sympathise very much with the point put by my noble friend although I hasten to say that it is not entirely the responsibility of the Civil Service. This

529
is in fact a Working Party set up by the Schools Council, but the Working Party would have called for a membership interested in the teaching of gifted children. The personnel of the Working Party are good, and I suppose they would try to view this matter objectively. They want the right people—I will not say "broken down" by sex—but not necessarily by sex.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend another question? Would she think that perhaps it is due to the fact that they think women can teach only stupid children?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, how does a Working Party differ from a Committee?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I find myself at a loss to answer either of the last two questions. This Working Party is in fact a committee. If the noble Lord wishes me to get a definition of the various classifications I will try to do that for him: I feel that it would be for my own education as well.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to accept that one appreciates that the persons appointed constitute a very distinguished list of men experienced in the service of education, but undoubtedly it would have been a good thing if they could have been advised by one or two women in their presence?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I entirely agree. I cannot think of any Working Party, committee, council or other organisation which would not benefit by having women as part of its personnel.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BENEFITS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Serota will be making a Statement on the proposed National Insurance Bill.
YORK CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL
2.52 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Transport (London) Bill be read a second time. I should mention at the outset that this is a hybrid Bill and still open to Petitions; any that may be received will be handled in the normal way. The Bill is an extremely important measure designed to tackle the very real transport problems of our large conurbation in a manner more comprehensive than anything else tried to date anywhere else in the world.
The basic problems are several. There are first of all the large numbers of people who come into the capital to work every day, many travelling long distances in the process. In an average working day this amounts to about seven million journeys in both directions, of which about two and a half million are to or from the central area. Despite measures which have been and will be taken to encourage firms to move their offices out of London, this problem is likely to remain with us for the foreseeable future and may indeed be accentuated by the forecast drift of population out of central London. On top of this, there will be an increase in the number of social and recreational journeys inside Greater London springing in the main from the growth in car ownership. These journeys could well double over the next 15 years. Finally, there is the balance to be struck between the convenience of the motor car to its users, and the effect to which this use when multiplied up has on pedestrians, local residents and the urban environment in general.
As noble Lords will appreciate, each of these problems has implications for different transport systems which are in turn interrelated. To take an example, although most commuters travel by rail or bus (providing a marked contrast with

531
the private car dominated social and recreational journeys), an increasing minority use their cars. Buses and cars are competing for the same, often very limited, road space. Should the former be given priority, and, if so, in what circumstances? My task this afternoon is not to try to answer these questions or to work out solutions to the problems themselves, but to outline the way in which the organisational changes proposed in the Transport (London) Bill establish a framework which will best enable this to be done.
The essence of the Bill is to co-ordinate all the interrelated transport elements in London—public transport, highways and traffic—to facilitate the production of the necessary comprehensive policies for planning, operations and finance. Overall powers of strategic control will be placed in the hands of the elected representatives of the people of Greater London—the Greater London Council. The Government consider that this approach, which looks at urban transport as an essentially local rather than national question, is the right one. The policy is consistent with that for the Passenger Transport Authorities which are being established under the Transport Act 1968, as I am certain many noble Lords will remember. The Bill before your Lordships to-day is the product of detailed discussion between my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and the right honourable Lady who preceded him and the G.L.C. Its basic aims are not controversial, although certain of its particular provisions, which I shall come on to later, have aroused strong feelings in another place. The basis for this legislation was of course set out in the White Paper, Transport in London, published in July last year.
Clause 1 of the Bill requires the G.L.C.:
"To develop policies, and to encourage, organise and, where appropriate, carry out measures which will promote the provision of integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services for Greater London."
The remaining provisions, which fall into three main categories, are designed to enable the Council effectively to carry out this general duty. The first concerns the Council's strategic transport planning role. They will take the
532
lead in drawing up co-ordinated plans for transport in London in conjunction with the Minister, the new London Transport Executive, which I shall come on to shortly, the British Railways Board, local authorities and as appropriate other interested bodies like the National Bus Company and the trade unions. Subjects covered by these plans will probably include operations and investment in the highway and public transport fields, proposals for interchanges between different transport systems and parking policy viewed in the context of overall transport and traffic management. The important thing about these plans is that the bodies who will be responsible for implementing them will be the very people who had previously drawn them up, and the G.L.C. as the "co-ordinating architect" will under the provisions in the rest of the Bill have adequate powers to ensure that the proposals are carried through.
In all this, public transport, of course, plays a key role. Those of your Lordships who regularly travel by bus or Tube in London will not need to be reminded of that fact. Indeed, there is probably a great deal of expertise in this House on the operations of the London Transport Board and the sort of problems they have to face—more so certainly than at the time, many years ago, when the late Lord Curzon was, for the first and last time, persuaded to ride on a bus. The experience upset him very much indeed. "I gave the fellow a penny", he said, "and asked him to take me to Parliament Square—and he refused." I think there is now a general recognition, not only of the basic nature of bus travel, but of the vital importance of a strong and efficient system of public transport. And one of the most important sections of the Bill deals with the reorganisation of the London Transport undertaking, so as to import into this field the local control and responsibility that I mentioned earlier.
The Bill provides for the winding up of the present London Transport Board, with its central (red) buses and railway being taken over by a new London Transport Executive (L.T.E.) which will be responsible to the G.L.C. in roughly the same way as the present Board are

533
to the Minister. The Council will have overall policy control of the Executive, will appoint its members and approve its investment proposals and general level of fares, while the Executive will be responsible for day-to-day management. The London Transport Board's country bus and Green Line coaches, mainly operating outside Greater London, will be transferred to a subsidiary of the National Bus Company.
The G.L.C. have made it clear that their take-over of this public transport undertaking is dependent on its being financially viable at the time of transfer. "Viability" is defined as an ability on the part of the L.T.E. to pay its way, with sufficient margin to create a general reserve of £2 million in its first year of operation. This will be achieved by a 90 per cent. write-off of the present Board's capital debt to the Government, which will result in a relief on interest payments of the order of £11 million a year; coupled with the fares increases for the central buses and Tubes approved by the N.B.P.I. last month which should come into operation in the autumn of this year. Given that the G.L.C. were unwilling to enter into any commitment to use their powers under the Bill to subsidise fares from the rates, the Government accepted that in order to achieve the transfer this fares increase was unfortunately inevitable.
I should now like to deal with the operating powers proposed for the Executive. In placing no mileage or geographical limit on the Executive's operations, this Bill differs quite deliberately from the legislation concerned with the present London Transport Board and the arrangements for the P.T.E.s laid down in the Transport Act of last year. The reason for this is our belief that the geographical nature and extent of London and its position as the capital city mean that geographical limits, if laid down, could quickly be made unrealistic by future transport developments—for instance the Third London Airport. There is, however, no intention on the part of my right honourable friend, the G.L.C. or the L.T.B. that these necessarily wide powers should be used to operate services not essentially related to the needs of Greater
534
London—inter-city rail services or long distance coaches are obvious examples of services not intended to be included.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the bus operating powers of the L.T.E. These are basically intended to give the Executive the power to plan and shape the pattern of bus operations in Greater London within the framework of the overall plans which I have already mentioned. Unless this is to be a largely meaningless provision it must be associated with the control of the activities of other operators running services in Greater London, who would otherwise be able to adopt policies inconsistent with those adopted by the L.T.E. To be precise, the Bill provides that within Greater London "stage" and "express" bus services may be operated only by the L.T.E., its subsidiaries or by another operator under an agreement with the Executive. The position of independent operators at present running services in the area is protected in that the consents under which existing services are run will be continued, with a right of appeal against any refusal of the L.T.E. to renew them.
Fears have been expressed in another place that the L.T.E. could, with the advantage of its scale of operations and possible subsidy from the rates, deliberately set out to drive out private bus operators in areas outside Greater London. So far as stage and express services are concerned, these will outside Greater London be subject to the control of the independent traffic commissioners, who will have the job of judging the merits of any case put by the L.T.E. for extending its services. They would take account, among other things, of the way in which a particular route was already being served by other operators. Although this protection will not extend to contract carriages, the possibility of independent operators in this field facing severe competition from the L.T.E. seems remote. The Executive's main job will be to run London bus services and it is doubtful whether for some time, if at all, it will have the capacity to do much contract carriage work or, indeed, that it will see its role as involving widespread activity in this field of operation.
In view of the interest which they have aroused, I should now like to say something about the provisions in Clause 6

535
of the Bill which cover the L.T.E.'s manufacturing powers. The Executive will, subject to the directions of the G.L.C., be empowered to manufacture for itself, its subsidiaries, the G.L.C. or any of the nationalised transport authorities. These powers are considerably wider than those given to the somewhat analogous P.T.E.s, but more restrictive than those laid down in the Transport Act 1968 for the nationalised transport authorities, which placed no restrictions on whom the authorities could manufacture for. The provisions must be seen in perspective. There is no intention whatsoever that the L.T.E. should set itself up as a vast manufacturing concern engaging in cut-throat competition in the field of manufacture: its basic function is that laid down in Clause 5(1):
"to provide … such public passenger transport services as best meet the needs … of Greater London".
What is proposed here is simply to give the Executive powers which will enable it fully to utilise its manufacturing capacity and manpower skills while at the same time reflecting its unique position as what could be termed a "municipalised transport authority". The Executive will also be able to repair motor vehicles and sell petrol or spare parts and accessories for them in its car parks.
Before leaving the new arrangements for London Transport, I should like to mention the financial duties which will be placed upon the Executive and the new procedures for controlling fares on its services. The major difficulty to date has been to reconcile the two statutory duties of the L.T.B.—on the one hand, that of paying its way and, on the other hand, of providing an "adequate" system of passenger transport. In this Bill it is made clear that the Executive's overriding duty is the financial one, to break even and meet financial objectives set for periods fixed by the G.L.C. and that its duty
"to provide or secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as best meet the needs … of Greater London"
will have to be formulated within the framework of its financial duties. The practical effect of this will be that Londoners, through their elected representatives on the G.L.C., will decide the pricing policies and levels of service for their public transport and will take financial responsibility for their decisions.
536
This would seem to be an eminently reasonable approach.
So far as fares are concerned, the Transport Tribunal's present control of London fares is something of an anomaly, in that nothing similar exists elsewhere in the country, and these special provisions will be inappropriate in the light of the G.L.C.'s direct role on fares questions. It is thus proposed under the Bill to abolish the Transport Tribunal's London fares functions, control of fares in the interim between that date and the establishment of the L.T.E. resting in the hands of my right honourable friend. Clearly, British Rail fares in the London area cannot be considered separately from those for the buses and Tubes, and the Bill proposes that these should be fixed with regard to financial objectives drawn up by the Minister after consulting the G.L.C.
Finally, I should like to move on to the highway and traffic provisions contained in Part V of the Bill. The intention is to strengthen the highway and traffic powers of the G.L.C. to enable them more effectively to carry out their responsibilities as the strategic transport authority for London. Their highway authority responsibilities will be extended by some 320 miles, so that all principal roads in Greater London become metropolitan ones, but, at the same time, the system of development control along metropolitan roads is to be altered so as to allow the London boroughs a greater role in future. The G.L.C. will also be given a greater say on borough roads about traffic signs and signals, pedestrian crossings and obstructions caused by road works.
But the new, most important and, in the Government's view, vital, provision in this Part of the Bill is concerned with the controls proposed for public off-street car parks, First, the background. It has become clear over the last few years that proper control of parking is essential to the management of the total transport situation in large towns and conurbations. If I may, I would quote from the 1963 Buchanan Report, Traffic in Towns.
"It appears absolutely essential that the public authority should retain complete control of:—

(i) the amount of parking space that is provided;

(ii) its location and

537

(iii) the charges that are levied,

and it should be prepared to use its control methodically as part of the implementation of the transportation plan".
In 1967, a further study recognised the need for better control in big towns over the location, amount and use of parking space—both off and on street. This was particularly needed to deal with long-term parking by commuters. The need for action was abvious and in the White Paper, Transport in London, it was made clear that measures to control the use of publicly available off-street car parks were to be introduced. These are now set out in Clause 36 and Schedule 5 to the Bill. Under them, the G.L.C. and London boroughs will jointly operate a licensing system. The G.L.C. will have the strategic role of defining the area to be controlled and the general conditions to apply to it. Within a controlled area, all car parks available to the general public for payment, whether publicly or privately owned, will be subject to these conditions. The boroughs will apply the system locally and issue the individual licences. Through this system, the local authorities will be able to influence by regulation or price—or a combination of the two—the volume and composition of traffic in the interests of more efficient movement over a wide area of Greater London.
There are several objectives of a licensing scheme. One example is controlling the volume of traffic on radial routes into Central London during peak hours so as to reduce congestion and consequent economic losses and so as to enable these routes to be used more efficiently by public transport; and another is encouraging the provision of car parking space which can be used by residents, thereby reducing the need for street parking. I might add at this juncture that I understand that the G.L.C. have it in mind initially to control an area of central London of about 10 square miles.
Next, the important checks and safeguards for protecting the legitimate interests of the private operators. The provisions are pretty comprehensive—hence the length of the Schedule. A lot of safeguards have been built in as a result of discussions with interested parties and the provisions before the House today give as fair a system as possible, although
538
admittedly only at the cost of some complexity. The basic safeguards are these: first, an operator who objects to any of the provisions in the G.L.C.'s regulations can make representations which have to come to the Minister who, if he thinks fit, will call in the Regulations, in whole or in part, and make any modifications which he considers appropriate. He can hold a local inquiry if he wishes. Secondly, when an operator conies to apply for a licence and objects to any of the conditions put in it by a borough or indeed by a refusal to grant a licence at all, the applicant will have a right of appeal to the Minister, who will again be able to insist on remedial action and has power to call for a hearing or local inquiry. If at the end of the day it is concluded that the wider interests of the general public must override those of the particular operator, then it will be open to the operator to put in a claim for compensation. Your Lordships will agree that these represent a very fair system of safeguards.
In conclusion, I should, with the indulgence of your Lordships, like to touch on something which I said at the beginning of this speech. The new organisation proposed in the Transport (London) Bill will not of itself solve the many varied and complex problems which we face in this City to-day. But what it should do is to provide a framework which will best enable those concerned to come to grips with them. It is on this note that I would commend this important Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
3.14 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for moving the Second Reading of this Bill and for describing the contents of the Bill to us. May I say that for my part I welcome the broad intention of the Bill and believe that the general structure of it will fulfil the hopes of the Government. The main purpose, which he has described, of transferring the London Transport Board to the Greater London Council, together with the other powers that are being added of traffic and highway construction, gives the Greater London Council the full equipment needed to manage the life of a great

539
city. The fact is that to-day public transport, traffic management, highway construction and planning are all interrelated, and each one of them has a decisive influence on the life of the city. The fact is that in most cities of the world to-day these powers are fragmented, to the detriment, of course, of the dwellers in those cities. But by putting all these powers into the hands of the G.L.C. we shall be putting London in the lead and giving the G.L.C. the best chance of planning and managing the life of London decently in the age of the universal motor car.
It is the universal motor car, which brings so many blessings to our lives, that causes such terrible complexities in the life of cities. This lesson we can see being learned, not very well, in other cities in the world, and particularly, perhaps, in the United States of America. The United States has had about a generation longer to learn this lesson than we have had. They have had the universal motor car problem with them for, I should say, at least the last thirty years. One can see, when one looks there, that the problem of securing a decent life in their cities is very far from solved; they are still plagued by appalling traffic congestion and seriously decaying urban centres in their cities. It is a good deal worse than in this country. I think we can learn something from their experience.
The American policy which was being followed certainly thirty or forty years ago was to concentrate resources on building great urban highways right into the heart of their cities in order to give access to work by private car, and broadly to withhold investment from public transport systems. But experience has taught them over the years that even with their magnificent highways this policy is unworkable, and for the past ten or fifteen years city authorities in the United States have been working desperately to salvage the public transport systems which have, broadly speaking, declined into bankruptcy and dereliction. As noble Lords who visit America will know, most of these public transport systems are still in an astonishingly low condition and quality and very unattractive to use. As a matter of interest we can see the Americans, with their marvellous technological thoroughness, carrying the argument to
540
its logical conclusion in Los Angeles, because there they have built a system of urban motorways which must be without equal anywhere in the world, and is unlikely ever to be equalled. There is a complete growth of motorways over the whole city and what has happened is that the centre of the city has disappeared altogether. The life goes on now in the suburbs outside; but still at the peak hour times the traffic is slowed down to the pace of a buggy, and they are back in square one again, the same as everybody else.
The lesson there has been learned very expensively, that there just is not room in the streets of any city for all commuters and shoppers to come by private car. It may seem a simple lesson, but the Americans have spent many thousands of millions of pounds learning it. There may be some social justice in the fact that whereas in the 19th century we pioneered the railway system in this country and the rest of the world learnt by our mistakes, now in the 20th century the Americans have pioneered city life for the universal motor car and we, in our turn, can learn from their mistakes and perhaps benefit by them to some extent.
I think we have. For one thing, looking at London, we have not dismantled our public transport system. Neither have we torn the heart out of the city of London, which nobody wants to see done. Of course it is common form to criticise London Transport and the commuter services of British Rail, and indeed there is plenty to criticise in them; but it would be true to say—and all of us who travel round the world know this—that London's system of surface rail, underground rail and bus, is structurally and technically very good: one of the best, if not the best, in the world. The personnel management is not of the same standard and I shall have a word to say about that later.
London Transport and British Rail still carry to-day about 90 per cent. of all commuters to work, and it is interesting to note that despite the rising numbers who use motor cars for going to work, four-fifths of those who own motor cars and commute use public transport. But as car ownership continues to rise the pressure on the roads of the 10 per cent. of commuters who at present go to work by private car to rise will

541
be serious, and if it rose it would undoubtedly choke up the traffic routes to the detriment of everybody. That is the picture that the Government and the G.L.C. will soon be grappling with. The G.L.C. have to develop policies for London Transport, for the management of London traffic, which will make public transport attractive enough for the travelling public, and, secondly, restrain the use of the private car within the traffic capacity of London streets.
I should like to turn for a moment to discuss how the G.L.C. will achieve this under the Bill, and particularly that part of Clause 1 to which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, referred, to
"… promote the provision of integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services for Greater London."
The noble Lord explained to us the financial basis of the transfer, which is to get London Transport out of deficit and, secondly, to make it financially viable plus creating a reserve of £2 million per annum. The noble Lord, I thought, had a hint of criticism in his reference to the fact that the G.L.C. were unwilling to contemplate an immediate rate burden in order to keep fares at their present level, but I do not think that that criticism is justified. I think the G.L.C. are perfectly right to protect the interests of London's ratepayers. Whatever problems they may have in the future, they should start on a financially viable basis.
But there is a point here which does deserve, I think, a little more comment than the noble Lord gave it, and that is the implication that this Bill writes off nine-tenths of London Transport's capital. The noble Lord presented it in its most innocuous form as £11 million per annum, but in fact it is a capital sum of £244 million which is being written off, and although this is of benefit to London's ratepayers it is a very heavy burden for the taxpayers of this country to have to face. This, added to all the capital that has been written off other nationalised industries, pushes up the total amount written off to over £2,000 million, a very substantial sum of money. The point I wish to make is that with this sombre record of loss-making by nationalised industries before us, it is astonishing to find the Government putting into Clause 6 of
542
this Bill wide manufacturing and trading powers which will enable the London Transport Executive directly or indirectly to manufacture or trade in anything they like. And the noble Lord's eloquent pleading that this was "a very little one" did not persuade me that it was other than really gross folly.
Look at the facts. The record shows the damaging series of losses in nationalised industries, mainly due to weakness in management. Secondly, the Prices and Incomes Board Report underlines that London Transport management is very weak. Thirdly, the management of the public transport services alone is beset with great extrinsic difficulties which the London Transport Executive will be fully stretched to cope with, without taking on any additional trading powers. And, fourthly, the G.L.C. have strongly urged the Minister of Transport that they do not want these powers. Despite all these cogent contrary indications, the Government are still determined to extend the scope of State trading. Really, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that this is not a brain reaction, it is a blood reaction—and if I were not polite I should make it into an adjective.
The future financial policy for London Transport will be strongly influenced by the fact that the deficit will fall on the ratepayers who elect the Greater London Council. This, I think, is a thoroughly sound constitution, and I commend both the Government and the G.L.C. in agreeing to it. But I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that this is entirely consistent with the 1968 Transport Act which set up the Passenger Transport Authorities, because they, of course, are appointed bodies, their membership is appointed by the Minister. They are not elected by the local government bodies, and although they have power to precept on the ratepayers, the ratepayers have no say in who makes up the membership of those bodies. Noble Lords may remember that we urged the Government last year to amend the 1968 Act in this respect so as to make these bodies democratic and representative. The Government, unfortunately, did not take our good advice, but I am glad to see that the light has now dawned upon them and in this Bill at any rate they have got the constitution right. I hope further amending legislation will follow.

543
It is not going to be easy for the G.L.C. to keep London Transport solvent. The past trend of rising costs and falling traffic gives a warning of the sort of problem that they are going to have to face. It is true that stronger management and new techniques will help to check rising costs, but they may not be enough, and my advice to the G.L.C. is to shun like the plague a subsidy on current account. They have made a very good start in this respect. I believe that nothing is more demoralising and weakening to management than a subsidy on current account, and if the G.L.C. find that some financial help is needed they will be much wiser to limit it to subsidy on capital account where some major new capital development is made. The G.L.C. then have to pay for 25 per cent. and the Government give a grant of another 75 per cent. While it is perfectly true that increased fares, which of course increase the incentive for travellers to switch from public transport to private cars, are obviously to be avoided if possible, my judgment is that if and when the issue arises increased fares are preferable to a subsidy on current account.
The second major aspect of this picture is the Greater London Council's policy for traffic management and highway building, because the better the traffic flows, the better the buses keep their schedules, the more attractive the services to the travelling public, the more passengers there are and therefore the more solvent London Transport is. In this context I welcome Part V of the Bill. This gives the G.L.C. responsibility for construction of highways and traffic management on all main traffic arteries in Greater London. First, this will enable them to promote major highway improvements on all these roads, and secondly, it will enable the G.L.C. to link traffic management right through all these traffic arteries, particularly with regard to traffic lights. The best systems to-day link to a central control the traffic lights right through the whole of the traffic arteries out to the periphery, so that the whole system is phased to give the best traffic flow. I am delighted to hear that the G.L.C.'s highly qualified traffic department are already preparing schemes for a traffic control centre which will do just this.
Clause 36 of the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, referred,
544
gives the Greater London Council control over parking—off-street as well as on-street—in Greater London, and I know that this has aroused some anxiety, which the noble Lord mentioned. But he also referred to the safeguards for both private and public interests, and I feel that these were substantial. I know that the British Airports Authority still has anxieties, and we may hear more about these.
To take this subject in two parts, in the case of on-street parking—that is, parking controlled by meters—experience in central London over the last ten years I think has persuaded most people that this is a beneficial system. It has improved traffic flow and it has given us, as short-term parkers, an improved chance of finding a place at the kerb. It is now being extended to the outer ring (which has earned the unpleasant name of the "gluepot ring"), where traffic has been so badly congested in recent years, and especially the public transport buses, which often lose half an hour to an hour on their schedules. So it will be of great benefit when the system is extended throughout. It is interesting to recall that ten or twelve years ago, when I myself had something to do with this subject, there was tremendous opposition to the meter system for on-street parking; but believe that to-day most people accept that this is a sensible measure. I would, however, make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. I am most alarmed to hear of the great volume of evasions of prosecutions (I believe that it amounts to something like 20 per cent.), and I suggest to the Government that the time has come to look at the law in this respect, and possibly to bring it up to date on the same lines as the new Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill, under which the offence will be applied to the vehicle rather than to the driver.
Let me now turn to off-street parking control, which is new as a traffic control measure. I realise that this idea has caused anxiety, much as the on-street parking measures did ten or twelve years ago. But I would suggest that there are two justifications for it. First, it is essential to ensure that off-street parking is in the right place, both for entrances and exits, and that it does not cause congestion in the traffic flow. Secondly—and here is the major point to which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom,

545
referred—it is essential in order to control the total number of vehicles on London streets at any time. This is done, as the noble Lord told us, both by controlling the number of places available and by the charge which is made for them in the different areas. This brings the argument right into the centre of the traffic authority's responsibility; namely, that they must see that traffic flows smoothly and safely, and is not swamped by an excessive number of vehicles. This is the direct responsibility of the traffic authority. Only they can do it, and they must do it in the interests of everybody.
There are certainly objectionable features about this kind of control, but we must accept the facts of living in a great city with the universal motor car; and parking control is the best known method of getting the total volume of traffic within workable limits. The alternatives which have been discussed, of road pricing—for example, the use of black boxes which record mileage in urban areas, to be charged for at higher mileage rates; or special higher cost road licences for entering Inner London—are at present known to us only in theory. I do not think they would be very popular in practice. Thus, my support is for the noble Lord and his Bill, for the traffic authority to have overall control over all parking places. There are certain points that I should like to discuss in Committee in regard to the safeguards, but in regard to the principle I feel that this is the best measure in the interests of Londoners.
Finally, I turn to the problem of London Transport management. The weakness of London Transport management has of course been well known to all of us; but when the one-man buses, the Red Arrow buses, which are now running so well, arrived they stood for nearly a year in the bus garages because the unions opposed them. This indicates just how weak the management is. We have two expert independent Reports to guide us in this matter. First of all, there is the Prices and Incomes Board Report of 1968. and then there is the Report of 1969. Both Reports comment in great detail on the management problems in the London Passenger Transport Board. The 1968 Report confirmed that the management problems were serious. The Report said that
546
"substantial annual savings in costs are feasible", and the general tone was strongly critical.
It has been interesting to me to see that the 1969 Report, which continues this discussion, takes a less critical tone; it seems that the critical tone of the 1968 Report has been somewhat tempered. I should like the noble Lord when he replies to the debate, to tell us whether it is the fact that in the interval the London Passenger. Transport Board has moved somewhat and thus has earned some relief from the pressure put upon it by the Prices and Incomes Board, because it has made some of the improvements suggested in the 1968 Report. It would be interesting to hear if that is so. Certainly the 1968 Report tells us that the unions have always refused to allow work measurement practices to be applied in the bus workshops—with absurd results, of course. But the 1969 Report tells us that consultants have been busy in the workshops, assessing and applying productivity schemes, and that already they are achieving a useful service. If my deduction is correct, that the Board has taken action to clean up this situation, it is good news, and I am glad to hear it. I think it is of great credit to the new Chairman, Mr. Maurice Holmes, and also, I think, to the Ministry of Transport, who have been trying to urge on these things for some time.
Similarly, the 1968 Report criticised the London Passenger Transport Board for planning to take fifteen years to introduce one-man bus operation. That, of course, is by far the biggest potential cost-saver of the lot. The Prices and Incomes Board suggested that the change-over could be done in half the time. But the 1969 Report says that the Board plan to complete the change in ten or eleven years, and the Prices and Incomes Board makes no more comment than to say that further speed-up would be possible. But, in any event, this is a substantial improvement. The period has come down from fifteen years to ten or eleven years.
There is one point of anxiety here, I think. In the 1969 Report from the Prices and Incomes Board we hear that the introduction of one-man operation of buses has to date given no financial advantage to the London Transport Board because the gains made have been

547
entirely spent in the higher bonuses paid and in retraining costs. This I regard as an alarming result. I should have thought it was basic to any industrial relations that when new labour-saving schemes are introduced the financial benefit should be shared by all three parties, the business and the consumers, as well as the workers. To allow the workers to swallow the lot is not fair, either to the public or to anybody else. I would urge on the G.L.C. and the London Transport Executive that in future they must ensure fair shares all round. But despite this unhappy record on the one-man buses, there seems now to be the beginnings of better personnel management. The Prices and Incomes Board have advised making a completely new productivity agreement covering all the points set out in the 1969 Report. I believe that this is good advice, and I hope that the G.L.C. will firmly back the new Transport Executive to negotiate this with the unions.
The 1969 Report also refers to one other point that I should like to mention; namely, the substantial losses due to fraud—in other words, ticket evasion. The best means of checking this is by the introduction of automatic fare collection. We have seen good examples of this on the one-man buses and on the new Victoria Line. Obviously, the right course to take is for the London Transport Executive of the future to introduce the system generally throughout both systems. I hope that the G.L.C. will require them to do this as fast as they can. There would be a big advantage there not only in reducing fraud, but also in substantial labour saving, which would overcome all staff shortages as well as make big financial gains.
Finally, the Prices and Incomes Board advise London Transport to set up a marketing department to study the consumer taste—the travelling public's wishes, and to try to fit the services better into what they require. This seems good advice. Something useful was done in getting later closing of the Oxford Street shops in order to relieve the peak travelling hours at the time when office workers were leaving for home. Such things as this can he done if you have experts on the job, a really positive effort can be made at marketing the services that Lon
548
don Transport have to offer. Certainly it seems to me that there is great scope for stronger, more imaginative management to bring substantial benefits to the travelling public, both in lower costs and in better services, and this is obviously an important part for the future.
When this Bill is on the Statute Book the Greater London Council will have taken on a major responsibility, of great difficulty and complexity. But they will have been given the full range of powers over all the functions concerned: planning, construction, traffic management and public transport; and I am sure that with courage, imagination and good judgment, the G.L.C. will succeed in getting the right balance of the many conflicting factors, to the benefit of the life of the people of London. My Lords, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
3.41 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, in his introduction of this Bill, made some passing reference to Clause 36, and what struck me as a distinctly lightweight case in favour of what is contained in that clause. I have just listened to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford largely supporting the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, and apparently falling over himself, so far as I could see, to agree with Lord Winterbottom in what he had to say about Clause 36. Clearly, therefore, since neither of the noble Lords concerned seem to have apprised themselves of the true significance of the principle and the effect of this clause, it falls to my lot to explain to your Lordships what it is. Therefore, the remarks that I shall make on the Bill will be confined to that clause.
In my view, this is a clause which is both curious and spurious, and is so objectionable that if it formed the subject of a separate Bill I should do my best to persuade your Lordships not to give it a Second Reading at all. Because it forms part of a much wider Bill, much of which is not only not objectionable but indeed very desirable, I obviously cannot do that; but at least I can tell your Lordships what I think of it and assure you that I shall be returning at Committee stage with a fair packet of Amendments.
I am seeing Clause 36 from three points of view, and in the light of the Answer

549
given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, Lord Shackleton, to the first Question of the afternoon, I think I had better be careful in explaining to your Lordships what those three points of view are. First, I am seeing it from the point of view of the detrimental effect on the private motorist in my capacity as an executive Vice-Chairman of the Royal Automobile Club. Secondly, I am seeing it from the point of view of the very serious difficulties imposed on private off-street car park operators, not only on account of the effect of those difficulties for their own sake but also for the way in which they too affect the interest of the private motorist and the car-owning public. Here I think I can speak with some authority because of my connection with the largest firm of car park operators, particularly in London—that is to say, National Car Parks—though I should also state that my connection is of a consultant nature and I hold no financial interest in that company. Thirdly, and because I think it is important, I see it from the point of view of the British Airports Authority, with whom I have no conection beyond whatever any other member of the public may claim to have with a statutory undertaking.
The British Airports Authority are Petitioners against the Bill in your Lordships' House, and I certainly give them full marks for trying, because the rest of us became rather discouraged during the proceedings in another place. It was, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom said, a hybrid Bill submitted to a Select Committee, and therefore there was an opportunity for private interests objecting to these and certain other provisions to petition against them. In fact, there were 17 Petitions containing objections to the clause, including those which came from motoring organisations, car parking interests, petrol companies, organisations with funds invested in car parking projects, property-owning bodies, the British Airports Authority, and many of the subsidiary local authorities in the Greater London area.
The promoters of the Bill challenged the locus standi of many of the Petitioners. As a result, following negotiations with the Ministry of Transport and the G.L.C., a number of the Petitioners—among them the motoring organizations
550
—anticipating that such objections would be upheld, decided to withdraw the Petitions and to continue to resist the proposals in other ways, one of which I am now taking. Six Petitions were considered by the Select Committee, but all of them were rejected without consideration of the actual objections to the proposals on the grounds that the Petitioners had no locus standi. As I say, even if this may have been strictly and technically within procedure, it was extremely discouraging to most of us because under the threat of such substantial damage to such a wide variety of private interests it scarcely seemed democratically credible that this should be the case. Indeed, probably the most powerfully objectionable aspect of Clause 36 is that it seems to cut deeply into the whole principle of democracy, and to demonstrate clearly that local authority is determined to take power to itself to tell the public what is good for it.
First, it is necessary to examine what lies behind the provisions of the Bill. In July, 1968, the Minister of Transport presented to Parliament a White Paper which dealt generally with the London Transport Board, British Rail, the Transport Holding Company, the London boroughs, and various other matters. In that White Paper a short reference was made to car parking, the intention being to give the Greater London Council more powers to initiate and introduce on-street parking schemes in conjunction with the London boroughs. In the White Paper there was a further mention that
"…arrangements will be made for more effective measures to rationalise the prevision and operation of off-street parking space: this may mean licensing publicly available off-street parking facilities (whether publicly or privately owned) so as more effectively to control their capacity and charging arrangements, and thus ensure proper balance between short—and long—term parking supply".
It takes only a summary reading of Clause 36 and Schedule 5 to sec that the Bill goes much further than that. In fact, it gives full proof of the current trend towards using this means as a control measure to restrain private car traffic by what seems to me to be a very unfair procedure. This could be seen quite clearly in the Provisional Order which was presented to Parliament by the Glasgow Corporation in 1967, which sought similar powers, but which was

551
withdrawn on meeting very strong opposition, principally from the motoring organisations. Subsequently, Westminster City Council has also stated that it wishes to control the charges and conditions of entry to off-street parking accommodation in order to prevent or deter long-term non-essential parkers from using the facilities, whether in private car parks or those available for public use.
I do not think it is easy to imagine a more objectionable traffic dictator than the unfortunate official who has thrust upon him the duty to decide who are non-essential parkers. However, the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Transport, during the passage of this Bill through another place. said on May 6 this year—and I have been most careful not to quote him out of context:
"There is no question of using this measure to try to force the motorist off the road."
It seems a pity, therefore, that the right honourable gentleman had apparently not seen the report of the Greater London Council's Strategic Planning Committee, issued on March 7, which said, in exactly the same context:
"This will give the authorities a management tool to restrain the use of motorcars in favour of public transport."
Somebody is fooling somebody here, and, if I have listened correctly to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, they have done a surprising amount to confirm before your Lordships this afternoon exactly what were the thoughts of the G.L.C.'s Committee on this subject.
It has for a long time been the view of the R.A.C. that substantial improvement is needed in public transport, and that it has a very important part to play in our urban traffic problems. But we have also frequently pointed out that imposing unreasonable and negative restrictions on private cars is not the way to secure that. What would be far more effective is the provision of more and better road improvements and off-street car parking, planned properly as part of those road improvements, particularly in proximity to public transport access points and railway stations on the fringes of the central area, to encourage the policy of "park and ride". I therefore hope to hear a good deal more from the noble Lord,
552
Lord Winterbottom, when he replies, about the plans of the Minister and the G.L.C. to improve facilities of this kind. I should like to hear from him something positive about progress with the motorway box and many other necessary London road improvements, and about urgent plans to provide off-street parking facilities. I would even remind him that the Transport Act 1968 enables financial assistance to be given to car parks at public transport stations.
If the noble Lord is not able to give the positive news that I seek, I shall be forced back on the view that the real object of the restrictive powers sought by this Bill is to cover up the failures to adopt and implement a proper parking policy, and even that the G.L.C. may also have been tempted to take a convenient opportunity to grind their financial axe at the same time by coercing people on to the public transport for which the Council are about to assume responsibility.
Apart from that, it seems a very great pity that the moment when repeated additions to fares are a disincentive to the use of public transport should also be chosen as the moment to raise the charges at car parks at British Rail stations used by commuters. I do not know whether British Rail consulted with anybody about this—certainly, they did not consult the R.A.C. But as local authorities are also proposing to raise their charges, to prevent the commuters from transferring to local authority car parks from British Rail car parks, I would suggest that the Ministry of Transport and the Greater London Council themselves have some fairly rapid consultation on this very obvious instance of working against the very use of public transport that they desire to encourage. It is small wonder that so many of the public prefer to make use of the flexible, reliable, convenient and even, at times, cheaper means of transport that is provided by their cars.
If local authorities are to be empowered to control the whole of the parking arrangements in the private sector, including charges. permitted hours of parking, permitted hours of opening. permitted categories of motorists who are allowed to park at all, amounts of space available for particular purposes—and, indeed, any other terms and conditions that they may think fit—I have said

553
enough, I think, to indicate that the car-owning public in London are going to consider themselves a harassed and hounded community. And that quite apart from the effect on the business user.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, prayed in aid what was said in the Buchanan Report. I would refer him to the preface to that Report, written by the Steering Group which was behind the whole Report, which made the categorical observation that a car-owning electorate will not stand for severe restriction as the remedy for the problems of urban traffic congestion. And no more they should. Yet that, my Lords, is just what they are being faced with in this Bill. What is more, they are faced with it without any previous consultations with the motoring organisations, speaking on their behalf, and without any provision in the Bill for such consultations. This is not unusual, because there is ample precedent for this in regard to traffic regulation Orders; but it is certainly something that will have to receive attention in Committee.
Something else to which we must also return is the proposed procedure to enable users of individual car parks to have notice of the intention to apply the new powers to a particular area. The information which they get will probably not indicate exactly how the powers will be exercised or specify the conditions to be observed in operating individual car parks. I think that private motorists, especially those who use certain car parks frequently or regularly, will undoubtedly resent the imposition of restrictive conditions adversely affecting their interests when they have had no opportunity to express their views to the authorities. Therefore it is desirable for a procedure to be written in which will enable the users of the car parks to be made aware, before decisions are made, of the effect of specific proposals affecting their interests. In the case of car parks operated by local authorities, there are already procedures for the public to object to alterations of conditions for their use, and I think it is reasonable that the same kind of arrangements should apply to private-enterprise car parks, if the local authorities are to be empowered to control the manner in which they are operated.
Another point that we shall have to watch is that the use of the proposed
554
powers does not nullify or frustrate existing contracts entered into for the use of car parks. Apart from direct business use, commitments may have been undertaken, such as the purchase or lease of property, on the understanding, which may be contractual or otherwise, that parking will be available in private enterprise car parks nearby without the restriction which may now arise from the new powers. Real hardship and loss could be caused in this way, and although the legal position may not now be entirely free from doubt, and may need some clarification, it seems reasonable to provide that the powers should not be exercised in a way that would interfere with contractual rights. Failing that, there should certainly be provision for compensation to those injuriously affected by such interference.
Much the same kind of consideration also affects the private car park operator, although from a larger variety of angles than the private motorist. In the case I have just mentioned, not only is the operator at the opposite end of a frustrated contract with an individual parker, he may also find himself out of order with the contractual arrangements under which he operates a given car park, and which have been made with a local authority or other form of what we may call head landlord. Operating leases are many and varied, both as to their conditions and as to their duration, which may be either short-term or long-term. Indeed, in this business it is not unusual to find even 99-year leases, and if such were to be made inoperable and/or unviable by the use of the powers under this Bill the operator would be in a very serious position indeed. There is no provision in the Bill for such a situation; and this is something else which I think must soon engage your Lordships' serious attention.
Furthermore, not only is it possible for an operator to be put in breach of his lease: it is equally possible, and for similar reasons, for him to be put in breach of his town and country planning consent, because some consents specify the conditions of operation of existing car parks. Here, therefore, is a second shot at the same target, and for this, again, no provision is made in the Bill.
Since there was no consultation prior to the drafting of Clause 36 with the car parking industry, any more than there was with the motoring organisations, it

555
is not possible to say whether any regard has been paid to the requirements of the tourist industry and to the effect on overseas tourist advertising promotion—in which, your Lordships may not fully realise, the availability of car parks plays a definite part. Nor is it known what the likely effect will be on temporary operation of a car park, such as at Christmas time or in connection with public ceremonies or events. Under the Bill, these would now become illegal without a licence, which would have to be negotiated, of course, complete with terms and conditions, quite possibly resulting in the provision of no car park at all. If that were so, it would result from the impact of something which is probably the biggest factor of all and the weight of which is exceedingly important. In relation to future car parks, unless an operator is able to know in advance the amount that he is able to charge, the hours of opening, what section of the public, if any, will be restricted from using it, and a lot of factors like that, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for him to assess the financial viability of any such project. If an operator cannot assess the financial viability of his projects, he will not—in fact, he cannot—take them on, and certainly he cannot interest any of the sources from which financial backing for private enterprise car parks comes. They, in turn, will no longer be prepared to put up the financial backing.
The result of this Bill would be that the utter uncertainty of the operations would bring the creation of private car parking in London to a standstill. In case your Lordships should think I am indulging in a bit of scaremongering, I may tell the House that the withdrawal of proposed financial support is actually happening now, in prospect of this Bill. In fact, I am not exaggerating when I say that this Bill, as put to your Lordships, will sound the death-knell of private enterprise car parking in London; and if your Lordships care to pause to consider the major contribution made and to be made by private enterprise car parking in London alone, you will see just how important that factor is.
Apart from that, the practical operation of a car park will be made virtually impossible in the kind of instance where
556
there is differentiation between long-term and short-term parkers and thus the necessity to refuse admission to someone who wanted to park for a longer period than is allowed under the terms of a licence. That would cause delays at car park entrances, possibly building up—and this is not unusual—into traffic congestion in the street. Thus, if the operator cannot function, the motorist cannot park, and the present difficult traffic problems become very considerably increased, instead of, as is the general idea, being decreased. Thus, again, we find ourselves with nothing but bad emanating from this Part of the Bill for the motorist, for the operator and for the local authority alike. Therefore, my Lords, it is no wonder that all three of these categories petitioned, however uselessly it may have been, against the Bill.
It will no doubt be argued—in fact, it has been argued—that all these powers are essential in the interests of the community and that car parking must be so rigorously controlled. If that is a fact, I should like to ask why car parks operated by local authorities themselves are excluded from the Bill and exempted from the conditions that it imposes. If such detailed control of "who parks where, for how long and for how much" is really arguable, surely municipal car parks must be equally capable of sin in breaching the success of that control, and it is only logical that they, too, should come within its limitations. The present exclusion could in fact be operated, in more extreme cases, to the active detriment of the private operator, who, in any case, despite the protestations of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has only a very limited availability of appeal against the powerful sanctions that may be applied against him. The noble Lord described those powers of appeal almost with pride, or so it seemed to me, but in fact it is the most tenuous means of appeal, existing only in the right of the Minister to call in cases if he so decides. My Lords, I am bound to say that if this state of affairs, together with the total lack of compensation provided by the Bill, amounts to any recognisable form of British justice in the way that I am sure most of your Lordships understand the words, then our joint education on the subject has been sadly lacking.

557
If your Lordships would like a further example of the ludicrous possibilities, please consider the case of the British Airports Authority and London Airport. Some two-thirds of it is in the G.L.C. area, and the powers in the Bill can apply equally to the British Airports Authority's car parks within the confines of the Airport. They would appear to conflict head-on with the Airports Authority Act 1965, which specifically charges the British Airports Authority with being master in its own house. This Bill provides other powers, and so we have the ridiculous situation—one, surely, with very little precedent in the British Parliamentary system—whereby there are two Acts with conflicting meanings, with the Minister of Transport (God help him!) appointed as arbiter between them. I suggest that the very simple expedient of preserving intact the British Airports Authority's responsibility to Parliament lies in excluding their airport car parks from the scope of the Bill.
Your Lordships may ask what I am standing here making so much fuss about. The fuss, my Lords, is about this. The provision of adequate off-street parking facilities is something which in the light of modern requirements has been grossly and woefully neglected, instead of its being properly planned as part of the organised development of community areas. Central Government have played no part here, except by controlling the strings of loan sanction to local authorities, to whom has been hived off the responsibility but who have largely been denied the means. Private enterprise has responded to a considerable and important degree and is now apparently to be heavily penalised for having done so; and this will be to the detriment of all and to the benefit of none. Make no mistake, my Lords: if Clause 36 of the Bill goes through for London, it will soon become the pattern for the whole country, so your Lordships should take care to examine it well. I still think that I was thoroughly justified in calling Clause 36 curious and spurious as well as objectionable. I very much look forward to your Lordships' detailed examination of it at later stages in the passage of the Bill.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BENEFITS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
4.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like now to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services about improvements in national insurance and industrial injuries benefits, supplementary benefits and war pensions and about increases in the contributions of the insurance schemes. The Statement is as follows:
"I have presented to-day a Bill to increase benefits and contributions under the national insurance and industrial injuries schemes. A Financial Memorandum is attached to the Bill. An explanatory White Paper and a Report by the Government Actuary will be available later this afternoon.
"The House already knows that the Government proposes to increase, the main standard benefit rates of the national insurance scheme by 10s. a week for a single person and 16s. for a married couple. This will restore to the flat-rate benefits the value lost because of the rise in prices in the two years since the last increase, in October, 1967. The cost of the total increase (including industrial injuries) will be about £247 million in the first full year. It is proposed that the new rates of benefit should come into effect at the beginning of November.
"The levels of supplementary benefits will be increased at the same time. For the two main categories—the single householder and the married couple—increases of 5s. and 8s. are proposed. Taking into account the first instalment they have been receiving since October, 1968, they will then have had increases of 10s. and 16s. respectively since October, 1967—the same increases as are now proposed in the standard rates of national insurance benefits, which have remained unchanged since that date.

559
"Supplementary benefit levels of other categories, including children, will also be increased. Draft regulations to provide for all these changes will be laid for approval by the House in due course.
"There will also be increases in war pensions—as usual, by Royal Warrant.
"I will, with permission, circulate a list of the principal proposals for supplementary benefits and changes in war pensions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"I now turn to contributions which need to be increased, not only because of higher benefits but owing to two other factors—the greatly increased number of pensioners and the higher cost of short-term benefits. As the House already knows, the total required in a full year is about £430 million. With the Exchequer contribution remaining at 18 per cent, i.e. £70 million, this leaves about £360 million to be found from increased contributions. The traditional way of raising this sum would have been to put the whole burden on the flat-rate contribution. This would have meant an increase of 3s. 4d. each for employer and employee. The Government rejected this as an intolerable imposition on the lower-paid worker. Instead, we thought it right to move towards the new scheme of national superannuation by raising most of the additional contribution on an earnings-related basis. The flat-rate increase therefore for an employed man (including industrial injuries), has been held down to 1s. a week and for an employed woman to 11d., whereas the present ½per cent. graduated contribution on earnings between £18 and £30 will be raised by 2¾ per cent. The biggest increase—for a man earning £30 or more a week—will be 7s. 7d., made up of 1s. flat-rate contribution, and 6s. 7d. graduated contribution. On the other hand, some 6 million employees who earn less than £18 a week will have only the 1s. flat-rate increase to pay.
"I now turn to the benefits which employees will receive in return for these increased contributions. Let me emphasise that the additional
560
graduated contributions, which will apply across the board, both to those in the State scheme and to those contracted out, will earn additional pension rights. But the greatest weakness of the graduated scheme introduced by our predecessors in 1961 was that it included no device for making these graduated pensions inflation proof. Indeed, ever since 1961 their value has been shrinking year by year. The Government has, therefore, decided that from 1972, when the new scheme comes into operation, the biennial review will guarantee the value not only of new-scheme earnings-related pensions and the present flat-rate pensions, as indicated in the White Paper, but also of the small graduated element in the present scheme which is earned by all of those who pay graduated contributions. This will apply not only to pension entitlement in the three years between now and 1972 but also to the pension earned in the last eight years.
"I should warn the House that this decision may cause problems to some employers and contracted-out workers. I should make it clear, however, that contracted-out employers will not be required to revalue the equivalent pension benefits for employees who have left or may leave their employment before retiring age. But it will be for the employer to decide whether any improvement should be made in the light of all the circumstances; and since the decision will not take effect until after 1972 this will leave ample time for further consultations on this complex issue.
"On the other hand, the decision to revalue the graduated element of the present pension scheme will, I am sure, be welcomed by all those whose pension rights were frozen by the previous Government's legislation. Now they will be able, for the first time, to look forward in their retirement to graduated pensions that will be revalued in the light of changes in the value of money and the level of earnings.".
Following is the list of principal proposals for supplementary benefits and changes in war pensions referred to in the Statement:

PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT RATES

Present Weekly Rate

Proposed Weekly Rate

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Ordinary Scale

(a) Husband and wife

7

9

0

7

17

0

(b) Single householder

4

11

0

4

16

0

(c) Any other person aged:—

(i) not less than 21 years

3

14

0

3

17

0

(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years

3

1

0

3

4

0

(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years

2

13

0

2

16

0

(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years

2

1

0

2

4

0

(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years

1

19

0

2

1

0

(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years

1

12

0

1

13

0

(vii) less than 5 years

1

7

0

1

8

0

Blind Scale

(a) Husband and wife:—

(i) if one blind

8

13

6

9

2

0

(ii) if both blind

9

9

6

9

18

0

(b) Any other blind person aged:—

(i) not less than 21 years

5

15

6

6

1

0

(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years

4

1

0

4

4

0

(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years

3

9

0

3

12

0

(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years

2

1

0

2

4

0

(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years

1

19

0

2

1

0

(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years

1

12

0

1

13

0

(vii) less than 5 years

1

7

0

1

8

0

Notes:

(i) An allowance for rent is added to the above rates.

(ii) Both the existing and the proposed rates given above exclude the 10s. long-term addition which is added to the requirements of persons over pensionable age and to those of persons under pensionable age (other than the unemployed) who have received supplementary benefit for a period of two years.

PRINCIPAL CHANGES IN WAR PENSIONS

Present weekly rate

Proposed weekly rate

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Disablement pension:—

100 per cent. rate

7

12

0

8

8

0

with proportionate increases for lesser disablement, e.g. 20 per cent. rate

1

10

6

1

14

0

Special allowances paid with disablement pensions:—

Constant attendance allowance

Normal maximum rate

3

0

0

3

6

0

Exceptional maximum rate

6

0

0

6

12

0

Allowance for lowered standard of occupation

up to

3

1

0

3

7

0

Treatment Allowances (in lieu of current pension)

7

12

0

8

8

0

Unemployability supplement:—

Allowances (sometimes payable with treatment allowance also)

4

17

6

5

9

0

Wife or adult dependant

2

16

0

3

2

0

First child

1

8

0

1

11

0

Second child

10

0

13

0

Other children

8

0

11

0

Way Widows:—

Standard pension

5

17

0

6

10

0

Allowance for first child

2

9

6

2

13

0

Other children who receive family allowances

1

19

6

2

3

0

Other children who do not receive family allowances

2

6

6

2

10

0

Rent allowance up to

2

5

0

2

10

0

Orphans:—

Under 15

First child and any other child who does not receive a family allowance

2

9

6

2

13

0

Other children receiving family allowances

1

19

6

2

3

0

15 years and over

First child and any other child who does not receive family allowances

3

12

6

3

18

0

Other children receiving family allowances

3

2

6

3

8

0

Adult

4

10

0

5

0

0

4.18 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like on behalf of the whole House to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. May I start by asking her whether it is intended to publish also in the House of Lords OFFICIAL REPORT the detailed proposals for supplementary benefits and changes in war pensions to which she has referred. She did not mention what would be the increase in the full 100 per cent. war disablement pension. Perhaps she would be good enough to let us know this. I believe that the last increase was 17s.
The salient and outstanding point in this Statement is the need to raise £430 million, of which apparently the Treasury are to find £70 million, and the remainder is to be found by increased contributions. Anyone who has had anything to do with the Ministry of Pensions (as it used to be) will know of the problem always created by trying to keep down the contribution for the lowest-paid worker and also of the complications that arise from contracting out. In this case the Government have availed themselves of the graduated pensions contributions. Noble Lords will remember that Labour spokesmen are accustomed to refer to this as a swindle. It is interesting to note that the Government have now decided that they must avail themselves of this "swindle". And not only that: the contributions to the "swindle" are to be increased 6½-fold—I repeat, 6½-fold—presumably on the argument that the bigger the swindle, the more respectable it becomes.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness how much of the higher revenue that is to be raised will come from flat-rate contributions and how much from graduated contributions. I would also ask her whether she can tell us what the total contribution by a person earning £30 a week is now and what the total contribution will be under the new arrangements. Finally, I would ask the noble Baroness to confirm that there is to be no Exchequer contribution matching the increased graduated contributions and that the 25 per cent. Exchequer contribution will be related purely to the flat-rate contributions. If this is so, does it not mean that the proportion of Exchequer contribution will tend to decline in relation to the total contributions? My Lords,
564
if this is so—I am not saying that it is right or wrong that the Exchequer contribution should be reduced—I would point out once again that it is very much at variance with what Labour spokesmen have for long argued, that the Exchequer contribution should be increased.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I have not a great deal to say about it because it is rather complicated and needs a good deal of thinking about. The sums involved are certainly rather large and one wonders whether the increased contributions which are to be called for from the better paid workers will not at once lead to a call for an increase in wages, so adding further to the general inflationary spiral which is going on.
There is one question that I should like to ask the noble Baroness. Can she tell me whether those unfortunate people who do not receive pensions at the present time, the older ones who missed out, will be included in this new scheme? I take it that they will not, or we should have heard something about it, but I should just like to inquire. Finally, I should like to say that although we all echo what the noble Baroness said in the last sentence of the Statement, one seems to have heard that kind of thing before, and one wonders whether the effect will be as great and good and lasting and beneficial as the Statement makes out that it will be.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken for the way they have received this very complex and difficult Statement. In replying, I am sure that the House would not want to be detained too long to-day. The White Paper will be available and I am sure that all noble Lords will read it with the greatest care. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the figures relating to war pensions and supplementary benefit increases will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of this House just as they will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of another place. I have the figures before me if the noble Lord wants them immediately, but I think that all noble Lords will want to read them and the Statement at leisure.

565
I have been asked a number of questions of detail about the particular proposals but I would prefer, if the House would allow me, not to answer them off the cuff. This is a very complex situation and I should like to answer the questions accurately, preferably in writing. In due course, my Lords, when the Bill which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is presenting to-day has passed through its various stages in another place, your Lordships will have full and ample opportunity, I am sure, to debate in detail the proposals which I have outlined to-day. I suggest that we wait until everyone has before them all the factual information which my right honourable friend is presenting.

TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL
4.25 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, while I in no way oppose the basic idea of this Bill, that London Transport should be placed under the regional authority for London, the G.L.C., there are aspects of the Bill which are most disturbing to me, having been in the industry. I see the advantage of London Transport getting rid of its country bus services which are most unremunerative, and passing what I believe the Minister described as "this demented polo mint" to the National Bus Company. No doubt the transfer would strengthen London Transport financially. It would also have the great advantage of reducing to a more manageable size this monopolistic transport undertaking, which in itself is probably the greatest advantage of the Bill.
My Lords, if the Minister is allowed to coin a phrase about "polo mints" I should like to coin one also. I would say that the whole Bill is like the pill cascara sagrada; it has a very nice, sugary outside but a rather bitter and nasty inside. I will go on to describe that. It is surprising, therefore, that the Bill should sabotage its own commonsense proposals by allowing London Transport to extend its field of operations to include express services, excusions and tours to any part of Britain and, indeed, elsewhere; and more particularly to embrace
566
contract carriage operations, a field in which the Traffic Commissioners exercise no control, and in which it seems impossible for the Executive to compete without detriment to their essential function of providing Londoners with adequate bus services.
If London Transport were already fulfilling its obligations to the travelling public in London, this might be easier to understand, but anyone who uses London buses cannot fail to realise that the first need is to provide an efficient service of stage carriages. This is to look at the matter from the point of view of London Transport and the travelling public, but I should also like to point out the gross injustice which would be perpetrated upon those companies already providing express services, excursions, tours and private hire facilities in, to and from London. It cannot seriously be argued that there is not already adequate provision in these respects. Therefore, if London Transport is entering into competition, it can succeed only at the expense of existing operators and, almost inevitably, at the expense of London ratepayers. It is not true, as was claimed in the Joint Review of London Transport annexed to the Blue Paper Transport in London, that
"the public will benefit from the wider range of services which will be available".
That quotation appears on page 101 of the Joint Review.
I should like to remind your Lordships that since 1933, when the London Passenger Transport Board was first formed, it has held the monopoly of stage bus services within this special area. It has never been the intention of Parliament that London Transport should have complete freedom to operate outside London and its suburban areas, though it must be accepted that for one brief period this power was obtained by delegation from the British Transport Commission. However, when Parliament itself has considered the responsibilities of the London Transport undertaking it has always, until now, recognised that the duty to provide a service for London would be undermined by extraneous operations outside the special area.
It has been in these conditions that other concerns in the road passenger transport industry have developed, for over 35 years now, the network of express

567
services and private hire facilities which adequately serve the needs of the community. These operators have been denied the right to run buses in London. Here I would interpose that that is a great pity, because London would have a better service if there had been some element of competition over the years. It may be rather naughty of me to say so, but perhaps we might not be having the further increase that we are having very soon.
While denied the right—as they will still be under the Bill—to carry bus passengers, the coach operators have cultivated and developed a market on which London Transport now sees fit to cast a covetous and plundering eye. I submit to your Lordships that to allow it to succeed in this lustful ambition would be to countenance a gross injustice. There is at present some equilibrium in London's transport services, but this Bill would destroy—I would add unfairly destroy—the balance.
Because of its monopoly background of bus services carrying the overheads of this transport colossus, it is likely that the new London Transport Executive would be able to compete for private hire at basically unfair rates. This does not apply so much to the various types of express services because they would be licensed and controlled by the Traffic Commissioners, but in the case of private hire there would be no such control as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has stated. The danger is clearly recognised in Clause 12 of the Bill, which makes provision for a financial statement on the basis of which the Minister is empowered to direct the Executive to modify or discontinue any relevant operation. I hope to explain more fully in Committee the weaknesses of the protection given. For the moment I merely wish to point out that Clause 12 rightly recognises the danger of a total failure to provide the protection that is required.
Before I sit down, there are two other things that I would mention. One is that when it comes to the dissection of the two bus companies—London Transport and London Transport Country Services—I believe that the dissection will be as complex and dangerous as with Siamese twins: there will be hemorrhages springing up in all directions. So I hope that the greatest care will be taken with Indus-
568
trial relations here. The two undertakings have been working closely and happily, side by side, for some 36 years. They have become knitted together, and their parting is likely to be difficult, to say the least. Let us hope that it will be as painless as possible. Secondly, I do not intend to compete with the great exposition which my noble friend Lord Chesham gave of Clause 36. We are both rather surprised that so few noble Lords are speaking this afternoon on a subject of such importance because, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said, many noble Lords have a great deal of expertise in transport matters. The only comment I would make on Clause 36 is that, whatever other arguments there may be, it seems intolerable that the British Airports Authority should have to submit to outside interference.
I hope that I have said enough to convince your Lordships that this Bill, despite its merits, has certain major deficiencies and that your Lordships should give careful consideration to the effects of these proposals before allowing legislation which can do no credit to Parliament to reach the Statute Book.
4.32 p.m.
LORD GEDDES OF EPSOM: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, with regard to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Winterbottom and Lord Nugent of Guildford. I gathered that they were jointly waving a magic wand which was going to transform the Cinderella of the London Transport Board into the Golden Princess, the London Transport Executive; that once this Bill had been passed, there would be no difficulty in future about public transport services in London; everything was going to be beautiful and perfect. The fact of the matter is that the only magic wand is the financial clause in this Bill, and I submit to your Lordships that if the same financial wand had been waved for the London Transport Board as is being waved for the London Transport Executive the Board would have continued to be viable and therefore, in the minds of noble Lords opposite, would have been an excellent institution.
One wonders why this has not been done. Of course one knows the reason. One of the basic principles behind this

569
Bill is to transfer any possible subvention required for public transport. In my view, unless fares are continually to rise, to such an extent that the result will be that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that fewer and fewer people will use public transport and more and more cars will congest the streets, there will continue to be the need for a subvention for public transport. But I wonder whether the idea that this subvention should come from local rates is quite so right for London as it is for the rest of the country. After all, large numbers of tourists use London Transport, and I wonder whether it is quite right that the London ratepayer should be called upon to subsidise public transport which is so largely used by people who do not pay the rates. I am not suggesting that this is a very important point but, as I say, I wonder whether the principle of a local rates subvention, as against a national Exchequer subvention, is quite so sound in London as it is in the rest of the country. I hope that the London public will realise, among the other things happening under this Bill, what is happening with regard to fares.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, referred to the Transport Tribunal as an anomaly. It may be an anomaly, but at least it is a public safeguard. As one who sat for some time on London Transport Board, I have sometimes been, like the rest of the Board, exasperated and frustrated by the decisions of the Tribunal. But at least we knew that there was an independent body considering increases in fares that there was a public inquiry, and that members of the public had an opportunity, through proper channels, by properly authorised people, to put their point of view. Under the new system, the London public will have practically no safeguard against increases in fares. The only safeguard will be that a decision by the G.L.C. to increase fares will be subject to review and authorisation by the Minister. It is true that it will still be possible to make objections to the Minister, but I submit that the public in London are losing a very important safeguard, because politically it is much more difficult to increase rates in order to meet the subvention, and therefore the desire of the G.L.C. will be not to have a sub-
570
vention but to raise the fares, and therefore public transport in London is going to cost the public more and more.
I challenge the assumption behind the introduction of the Bill that its very passage is going to change everything, that we shall have a completely regular service and that we shall no longer have difficulties about getting staff. I wonder if it is realised for how many years it has been impossible to staff London Transport as it should have been under the necessary establishment. I wonder how often it is realised that in West London garages were 25 per cent. short of staff and that the average shortage has been about 12½ per cent. We could no: get the people. Why not? Simply because people are unwilling to work a seven-day week. I do not mean that they were expected to work on all seven days of the week, but they were required to work any time from early morning until late at night, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. In these days, it is not possible to get people to do that.
It is all very well to criticise the management of London Transport. On previous occasions the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has made general criticisms, hitter criticisms, of the management. But to-day, for the first time, he has made a particular one. He referred to the fact that they have taken a long time to introduce one-man buses and said that this is an example of the weakness of the management of London Transport. I do not think I am entitled to ask the noble Lord what he would have done in the circumstances, but I will deal with the circumstances.
The management had two possibilities before them. They could have negotiated before they built the buses the terms on which one-man buses should be operated, or they could have built the buses and then negotiated the terms on which they should be run. What they decided was to do both. They gave an order fox the buses and started negotiations. These negotiations were very protracted. They were on the basis on which the noble Lord said they should have been—of a fair division, between the staff, the Board and the public, of the saving achieved. And the final agreement is on that basis.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord finishes with that point, would he please deal with paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Prices and Incomes Board Report for 1969.
LORD GEDDES OF EPSOM: No, I will not. I state that in fact the negotiations were started on the basis that the noble Lord claimed were the right lines: that the saving should be divided fairly between the Board, the staff and the consumer. This was the basis of the negotiations. Of course there are so many people who can negotiate in absentia. People who do not have to do the negotiations, who are not part of them, can always tell the negotiators what they should have done.
Let us examine for a moment what they should have done. Should they have entered into an agreement? And if they had entered into an agreement, did they have to accept the best possible terms they could get? Or should they have declined to enter into an agreement? Who was to staff the buses? Would any noble Lord suggest that external forces should be used to staff the buses? If the busmen say that they are not going to use one-man buses except under certain conditions, what then? Do you turn round and tell the busmen that they have got to staff the buses? This is nonsense. You could, of course, say that you could not reach an agreement. You could, of course, have tried to introduce the buses under, as it were, non-agreement, and have the whole of London Transport stopped, including the Tubes.
The noble Lord talks about weak management. No management, neither weak management nor strong management, can get the best terms possible in a situation in which staff are in short supply, and a man cannot be sacked, because he cannot be replaced. It is all very well to talk about discipline. Discipline on London Transport is not good, and everybody knows that it is not good. It is not good because if a man is dismissed for a minor offence, it is impossible to replace him, and so a bus is off the road. The fact of the matter is that the people who criticise the management of London Transport have not the least idea of the problems with which they have been faced. The London Transport Board have been faced with three external
572
influences: the Minister, the Tribunal and the traffic authorities. You cannot run any public transport service if you are not completely free to do just as you want; and you cannot be in that position, because no public transport system can be an entity on its own: to a certain extent it has to be controlled by other influences.
My Lords, I am sorry if in my intervention I have been a little heated, but I have heard time and time again this unwarranted criticism of the London Transport Board by people who fail to appreciate the difficulties, and assume that all that is necessary is to introduce a Bill. This Bill will not alter the fact that it can still take 20 minutes to get from one end of Baker Street to the other. This is not because of parking" for parking is prohibited in Baker Street, on both sides. It is a one-way street and has the best possible traffic conditions. Yet, as I say, it can take 20 minutes to get from one end to the other; and a bus service has to be scheduled to try to secure regularity.
My final word is this. I completely disagree with the suggestion that the difficulties facing the London Transport Board are, or ever have been, due to management. If you like to look back you will find that the Board have been one of the most far-seeing public authorities. The London Transport Board are one of the first public authorities to introduce a fully automated Underground system. This is not done in a year. It was not done last year, or the year before. It is done as a result of ten years' planning; of ten years' going round and finding out what is the best possible system. Anybody would think that all that has to be done with the London buses is suddenly to say: "We will now have a five minute service throughout the whole of London", and "that's that". What you have to do after that is to get the buses, to get the roads clear and get the staff; and then you have the service you want. The London Transport Board have never had that opportunity, and the London Transport Executive will not get it either.
4.44 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I have been taunted to stand up for a moment or two by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who said it was surprising

573
to him that there were so many noble Lords in the House who knew much about this subject but who did not venture to speak on it. I have listened to this debate with great interest. It is a debate which has taken place in this House often before; it has taken place in this city often before, and in other cities in this land and in other lands, and no doubt the matter will go on being debated for many generations to come.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, gave a very good introduction to the Bill, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord. Lord Nugent of Guildford, to whose speeches it is always such a delight to listen, commend the Bill to his colleagues. There is a basic principle in the Bill which I think should commend itself to all of us. It surely must be wrong that the Minister of Transport of a great country like this should be responsible for the transport of one city—London. It must surely be wrong that the people of Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool and so on should have to pay for the deficits run by London Transport, and it is right to put the responsibility in the right place.
The speech that caused me considerable anxiety was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. He told us that he spoke (I hope the noble Lord will excuse me if I do not quote his exact words) as the representative of the private motorist, or the defender of the rights of the private motorist. Well, we are all private motorists and we should none of us agree that our rights should be restricted by what the noble Lord called unreasonable and unfair restrictions. But it was the general tone of the noble Lord's remarks that caused me anxiety. He told us that he very much disagreed with the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, which was an attitude with which I personally agreed, and he went on to speak in a way that reminded me of a remark made in a debate on this self-same subject many years ago in London, which ended up in the formation of the London Passenger Transport Board. The proprietor of "The Chocolate" omnibus company stood up and said: "This morning I drove into the City of London, and I saw up there on the Royal Exchange a text which said, 'The Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof', but I did not
574
know until I came here this afternoon and heard the noble Lord's speech that that meant the noble Lord, Lord Ashley". It was rather in a similar way that I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I hope that when he comes (as he said he will) to the Committee meetings on this Bill he will be—if I may say so with great respect to a man for whom I have respect—rather more careful about this matter, because this afternoon he gave me the impression, and he might have given it to other Members of the House, that what he wants to see is another Los Angeles.
4.49 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I do not feel equipped to embark upon some of the wider issues that have been raised in this debate, except perhaps to offer your Lordships the observation, for what it may be worth, that I am one of those who for the last eighteen months has almost completely given up attempting to drive a private car in London, and have felt myself, in consequence, a happier and much less harassed man. I want to address myself to one aspect of the subject which has already been touched upon by one or two noble Lords who have spoken, and to develop for a moment or two the problem of the control of off-street parking as it affects Heathrow Airport. The car-park operating agency there is the British Airports Authority, and I should make reference to the fact that I have had the privilege of being a part-time member of that Authority since its inauguration.
This is not the time, or the stage of the proceedings on this Bill, to develop in detail the problem which could arise for the Authority under the operation of Clause 36 as it is drafted at present, but it is appropriate to Second Reading to give some indication of the size and seriousness of that problem. It is clear that car parks in a large international airport must be provided on an extensive scale for the use of the travelling public and for those who come to the airport in connection with travellers, to see them off or to welcome them, as the case may be. I am sure a few moments' reflection will show how regulations applied by local authorities could affect the task which the Airports Authority has in providing services—and it is Parliament which has the task laid upon it by Statute—the duty

575
of providing for the convenience of those who use the airport for the purposes of air travel.
A large international airport is inevittably a very complex organism. It represents the junction of travel by air with travel on the surface of the earth, much of which in present circumstances is likely to be travel by private car. In relation to its very limited total area, a vast amount of traffic and a vast number of vehicles pass through Heathrow. This, I am sure, is the reason why the Authority is the highway authority as well as at present the parking authority within the perimeter of the airport. Since it seems to be the general principle of Clause 36 to combine responsibility for the highways—and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made a reference to this—with responsibility for on-street and off-street parking, it would seem a logical thing to exempt from the operation of Clause 36 an Authority, which is itself, although substantially within the G.L.C. area, at present already both a highway authority and the parking authority. Indeed, in the circumstances of an airport, it is virtually impossible to separate from the general operation of that airport the car-parking functions and the car-parking provisions.
The smooth running of an airport depends to a substantial degree upon constant attention to car-parking needs. The number of spaces available must expand as the need for those car-parking spaces rises. The charges which are applied must be related to the need to ensure the fullest utilisation of the car parking spaces available. This, again, under the terms of this clause as at present drawn, constitutes a serious problem for an Authority upon which Parliament has placed a statutory duty to operate the airports to provide such services and facilities as, in its discretion, it believes the efficient operation of those airports—and service to those who wish to use them—requires.
References to compensation in the clause suggest that it can hardly have been drawn up with such a situation as that of Heathrow in mind, for there is provision in certain circumstances for compensation. That compensation, however, relates to the depreciation in
576
the value of car-parking space, and that is completely irrelevant to a public authority which has to provide car-parking space as a part of its general public responsibility. I hope my noble friend will look into this problem and give it his personal attention.
I am emboldened to make a further point by what my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom said a few moments ago. He referred to the fact that London Transport, in doing its work, had had to contend with a number of external influences. I would respectfully suggest to my noble friend, Lord Winter-bottom, that in examining this matter he should consider how important it is that Parliament should resist the temptation to set up by Statute public authorities charged with a particular range of duties, expected to perform those duties in a manner which conforms broadly to commercial standards, and then to subject those public authorities to all kinds of external decisions and overriding influences which make the discharge of the duty which Parliament has specified an exceedingly difficult one. I hope my noble friend will look into this problem to which other noble Lords and I have drawn attention.
4.57 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for having given this Bill a general welcome. I am strengthened in my own conviction that it is a good Bill by the fact that both noble Lords are deeply experienced in the fields of road and rail transport, and I believe I am correct in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was the founding father of the first institute of traffic engineering in this country. So I am strengthened by their support.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, drew attention to one or two flies in the ointment, but the ointment as a whole has a pleasant savour. I want to acknowledge at this point the various warnings about areas of criticism which noble Lords have given to me at this stage of the Bill. In the boxing fraternity there is a phrase "shadowing your punches", and I am grateful to noble Lords who have indicated, by shadowing their punches, that an attack will come on Clauses 6, 12 and

577
36, and I will prepare myself for all-round defence at those particular points.
May I make one or two general comments upon the speeches made to-day? I must say I thoroughly enjoyed Lord Geddes of Epsom's spirited defence of the London Transport Board, of which he was himself once a distinguished member. I do not think that either the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, or I are so unsophisticated as to think that as soon as this Pill is passed the whole problem of transport in the Greater London Area will be automatically solved. I must say that one of the points he made, indicating the frustrations of trying to run the transport system in London commercially, was that these frustrations were due to the fact that so many people were meddling in its affairs. The hard fact is that there will now be one responsible authority and a lot of meddling will be cut out. The important discipline of a single objective—a profitable system of transport—is now placed before the Greater London Council and the electors of the city. I hope Lord Nugent of Guildford will allow me to disagree with him when I say that there was no hint in my speech of any criticism of the Greater London Council during the "horse trading" leading up to this Bill, for getting the best terms that they could for the system which they were being asked to operate. That was surely very sensible.
But I would disagree with the noble Lord when he seemed to imply that writing off £244 million was a gross waste of taxpayers' money. Part of the trouble in life is that not all schemes go right. They sometimes go wrong in public enterprise. They certainly sometimes go wrong in private enterprise. The written-off losses in public enterprise have to be publicised with the maximum of light, and are subject to political criticism. But when private industry has to write off a failure it does it against capital reserves and the fact is noted in very small print at the bottom of the annual statement. It is not only in public enterprise that capital is written off because it is water under the bridge.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My. Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would agree that in the case of private enterprise the money involved
578
is that of the shareholders who have made the choice of putting their money in that particular enterprise, and they alone bear the loss, whereas in a public enterprise everybody has to bear the loss because the money has been taken from us in taxes?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords, there is a difference. Nevertheless, I do not think the difference is as wide as the noble Lord makes out because this is basically a commercial undertaking. The fact that it is now to be a strictly commercial undertaking will help all those who are striving for commercial efficiency and competent management. There is to be no split directive; there is to be a single directive that profits must be made. I would agree with the noble Lord completely that a very important element of discipline can be that there should be no subsidy on current account. This must strengthen the hands of management when they enter into difficult negotiations, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom, which I think will continue to be difficult right into the future; but, on the other hand, I think they can be conducted because of the framework which has been provided within which they will take place.
I can confirm a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that the London Transport Board, as a result of the 1968 Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, have pressed ahead hard with measures to increase productivity, and quite clearly—I have not been watching it but the noble Lord has—this increased effort is in fact starting to bear fruit.
May I now turn for a moment to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I think our main clash of arms must take place on Committee stage. The noble Lord has made a detailed and determined attack on these particular proposals within the present legislation, and since this discussion is running longer than was foreseen, and other noble Lords have Bills which they want to present, perhaps he will permit me to answer in detail the various pints he has made when we get to them later in the Session. But may I answer just one point that the noble Lord made. He tried to imply that there was a conflict between what my right honourable friend

579
the Minister of Transport said—namely, that he was not intending to drive the motorist off the road—with what was indicated as the intention of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and myself. I think the difference is between not driving the motorist off the road, of which there was no intention, and persuading him to alter his habits. This is really what the Bill is about, and there is a difference.
I would support what other noble Lords have said on one point. I have found that since the general introduction of the control of traffic through parking meters and the rest, life is becoming far more tolerable when one has to move about London with a car as a private motorist to make a series of calls. I have more recently always been able to find somewhere to put my car during the limited period permitted for parking. I think we are winning along this front.
I think that no fewer than three speakers have mentioned the problems of the British Airports Authority: the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I think the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Lord. Lord Delacourt-Smith—and may I thank him for being so courteous as to give me a private indication of the problems of the British Airports Authority. We all agree that there is a problem here, but this is not the point at which we should discuss it. As has been said, the British Airports Authority is in fact petitioning—it is one of the Petitioners—against this Bill. Its Petition will be considered, and until such time as the grounds for the Petition have been heard and the findings have been published we cannot go on to the Committee stage of the Bill. That is one of the reasons why this Bill in fact may not reach its Committee stage until early in July. But I understand that each House is master of its own business. The fact that the British Airports Authority was not given a locus standi in another place does not automatically imply that this would happen here. So we must wait until a Select Committee of this House adjudicates upon the locus of the Petitioner. But, again, I would be prepared to try to give the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, and noble Lords who have supported him, the maximum satisfaction on this particular point when we are able to discuss it.
580
Finally, regarding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I should like to go back to the subject of compensation. I think he indicated in his speech that in fact no compensation would be paid if private car parking authorities were forced by decisions of the Greater London Council or the boroughs to go out of business or to change their business. I think I said quite clearly that it would be open to the operator to put in a claim for compensation. Compensation in these circumstances is possible. Although he seemed to think that the fact that the Minister of the day could call in an appeal and consider it personally was a small safeguard, I would suggest that this is not the case. I myself cannot conceive of a stronger safeguard than the fact that a Minister is empowered to call in an appeal and study it personally; and that the final court of appeal is not the Greater London Council but the Minister of the day.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but on this particular point I cannot let him get away with the idea that he cannot conceive of a stronger form of appeal. A stronger form of appeal is that one has a right of appeal. This is at the Minister's discretion.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I shall try to answer that point at a later stage of the Bill. I think that at this stage there is very little more that I can say to illuminate or set the framework for our following discussions. I am glad that the general feeling of the House is that this Bill will have an important role to play in preventing London from becoming some Los Angeles in the future; that it will enable us to retain intact the centre of this City, which is one of the great centres of the cities of the world; and that at the end of the day, although I am reasonably certain we shall never achieve perfection, nevertheless we shall be able to keep ahead of the problems brought about by general ownership of the motor car.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

CONSERVATION OF SEALS BILL [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that about a year ago you considered a Bill with a similar title, with similar objectives, but rather longer, and that at the end of the debate on the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, suggested that I might consult further with interested parties to see whether I could bring up a differently drafted Bill. Those consultations have taken place, and I am grateful to those who have advised me—naturalists, scientists, fishermen, conservation societies and, last but not least, Government Departments. The Bill before your Lordships to-day is the result.
Perhaps I should remind your Lordships of the reasons which led me, and a number of other people, to feel that our existing legislation, the Grey Seals Protection Act 1932 is insufficient. First, there are two species of seals in British waters: the grey seal and the common seal. The two species are about equally numerous; they are both engaging animals, which attract the affection of naturalists and others who watch them, and both are interesting animals whose habits and ecology have been much studied by naturalists, amateur and professional, over the past thirty years or so. As a result, we can now contemplate legislation of a type and to an extent that would have been quite impossible when the 1932 Act was passed, because we did not at that time have the knowledge at our finger tips.
Both the grey seal and the common seal are fish eaters, and as such come into competition with commercial fishermen, not so much because of the number of fish they destroy as because of the damage they do to nets, both fixed nets for salmon and driftnets for herring and the like, and to the fish in those nets, rendering them, in many cases, unmarketable. There are a number of noble Lords from Scotland who have put down their names to speak this evening and who know much more about the salmon fisheries, but in my own part of the world the damage to the inshore fisheries can be considerable. In those fisheries, as you haul in the net with the fish
582
caught in it by the gills you bring it inboard, give it a good shake and the fish fall on to the deck. A seal seizing a fish in the net under water, pulling and tugging, can shake it in exactly the same way, shaking out everything, so that the unfortunate fisherman hauls in an empty net. If that happens occasionally it is a normal occupational hazard and supportable. But if seals become too numerous it becomes quite insupportable, and the unfortunate fishermen have the greatest difficulty in earning their livelihood.
It is also the case that both species of seal have always been exploited as one of our natural resources for their oil, their meat and, latterly, more especially for their skins. In Scotland at all times seals have been hunted by people living on the coast, formerly for subsistence but latterly more for the commercial results. For many years seal hunters concentrated on the grey seals which breed in colonies, and the young of which cannot swim until they are three weeks or a month old. They are therefore very much more vulnerable than the common seals, the females of which pup on a rock or sand-bank in low water, and the two drift off together at high tide.
This concentration by professional seal hunters on grey seals resulted in their becoming relatively uncommon by the turn of this century, and the Grey Seals Protection Acts were introduced to protect them during their breeding season when they were most vulnerable, although power was given to the Minister to issue licences to kill them at that time if he thought it necessary. As a result of that protection the numbers of grey seals have increased considerably. I suppose that the most famous colony is on the Fame Islands, where the numbers have increased from some 300, 400 or 500 seals, of all ages, in the early 1930s, when the Act was first passed, until to-day, when there are about 5,000 seals on the Islands. There has been a similar large increase in the other large colony of grey seals around our coast, on North Rhona and in Orkney the increase has been such, and the damage done to fisheries has been such, that for the past few years the Secretary of State has authorised an annual cull of some 800 seals. At the same time the unprotected common seal, the coat of which is valuable when a

583
pup, has been subjected to intense killing by commercial sealers, to such an extent that the number of pups born in Shetland has decreased by about 75 per cent, and the take in the Wash has decreased by about 50 per cent. And one hears continual stories of bodies being washed ashore up and down the coast.
Therefore we are faced with two facts: that the grey seal, protected, has in some places become so common as to cause serious damage to fisheries, while the common seal, unprotected and over-exploited, is in some places in danger of becoming rare. Therefore there are a number of apparently conflicting interests which this Bill attempts to reconcile. There are, first, the interests of the naturalist, the scientist and the nature lover, all of whom want to see seals and watch them with as little disturbance as possible. Then there is the commercial sealer, who wants a large population of seals with a large annual surplus which he can cull for his own profit. There is the commercial fisherman who wants to see the population of seals reduced to such a level that the damage to his fish and his gear is minimal; and there are, lastly, a number in every category who feel that if seals have to be killed they should be killed as quickly and as humanely as possible.
If your Lordships will turn to the Bill you will see that Clause 1 deals with this last point. It forbids the use of poison. Strychnine is used to poison salmon which in Scotland (it is not done in England) are put into the nets as bait, and causes an agonising death to any creature which takes it. Scotland has recently abolished the gin-trap, one of the most inhumane engines man has ever devised, thus following England, and I hope that Scotland will also follow England in abolishing this inhumane method of killing animals. Secondly, Clause 1 lays down the minimum-sized firearm that may be used. The ballistics there, if I may be technical for a moment, are those of the 220 Hornet high-velocity rifle, which is more than adequate to kill an animal if it is shot in the head—and practically every seal killed is shot in the head.
Clause 2 lays down close seasons. For the grey seals, which pup in the autumn and early winter, there is the same close
584
season as is in the existing Act, and for common seals, which pup at a different time, the appropriate season is prescribed. Clause 3 gives the Minister power to give complete protection to either or both species if he thinks it necessary and where he thinks it necessary. Clause 9 defines the reasons for which the Minister may grant licences, as he can to-day, to take or kill seals during the close season, and that clause in fact defines the modern concept of conservation, as opposed to the old-fashioned one of protection, which it is the object of this Bill to introduce.
I referred just now to the annual cull in Orkney which has been authorised by the Secretary of State for the past three years or so. That cull has remained more or less constant, and the population also seems to remain more or less constant, because the Secretary of State and his advisers seem to have found the maximum sustainable annual yield from the population of seals in Orkney which can be kept up year after year while keeping the population at the same level. If the population increases and more damage is done to fisheries, he can increase the cull; if he finds the population decreasing he can decrease the cull and bring it back to the maximum level possible. And here, of course, the Minister is following, on behalf of the nation, exactly the same policy as the grazier follows with animals on a farm, or the owner of a deer forest on his hill; that is to say, he is keeping the maximum breeding population that he can without doing damage to his neighbours, and culling and selling the annual surplus in order to keep the population at the same level.
Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 deal with penalties, and with the apprehension of offenders and the like. The clauses are, I think, common form for this sort of Bill and do not call for comment. Clause 8 is important as exempting from penalty the person who takes a seal in order to try to look after it and then release it, or who kills an animal so seriously injured that it has to be put out of its misery. More particularly, the clause authorises the killing by a fisherman of a seal found near his nets, a provision which is intended to cover the existing practice of those in charge of fixed nets of shooting seals or, rather more often,

585
I understand, shooting at seals which attempt to take salmon from their nets—a purely defensive measure which can have little or no effect on the seal population, and which none of your Lordships, I think, would wish to discourage. A suitable weapon of course should be used, and that is taken care of by Clause 1.
The remaining two clauses deal with the relationships between the Minister and the Natural Environment Research Council, the one advising the other, and the other, in certain conditions, having overriding powers over his adviser. My Lords, we in this country have a special responsibility for seals, quite apart from the one of common humanity, because we have around our coasts about 75 per cent. of the whole world population of grey seals. And while we have, quite rightly, protected them for the past fifty years or so, we have been finding that protection alone, in the old-fashioned sense, is not enough and that we have now to go into management. In short, what one hopes this Bill will secure is that we have around our coasts for the enjoyment of all of us the highest possible population of seals that it is possible to have without causing damage to fisheries. This means that the seal population must remain stable since if it increases damage will be done. The surplus, therefore, must be culled as one of our natural resources. To achieve all that we should like would, I must confess, be possible only in the best of all possible worlds. That, I am afraid, is unattainable, but at least we can try, and I feel that we ought to try. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
5.27 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, just over a year ago we had a very full and valuable debate when the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, moved the Second Reading of his Protection of Seals Bill. To my considerable regret, I could not myself be present for that debate, but I have studied the OFFICIAL REPORT and I am well aware of the strong views held on this subject. The fact that nine noble Lords have signified their intention to speak in this debate is further indication of the
586
interest that your Lordships' House has in this subject.
In the previous debate, my noble friend Lord Shackleton explained why the Government could not support that Bill in its existing form, but he promised that we would give the general issues farther thought and be willing to help the noble Earl, if we could, to produce another and more acceptable Bill. As he has said, the noble Earl took us up on that offer, and for our part we have much appreciated the open-minded and co-operative way in which he has considered such advice as the Government have to offer. Thanks to this, we have before us to-day a Bill which, from the Government's point of view at least, is a great improvement on the earlier one.
As your Lordships will recall, the earlier Bill was constructed on the principle that the common seal and the grey seal should be given comprehensive statutory protection and that no seal should be taken or killed except under licence. That would have inflated the administrative aspect; it would have made Ministers and their Departments largely responsible for the wise treatment of seals, and it would have greatly extended the range of activities enforceable at law. At first sight, of course, a central licensing system may seem a better and more flexible safeguard for seals than leaving the relationships, as it were, between men and seals in certain circumstances more arbitrarily defined, as they are in the Bill. But we have to remember that these relationships sometimes, indeed often, involve protecting interests other than the seals themselves. I had a vagrant thought in my mind when the noble Earl said a moment ago that we want the maximum population of seals, consistent with other things, for our enjoyment; I would submit also for the enjoyment of the seals themselves, and their interests are at least as great as ours in this matter.
There is no doubt that both species of seal are responsible for considerable damage to commercial fisheries, by the destruction of a considerable quantity (usually assessed at something like 100,000 tons of fish a year) and a wide variety of fish—white fish, herring and salmon; by the damaging of nets and gear; and by the spread of parasitic worms of which seals are the definitive host.

587
The fishermen are not the only group who believe that there sometimes appear to be too many seals. Conservationists, too, have a concern in seeing that populations of seals do not become so large as to create a threat to their own continued existence or to the ecology of other species. Conservationists, of course, also have a strong interest in protecting species whose numbers are depressed, though in the case of seals there appears to be no danger to the continued survival in British waters of either specie.
The issues then, in the Government's view, amount to this. We want to be able to act in good time to preserve seals—our largest wild mammals—if ever their survival seems endangered. We want to protect seals against inhumanity either from cruel methods of destruction or from needless destruction during the close season. We want to avoid increasing the difficulties of fishermen through the unrestricted increase in the number of seals. We want to ensure that the conservationists have proper opportunity for selective culling of seal populations in the interests of rational management. I do not deny that these objectives could have been secured to some extent by the Bill which the noble Earl introduced last year. I believe, however, that that Bill did not strike the right balance between the various interests, and perhaps, just as importantly, did not manifestly appear to do so. Where the present Bill seems much superior, if I may say so, is in breaking up the comprehensive, but to some extent uncomprehensible, principle of protection into specific and selective safeguards: specified protection means, for example, protection during the close seasons, protection in scheduled areas. The new Bill says what it means, and it leaves—this is fortunate—less to be guessed at in the minds of Ministers. The noble Earl has made clear—and I do not doubt him—that the net effect of this change in the basic framework of the Bill will not involve any significant loss in day to day protection for our seal populations, and no loss whatever when circumstances require that protection should be absolute.
Apart from the fact that the Bill makes no provision for access to land—about
588
which I shall have something to say in a moment—its provisions are generally in line with what the Government would think appropriate. The noble Earl has explained the provisions of the Bill so carefully that I need make only a few comments. Clause 1 defines prohibited methods of taking, injuring or killing seals, and the Secretary of State is empowered, by Order, to alter the descriptions of the weapons specified. This will stop the use of shot-guns and certain other firearms and ammunition that are more likely to maim than to kill. Some of your Lordships may feel that this clause does not go far enough in restricting other methods of killing seals; but the trouble is that there is no unanimity of view at present about what are the most, or least, desirable methods of humane killing or taking of either species.
Clause 8 provides general exceptions for mercy killing and taking, and for fishermen acting in protection of their nets and tackle, and I think perhaps we should consider at a later stage of the Bill providing a similar exception for action taken by fishermen to protect their catches. Under Clause 9(1) the Secretary of State is empowered to license the taking or killing of seals (in a close season, or in a protected area which has been scheduled under Clause 3, or by prohibited methods) for purposes of education, science or for a zoological collection; to prevent damage to fisheries, to reduce a population surplus of seals for management purposes; or for a population surplus to be used as a resource. Clause 9(3) provides that, except where the purpose is to prevent damage to fisheries, the Secretary of State must consult the Natural Environment Research Council before granting any licence; and the Council, of which the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, is a member, has power to veto the grant of a licence to kill seals in a nature reserve or a site of Special Scientific Interest.
Clause 10 requires the Natural Environment Research Council to provide scientific advice on matters related to the management of seal populations. At present there is little evidence to suggest that there are more than one or two areas in respect of which it might be necessary to make orders prohibiting the destruction of seals. I am speaking of areas and not general conditions. As regards licensing the destruction of seals

589
in the close season, I think I ought to say that both the Department of Education and Science and the Fisheries Departments consider that effective culling, particularly of grey seals, is possible only during the close season and culling will therefore in the main have to be done under licence. It is likely, however, that when culling is necessary for management purposes there will also be a need to cull for fisheries protection and it should be possible to co-ordinate such culls.
I turn to the point, indeed the problem, of access to seals for such culls. Even with the present limited protection it has been difficult to arrange for necessary culling because of the reluctance of certain landowners to agree to culls of seals on their land when this would be fully justified on scientific grounds. This measure, which affords certain additional protection for seals and underlines the need for rational management of seal stocks, would seem to be incomplete without some provision to overcome difficulties of that kind and allow seals to be counted and observed for research purposes, or destroyed for management purposes or protection of fisheries.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Hear, hear!
LORD STONHAM: I so often find myself in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and I am glad that he agrees with me again on this occasion. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has indicated his awareness of the problem, and we, too, are considering how it might be resolved.
I must strike a cautionary note about enforcement. This is largely a Scottish problem, for of the 35,000 grey seals in the British Isles, some 30,000 are in Scottish waters; and the majority of the 18,000 common seals are there, too. Enforcement of the Grey Seals Protection Act has always been a problem, particularly in the more remote areas where grey seals are chiefly found. But this Bill will not make the matter any easier. Elsewhere, I need hardly stress that the police would have little time or facilities for the enforcement of criminal legislation with respect to seals.
I think that this is a distinct advance and a useful Bill, which I shall look forward to considering with your Lordships
590
in Committee, when no doubt we shall have some more interesting discussions and perhaps, by consensus and by consent, make further improvements. Meanwhile, may I conclude by congratulating the noble Earl on producing a Bill which continues to steer a middle course between the conflicting interests of which we are all aware, and which I am sure will go a long way in helping to put the conservation, management and control of seals on a sound scientific basis.
5.40 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I, too, join with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, upon bringing forward this amended Bill. Seals are attractive animals. To all of us, and myself in particular, since I read Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Tales and the story of the white seal, they have always had an attraction. As we all know, they are contented and happy animals, possessing, I believe, the five senses in greater proportion than most animals. Seals, especially the common seal, can be tamed if they are not molested too much, and in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries fishermen were even known to play flutes to draw them out because they were attracted by music. I was interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, discussing the situation in the Orkneys, because I believe that in the early nineteenth century when the church bells on Hoy used to ring it was quite usual to see schools of seals appearing in the bay.
The question of the culling of seals for the protection of the fishing industry, as well as for the protection of seals themselves, leads to one or two interesting points. The main point is that, as I understand it, there is no scientific certainty that this is necessary because the scientific knowledge we have at the moment is very limited. I am thinking in particular now of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare Report on this matter. Just taking the question of the Orkneys, the mover of this Bill has informed us that in each of the last three years the Secretary of State has ordered that 800 seals should be culled because of the damage they do, and he informed us that this was considered to be about the right number

591
for keeping the population level. However, UFAW (if I may use the abbreviation), appear to differ in this respect. In fact, they appear to think that there was no reason to fear any increase in numbers on conservation grounds, for in the Orkneys there is no salmon fishing industry to speak of. Admittedly, there is a white fish industry.
In the Orkneys there is also a lobster industry, and the information that UFAW have is that the fishermen in the Orkneys strongly assert that the seals eat the squid which in their turn live off lobsters. I am told that the best lobster catches are often made where many seals are present. So UFAW say in their pamphlet that the plea to cull seals in order to protect fishing interests in the Orkneys is rather bogus, and that neither scientifically nor economically has that plea been justified. They go on to say:
"Perhaps the most disappointing feature of the Orkney visit"—
which was made by themselves with the Government inspectors—
"was witnessing the failure of the official Government observers to get ashore to supervise the sealers' activities."
I merely mention this point to show that there is nothing cut and dried with certainty in these matters. There is a direct conflict of scientific evidence from this body with what the Secretary of State has been advised.
Having said that, as both noble Lords have said it is obviously fair to appreciate that seals do a lot of harm to the fishing industry, and therefore powers to cull obviously have to be in the hands of the Secretary of State. In many cases I would go further than the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I think that if you were to get a surplus of seals in one place they could harm their own chances of survival, because obviously there would not be the same amount to eat and there would also be fouling of the grounds. I would say that although in the past we have had many salmon marked in the rivers in Scotland, this is now rather rarer because the river bailiffs have been successful in keeping down excessive numbers.
The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is not here, but I suppose I had better say that I am the proprietor of a small stretch of river in Scotland where salmon come and where I have rights, but I am not
592
trying to make out a case for salmon rather than for seals; I am fairly neutral. The various terms of damage done I find hard to understand. The Fisheries Marine Research Department Laboratory of the Scottish Home Department had a gentleman called Dr. Bennett who estimated the value of damage done to food at £100,000 and net damage at £50,000. The Scottish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, we were told, estimated the annual damage at more like £67,000. Of course, no doubt there is a lot of other damage which is not known about. But this is not a very large amount considering the amount of salmon and other fish which exist in British waters, and considering the amount taken out of the Atlantic. One has to keep one's sense of proportion.
Now to some details of this Bill. Although I am not a ballistics expert, I wonder whether a bullet weighing not less than 45 grains is really heavy enough for the adult seal. I think it is problematical and debatable, and I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that since 1965 the Canadian Government have seen fit to have certain laws passed. I need not remind your Lordships that it is around Canada where the greatest seal population—admittedly of a different variety, the harp—exists. Nevertheless, they have a very much bigger population than we have, and they have found it necessary to insist on soft-nosed bullets which are capable of expansion in the seals and therefore more certain of causing death, and they have banned by Statute all steel-jacketed ammunition because they found that this was more likely to wound. As I understand it, there is nothing in this Bill to stop people using steel-jacketed ammunition provided that it is of this weight. But, as I say, the Canadian Government found it necessary specifically to insist that soft-nosed bullets should be used. I merely mention this as being worth looking into, because the experience of others is always useful.
Under Clause 9 the Secretary of State has power to specify how any culling or killing shall be done. And he might recommend that on some island where there was (shall we say?) danger of ricochets the culling of cubs should be done by club. I would point out that in Canada they have specified

593
and laid down by law that the clubs used must be of a certain length and certain weight. It is worth mentioning here that Mr. Tom Hughes, who is general manager of the Ontario Humane Society, actually found that in certain cases this method was the most humane. But if this clubbing were ever to be found suitable (I quite agree it is repulsive to think of a man having to do the work because obviously it is not a pleasant job) and if it were to be thought that that was the right way to do it, because of the fear of ricochets, or as being the best way for cubs, it might be right to put down a minimum weight and length of club.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me for interrupting, I hope it will never fall to my lot to introduce a regulation providing for clubbing in this way. Actually, dealing with animals as a Minister is the most dangerous—literally dangerous—occupation you can possibly have; and the method suggested by the noble Lord is, I think, quite abhorrent.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that. I personally regard it as abhorrent, but it has been found in certain cases that from the point of view of the seals themselves this has not necessarily been the unkindest way especially with the young ones. However, I leave that point. I mention it merely as being a point to be considered.
Under the same Clause 9 I am still not quite clear whether the Secretary of State has been given power to override owners in ordering culling. We had the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, thirteen months ago as to whether for instance the National Trust could be forced, against their will, to have culling in the Fame Islands. Personally I accept that, if necessity is known and proved, this power should be in the hands of the Secretary of State, because we all know that public bodies are capable of being got at by members of the public who have emotional feelings, and who are able to influence, even though good grounds do not exist.
I have no more to say, my Lords. This is a useful and helpful Bill which must appeal to all lovers of Nature, and
594
it also gives adequate safeguards to the fishing industry. I again congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on bringing it forward, and would ask the Government to try to ensure that the information on which the Secretary of State acts is given on as many occasions as possible, in order to allay the doubts of the conflicting interests.
5.51 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I should perhaps first admit that such first-hand knowledge as I have of seals derives almost entirely from the Antarctic, apart from occasionally seeing seals at Blakeney Point and on holidays in Scotland. For two and a half years in the Antarctic, Weddell seals and, more particularly, crabeater seals provided the main ingredient of our fresh food supplies. Thanks to the Antarctic Treaty Act all the southern species of seals, South of Latitude 60 degrees South, now have a real prospect of sensible conservation.
It is useful to recall that the Antarctic crabeater seal population is of the order of 5 million to 10 million, of Weddell seals 500,000, and of leopard seals 150,000. In the Northern Hemisphere the heavily exploited population of harp seals is also still to be measured in millions. By contrast, this Bill is concerned with two seal species which exist in Great Britain in smaller numbers, but which become important because of their proximity to centres of human population and are thus particularly vulnerable.
In the Antarctic, out of, say, sever crabeater seals basking on an icefloe, six could be killed before the seventh slipped into the water, after deciding that discretion was the better part of laziness. Their very tameness and trust made one feel a cad, and that it was abhorrent to kill these seals, even when this was done for one's own and for the dogs' food supplies. British seals, on the other hand, are in general far more wary, except during the breeding seasons covered by the close seasons in this Bill, when they are even more vulnerable. The world population of grey seals has recently been estimated at 52,500, of which at least 65 per cent. (I think the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, suggested 75 per cent.) inhabit British coasts, whereas a necessarily less precise estimate of the world common seal population would be of the

595
order of 250,000, of which probably less than 1 per cent. inhabit British waters.
I wish warmly to support this Bill. We owe much to the initiative and leadership of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for introducing this Bill and for the work and consultation which he has given to it. This debt is the greater since this Bill includes for the first time a measure of protection for the common seal as well as for the grey seal. In addition, due regard is paid to fishery industries, as well as to humane methods of killing and to conservation needs. The infliction of suffering on animals is a subject on which strong emotions can be aroused. I believe that much harm is done to the cause of those who have animal welfare at heart, and indeed to the truth of the situation, by ascribing to animals the same feelings and the same reactions to pain as those experienced by human beings; and even, sometimes, by presenting animal suffering in a more emotional light than the suffering of man. When the previous Bill on this subject was debated on May 24, 1968, the noble Lord, Lord Strange, in a speech which was delightful to read (unfortunately, I was not able to be present on that occasion) took the part of the seal. But, with due respect to the noble Lord, neither he nor any other of your Lordships live like seals, imagine like seals, nor even, I suggest, look like seals.
My Lords, we can never know precisely what the seal feels, but, granted that the suffering of wounded seals may be quite different in grade and intensity from the suffering which man would experience under the same conditions, this in no way exonerates us from taking every practicable step to reduce suffering in animals to the minimum. I say this for two reasons: first, out of consideration for the creatures as part of God's creation which are placed under our responsible care; and, secondly, because it is dehumanising, and indeed thuggish, for man to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. People need to be re-related into a state of responsible compassion towards Nature, especially where, as in the case of seal pups, Nature is at its most vulnerable.
In regard both to humanitarian considerations and to those of wasteful kill-
596
ing, it could be argued that insistence on the use only of powerful rifles is open to question, although I welcome the prohibition of the use of shot-guns and poisons. Nevertheless, there will be occasions when the use of a high-powered rifle will be inappropriate. When a seal is being shot in the water by a marksman on land it presents only its head as target, and as this is the only instantly lethal spot the marksman can only kill or miss. If he is experienced he can reduce the wastage by sinking—in other words, by retrieving the seal again—to a minimum. But when both the seal and the marksman are on land it is quite another matter. Grey seal pups simply lie there and can be shot at very close range indeed, or they can be clubbed. During the breeding season grey seal adults may, despite human disturbance, stray ashore, where they can be shot efficiently in the head. But outside the breeding season common seals and grey seals invariably make for the water as soon as human presence is detected, and this increases many times the chances of inflicting a wound other than in the head, if a rifle be used.
In these circumstances, it is interesting to note that the use of a club is prohibited, as indeed other methods of killing are prohibited, during the close season. But one would wish to know whether it is, in fact, the intention of this Bill—and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, referred to this matter—that clubs may be used outside the respective close seasons in the circumstances in which, by Clauses 8 and 9, seals may be taken. This would seem to be required, for example, when in May a salmon bag net fisherman caught a young grey seal—that is, a moulter born during the previous autumn—and needed to deal with it in or near his boat. If he could not release it he would be obliged to club the animal, as the use of firearms would be a danger both to himself and to his boat. It is important to ensure that this sort of defence of a fishery is legitimate, and while I fully agree that, in concept, clubbing is abhorrent, nevertheless I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said. If efficiently carried out, it is in fact a humane method of killing, for the very reason that it immediately desensitises the seal.
The practice of sealers in Shetland of taking young common seals may include

597
the netting of pups. This is effective and successfully avoids undue disturbance and wastage and injury to adults, which is sound resource management. Nevertheless, it would again be impracticable to despatch a pup captured in this way by means of a high-powered rifle at such close range from a small boat. I have been given to understand that the use of a high-powered rifle to kill common seal pups is generally less appropriate on rocky coasts than it is among the sandbanks on the Wash.
Turning from the humanitarian to the penal aspects of the Bill, I would point out that at first sight a maximum fine of £50 might appear to be too small. In 1963, when seal skin prices rose to a specially high level, £50 would have represented the value of only three or four skins, although by 1968 it could have represented the value of nine or ten. But if you take, alongside that, the added risk of forfeiture of skins, firearms, et cetera, I suggest that this should be regarded as sufficient deterrent.
I now turn to Clause 8, where a general exception allows the killing of a seal in the "immediate vicinity" of fishing net or tackle. It is that word "immediate" which I suggest needs further definition. Take the examples of the estuaries of the Tweed and Tay, where marauding seals may be seen to the seaward of sweep nets or down-tide of fixed nets, and might even be seen to be eating salmon which are specially concentrated there by dint of the river approaches and breakwater. The seal could be half-a-mile from the net. Is it to be regarded as being in the "immediate vicinity"? This would seem to need clarification.
The last comment I would make upon the Bill relates to Clause 9, which seems to me particularly wisely drafted so as to allow adequate latitude to the Secretary of State in applying the criteria by which he may give licence for seals to be taken. The damage which seals cause to fisheries may be direct—that is to say, holes torn in nets, the taking of catch and the transmission of nematode parasites—or indirect: that is to say, their effect on fish stocks. There is no doubt that every opportunity must be given to a fisherman to defend his catch and his gear, and this Bill provides admirably for this. But care must al
598
ways be exercised before decisions are taken to reduce seal numbers on account of the alleged effect on fish stocks.
It has been argued—and this was mentioned, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—that in Scottish waters seals consume 100,000 tons of fish per year. When there is the implication that this amount of fish would otherwise be available to fishermen, it has effective propaganda value; but there are far too many qualifications to that statement for it to be upheld as an argument for reducing seal numbers at the breeding grounds. Certainly, seal stocks affect fish stocks, but the effect cannot be measured or described at present. For example, if grey seals eat a certain weight of cod and squid, what is the importance of this in relation to the weight of smaller gadoid species (such as haddock, whiting or saithe) eaten by large cod, the weight of codling eaten by squid, or the weight of squid eaten by cod? It must be remembered, nevertheless, that while seals represent the end of a food chain and will thus consume a significant proportion of fish, an important aspect of predation is the disturbance and redistribution of food species, and this may not be harmful to human interests.
There has in fact been a prolonged research effort to provide evidence of the effects of seals on fisheries. It was essential, for instance, to find an index which could be applied to the damage in order that comparisons could be made from region to region, as well as before and after any programme of seal reduction took place. A possible index was the proportion of nets in which holes were torn by seals, but the gradual replacement of natural by synthetic fibre since 1960 has virtually obliterated this factor. Another possible index might be the evaluation of questionnaires based on sightings of seals seen near nets, but this has proved to be greatly influenced by the variability of the subjective factors involved in such a procedure. Another index could be the proportion of salmon in the catch which bear unmistakable signs of mutilation caused by seals; for instance, scratches inflicted by claws. At present, however, this presents a difficulty in interpretation, as seals certainly capture their food in their mouths, while their flippers are used in swimming. It may therefore be unwise to rely upon an index

599
while the way in which the evidence is caused remains unknown.
Therefore, it seems to me one should rely more on the effects on catch and gear. This is real, it is apparent, it is measurable—but in absolute, not in relative terms. As seal numbers go up, fisheries damage will increase, and the Secretary of State must therefore decide the level at which this becomes intolerable before approving the killing of seals at the breeding grounds. One of the reasons for which the Secretary of State may issue a licence for taking seals is:
"the reduction of a population surplus of seals for management purposes;…"
I take it that the phrase "management purposes" implies the thinning out of seals for their own or their habitat's good. The common seal cannot be said to damage its habitat as such, and certainly does not breed in colonies where the density of individuals induces mortality. Grey seals, however, can reduce a grassy and wild iris-covered island to a stinking, muddy swamp. This, in certain circumstances, may become undesirable; but it is in the nature of the species to select a breeding régime of this kind, so that it is not scientifically necessary to reduce grey seal numbers just because the colony seems disreputable.
Similarly, it cannot be argued, as one might in regard to a population of land herbivores, that it is desirable to reduce seal numbers because they are a potential threat to their own food supplies. Seals are catholic and opportunist feeders in the open sea. The exploitation of "population surplus" as a resource implies the selective killing of young males. In the case of the common seal, this is virtually impossible as the sexes are indistinguishable, but in the grey seal it is sensible and practical. It must be emphasised that an incompatibility exists between the fishermen's and the sealers' interests, for in the interest of fisheries it would be appropriate to kill adult females, as this has the greatest effect on the population, whereas in the interest of sealers it is necessary to kill young males, as doing this has the least effect on the population while producing a reasonable, commercial return.
Ultimately, the discretionary powers allowed to the Secretary of State must de-
600
pend on a balanced objective view of the varied interests, and this discretion will be strengthened by the promotion of much-needed further research, for we are still a long way from a quantitative assessment of the appropriate levels of populations of the grey and common seals, in relation either to man's varied interests or to conservation. The latitude given within this clause and the terms under which the Secretary of State is enjoined to exercise his judgment, and in particular the consultation required with the Natural Environment Research Council, which will be in as good a position as any other body, or better, to assess the criteria by which a population surplus may be judged, is not only a strength to the Bill but an incentive to further research. My Lords, I hope that this Bill secures an early and successful passage through its successive stages in this House and in another place.
6.9 p.m.
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: My Lords, I must declare an interest—in fact, really two interests. First, I have been, for I think about eight years, the chairman of the Nature Conservancy, which is now a committee of the Natural Environment Research Council, about which the right reverend Prelate has just been speaking; and I am also a member of that Council. Secondly, I have also to say that I live in the North of Northumberland, on the coast, very near the Farnes, and in the past the Farnes have proved to be the habitat of the most controversial of the grey seal colonies. I do not think anybody has yet mentioned the difference in the habits of the common and the grey seal as to calving. Common seals calve all over the place, wherever they can find the sandbanks—for example, in the Wash.
As to the grey seal, I hope I do not look like a grey seal—I know, as the right reverend Prelate said, I do not feel like one—but I have one resemblance to them. The grey seal is always described as "a colonial animal". For most of my life I have been a "colonial animal". The main seal colonies are in the Farnes, the Orkneys and certain Hebridean islands. The Farnes is not the biggest colony; but it is very accessible and it is visited each year by an increasing number of people. The cull on the Farnes a few years ago

601
caused a great deal of public controversy. I live near the Farnes and was President of the Northumberland and Durham County Trust which is concerned in these matters.
My Lords, I am going to be very brief; but before saying anything else I should point out that the Bill in its present form has not been formally considered by either the Natural Environment Research Council or the Nature Conservancy. I did not realise until last week-end that this Bill was going to come up to-day; so I am afraid that these are ill-prepared and purely personal words—perhaps not purely personal, because I have consulted with Professor Wynne-Edwards, Chairman of the Environment Research Council; and, as the Director of the Conservancy, I consulted also with Professor Hewer and Professor Poore. I think that both Professors (certainly Professor Hewer) were members of the committee which some seven or eight years ago went into the question of culling on the Farnes. They are leading zoologists and leading authorities on seals, and what I wish briefly to say has their agreement.
I should like first to say that I think that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who has been for several years a helpful and admirable member of the Nature Conservancy, has performed a public service in introducing this extremely useful Bill on which I know he has worked very hard. My view is one of agreement in general principles with the Bill. I am bound to make one exception, however, and to this I will return later. Before expressing this view, I would briefly (because it very much affects conservancy) outline what seems in our eyes—that is, the eyes of the Nature Conservancy and the N.E.R.C.—to have been the history of the rather controversial cull on the Fame Islands, because it gives a line on what might be the history of other culls either there or in other places.
Originally, when the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, was Chairman of the Nature Conservancy, he very rightly decided to co-operate with the Government of the day in the establishment of a committee and in the work of that committee to go into the question. The then-Deputy Director of Nature Conservancy, Dr. Worthington, who was a zoologist who had done a great deal of work on fish, was chairman of the committee. That
602
Committee advised the Government to arrange over a five-year period a cull of one-fifth of the weaned female cubs each year; which, they thought, was a way of reducing the population in the most humane way possible. They said nothing about the common seals because in those days the common seals did not come under the Conservancy. I make a point, in parenthesis, of saying that one of the great advantages of the establishment of N.E.R.C. is that it brings together the work of all the various bodies that deal with the natural sciences: the geologists, hydrologists, oceanographers and terrestrecologists (which we are in Conservancy) and now one can deal with both kinds of seals together. That is a great advantage.
In those days this Committee was dealing with grey seals in one area only. The Conservancy advice to the Government (they were bound to offer them advice on wild creatures) was accepted. There was a great outcry about this. We all, I think—the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Nature Conservancy and I myself—under-estimated the outcry that would occur, because this type of cull had been going on in the Orkneys for a very long time, without the same amount of public protest. But we in the Conservancy stuck to our guns and we still maintain that the advice on that cull was right. The Farnes, as noble Lords know, belong to the National Trust, and the National Trust originally (for a reason that I cannot remember) accepted that recommendation for three and not five years. They later felt unable to agree to the cull going on beyond three years.
I should like to go back and say why the Director of Nature Conservancy, Mr. Max Nicholson, who had done an enormous work of conservation all over the country for over 15 years, and I myself (who know much less) accepted that cull. We accepted it because we felt that here was a problem that all conservationists face, a problem of reconciliation. There was no good in producing a one-sided solution, either entirely in favour of the seals or entirely in favour of the fishermen. One must be practical and produce something which reconciles the maintenance of a proper fishing industry with the conservation of the greatest number of seals possible consonant with

603
that—and conservation of the seals, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, basically for their own sake. I think that was very well put by the noble Earl, Lord Chapbook. It was a problem, we felt, of balance; and because it was a problem of balance we had two ideas in mind.
The first idea is that when any body or institution is trying to conserve animals which can do damage over a long period of time it must attempt to take control of numbers. In practice that control is usually a rather imperfect one; but something must be done on those lines. I felt that was so because throughout my life I have tried to conserve animals, mainly, I admit, in Africa, but the principles are the same. I remember when touring for the Nature Conservancy in North Devonshire seeing the slopes covered with thyme, the habitat of the large blue butterfly. I met the man who was charged with looking after the butterflies and I said to him, "What are you doing here?"—because he was, in fact, a former chief game warden in Uganda. He replied: "They said to me, You're the very man to look after butterflies because you are so good at the conservation of elephants'." It sounds ridiculous but it is true; the conservation principles are the same.
If no attempt is made to take control of numbers, then in the end you are faced with demands—and demands you cannot answer—for a massacre. That is what happened in certain African countries where in the past there was a regular cull of certain animals slightly below their natural increase. That stopped; and now those animals have become so numerous that it will be necessary to have an enormous massacre which will shock a great many conservationists and cause a great amount of damage. Mr. Nicholson and I both felt that if nothing was done about the seals on the Farne Islands there would, in the end, have to be a massacre which would demoralise the colony. Although our first idea was to take control of numbers, our second idea was that that control should not be so great or carried out in such a way as to demoralise the colony and drive the seals away. In fact, the cull of one-fifth of the weaned female cubs did not do this. It was a problem
604
of steering between Scylla and Charybdis, between opposing evils. That is the principle to which we must stick; and that is the principle of this Bill: to steer between excessive damage to fisheries and so violent a cull (or a cull carried out in such a way) as to drive away the seals.
With that in mind I felt, before reading this Bill, that powers should be taken to enforce a grey seal cull if necessary and to enforce it with access or entry to land. Secondly, I felt that the cull should not be so great or carried out in such a way as to scatter the seals. Therefore some damage to the fishery industry must be accepted. if one reads the literature on this subject one finds that it is difficult to prove exactly how great that damage is, damage to salmon, to nets or to white fish; and Lord Stonham mentioned the fact that the seal is the definitive host of the cod worm that breeds inside it. But, all the same, the damage undoubtedly is there and, as has been said before, I think that at the moment the grey seals are perhaps (in the Fames anyway) overprotected and the common seals are certainly under-protected.
With these ideas in mind, personally I welcome most of the proposals in this Bill: for example, the management and degree of protection given to the common seal population and the prohibition of the use of poisons and other less humane ways of killing seals. I would go further than that and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has mentioned: that the Government may have to take power of access, power to go on to an owner's land if the owner will not agree to permit them to do so, and to cull the seals there.
I know that there are many conservationists in the country who would not share my feelings on this, and I respect their views. I think they are sincere; but I do not think that they are right: because if this Government, or indeed any Government, are to carry out a long-term policy in which they stick to their guns, they are bound to hold the balance even. If the balance is to be held even, the Government would in certain circumstances have to be able to go and cull the seal population. I myself visit the Fame Islands quite often. They are in two parts. There are the Inner Fames—St. Cuthbert and St. Aidan, and two small islands next

605
to them—then a large stretch of water and the Outer Fames. In the past, seals have been entirely on the Outer Fames, but in the last few years, actually since the cull was stopped, they have started to breed on the Inner Fames. Therefore I have no doubt, from that evidence which is under one's eyes, quite apart from the count, which may be wrong, that the seal population is going up much too fast and that a cull must be done if a future massacre is to be avoided.
I also think that, if this is so, if the Government are to enforce the cull and take right of access they should take full advice before doing so. "Full advice" would mean advice from the scientists at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and also from scientists at the Natural Environment Research Council. My one problem regarding this Bill is that Clause 9(3) makes it possible for the Secretary of State to carry out a cull anywhere, even in a nature reserve, without prior consultation. I think that a duty should be laid on the Secretary of State to consult the Natural Environment Research Council about any cull of seals, whether it is for the protection of fisheries or not. What is more, if the cull for the protection of fisheries is to take place in a national nature reserve he should obtain the consent of the N.E.R.C. or the Nature Conservancy.
For this, my Lords, I have a reason. The difficult point about the Farnes, at any rate, is not the law but the actual carrying out of the operation. If the balance is held even, and demonstrably so, there will always be some critics of any cull of the Fames; but they will be rather unreasonable critics, and the Government could oppose them. I think the balance was held even a few years ago when a cull was started which went on for three years; and I think that that was the right thing to do. That sort of cull, increased in numbers if necessary, would be the right thing to do now, but what I do not think would be reasonable would be if the Government carried out a cull of that sort and entered on National Trust property without the consent of the National Trust, without having first obtained the views of the Natural Environment Research Council. So I very much hope that this important alteration will be made in the Bill. If, in the last resort, it were not made, I
606
should feel bound to vote against the Bill; but I think that probably it will be made. With that qualification, I should like, before sitting down, again to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, very much for what he has done and to welcome this Bill.
6.24 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as one who gave careful consideration.o the Bill which came before your Lordships' House a year ago and who has also studied the present Bill, I find myself very much in agreement with what has been said about the improvements which the noble Earl has succeeded in making in the Bill to which he is asking; your Lordships to give a Second Reading this afternoon. I do not pretend to be an expert on seals. I listened with very great interest (and there was a considerable increase in my sparse knowledge on the subject) to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and then to the most interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, who dealt largely with the main topic of my own remarks this afternoon. Obviously both spoke with considerable scientific knowledge as well as with a very humane appreciation of the problem involved in this question of culling.
In warning us against a pathetic fallacy, the right reverend Prelate said that Members of your Lordships' House do not feel like seals, or even look like seals. I am not quite sure whether that was intended as a compliment, although it occurred to me that I know one Member of your Lordships' House who cart. dive into the water with much the same skill and ability as a seal. I think that to the ordinary person the most interesting point about the seal is the beautiful and poetic motion with which it enters the water.
My Lords, I intervened in the debate which took place a year ago because, as one of the Deputy Chairmen of the National Trust, I wanted to obtain an assurance from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that he did not intend his Bill to provide for him, or the Secretary of State, or for anybody else, a right to trespass on the land of the National Trust for the purpose of culling seals. That matter has been dealt with particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale. So far as I can see, this

607
Bill is on exactly the same lines as the Bill which was presented last year. Many members of the National Trust are worried because in Clause 9(1)(c) of the Bill there is a reference to a licence being issued by the Secretary of State to kill or take seals
"within any area specified in the licence…"
Many of our members felt that if this became the law of the land it would enable the Minister to issue a licence for people to go on to the Fame Islands against the prohibition of the National Trust and to cull the seals there. As a lawyer, it did not seem to me that that was a correct interpretation, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that as a layman he thought that what I said was right. In his reply to the debate the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, did not deal with the point.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack would be prepared to advise us, but I should have thought that the Bill does not override the position of the National Trust as the owners of the Islands and the seal colony. I should have been content to stop at that point had not the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, both, in effect, suggested that the Bill should be amended; and there have been rumours floating around that Amendments are to be put down at the next stage in the progress of this Bill which would enable the Minister to issue an Order for people to carry out a cull, and be entitled to trespass on the Fame Islands to carry it out, whether or not the governing authority of the National Trust is prepared to permit them to do so. That would be a very serious inroad into the rights of the National Trust and into the ordinary rights of ownership in this country.
My Lords, when we were first. approached, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wanted a period of five years, as the noble Lord has said. We agreed to an experimental period of less than the five years which was asked for, and at the end of that time we were asked again to extend the period. But in the interval a very great deal of scientific information has come in, and it is significant that the speakers this afternoon who know most about these things have continuously referred to the need for more
608
research into the questionable statistics on which so much of this has been based. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who spoke on the last occasion, pointing out some extraordinary divergences in the statistics which had been produced by different speakers in the debate and asking how, without agreed facts, we could come to the right conclusion.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I have the greatest admiration for the National Trust—I am a member of it—but I have never understood them to be in any sense responsible for the wild life in their areas. They are preservers of land and buildings but certainly not of wild life. I should have thought, in view of the provisions of this Bill, that the National Trust should give way and allow this Bill to apply to their land as well as to anywhere else.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord owns the game on his land, but is he suggesting that landowners are not concerned with the game on their land'? Of course they are. The reason why the National Trust did not renew the licence to cull, which it gave after the experimental period, was that the evidence was so evenly divided. The noble Lord who has just sat down pointed out that many eminent conservationists do not accept that this cull is correct. On the National Trust Committee, I had to consider the whole of this evidence. I started with a prepossession in favour of culling and, indeed, voted for it, and only the fact that the evidence was so divided made us decide not to renew the licence.
After all, if we are going to agree that hundreds and thousands of these wretched pup seals are to be killed, there must he a very strong case. The Chairman of the National Trust, my noble friend Lord Antrim, made several visits to the Islands to examine the position on the spot in consultation with experts. When we had considered the whole of the evidence, we said that we were not satisfied and that it was up to those who were asking permission to go on to our land and cull these seals to prove that it was necessary in the interests of the seals and in the interests of the fishery. Every time the Minister has come back and asked for a licence we have asked for the evidence for which we have been waiting—but he has never produced any.

609
As I said a moment ago, it is clear from speeches of noble Lords to-day that research is still necessary. We of the National Trust are not emotionalists, anxious to defend the seals at any price. We are people concerned with the trust given to us by Parliament to manage our properties properly and effectively and in the general interests of the wild life that live upon them, and it would be altogether wrong that we should withdraw from that principle without having a case made to us effectively and properly.
With this Bill as it stands I am content, but I should like to say that if at the next stage an Amendment is put down which would enable the Minister to issue licences to people to go on to the Fame Islands and kill the seals, then we of the National Trust hope that many Members of your Lordships' House will rally round and see that such an Amendment is defeated.
6.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I was not able to be present last year when the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, introduced a Bill which was in many respects similar to the one we have before us to-day, but last night I read the whole of that debate and found it both informative and entertaining. Having listened to all noble Lords who have spoken to-day, I am surprised that so many new and valuable points have been brought forward.
I am not sure that I have to declare an interest, but I am speaking to-day on behalf of the Crown Estate Commissioners. As your Lordships will know, the Crown Estate own virtually all the foreshore in this country and virtually all the seabed. So we are naturally extremely concerned about this question of seals. Over many years we have wondered whether we could not, in some way or another, issue licences to control the killing of seals. I have been particularly anxious about this in areas such as the Wash where, as we have heard to-day, the common seal is, if anything, on the decline. But in spite of the ingenuity of our legal advisers, we found that we were not able to do what we wanted. The reason, very simply, is this. The public have the right of navigation over the foreshore and seabed, and if, in exercising that right, a navigator
610
may have a rifle in his boat and goes along and kills a seal or two—or more, for that matter—there is nothing we can do about it. So the Commissoners strongly support the general principles behind this Bill: because if it is passed and becomes law, it will achieve what we have been unable to do ourselves.
As a man, I recognise the rights of the commercial net fisherman, the interests of the riparian owners of salmon rivers and many other interests. As a seal (and here I risk the intervention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, by following the footsteps of my noble kinsman, Lord Strange, who spoke as a seal in the last debate), I would say that if you humans have decided, for one reason or another, that you have got to control us, then I would ask two things: first, that you control in such a way that our numbers and our race are not threatened with extinction; and, secondly, that any culling of us you do in as humane and as kind a way as possible. I believe that in general this Bill achieves both these objectives. I recognise that there are one or two controversial points which will come up on Committee stage, but in general I hope, with all noble Lords who have spoken to-day, that this Bill will have a Second Reading and in due time will find its way on to the Statute Book.
6.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords. while I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, I fear that I must start off by crossing rifles with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, because I fully share—and more than share—the apprehensions expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and the right reverend Prelate as to the inadequacy of the 45-grain bullet for the purpose of killing seals. The weapon to he used, Lord Cranbrook informs us, is the Hornet Magnum ·22 rifle which, within its limitations, is a wholly admirable weapon. Its limitations are that it lakes a very light bullet, which is little more in weight than the ordinary rifle ·22 bullet with which all your Lord: hips are probably familiar.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, made the remarkable statement that practically all seals were shot in the head.

611
That statement I cannot agree with at all. It may well be that on occasion many grey seals are shot bobbing about in the water—though it is by no means easy to hit that bobbing head—but, as already mentioned by several speakers, as happens in my own area at the mouth of the Tay when seals are out on sandbanks, and are disturbed, they make for the water with quite remarkable agility, considering their form which, although so magnificent in the water, is so clumsy on land. If they are to he fired at with a rifle, the chance of hitting them in the head, no matter how accurate the rifle may be, is minimal. I should like to see the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and their advisers, get together and prohibit the use of a rifle with a bullet weighing less than, say, 100 grains.
It has to be remembered also that the 600 foot-pounds mentioned in the Bill as being the muzzle energy of the Hornet is a very low muzzle energy; and, furthermore, the lighter the bullet, the more quickly the muzzle energy falls off. The result is that with this rifle, which is very accurate at a range up to 200 yards, once a bullet at that point strikes anywhere other than an eye or ear, since the seal has a thick skull the bullet may well glance off and inflict, at best, a slight wound, and, at worst, a fatal wound, from which the animal will not recover, but which will prevent its being recovered. All in all, I do not think the use of such light bullets is in any way merciful.
I speak to-day, my Lords, not only in a private capacity, but also as the President of the Scottish Association of District Salmon Fishery Boards, who have asked me to stress the point that has already been made, first by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, of access to seal haunts when the owners of them are not prepared to permit it. I must say that it strikes me as being gloriously humorous when we have the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the Back Benches of a Socialist Government, vigorously upholding the rights of the private landowner against Government access. But he is, of course, to use the modern vernacular, completely "off beam", because if a landowner allows vast masses of rabbits
612
to pollute his land and invade his neighbour's territory, the local agricultural committee, after warnings which have not been heeded, has full power to send a rabbit killer on to that landowner's land, kill the rabbits, and charge the landowner with the expense, less anything that has been earned by the sale of the rabbits. This is true, also, if an owner has on his land thistles which he permits to pollute neighbouring ground; he also can be prosecuted.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, surely the noble Earl would agree that somebody had to prove that the land was over-infested with rabbits. The whole point here is that nobody has proved that the Farnes are over-infested with seals. Some people say that they are, and some say that they are not.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: That, I am afraid, is a very skilful evasion of the point, because, so far as I understood the noble Lord, he was not merely objecting to the fact that damage had not, according to him, been proved, but was also objecting to the fact that the Government might take powers to go on to somebody's land whether or not such damage had been proven. The question of whether or not damage has occurred is obviously one that should be determined by the Nature Conservancy acting under the aegis of the Advisory Council. Only on that advice should the Government issue permits. They might well issue them—and I hope they would—for a limited number of seals to be killed.
I am certain that such a power is required, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Howick, has said, if something of this kind is not done, eventually there will be a massacre, public feeling will be outraged, of a great deal of unnecessary ill-feeling will be raised, and it will all be to the detriment of the seal which we are all so anxious to conserve. The seal is a magnificent animal, and it is unfortunate that without any doubt he does, on occasion, do a considerable amount of damage. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, spoke of the damage done to the nets when the nets are being pulled in, but he did not mention, what is much more serious in Scotland, what happens when the seal gets into the stake nets that we have along the coast there. Not only does he feed on salmon, but when he wants to leave he chews his way out

613
through the net. The result is considerable expense in repairing the net, and possibly the loss of a whole tide's catch, which may be very serious from the point of view of the fishermen. I am delighted that poison is not to he used, and so are all the angling and netting interests. Nobody wanted that foul form of destruction to be maintained.
There is only one other point that I should like to make, because, although there were a good many other things that I wanted to say, they have already been said, and at this hour I do not want to detain your Lordships longer than necessary. I wish to express mild disagreement with the right reverend Prelate in only one aspect of his wholly admirable speech. While I think that a £50 fine may be adequate enough for a first offence, I should like to see it raised to at least £100 for a second or subsequent offence: because it does not always follow that when a malefactor is apprehended one manages to secure his rifle; and he may also have managed to get rid of a considerable amount of his catch. Therefore I think that for a second offence a higher penalty should be inflicted. With those mild disagreements, I, like other noble Lords, wholeheartedly welcome this Bill.
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hope that at this late hour your Lordships will forgive me if I do not reply to every point that has been made. I should like to start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for not having answered the point he made during the last debate that we had. However, I thought that he then answered it out of his own mouth, as he did this afternoon, by saying that, as a lawyer, he disagreed with the people who said that a licence could authorise people to go on other people's land and shoot. I thought that he himself was fully satisfied, and I may say that I entirely agree with what he said.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Stonham, Lord Mowbray, Lord Howick, Lord Mansfield and Lord Chorley, raised the point of access. I think I shall find it quite impossible to resist an Amendment applying to seals the same conditions as are applied to deer, hares, rabbits and other
614
animals of that nature by Sections 98 and 100 of the Agriculture Act 1947. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is clearly worried about this point, that the National Trust are already s object to the conditions of those two sections of the Agriculture Act so far as other animals on their land are concerned, and I think that perhaps, on mature reflection, the noble Lord will agree with me that, when it is presented to us in that way, we are faced with an inescapable conclusion that all those animals must be looked at in the same way.
I do not want to go back to the last debate that we had, but I think one speaker mentioned the question of the immediate vicinity of the nets. I recollect that on that occasion I reminded your Lordships of a notorious case in which a man shot his wife's lover outside the bedroom door when it was held to be sufficiently in the immediate vicinity of the bedroom to be justification for having killed him; and he got off with manslaughter. I think the same would apply to a seal fisherman who shot a seal some distance away from his nets.
We then get down to the, I think, purely emotional problem of the weapon to be used. I will not join issue with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on the ballistics of the various rifles to be used, because that would involve me in a long dissertation on the internal mechanism of the seals, which may well come up at a later stage. But I may say that I was a little shocked at the noble Earl's saying that he shoots at galloping seals at such a range that he cannot kill them outright with his rifle. I hope that, on maturer thought—
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am thankful to say, my Lords, that I have never fired at a seal, galloping or otherwise.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, perhaps he will in future prevent his friends from so doing in the immediate vicinity of his house.
But, as I was saying, we come down to this really emotional question of the club. This was started by the noble Lord, Lord Daresfort, when the Grey Seals Protection Act 1932 was before your Lordships' House, and he referred to seals' being clubbed to death. Clubbed to death,

615
like being shot to death, has a sort of Sebastian implication about it, about clubbing on the outside first, gradually coming into a vulnerable part of the body. In point of fact, the animals which are killed by the club are seal pups; they are under a month old. The sutures of their skulls are not yet joined—and noble Baronesses will know what that means in a baby, and noble Lords will know the terror with which you held your child when you saw its pulse going in its forehead. These seal pups are killable at that stage in their lives, by a very minor blow, and a well-balanced club is infinitely the most humane weapon to use to kill a young seal.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the responsibility which various people had for these societies, and the like. One thing I have found through the whole of the consultations which I have had about seals is that they are tremendously emotive creatures. There is a responsibility upon those of us who have the chance to influence the opinions of people in societies to which we belong, to try to get away from the emotional outlook on all these things. "Clubbing to death" sounds terrible. "Knocking on the head" does not sound quite so bad. When we bear in mind, as I have said, that the animal killed is practically new born, and is killed by the first blow—and, if not, it is killed by the second blow, which follows within seconds—this is infinitely more humane than trying to stand on a muddy sandbank or a slippery rock and shooting the animal with a rifle.
Quite apart from the fact that the provision of the rifle to which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, objects is dealt with in the Bill, all the other weapons used for the commercial sealing—which is carried out, by and large, only during the close season, because it is the pup skins which the commercial sealer wants and by which he makes his money—I quite deliberately left it to the Minister to decide upon the weapon. When the pups are first born they are so tame that you can stand with one between your feet and shoot it down like that with a small ·22 rifle which would be hopelessly inadequate for a larger animal. It would be incredibly dangerous to use a high-velocity rifle when a number of
616
People are engaged on an operation of that sort.
My Lords, the Minister will have to decide on this matter. I hope that we shall be able so to influence public opinion that the Minister will be able to give permission for clubs to be used because, as I have said, they are far the most humane weapons. It is those who are in responsible positions, like the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in the National Trust, and those who belong to the conservation societies—as I do—who should try to make it clear to people that these things are not so terrible as they sound. I should like to say one last thing. I hope that I am not going to find myself in the embarrassing position, as a member of the Nature Conservancy, in arguing with my Chairman when it comes to the Committee stage. I feel sure we shall not do so.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and commited to a Committee of the Whole House.

PONIES BILL
6.55 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: 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 Silkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.

The BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLERY in the Chair.
Clause 1 [Restriction on export of ponies]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, leave out from beginning to first ("is") in line 18, and insert ("a veterinary inspector appointed by the Minister for conducting examinations under this section.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is an exploratory Amendment, designed to find out how the value of the pony is to be determined and what the administrative procedure will be. One reason for putting it down

617
was because there seems to be some difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who is responsible for the Bill in this House, and the noble Lord. Lord Hilton of Upton, speaking on behalf of the Government. There is always this difficulty with Private Members' Bills, as compared with Government Bills. When the Government introduce a Bill they know very well how they intend to administer it, whereas when a Private Member introduces a Bill he does not know how the Government will administer it. The purpose of this Amendment is to find out how it will be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, expressed the view that the Minister will make regulations which will provide for the inspector—take that to mean, the veterinary inspector—say what the value of the pony is. This is not what the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, indicated when he spoke on Second Reading. He said:
"We propose that professional valuers should, at exporters' expense, value every pony intended for export, so that there cannot be evasion by exporting in batches."—[OFFICIAT REPORT, 22/5/69; col. 516.]
At first sight it would be desirable, as my Amendment indicates, that once the professional valuer has provided the certificate it should be sufficient for that certificate to be shown to the veterinary in spector who is going to carry out the examination into the condition of the animal under paragraph (b) of the new subsection.
When one looks more closely at subsection (a) one finds that the Minister or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State, has to be satisfied that the pony is intended for breeding, riding or exhibition, and that the pony is of at least the minimum value stated in the clause. The point is that it is the Minister who appoints the veterinary inspectors throughout the United Kingdom. Moreover, the veterinary inspectors are responsible to the Minister—not to the Secretary of State, even in Scotland. Therefore this clause would appear to indicate a procedure under which an application would have to he made to the Departments concerned—that is, to the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland for permission to export, and that application would have to be accom-
618
panied by a certificate showing that the pony was of at least or of greater value than the minimum values indicated in the subsection. It is to resolve that difficulty I am moving this Amendment. As I have said, it is exploratory.
LORD SILKIN: I am sure the Corn-mince will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the considerable amount of work he has put into this Bill during the Recess. I understand that these Amendments were put down on the 4th of this month, although I saw them only yesterday. I assume that the noble Lord was working during the rainy season; therefore it was not so great a hardship to be studying this Bill as it might otherwise have been. I appreciate the spirit in which he has put down these Amendments.
I quite realise that this particular clause may call for some explanation, especially in view of the different interpretations which my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton and I put on it on Second Reading. I should like to point out that this Bill as it stands generally is in a special sense a compromise Bill. There has been a good deal of discussion in the other place and a good deal of difference of opinion and even division. As a result, a Bill has emerged which dissatisfied nobody but did not satisfy everybody, which is the ideal compromise. in fact, there was no Division on the Third Reading, and there was no Division here on the Second Reading. I would ask the Committee to accept the fact that this is a well balanced Bill, and that it would be wrong to interfere with it and to send it back to another place with any modifications which might once more give rise to controversy.
However, there is another reason. I must apologise for putting it forward, but I think it is important that the Committee should know what it is doing. The position is that if any Amendment is made to this Bill it has to go back to another place and there is very grave doubt as to whether time will be available, in view of the congested nature of the business in another place, to take this Bill at all. Therefore, there is a very great danger of this Bill's being lost. That is a fact which all of us must face.

619
I think everybody in this House was anxious that the Bill should go through. The Promoters of this Bill have been engaged on it for years, trying to get something through. A number of efforts have been made in another place without success. And here we are, on the brink of success, and it would be such a pity if, as a result of Amendments which we make, we lost this Bill and we were thrown into the wilderness once more, having to start all over again.
I realise that—I hope the Committee will forgive my making this kind of statement on an Amendment but I think it is very important—if there were any difference of principle in any of the Amendments put down, this House would be entitled to decide upon that matter of principle, and we should have to abide by the results. But I will submit as we go along that no question of principle divides us. The Amendments which the noble Lord was good enough to put down are all Amendments designed to improve the language of the Bill and to clarify the machinery under which it will be carried out, if passed. These are perfectly legitimate purposes, but not sufficient to justify losing the Bill in the battle for clarification.
With that preliminary, I want to come to the Amendment. If these Amendments were of vital importance, or even if they proposed matters which greatly improved the Bill, we should be in a dilemma; but, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I hope to establish as we go along that they do nothing of the kind. These Amendments are debatable, arguable; the language may be an improvement or it may not, but in the majority of cases the Amendment will not make the slightest difference to the purpose of the Bill.
On this particular Amendment I am of the opinion that the words which the noble Lord wants to introduce are not only no improvement but dangerous. The fact is that quite definitely under the 1950 Act the inspector is the instrument of the Minister and is stated to be. In this case, the duties of the inspectors required under the Amendment would be so varied and so difficult, compared with those of the 1950 Act, that I think they would be open to the criticism that inspectors who
620
are capable of carrying them out would not always be available. The inspectors would have to be satisfied as to the value of the pony and as to its age; that it was not below a certain age and not above a certain age. Of course they have to be satisfied as to its condition and in certain cases, in the case of the Shetland pony, they even have to be satisfied that it was born and bred in Scotland, in the Shetlands. This is putting a very considerable onus on the inspector and is depriving the Minister of the flexibility which he will need to enable him to decide how best to carry out the duties that this Bill will impose upon him.
For instance, the Minister may decide upon valuers. I think my noble friend suggested that. Well, that would be one way. Valuers might have to be employed to decide whether ponies conformed with the provisions of the minimum value. They may even have to be specialist people to decide upon the age of the pony in a doubtful case, and so on. I would submit that the Bill is all the better for giving this flexibility, and giving the Minister the opportunity of deciding for himself what arrangements he is going to make for the implementation of the Bill when it becomes law. The Bill as it was originally produced provided for the appointment of inspectors to carry out the duty, but it was modified in another place into the form in which it now is because of the pressure on the Minister for the reasons that I have given. I would hope that those reasons will be acceptable to the Committee and that the Committee will not press to go back to the original form of the Bill.
7.8 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the very moderate language he used in moving this, as he rightly regarded it, exploratory Amendment. Those of us who read our Hansards reporting our last discussion on this Bill all know that my noble friend Lord Silkin and I did not quite agree on this matter. We all know, too, that generally speaking Lord Silkin is such an authority on these matters that he is usually absolutely accurate. But I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that on that occasion he was rather less than accurate; and, without boasting, I think I must say

621
that in my opinion the version that I gave to the House on that occasion was the correct one.
I intend to be very brief. The Bill as originally drafted placed valuation and export intention responsibilities on the veterinary inspector which he could not effectively discharge. At the Government's suggestion the sponsors agreed to amend the Bill so that these responsibilities were placed on Ministers. This is the normal method adopted in modern measures of this kind, and it allows the necessary degree of flexibility without detracting from the objectives. We recognise that the Amendment is on similar lines to the provisions in Section 37(1) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, which repeated a provision in the Exportation of Horses Act 1937, but the earlier provision was intended to deal with a different situation. The present Bill, dealing as it does with the much more complicated trade in the export of ponies, will require new arrangements to implement it. The effectiveness of this would be hampered by an allocation of responsibilities to specific officers. I hope that with that brief explanation the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not press this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation and I quite understand that the job of a veterinary inspector is to be responsible for the condition and the health of the animal and not for other matters. I think we now have it quite plainly established that the procedure will be rather more complicated than perhaps was originally thought. If there is to be a certificate of valuation from a qualified valuer, that certificate will have to be forwarded to an officer to be designated and then one will get the permission for export. I am quite satisfied with that. I realise that if we are going to rely, as one of the barriers to export, on a minimum value, we have to be certain that that minimum value is observed.
For the rest, may I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that most of my Amendments are exploratory and in order to save time I may sometimes address my questions direct to the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, when I am asking for a Government reply. That may save a little time. Incidentally, it was not in the rains of Britain but on the beaches
622
of Malta that I devised these Amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 19, after ("riding") insert ("traction, load carrying").
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which arises out of an intervention by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who pointed out that to his knowledge requirements were sometimes met for horses from Britain to be shipped abroad for the purpose of being used between the shafts. In the same way the primary purpose of the Highland pony is normally load carrying, and it seemed to me that that would be a legitimate purpose. I feel certain that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton will be able to give me an assurance on this. I appreciate that the primary purpose of the sponsors of the Bill is to secure that ponies shall not be exported for slaughter. But, instead of that, they have put the matter positively, and the difficulty I find is that if by any chance an exporter was asked to provide a pony specifically for use between the shafts or for traction of any kind—it might be for a tram in Spain, or some-thing of that kind—then it would be a false declaration to say that it was for riding and that would be an offence under paragraph (5) of Section 78(2) of the principal Act and would expose the person to a fine under Section 79. In order to avoid that I have put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I have come to the conclusion that it was fortunate for this Committee that many more noble Lords did not spend their recent vacation in Malta and put do AT n as many Amendments as we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I am glad that they are mostly probing Amendments, and I hope that what I am going to say will satisfy the noble Lord. By referring specifically to traction and load carrying this Amendment might create difficulties in the interpretation of the existing law relating to exported horses by implying that the latter excludes these purposes. In recent years there have been no applications to export ponies for these

623
purposes, not because they are illegal but, presumably, because the purposes specified in the existing legislation—breeding riding, racing, exhibition, jumping and polo—have covered all the export requirements. In the absence of any evidence that the trade has been hampered by any restrictions we regard the Amendment as being unnecessary, and because of the conflict that it might create with existing laws we regard it also as undesirable. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am perfectly satisfied, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye will be, too. I bee, leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("'pony of the Shetland breed means a pony of that breed born and bred in the Shetland Isles or a pony registered in the stud book of the relevant breed society.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises out of the introduction, I think against the wishes of the sponsors of the Bill, of a special category for ponies of the Shetland breed. Unfortunately it does not say what the phrase "ponies of the Shetland breed" is intended to mean, and I wanted to be quite certain that the absence of a definition would not give rise to any difficulties. That is the purpose of this Amendment.
I imagine (although I am not certain) that many of the ponies of the Shetland breed bred in the Shetlands are not registered in any stud book, and as the main purpose of the inclusion of these words in another place was to safeguard the livelihood of the people in the Shetlands who breed this kind of pony, it would in my view be quite wrong if such ponies were not allowed to be exported because they were not registered in any stud book. If the phrase "of the Shetland breed" means that they have to be registered in a stud book I think that some such Amendment as this would have to be made, although I am not, of course, wedded to these words. Again, as the noble Lord has said that he is going to designate an officer who would have to be satisfied that the pony was of the Shetland breed, perhaps he will tell us
624
how he intends that to be done. I beg to move.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Is not this Amendment a little too restrictive? May there not be ponies of the Shetland breed, and ponies of the pure blood of the Shetland breed, which may be bred in the Forest of Dean or the New Forest or somewhere else? Living near me is a woman who advertises that she breeds Pekingese dogs. She can produce the pedigrees on both sides, but they are not bred in Peking—thank goodness! in these days. Surely the strain of the animal, rather than the geographical location in which it happens to have been born, is the factor to be taken into consideration in these cases. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to the extent that the latter will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Surely of all breeds of pony the Shetland is quite the easiest to distinguish.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: This raises a somewhat more difficult point, I agree, and I am interested in the points that have been made from both sides of your Lordships' House. Throughout the Government have been at pains to ensure that if this Bill becomes law it can be effectively implemented; and this is very important. But we do not see how we can satisfy ourselves that a Shetland pony presented at, say, Dover for export was born and bred in the Shetlands. Even if a document such as a bill of sale accompanied every pony born in the Shetlands and sold there, we could not be even reasonably satisfied in every case that it was the same animal that was being exported. We shall find it difficult enough to minimise opportunities of dodging the provisions in the Bill as it stands, and we are not anxious to add to these difficulties. I hope that, again with this brief explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be satisfied and will not press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD DRUMALBYN: There is the possibility that there is a cross which would look like a Shetland which was not in fact a Shetland. When you have a barrier of this kind you really have to have some kind of proof, and I was

625
anxious to secure that there would be some kind of proof. I suppose the only answer can be that the designated officer would have to be satisfied that it was of the Shetland breed. In most cases, I agree with my noble friend, this would be very easy; but not in all. However, we must let this go by, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Regulation of export of ponies]:
7.23 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 37, after ("the") insert ("places or")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and I would suggest that we take with this Nos. 6 and 7, if this is for the convenience of the Committee. The purpose of these Amendments is to give rather more flexibility in the type of places to be designated as resting places for ponies. I am told that in some cases batches of anything between 50 and 100 ponies may come along, and the extent of lairage required to meet that will be very considerable. In default of such lairage, as the clause is drafted, it simply will not be possible to export the ponies; and it may well be that there are other places besides Aberdeen, where I understand there is no such lairage at all and from which export has gone on of Shetland ponies for some time past. Such places will not in future be able to be used for export unless suitable premises are provided.
With the hardier breeds of ponies, rarely accustomed to be indoors at all, certainly throughout the spring, summer and autumn, I should have thought that this sort of lairage was not necessary. Many ponies, of course, are sold off in the autumn. The idea I had in mind was that in such cases places, rather than premises, such as fields or paddocks, could be designated. This would give a great deal more flexibility. No doubt there would always be somewhere where ponies could be properly inspected and disinfected, and all the rest of it. It seems to me that there is going to be in the more immediate future quite a considerable interference with the channels
626
of exportation if the Minister is proposing to make regulations in the near future as regards the premises which are to be prescribed and regulated.
Perhaps the noble Lord can give me a little more information about this. The purpose of the Amendment, as I said, is to give greater latitude by enabling places as well as premises to be designated. Places would mean, of course, fields which people could apply to have designated and specified under the regulations. If this were done, it would facilitate the export without, I should have thought, depriving the ponies of any places of rest to which they were normally accustomed or, indeed, making measurably greater difficulties for the veterinary inspectors. I beg to move.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Are we not perhaps going to make difficulties for ourselves in accepting this Amendment? In Clause 2 the major proposal is in subsection (1)(a), which does not say anything at all about premises. It says merely that the ponies must be rested immediately before being loaded. It does not say that they must be rested in the open air; it does not say that they must be rested in some bricks and mortar premises. Then it goes on, in subsection (1)(b), to give the Minister power
"for regulating and prescribing the premises…"
This assumes that any premises have been specifically mentioned in paragraph (a), and as premises have not been insisted upon in paragraph (a) it seems to me that the Minister, under paragraph (b), might be able to say "Well, the premises here shall be the quayside or a paddock adjoining the quayside", because under (a), which is the major proposal, there is nothing which specifically refers to any construction of bricks and mortar. I suggest that here the Minister in giving effect to this clause might say, "There are no premises at this particular port, and therefore I am not required under (b) to regulate or prescribe any premises ". I wonder what my noble friend has to say in reply to that.
LORD SILKIN: I find it a little difficult to agree with my noble friend who has just spoken that a field could be described as premises. I think the intention in the Bill is that premises should comprise a building with a roof over

627
it, and facilities for providing clean bedding, water and food, and so on, where the ponies are rested before being shipped off on what is very often a long journey. The Minister in another place said that the Bill as it stood was workable and that he would do his best to make it work successfully. It will be for the Minister to see that the premises are made available. I do not deny that there may be exceptional cases—I hope they will be exceptional—where the existing accommodation will not be adequate. But there is nothing in the Bill to say that the premises must be close to the ship; they can be some distance away, so long as the pony gets its proper rest. It will be for the Minister to ensure that adequate premises are available to enable the terms of this Bill to be complied with.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I have nothing to add.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord does not appear to have any comments to make on this particular matter, but we have not yet had any explanation as to why we should not allow fields to be prescribed as well as buildings. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that "premises" means, and must mean, buildings; and this is exactly what I am concerned about. It seems to me that we should allow other forms of accommodation, if one can call it that, places where ponies can be accommodated for rest purposes; otherwise we shall interfere quite considerably with the channels of export. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, will be able to say a word about this point, because the whole purpose of my Amendment is to make it possible to specify "places" where the ponies can rest, as well as "premises".
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I had not intended to speak at all on this Amendment, but at the invitation of the noble Lord I will say a few words about it. One of the essential requirements of an approved lairage is that it is capable of being effectively cleaned and disinfected. Thus, whatever interpretation is given to the word "place" the requirement could still hold, and in practice we cannot approve fields and similar areas. The word "premises" is used in existing
628
subordinate legislation applying to lair-ages for other species, and has not given rise to any difficulties either of interpretation or of implementation. The order we should make under Clause 2 would follow existing legislation, and therefore it would be impossible for a "place", if different from "premises", to comply with it. We do not regard this Amendment as adding anything to the safeguards in the Bill, and we therefore hope that once again the noble Lord will not press it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I quite understand the point that even although we were to make it possible for the Minister to designate fields, he would not do so. That being so, there is not much point in making it possible for him to do so. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I just ask a question? We are up against the difficulty that I have been mentioning, that unless time is allowed the channels of export will be changed, because at many places premises will have to be provided where they do not exist at the present time. On Second Reading I asked the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, whether Clause 2 conferred on the Government any powers which they do not already possess. The noble Lord has kindly written to me confirming that it does not confer on the Government any powers which they do not already possess. Therefore, the only effect of Clause 2 is that instead of merely enabling the Minister to make regulations it compels him, acting jointly with the Secretary of State, to do so. The only thing it does not say is when he is to do this. That is material in the circumstances that I have indicated, where premises are not available. I am sure that the sponsors of the Bill would like to know that the Minister intends to make these regulations as soon as possible. I would therefore ask the noble Lord, on the assumption that this Bill passes through this House in the near future, whether when the Minister proposes to make the regulations consultations will be necessary before he makes them and, if so, with whom.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: In regard to when, I may say that this will come into effect from January 1 next. I expect these provisions to be ready by that date. I cannot say whether they will be ready before then, but by that date.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Further amendment of Diseases of Animals Act 1950]:
7.35 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 9, after first ("certificate") insert ("in a form prescribed by the Minister").
The noble Lord said: I regard this as rather a strange clause, and perhaps I may indicate why. The clause makes it unlawful
"to ship, or attempt to ship, a registered pony in any vessel"—
but not, I may say, by aircraft—unless a certificate that the pony is so registered has been obtained from the society with which it is registered. The clause in itself cannot prevent the export of a registered pony without a certificate. Nobody can tell by looking at an animal whether it has been registered. You may be able to tell whether it is a pony of pure breed, but it does not necessarily follow from that that it has been registered; and unless it has been registered with the breed society it does not need a certificate. So the only means of sanction here is to expose the exporter to a fine if it is later discovered that an export certificate should have been obtained because the pony was registered.
As the clause is drafted, each breed society could have its own form of certificate. This is likely to be extremely confusing to the master of the ship to whom the certificate has to be delivered—and the word is "delivered"; it is not "shown". It has to be handed over to him. What he is going to do with it I do not know. The Bill says
"the export certificate…shall be delivered at the time of shipment to the master of the vessel on which the pony is shipped".
It then goes on to say that he will have to produce it on demand
"to any constable or any inspector or other officer of the Minister or the local authority and allow such constable, inspector or other
630
officer to take a copy of or extract from the export certificate."
It seems to me that it would be much better if the certificates were all in the same form. Indeed, I think this is the only practicable way in which to satisfy the requirement. Even then, it is impossible to see—at least, I cannot see—how a master could possibly know whether he ought to have a certificate for a particular pony, because, as I say, he cannot possibly know whether or net the pony is registered. So I think that this provision would tend to be rather inoperative. It would be slightly better, I think, if the certificate was in a form prescribed by the Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON:I am sure the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment realises that every pony has a certificate of registration, and a copy would not be too difficult to get.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Marquess will forgive me for pointing out that I think he means every pony registered with the breed society.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: Yes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: But that is the whole difficulty. Some ponies are registered with breed societies and some ponies are not. How on earth is the master of the vessel to know which has been registered and which has not?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I should like to make this comment on the Bill. I think most of us here to-day would agree that my noble friend Lord Silkin deserves to get this Bill, if only for his sheer persistence. We know that he has many supporters on both sides of this House, and many more in the country as a whole. I come to this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will know that the provisions of Clause 3 are not directly concerned with the welfare of ponies, and Ministers have made it clear that their Departments will not be involved in administering them. For that reason, they see no justification for requiring them to have a responsibility for prescribing the form of export certificate.
The noble Lord referred to travel by air. Of course the Bill covers export by aircraft. Clause 4(3) secures this.

631
If, as we understand to be the case, this clause is essentially designed to protect the interests of the breed societies, the form of certificate required by the exporters should be left to the societies to decide on.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I take note that the Government have decided that they are not going to have any part in the administration of this clause. That being so, I take it also that it is unlikely that an officer or inspector of the Minister will demand the production of the export certificate from the master of the vessel. I think it is just as well that this should have been brought out and made clear, and in the circumstances the noble Lord has indicated it is quite reasonable that he should say that he does not want to prescribe the form of the certificate. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.42 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("and the Society shall not refuse to issue such a certificate without reasonable cause").
The noble Lord said: As the clause is drafted, there is no obligation on the part of a breed society to comply with a request for an export certificate. In putting down this Amendment I was influenced by the Bill in the form in which it passed through this House last year when, of course, the breed societies had to certify that the pony was in a proper condition for export. I am not at all certain—and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his understanding of this matter—whether the breed societies still intend to decide whether or not the pony should be exported before giving the certificate. My own view is that it would be wrong to give this power to breed societies, and if a duty is placed on the exporter to obtain an export certificate, a corresponding duty should be placed on the breed society to supply the certificate unless it has a very good reason indeed for refraining from doing so. I think this should be so. I can see that it is desirable that ponies should be accompanied by certificates where they are a breed, and it may be of advantage to the breed societies that this should be so. But
632
what I do not think would be right would be that the breed society should exercise control over what an owner may do with his pony simply because it happens to be a pony registered with a breed society. I beg to move.
LORD SILKIN: It is certainly not the intention that the societies should do anything but give a certificate that a particular pony is in their books and is of that particular breed. I doubt whether they would have the machinery, but at any rate it is not intended that they should have any jurisdiction to pass any Judgment on the quality of the pony. Of course, they would know the birth, and therefore the age. If they were asked to state the age of the pony, or if they were asked to give a certificate in respect of a pony that was either under age or over age, they would naturally refuse. But subject to that all they would be asked is: "Is this pony registered in your books?".
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am perfectly satisfied with that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

  LONDON TRANSPORT BUSES AND CREWS
  LONDON TRANSPORT BUSES AND CREWS