Sitting of 22 April 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL (By Order)
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Housing (Improvement Grants)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the rate of progress of house improvement in Scotland following the passing of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1969; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I shall be satisfied only when no more improvement work remains to be done, but in the first quarter of this year 25 per cent. more applications for grant were approved than in the first quarter of 1969.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the Minister of State say what progress has been made in privately-rented accommodation, which is a very important sector, particularly in certain cities?
    Dr. Mabon: There has been an improvement in the first quarter of 1970 compared with that of 1969, although not quite as dramatic an improvement as that in the local authority sector. I have taken
    392
    the first quarter deliberately because, as is understandable, in the last quarter of 1969 people were waiting to see what the Act meant before they made applications.
    Mr. Hannan: How many applications have been received from the City of Glasgow, and how many houses are involved?
    Dr. Mabon: I am afraid that I cannot give that information without notice. But I am not satisfied with the pace at which it is proceeding.

    Housing (Home Ownership)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his study of the Cullingworth Report on Owner Occupation in Scotland, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the Cullingworth Report on Owner Occupation in Scotland, a copy of which is in his possession.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: At present I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on 18th February. —[Vol. 796, c. 123.]
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister of State aware that the report highlights the fact that in Scotland home ownership is unattractive by comparison with renting? What steps are the Government taking to try to make home ownership more attractive for people in Scotland?
    Dr. Mabon: I appreciate the usefulness of the report. The Secretary of State read it with great interest. But the hon. Member knows from a previous reply that we are conducting a general review of housing finance in both the public and the private sectors. We are making this an intensive review.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Does the hon. Member recognise that there is less home ownership in Scotland than in any other country west of the Iron Curtain? What positive steps can he take to encourage local authorities to sell local authority houses to individuals, to satisfy the great demand which is building up for private home ownership in Scotland?
    Dr. Mabon: I am not sure about the comparison with other countries west of the Iron Curtain.
    Earl of Dalkeith: It is true.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is in the report.
    Dr. Mabon: I am entitled occasionally to have opinions of my own, whether the report makes that statement or not. I am not certain whether the facts stated are fair. But that is not the point. The point is that during the 13 years that the Conservative Party were in office the position was exactly the same. The proportion has always been one in five. We all regret that. The Labour Government in 1968 and 1969 achieved record years of private house building. We hope, with our general review, to do better.

    Murder (Sentences)
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now institute a review of the law relating to sentences for murder in Scotland, following the representations made to him by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I have considered this matter in the light of the hon. Gentleman's representations and of the abolition of the death penalty, but I am not persuaded of the need for an examination by a committee of inquiry.
    Mr. Campbell: Since the law on this matter is the same in Scotland as in England, as the Secretary of State recently confirmed in a Parliamentary reply, thus contradicting a wild statement made by one of his Under-Secretaries, why is the right hon. Gentleman not taking similar action to that of the Home Secretary, whom I see here? Has he noted the remarks by eminent members of the judiciary that judges ought to have power to give longer sentences instead of being restricted to the mandatory sentence for murder?
    Mr. Ross: Yes, I have noted references by eminent authorities on English law to, I presume, English practice. But the hon. Member is wrong when he refers to the Home Secretary's committee. This is a standing committee, of which we have
    394
    no equivalent in Scotland. It is going into the whole question of offences against the person, including definitions. The hon. Member should be the first to realise that the definition of murder in Scotland is much more satisfactory than is the definition of murder in England. It would be quite wrong for me, on the basis of problems in England, to set up such a committee in Scotland.
    Mr. Dewar: Would my right hon. Friend accept that the circumstances in English law are very different in this case and that there is no need to " bandwagon " in the blatant way that hon. Members opposite are doing? Would he accept that there are, inevitably and properly, enormous variations in the time served under life sentences and that the only answer must be to have a mandatory life sentence, to mark the unique seriousness of the crime, combined with maximum flexibility to allow the authorities to take account of changing circumstances?
    Mr. Ross: I constantly have Scots law under review. I am not deaf to any reasonable appeals which may be made to me, but I would ask hon. Gentlemen to appreciate that the procedures in Scottish courts, the verdicts in Scottish courts, and how these are reached, are all different. Let us not just trail on the heels of England.
    Mr. Wylie: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept, recognising that there are differences, that these are marginal in their effect and that the problem facing the criminal law in Scotland following the abolition of the death penalty is essentially the same as the problem in England?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman should know that the problem has been there for some time—
    Mr. Wylie: Since the abolition of the death penalty?
    Mr. Ross: No. The problem has been there for some time. There have been no suggestions that we should have recourse to variable determinate sentences. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would examine it they will find that there are tremendous difficulties which may lead to public concern if, within this variation and taking into account the circumstances of a particular crime, we were to get four

    395
    or five cases of murder in which the sentence could be two, three or four years' imprisonment.

    Clyde Valley (Planning)
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest position in regard to rationalising the planning system in the area of the Firth of Clyde.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans for future planning arrangements in the Clyde Valley.
    Mr. Ross: The Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee has for some time been considering proposals but before it by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for setting up an organisation to prepare a regional advisory plan for West Central Scotland. My hon. Friend is meeting the committe on 24th April, and I hope that final arrangements can be agreed at the meeting.
    Mr. Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is now a year since the Government began to reactivate this advisory committee? Has the committee yet agreed with the Government upon its tasks or has agreement still to be decided on Friday? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress to date?
    Mr. Ross: There is less trouble about the tasks, and we could readily reach agreement in respect of that aspect. It is the question of how to proceed from the point of view of representation on the committee. I am not pessimistic about the outcome, and I hope that on Friday my hon. Friend will reach a measure of agreement.
    Mr. Mackenzie: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are those of us who think that the advisory committee was allowed, by the other side of the House, to lie dormant for far too long? Can he assure the House that he is aware that we in Rutherglen and Lanarkshire would like him to act on this, because we are genuinely concerned about the effect of the movement of industry and so forth from Lanarkshire to the coast and the effect that it will have on the economy in general?
    Mr. Ross: I am conscious of the cooperation that we have had from Rutherglen. Most people are anxious to have this committee reactivated. I am hopeful that my hon. Friend's meeting on Friday will have this effect.
    Mr. Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the proposals by Lord Wheatley when he produces his White Paper on this very important subject?
    Mr. Ross: This is a different question. There are many aspects of co-operation which have to be taken into account and which can be frustrated by a failure to get agreement among different local authorities over the regional policy.

    Tayside (Employment)
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the trend of employment in the Tayside area is in accordance with the targets set out in the White Paper, " The Scottish Economy 1965 to 1970 ".
    Mr. Ross: Employment projections for individual areas of Scotland were not made in the White Paper.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman not admit frankly that employment on Tayside has fallen sharply, as it has throughout Scotland? Will he now revise the totally misleading forecasts in his pre-election White Paper?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman still gets confused about manpower projections, which his Government never even tried to do, and the question of new jobs. He knows quite well that what is happening now in the Tayside area, with the Tayside Consultative Group, is forward planning for the development of the area, which has the support of most people in Tayside, if not of the hon. Gentleman.

    Fee-paying and Selective Schools
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further discussions he has held with regard to the future of local authority fee-paying schools in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will

    397
    make a further statement on the discussions which he has had with Glasgow and Edinburgh Corporations about the future of their fee-paying and selective schools.
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has received from Edinburgh Corporation to his letter of 23rd January on the subject of future arrangements which he has asked it to make with regard to fee-paying schools and if he will make a statement.
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a further statement on fee-paying schools in Edinburgh, in the light of the replies of Edinburgh Corporation to his letter of 23rd January.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): My Department wrote to Edinburgh and Glasgow Corporations on 23rd January asking them to consider amendments to their scheme of transfer and educational provision to take account of the 1969 Education (Scotland) Act which removes the power to charge fees for school education at schools managed by them. Edinburgh requested a discussion, which was held on 20th February. I now have replies from both authorities, and I am considering these.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that while he considers these proposals he will stop bullying and badgering the democratically-elected bodies in Edinburgh and Glasgow?
    Mr. Millan: I would not accept for one moment that I have been bullying and badgering anyone on this. I certainly intend to give the replies full consideration, but I would hope that some kind of announcement would be made about the result of that consideration quite shortly.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear that a scheme will be absolutely unacceptable if it contains any selection method for entry to secondary schools?
    Mr. Millan: I have already made it clear that we want to see the abolition of selection.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people are out-
    398
    raged at the Government not only for depriving them of freedom of choice but more particularly for the way in which they have kicked in the teeth two of Scotland's largest local authorities which are perfectly capable of making up their own minds on this matter?
    Mr. Millan: I am not aware that there is a large number of people who are outraged. I am aware that a large number of people in Scotland fully support the Government's determination to introduce comprehensive reorganisation because they are aware of the wastage involved in the selective system.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that as we in Midlothian have no fee-paying schools, and because we live close to Edinburgh, many people are leaving Edinburgh and coming to live in Midlothian because of the education set-up there?
    Mr. Millan: I am aware of the excellent education record of the Midlothian authority, and I am very much looking forward to opening a large new comprehensive school in Midlothian this Friday.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Wylieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconstitute the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, with a view to giving further consideration to the custodial treatment of young offenders in Scotland.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): As the hon. and learned Member will know, my right hon. Friend has circulated for comment proposals for altering the custodial sentences for young offenders. In present circumtances I do not think that a committee of inquiry would be appropriate.
    Mr. Wylie: I am aware that this memorandum has been circulated and I have read it with interest. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary has remitted a similar problem to the Advisory Council on the Penal System? Is he further aware that I cannot understand the reluctance of Scottish Ministers to set up a similar body in Scotland? Would it not be better, on such a broad issue, when young offenders

    399
    unfortunately loom so large in our criminal records, if we were to reconstitute the very useful body which did such good work in this direction 10 years ago?
    Mr. Buchan: It is true that it did good work, and was stood down by the party opposite. The point is that the proposal arose from a wide-ranging conference. All the views expressed were sent to every organisation involved and we are studying the representations made on that basis. This is an equally democratic method, which is more effective and certainly swifter.

    Glasgow (Passenger Transport Authority)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when a passenger transport authority will be established in the Glasgow area.
    Dr. Dickson Mahon: Not till after my right hon. Friend has completed the necessary consultations.
    Mr. Taylor: As the Minister has already refused to give me an assurance that he will not force a P.T.A. on Glasgow against its wishes, can he at least give a promise to the people of Glasgow that before he insists on a P.T.A. being established he will make it clear to the ratepayers of Glasgow and other authorities what a P.T.A. will mean in increased rates?
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Lord Provost, who has approached the Government formally on this matter, as well as Glasgow Corporation, is well aware that if the corporation has points to raise about boundaries, membership or other matters we will certainly arrange a meeting with a Scottish Minister, if not my right hon. Friend. The local authorities have now had three months to make informal comments. After we have had these there will be a further process of consultation about any draft designation order, but no single authority can have the right of veto over the promotion of a P.T.A.
    Mr. Small: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Scottish T.U.C. supports the introduction of the P.T.A.?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes. In addition, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr.
    400
    Edward M. Taylor) is perhaps not aware that most of the Press, including the Right-wing Press—perhaps that is not a commendation—endorses the fact that the P.T.A. is a good idea.

    Manpower Projection
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the percentage increase in the number of employees in employment during the year June, 1969, to June, 1970, required to fulfil the predictions in Table B of page 9 of Command Paper No. 2864; and how this compares with the actual outturn in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Ross: For reasons which I have already given, I do not expect the manpower projection for 1970 to be attained. This would require an increase of at least 4 per cent. between 1969 and 1970, compared with percentage changes of 0·8; 0·2; —2·0; —0·7 and 0·2 in the previous five years.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is a more honest reply than we have had from the Secretary of State for some time. While we all recognise that the Scottish Plan is as dead as the dodo or the Government's 1964 election pledges, could the right hon. Gentleman not at least try to undertake to secure the 21,000 jobs required this year to bring the situation back to what it was when he took office?
    Mr. Ross: I do not think that anyone in Scotland wants the situation to return to what it was when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power. I have long since recognised the impossibility of freeing the hon. Member from statistical entanglements. He does not yet know the difference between projections and new jobs. The fact is that we have produced more new jobs, roads, houses and schools. The hon. Gentleman's persistence is fatuous, futile, and forlorn.
    Mr. Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the hon. Gentleman opposite how far the net shortfall is made up of low-paid farm workers, domestic servants and messenger boys, who have virtually disappeared from the employment scene in Scotland these days?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should appreciate that we have tried to explain this to the hon. Gentleman but we

    401
    recognise his limitations and it would be a waste of time trying to educate him. The fact that there are now 24,000 more people staying on at school and as full-time students at colleges of education and universities has a considerable effect upon the figures.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, however much he may haver, he is 101,000 jobs adrift from his pre-election promise?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, wrong again.

    Wheatley Report
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to issue a White Paper on the Government's proposals concerning the financial arrangements for implementing the Wheatley Report recommendations.
    Mr. Ross: The Government's proposals will be published in a Green Paper in time for consultations and public discussion to take place before legislation is prepared.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: While I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly, does he realise that until we have some idea of what the financial proposals are, and their implications, it is very difficult to come to sensible conclusions about these recommendations?
    Mr. Ross: I am satisfied that the way we are proceeding is right. This information will be laid before the House.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while he may say that consultation is important, a lot of people in local government are extremely disappointed that the consultation has not taken place before the White Paper has been produced?
    Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman really wants to make progress in this he should appreciate that if we embark upon what would be virtually another Royal Commission it would be many years before we achieved the reorganisation which everyone agrees is urgently necessary.

    High Flats
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent directives or advice he has issued
    402
    to local authorities in Scotland concerning the future building of high blocks of flats.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular issued by my Department on 17th April which gives local and buildings authorities information on loading standards in the design of high flats and other buildings.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that high flats are often ugly and that people do not like to live in them? Is he aware that some are dangerous? Is it not time that we ceased to build them and provided more reasonable accommodation, particularly for children, because there is never enough space for them in these flats?
    Dr. Mabon: That is a very big question. Some local authorities will disagree with the hon. Gentleman but there are certain physical facts about the need for multi-storey flats. The social implications of living in high flats are the subject of an examination by the Department of Social and Economic Research of Glasgow University. On the whole, local authorities are anxious to build a certain proportion of multi-storey flats but they will be looking forward to our circular when the Building (Scotland) Bill is through both Houses. We expect to issue the circular then.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a good deal of criticism of some of these high-rise flats by social workers, planning authorities and, as recently as this week, on aesthetic grounds the Saltire Society? What work are the Government undertaking on low-rise high density housing, some of which is now being discussed in architectural circles?
    Dr. Mabon: That is a fair point and I do not deny it. In certain cities, Glasgow being an outstanding example, there is a clear case for multi-storey building, but as early as 1965 the Government urged Glasgow Corporation not to build so many multi-storey flats or buildings as it was intending to build in the last four years.

    Agriculture (Haulage Charges)
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the increased haulage charges to farmers by

    403
    the operation of the Transport Act was taken into account by the Price Review.
    Mr. Buchan: Increases in transport costs in general are taken into account at each Annual Review.
    Mr. Monro: Does the Minister realise that, over and above increased transport costs, chaos is being created in the industry by the application of the Transport Act? Is he aware that large numbers of cattle and sheep are being stranded in the marts overnight, and even longer, because of the limitation on drivers' hours?
    Mr. Buchan: This is not a new experience. It has always been the case at every busy mart that cattle may be left overnight, and hon. Members opposite know it. The only adjustment was the change in working hours of one hour. The House will be pleased to know that I am arranging a meeting of all those involved in markets to discuss this matter. It will be chaired by one of my officers and will include Ministry of Transport officials and the N.F.U.
    Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the full effects of this measure were not known at the time of the Price Review? Does he not realise that auctioneers and farmers all over the country are worried about what will happen when markets get really busy at the end of the year and that this may cause more cruelty to the animals?
    Mr. Buchan: I have been keeping an eye on this matter. The most publicised event was the mart at St. Boswells. I had a senior official there to keep an eye on things. The facts were not as bad as they appeared from similarly-worded reports in two newspapers on the following day. We are looking into this matter and it is being looked after. I wish hon. Members opposite would not try to cry "Doom " before a new project has got off the ground.
    Mr. Ellis: Would my hon. Friend take a strong line against these backwoodsmen who are trying to portray Scotland as being a land where men have to work more hours than men do in England to keep the economy going? Will he see to it that the provisions applying to drivers' hours will apply in Scotland as they do in England?
    Mr. Buchan: I hope that hon. Members opposite will have in mind what my hon. Friend has said. He is correct. This is a valuable social development which was done for good human reasons. If difficulties arise, it is our task to cope with them, rather than use them to try to defeat the Transport Act.

    Hill and Upland Farms (Production)
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the target for the number of hill ewes in Scotland for 1970–71.
    Mr. Buchan: There is no specific target for hill ewes; but numbers in Scotland have shown no significant change in recent years.
    Mr. Monro: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the price of wool exerts a significant influence on the number of hill ewes? Why has the price of black-faced wool been reduced by 3d. per lb. and of Cheviot and half-bred wool by 2d. per lb. in the last week or two? Does he not agree that this is an intolerable reduction and shows further double-talk on the Price Review?
    Mr. Buchan: That might have been useful if the hon. Gentleman had put down a specific question on the matter of wool. As regards the number of hill ewes, one of the most important factors involved is the weather, and not even this Government have been able to control the weather. On the question of Government resources for development, it will be remembered that we raised the end price for sheep by 8¾d. and that the Conservative Party reduced it.
    Mr. Munro: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of production he estimates from hill and upland farms in 1970; and how this compares with 1969.
    Mr. Buchan: Some increase in cattle production on hill and upland farms is expected in 1970 compared with 1969. The level of sheep production will depend on this year's lamb crop, which cannot yet be forecast.
    Mr. Brewis: Is it not, therefore, extremely disappointing that the price of wool has now remained the same for the last 10 years? Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter as sympathetically as he can?
    Mr. Buchan: Yes, Sir. It is curious how hon. Members opposite pick on one aspect. If they look at the increases in end price and the hill sheep subsidy, the winter keep scheme, the hill land improvement scheme, and the introduction of the new upland hill sheep subsidy, they will find that all these are worth noting. I wish they would get the wool out of their eyes and look at this.

    Prescription Charges (Children)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that pupils attending special schools and under 16 years of age are not exempt from prescription charges; and if he will take steps to end this anomaly.
    Mr. Millan: There is exemption for children up to the fifteenth birthday. I do not think any alteration of the existing arrangements is necessary.
    Mr. Dempsey: But is my hon. Friend not overlooking the fact that these children at special schools due to physical handicaps are compelled to have a shorter day in school and consequently have a longer school life? Why should they be penalised from the age of 15 to 16 because of their physical disability? Will not my hon. Friend look again at the exemptions in regard to school children?
    Mr. Millan: But my hon. Friend must understand that the exemption provision was on an age basis, not on the basis of whether or not a particular child was continuing at school. I do not think there is any case for changing this provision for the kind of children he has in mind. There are special arrangements for the chronic sick, and also provisions for exemption in the case of hardship.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that some school children have to stay on well after the age of 15 until the end of the term, and that one child in my constituency was in court on Monday of this week for
    406
    this very reason? Might there not be a case for suggesting that the period should be not necessarily until 14 to 16 but until the last legal day they must stay on at school?
    Mr. Millan: There are considerable complications involved. The last legal day until which a child has to stay on at school is not a particular birthday but depends on the incidence of leaving dates. I know the motives and feelings behind this question, but I do not think the case for a change has been made out.
    Mr. Sillars: Would the Minister take the point that the only real way to rid the system of anomalies is to abolish prescription charges altogether?
    Mr. Millan: I take the point, but that is a rather wider question which we have debated on many occasions.

    Transport Croup (Charges)
    Mr. Nobleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis he approves charges made by the Scottish Transport Group on different routes.
    Mr. Ross: I approve charges only in respect of sea services operated by David MacBrayne Limited, on the basis set out in clause 19 of the undertaking with the company made in accordance with the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960.
    Mr. Noble: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his, to use a commercial term, remarkable shelf life in his present job. Why is he dealing only with Messrs. MacBrayne and allowing charges to one of my more prosperous islands to be exactly one third of the cost per mile to one of my less prosperous islands? This does not make sense to my constituents or to me.
    Mr. Ross: I begin to wonder and realise why the right hon. Gentleman is on the shelf. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh!"] The distance to be travelled or the time taken to cover it are not by any means the only factors to be taken into account in fixing the charges on particular routes. These include the total costs of operating the service and the volume of traffic.
    Mr. Noble: That is a very unsatisfactory answer.

    Highland Development Board
    Mr. Nobleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what calculations he has made of the effects of the Budget on the work of the Highland Development Board.
    Mr. Ross: The reduction in Bank Rate, the permitted increase in bank lending for productive investment in agriculture and manufacturing industry, and the increase in the initial allowance for industrial building in development areas should provide useful additional incentives to industry in the Highlands.
    Mr. Noble: Has the Secretary of State made any calculation as to why the large increases in cost of living and the costs of unit production are much greater in the Highlands than in other parts of Scotland? Is he not aware that this is the major problem of the Highland Development Board in trying to attract new work there?
    Mr. Ross: I appreciate and welcome the right hon. Member's interest in the work of the Highland Development Board, since it was not always evident in the early days. If he looks at the reports produced by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, despite considerable difficulties—and one should not underestimate the difficulties of these remote areas —they have been making considerable progress. In relation to the Budget, I think it will be very helpful.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) described the Act under which the board was established as a Marxist measure? Is it to be presumed that he is now supporting the progress of Marxism in the Scottish Highlands?
    Mr. Ross: I cannot answer for the right hon. Gentleman and his conversion to support of the Highland Development Board, but no doubt he will remember that I described his criticisms as emanating rather from Groucho Marx.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the greatest factors affecting the Highlands is transport costs, and that a large proportion of these results from taxation, and what is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to make a speech on that point, as did his right hon. Friend, during the Budget debate.

    Land Commission (Betterment Levy)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to date to public funds of attempts by the Land Commission to secure payment of betterment levy in cases where it ultimately proved necessary to abandon assessments owing to inability to pay.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Then I suggest the Minister should find out. Is it not absurd that this body should try to extract £800 in betterment levy from some of my constituents, who had to sell an asset at a £5,000 loss, when the only result of proceeding with this assessment will be a bankrupt company without getting a penny for the Land Commission? Can he not now stop this absurd procedure before we abolish the Land Commission altogether?
    Dr. Mabon: There is no intention to abolish the Land Commission. The next Government, which we will form, will not abolish it. There are six cases in all referred to in Scotland. I cannot give the figures because separate records are not available. We are in correspondence on the particular case to which he has referred. The direct costs of the Commission in assessing and collecting levy in Scotland in 1969–70 were 2s. 5d. per £1 of the land assessed. The ratio of cost to return has shown steady improvement since the commission was set up, and we hope that further improvement will come about. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask us to give a general power to the commission to exempt anyone from a legal liability. He is trying to postulate a peculiarly un-British doctrine.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Private Beaches (Public Access)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what

    409
    extent the public are denied access to the foreshore and seaside beaches by virtue of private ownership of such land; and what steps he intends to take to remedy this situation.
    Mr. Ross: Public rights to the foreshore in respect of navigation, white fishing and recreation remain even where it is privately owned. But it is in the public interest that these rights should be fortified by ownership of the foreshore remaining with the Crown. I hope that an Amendment recently made to the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Bill will assist the Crown Estate Commissioners to protect their ownership rights in the foreshore.
    Mr. Hamilton: The answer is all very well as far as it goes and is welcome, but will my right hon. Friend undertake to exempt the terms of a lease granted by the Fife County Council to a private developer in North Queensferry, which has had the effect of excluding not only local residents but also tourists from the only accessible part of the foreshore? Is this not intolerable in Conservation Year?
    Mr. Ross: I would be happy to examine any relevant matter my hon. Friend sends to me. I am interested in this matter from the point of view that we have noticed a loss to the Crown of foreshore rights by relaxations made a long time ago in respect of prescription. I look forward to seeing this particular lease.
    Mrs. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a variety of landlords of all types are restricting the access over their land and so preventing the use of the foreshore? Is it not time that a Labour Government in particular seriously considered giving the residents of the Highlands a right to fish in rivers without all the bother to which they are put?
    Mr. Ross: The last part involves another question altogether, but the question of access is important to Scotland. I have no evidence to suggest that this is a major problem, but I should be glad to look at any such evidence. The hon. Lady will be aware that we have set up the Countryside Commission to ensure the extension of access not just to beaches but elsewhere to the public generally.

    Housing Subsidies
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the average weekly increase in council house rents needed for existing dwellings, in shillings, on the basis that housing subsidies in Scotland as a whole are abolished, excepting old people's accommodation; and what is the estimated weekly increase needed to offset the subsidy on dwellings under construction on 1st January, 1970.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: For existing houses about 12s. a week, and for houses under construction on 1st January about 3s. a week on all local authority houses; but the increase in a particular area or for a particular tenant might differ widely from the average.
    Mr. Hunter: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if the policies of the Opposition on housing subsidies were ever implemented council house tenants would be faced with intolerable financial burdens in future?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes, I do very much, and there is an obligation on the Opposition to make their policies quite clear.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Surely the Minister of State realises that the whole tenor of that supplementary question is based on a pure hypothesis? Would he not agree that the best way to spend money on housing is to spend more on those in need and to help them more than is being done at the moment?
    Dr. Mabon: These may be impure policies of the Opposition, but hardly pure ones. The hon. Member should read the leader of the Progressive Conservative Alliance's speech to see once again how his policies are being taken as a basis for the view that it is the intention of the Opposition, if ever they get power, to try to alter these subsidies in the adverse way reflected by this Question.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Is the Minister of State aware that what is in this Question is unrelated to the policy of any known political party? Is the Minister now taking the opportunity of again ringing a doorbell and running away?
    Dr. Mabon: My objection is not to ringing doorbells but to finding them, for

    411
    there are 3,000 short in Erskine and we would like to have more houses there. The Opposition have suggested reforms in housing finance which they have spelled out to their supporters to such an extent that they believe various things will happen, as reflected adversely in my hon. Friend's Question.

    Housing Authorities (Mortgages)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many housing authorities in Scotland at present do not make mortgage advances; and if he will take steps to encourage them to do so.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The councils of five counties, three large burghs and 101 small burghs have made no mortgage advances in recent years. A circular has been sent to all housing authorities drawing their attention to the recently-announced increase in the amount available for this purpose in 1970–71.
    Mr. Hunter: Would not my hon. Friend agree that every reasonable opportunity should be taken to encourage private house ownership? Will the recent reductions in Bank Rate enable local authorities to improve and make more attractive the mortgage advance scheme?
    Dr. Mabon: I certainly agree with both points. Unfortunately, some of the authorities concerned have not reacted as well as we would like them to. Perhaps the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) would agree to speak to Nairn on this matter, and to some of his small burghs which are delinquent, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) may speak to Stirling burgh, where the Nationalists are in control.
    Mr. David Steel: Is the Minister of State aware that I am very pleased to hear that he is taking steps to encourage local authorities to make use of mortgage facilities? Will he also take steps to encourage them to make generous loan agreements with housing associations which need close co-operation with local authorities?
    Dr. Mabon: I agree with that. In the general review of housing finance which we are conducting, we want to take into
    412
    account experience on housing associations, particularly of co-ownership schemes.

    New Hospitals
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new hospitals have been built in Scotland since the inception of the National Health Service; and if he will list the names of the hospitals and the year they were built.
    Mr. Millan: Since 1948 25 major hospital projects have been built in Scotland which in view of their comprehensive nature can be considered to be new hospitals or their equivalent. I am publishing a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Eadie: Since my hon. Friend is aware that the National Health Service was instituted about 21 years ago, can he say how many hospitals have been built during the last five or six years under this Government?
    Mr. Millan: I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that of the 25 I have mentioned built since 1948, no fewer than 17 were completed in the years from 1965 to 1969.
    Mr. Noble: How many were started?
    Mr. Millan: A jolly sight more than were started in the whole of the years in which hon. Members opposite were in office.
    Following is the list:

    NEW HOSPITALS

    Year completed

    Northern Region

    Belford Hospital, Fort William

    1965

    Portree Hospital, Skye

    1965

    Craig Phadrig Hospital, Inverness

    1969

    North Eastern Region

    Gilbert Bain Hospital, Lerwick

    1961

    Seafield Hospital, Buckie

    1964

    Fraserburgh Hospital

    1968

    Ladysbridge Hospital, Banff (in several phases)

    1969

    Eastern Region

    Strathmartine, Dundee

    1964

    Dundee Dental Hospital and School

    1968

    South Eastern Region

    Randolph Wemyss Hospital, Fife

    1963

    Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy (in two main phases)

    1967

    Liberton Hospital, Edinburgh

    1968

    Lynebank Hospital, Dunfermline

    1968

    Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, Eye Pavilion

    1969

    Year completed

    Western Region

    Vale of Leven Hospital, Alexandria

    1955

    Ross Hospital, Paisley

    1956

    Bellshill Maternity Hospital

    1962

    Queen Mother's Maternity Hospital, Glasgow

    1964

    Cowglen Hospital, Glasgow

    1966

    Dunoon General Hospital

    1966

    Islay Hospital, Bowmore

    1966

    Lightburn Hospital, Glasgow, Geriatric unit

    1967

    Paisley Maternity Unit

    1969

    Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

    1969

    Cresswell Maternity Hospital

    1969

    National Health Service (Expenditure)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total sum spent in Scotland on the National Health Service since its inception; and how much has been spent each year since 1965 to the nearest available date.
    Mr. Millan: About £1,880 million to 31st March, 1969. The expenditure over the last four years of this period was as follows:
    1965–66 £137 million, 1966–67 £153 million, 1967–68 £167 million, 1968–69 £181 million.
    Mr. Eadie: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the decision taken by the Scottish Trades Union Congress yesterday to give a full backing to Labour and a Labour Government appears justified in the light of the figures he has given? Can he tell the House whether the Prime Minister has been informed about those figures, since he is addressing the Scottish Trades Union Congress today?
    Mr. Millan: I am not sure about the last point but perhaps I could send my right hon. Friend a telegram. Just to point the contrast with £181 million for 1968–69, I should point out that in the last full year for which hon. Members opposite have responsibility, 1963–64, the figure was only £111 million.
    Mr. Younger: Will the Under-Secretary point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) that it is not surprising to find the Labour Party supported by the S.T.U.C. in view of the fact that it not only forms the greatest part of but controls the Labour Party?

    Grant-Aided Schools
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held regarding the future of the grant-aided schools; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the Public School Commission Report on Grant-aided Schools in Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: I am not yet in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edwin M. Taylor) on 15th April.—[Vol. 799, c. 1386–7.]
    Mr. Brewis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Education and Science in England and Wales that local authorities which send pupils to similar schools in England obtain a very good bargain? Why does he want to destroy these schools?
    Mr. Millan: I am not aware that any local education authority in Scotland sends any pupils to grant-aided schools except for a number of local arrangements which affect a very small number of pupils and where the local school provides part of the secondary school education concerned.
    Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend accept that there has been a wide welcome in Scotland for the report, which points the way to the ending of the present anomalous situation in which public money is used to support a small privileged élite of schools whose activities are quite incompatible with comprehensive education and whose continued survival hinders the progress of the majority of children in the interests of preserving so-called advantages for a few?
    Mr. Millan: I agree that it is a very valuable report and there are anomalies in the present situation but I am not able to add very much to that at the moment.
    Mr. MacArthur: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will remain

    415
    in the position of not being in a position to say anything more about this damaging proposal?
    Mr. Millan: No, Sir. I think the proposals are worthy of consideration, and we shall be giving our reactions to them as soon as we have considered them.

    Angling (River Purification Boards)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work carried out by river purification boards on fishing matters including the participation in stocking and fishing management programmes presently undertaken by the Clyde Angling Association.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: River purification boards are primarily responsible for preventing pollution. I understand, however, that the Clyde Board gives advice to fishing associations on fish rearing and stocking.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while we recognise that the river purification boards are functioning very well on the east coast of Scotland and, with the appropriate officers, had to do so because of the value of the salmon fisheries there, on the west coast of Scotland last year 30,000 dead seagulls were picked up most of which on examination were shown to have died through the effects of pollution? Is he aware that this is increasing on the west coast of Scotland and that river purification boards there are practically non-existent and there is only one purification officer known to me and he was recently appointed by Glasgow Corporation.
    Dr. Mabon: I would be very glad to comment on the latter part of the question when we reach Question 46. Sticking strictly to the terms of Question No. 30, my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Clyde and the Ayrshire boards employ biologists to measure the quality of the river waters in terms of animal and plant life and other bodies have the advantage of advice of the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory at Pitlochry. If he has other points to make in correspondence, I will answer them.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that Answer I shall
    416
    present my hon. Friend with the other points on an Adjournment Motion.
    Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware of the great concern felt by anglers about the pollution of the River Ayr by the National Coal Board in recent months? Will he say what he proposes to do about the representations made to him on this subject?
    Dr. Mabon: That is an entirely different question, but I will willingly correspond with the hon. Gentleman about it. In fairness, I cannot answer matters raised on Question 30 which are dealt with in later Questions today and Questions put down for later dates.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the progress made in the fishing industry in Scotland with regard to catching power; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: I am reasonably satisfied with the steady growth overall in the weight and value of the Scottish catch.
    Mr. Baker: Will the Minister say what specific proposals he has for increasing commercial fishing by the Scottish fishing fleet, particularly in relation to the letter which I recently sent to him?
    Mr. Buchan: I have received a large number of letters from the hon. Gentleman in the last few days, and I do not know which one he is referring to. [Laughter.] I mean this genuinely. The White Fish Authority has launched a publicity scheme which will help on the market side, and our increase of grants and loans on vessels to the 90 per cent. level should help on the catching side.

    Warfarin-Resistant Rodents
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to prevent the spread of Warfarin-resistant rodents in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: Under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 local authorities have a general responsibility in this matter. My Department has given local authorities advice on the problem of

    417
    Warfarin resistance after undertaking field investigations and research. A further investigation is planned of the extent of the area of resistance and of the effect of the counter-measures adopted by the local authorities concerned.
    Mr. Baker: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that Warfarin has been a considerable factor in keeping down the rodent population, particularly on farms, and will he ensure that research continues into a chemical preparation to take the place of Warfarin if resistance becomes a major factor in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchan: Yes, one cannot predict that far ahead, but research is continuing, and I have already discussed with the hon. Member some of the problems involved. I have noted the point.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the powers of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act are sufficient, and say what his Department is doing to encourage local authorities to meet this problem?
    Mr. Buchan: We have made an assessment of the position. In Scotland it is suggested that the best way to tackle this is to reduce the number of rats within the area of resistance. With that method of handling—it is rather different in other parts of the United Kingdom—it is better to involve local authorities, and we are working very closely with them on the general policy.

    Dundee (Jute Industry)
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the concern in Dundee about employment prospects there, due to the run-down of the jute industry; and if he will take steps to provide more job opportunities in Dundee.
    Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and I are keeping in the closest touch with the problems of the jute industry, and there will be no relaxation of the Government's efforts, already producing valuable results, in encouraging new industrial growth and expansion in the Dundee area.
    Mr. Doig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of jobs in the jute
    418
    industry have recently been lost and that thousands more will be lost in the near future before the industry settles down to a new lower level? There is, therefore, urgent need to provide new employment in this area now or in the immediate future.
    Mr. Ross: Yes, I am aware of the difficulties of the jute industry, but it is only fair to say that the industry itself has responded to the challenge of change and has done some diversification. My hon. Friend should not be too despondent about it; the unemployment rate in Dundee is still below the Scottish average. We are very much alive to the present problems and, as my hon. Friend knows, Dundee's needs have certainly not been ignored by this Government in the past five years.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Secretary of State aware of the pledge given on behalf of the Prime Minister that jute jobs would be safeguarded under a Labour Government? Since the Prime Minister seems reluctant to do so, will the Secretary of State make it clear that this was a lightly-given promise and not a firm pledge?
    Mr. Ross: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply he received from the Prime Minister.

    Local Authorities (Decision making)
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek powers to enable him to review decisions by local authorities, particularly those made by committees, which are not subject to the approval of the local council.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir. Within their statutory powers local authorities have discretion to take their own decisions and to delegate decision-making to their committees. I would not think it right to seek to restrict their discretion.
    Mr. Doig: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Dundee recently 29 new houses built to standard building regulations were liable to be knocked down simply because a committee of the corporation, not the corporation itself, had power to take such a decision? Does not he feel that there should be a fall-back power to the Secretary of State in exceptional cases to avoid this stupidity?
    Dr. Mahon: My hon. Friend has great experience of local government and was a distinguished treasurer for the City of Dundee, but, as he knows, the buildings authority in Dundee is composed of elected members, nominated by the local authority and is an independent body created by the Buildings (Scotland) Act. The point he makes is a fair one, and I shall look into the matter in view of the progress of legislation elsewhere.

    Alcohol and Crimes and Road Accidents
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek powers to obtain from brewers and distillers financial contributions for research into the question of an association between the consumption of alcohol and crimes of violence and fatal road accidents.
    Mr. Buchan: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: I appreciate the difficulty of persuading the brewers and distillers to finance research into this problem, as they are so busy financing the Tory Party, but, since there is a prima facie case for a close relationship between the consumption of alcoholic liquor and crimes of violence, will my hon. Friend try to persuade a university to undertake research into this important matter?
    Mr. Buchan: Certain universities are studying this. I accept that there is not only a prima facie case but a well-known link in terms both of violence and of road accidents. I do not know what end product could come out of research except the advice, " Don't drive and drink ". But all those who are involved in this know that there is a strong connection.

    Shell Fish Industry
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what economic information the Government have obtained in relation to the shell fish industry.
    Mr. Buchan: Detailed information is published each year in my Department's Reports on the Fisheries of Scotland and in the Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistical Tables. 1969 was a record year with landings of £3·6 millions—more than double the value of the catch in 1964.
    Mr. Wohige-Gordon: Is not it unfair for a Government to say to any industry, particularly this one, that they have enough information to take a special levy from the industry, while doing nothing in return, and providing no subsidy comparable to that accepted by the rest of the fishing industry?
    Mr. Buchan: As I have pointed out to him before, the hon. Gentleman has this wrong. There is no relationship between the levy on the one hand and the subsidy on the other. The shell fish industry, like any other sea fishing industry, receives benefit from the research and development work of the White Fish Authority, and it is appropriate that the industry should contribute to that authority.

    Land Ownership
    Mrs. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to limit the number of acres which any one person can own in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchan: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Ewing: Is it in accordance with Labour Party principles that a person should be able to own 200,000 acres of Scotland and more, and put most of it to almost no use? Where is there a sense of justice, efficiency and responsibility in this intolerable situation?
    Mr. Buchan: I am sure that this will be repeated by many of my hon. Friends and, perhaps, more pithily expressed. We have established in the Highlands area the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and measures are open to us. Also, in our proposals for feudal reform, developments which have been held back in the past by feudal superiors will be made possible by submission to the Lands Tribunal.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend say how many private landowners support the S.N.P?

    Highlands and Islands (Freight Charges)
    Mrs. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a committee to investigate ways of alleviating the hardship caused by heavy freight charges to the Highlands and Islands.
    Dr. Dickson Mahon: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) on 21st April.—[Vol. 800, c. 81–2]
    Mrs. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Norwegian Government's policy has doubled Norway's northern population from 200,000 to 400,000 over the period during which the Westminster policy of successive British Governments has managed to halve the population of the Scottish Highlands and Islands? Does not he think that the Highland people should be congratulated on clinging to their way of life against the clearances of yesterday and the centralisation of today? Is it not time that the Government and others stopped punishing Highlanders by promises which do not help them? Is it not also time to deal with freight charges which raise the already-too-high prices in Scotland?
    Dr. Mabon: It is time the hon. Lady read yesterday's HANSARD, which states clearly that discussions are going on between the Scottish Transport Group, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Office. The S.T.G. only acquired its holding in MacBraynes in July last year. The suggestions of the board are much more constructive than the hon. Lady's. These tripartite discussions are the way in which we can get the pattern of services and charges which is essential to the well-being of the northern and western islands of Scotland—which is, indeed, more important to them than anything else.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (SAFETY OF BRITISH SUBJECTS AND PROPERTY)
Sir Alec Douglas-Home (by Private Notice)Sir Alec Douglas-Home (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the safety of British persons and property in Trinidad and Tobago.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): Our High Commission is in touch with the United Kingdom community in Trinidad and Tobago. No reports have been received of incidents involving injury to the lives and property of United Kingdom nationals.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman cannot at this short notice give an account of what has happened there, but no doubt he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will keep us informed should there be any danger to British subjects.
Mr. Thomson: We are watching watching developments in Trinidad and Tobago, especially as they affect United Kingdom nationals, very closely, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman immediately an assurance that we will keep the House fully informed.
The background to the situation is that there have been a series of Black Power riots in Port of Spain for some weeks. There has also been the threat of a general strike. Against this background, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago—which, I remind the House, has been an independent member of the Commonwealth since 1962—declared a state of emergency and, with the loyal support of the police force, are endeavouring to control the disorder. Some of the leaders of the troubles have already been placed under detention.
Mr. John Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that unemployment is about 30 per cent. in Trinidad and Tobago among the under-24 age group, a situation which has itself created difficulties? Will my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Overseas Development do all they can to bring more employment to this very large young labour force?
Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend raises wider questions, of which we are very much aware. We are aware of the general background in the islands but that is the responsibility of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. Our responsibility in the present situation of anxiety is to take all necessary and practicable steps to safeguard the lives of United Kingdom nationals.
Mr. Marten: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Army is being loyal to the Government?
Mr. Thomson: I understand that there have been reports of mutinies amongst some elements of the Trinidad and Tobago Regiment. That is why

423
we are taking all the necessary and practicable steps to look after the safety of United Kingdom nationals.
Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us—no doubt including himself—who were in Trinidad for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference only a few months ago will very much regret this very disturbing series of events? Will he inform the Trinidad Government that any request for help from Her Majesty's Government, particularly in face of any difficulties in respect of the Army, will be sympathetically considered?
Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend and I have perhaps a special personal reason for concern about these developments. We are keeping in close and continuous touch with Dr. Williams and his Government.

BILLS PRESENTED
  DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
  Mr. Secretary Stewart, supported by Mrs. Judith Hart, Mr. Dick Taverne, Mr. Evan Luard, and Mr. Elystan Morgan, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to customs duty on hydrocarbon oils for the benefit of persons entitled to privileges under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 or the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966, and to amend the International Organisations Act 1968 by including the Caribbean Development Bank among the organisations to which section 1 applies and by making further provision under section 2 with respect to vehicle excise duty: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 152.]
PROTECTION OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY
Mr. Chichester-Clark, supported by Lord Hamilton, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Captain Orr, and Mr. Michael Noble, presented a Bill to protect the person and property by penalising the making or possession or use of certain devices containing an inflammable liquid or substance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8th May and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

EDUCATION BILL
Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the debate on the Recommittal Motion and the Instruction on the Order Paper—
That the Education Bill, so far as amended, be recommitted to the former Committee,
and
That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee A that, notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause 1 of the Education Bill, they have power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect.—
I understand that the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) wishes to raise a point of order.
3.35 p.m.
Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I wish to raise points of order arising from the fact that we are facing a situation which has never faced the House before in so far as there is no precedent for the effective Clauses of a Government Bill being struck out in Committee. All the 11 precedents which there are refer to Private Members' Bills and none of these was proceeded with. There are, therefore, two sets of precedents: first, that there is no precedent for a Government Bill; and, secondly, that there is no precedent for a Recommittal Motion or Instruction of the kind now on the Order Paper.
I therefore suggest, for your convenience, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, that I refer to all the points of order for your guidance as they affect both Motions at the beginning of the debate, although I understand that the debate will thereafter proceed on the two Motions separately.
The first point on which I wish to seek your guidance concerns the first Motion on the Order Paper:
" That the Education Bill, so far as amended, be recommitted to the former Committee ".
This is the Recommittal Motion and the first question is whether it is governed by Standing Order No. 52. You will be aware that, if this Motion is governed by Standing Order No. 52, then speeches upon it are restricted to two speeches of 10 minutes each, one from the Government side and one from the Opposition.
I submit that Standing Order No. 52 does not apply and I also, of course, submit, in general, that the points of order

425
I am raising now are far wider than those which apply to the Education Bill. They are points of order of general impact which will affect all hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I submit that Standing Order No. 52 does not apply for the following reasons. First, it applies only to a recommittal of a Bill as a whole. Its opening words are:
" If a motion to recommit a bill as a whole…"
and it then goes on to say what happens. The Motion before the House does not say that the Education Bill as a whole be recommitted. It does not even say that the Education Bill " be recommitted ". It says:
" That the Education Bill, so far as amended, be recommitted."
The phrase " so far as amended " must therefore mean something different from the Bill as a whole. It comes from a Motion at the ninth sitting—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order, and a serious one.
Mrs. Thatcher: It comes from a Motion at the ninth sitting of Standing Committee A, namely:
" That the Chairman do report the Bill, so far as amended, to the House ".
That Motion did not refer specifically to the Bill as a whole. It refers to the Bill " so far as amended ", and I submit that this is less than the Bill. What is left of the Bill—that is to say, the bit that is " so far as amended "—cannot equal the phrase used in Standing Order No. 52,
"…a bill as a whole…"
and the Bill as a whole is the only Bill which can be obtained today from the Vote Office.
There is no Bill as amended by Standing Committee A. Nor is there any Bill " so far as amended " by Standing Committee A. The only Bill which we have is the whole Bill consisting of Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4, and this is not the Bill " so far as amended " to which the first Motion on the Order Paper refers.
Erskine May, on page 569, of the 1964 edition, says:
" The limitation of the motion to a partial recommittal of the bill, or the inclusion of
426
any matter other than that necessary for recommittal removes the motion from the scope of the standing order and the restriction on the number of speakers is not enforced ".
It refers to a precedent in the footnote—House of Commons Debates (1924), Vol. 176—which I have checked and in which there were seven speeches on the Recommittal Motion.
The second reason why I submit that Standing Order No. 52 does not apply is that these events are outside its scope and that it would be using it for a purpose outside the intentions of the House when it was created.
Erskine May, on page 569, refers to the Select Committee on House of Commons Procedure in 1914 and to Question 2,410 to the then Clerk of the House. That Question was as follows:
" In regard to the recommitment of Bills I understand you think some check might be put upon motions to that effect? "
The answer from the then Clerk of the House was:
" That also was a suggestion which the Speaker asked me to make … The only case in which the recommitment of a Bill is really necessary is where it is desirable to insert a money provision which cannot be inserted at the Report stage. I think we have observed in recent times a tendency to multiply motions to recommit, and I am inclined to think you may safely invest Mr. Speaker with a discretionary power as to accepting or rejecting such motions."
Two points arise from that about the scope of Standing Order No. 52. First, that a Recommittal Motion is only moved, or should only be moved, in cases where something cannot be done on Report. According to the Leader of the House last Thursday, this could be done on Report. He referred to that matter at c. 1577.
The second point is that the Standing Order came into existence because there were too many Motions to recommit and it was desired to cut down the number. Today, we are dealing with a case for which there is no precedent whatsoever. Therefore, it would be desirable to hear from as many senior Members of the House as possible upon this very novel procedure.
Those are the two submissions that I make on Standing Order No. 52.
The second of my points of order—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Thatcher: —is on the part of the Recommittal Motion which refers to " the former Committee ". I submit, Mr. Speaker, that " the former Committee " has now no existence. This was terminated by the Committee's acceptance of the Motion moved by the Minister. At the end of that we did not even need to have a Motion to adjourn. No notice, in accordance with the sittings Motion, has appeared on the Order Paper. I suggest that " the former Committee " has ceased to exist.
I have looked at precedents on " former " committees. All of them refer to the dates when the Standing Committee was in continuous existence with a nucleus of Members. These days Standing Committees are virtually Bill Committees and have no continuous existence. Therefore, we should be in grave difficulty in recommitting to a " former " Committee if it does not exist, because we should not know how next to proceed.
I then move in my points of order to the Instruction Motion, which is the one in italics before the House today. I submit, for the following reasons, that the Instruction Motion is out of order and cannot be debated. Erskine May, on page 537, points out—
Mr. William Hamilton: Which edition?
Mrs. Thatcher: The 1964 edition. It is the only one that we can get in the House, if hon. Members are fortunate enough to get their hands on one at all. Erskine May has been in great demand these last few days.
Erskine May, on page 537, points out that since Standing Order No. 42, which acts as a general instruction to Committees, the number of occasions when it is necessary to widen the powers of a Committee by an Instruction has been reduced and the Rulings of the Chair much more restricted than formerly. It gives seven sets of circumstances in which instructions are admissible.
Mr. William Hamilton: Let us have them all.
Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman will get them all, if he will permit me to give them.
First, extension of objects within the scope of the Bill; secondly, extension of
428
area; thirdly, division of a Bill into two or more Bills; fourthly, consolidation of two Bills into one; fifthly, priority to the consideration of a portion of a Bill; sixthly, power to hear counsel; and, seventhly, a reference to a mandatory Instruction, which does not affect the Instruction before us. Those are the seven groups of Instruction which are admissible.
I submit that this Instruction does not fall into any of those categories. If, therefore, the Instruction is in order, we are creating a new category of admissible Instruction, which is an extremely important thing for the House to do. Moreover, the category which we should be creating would purport to give a Committee instructions to repeat consideration of something which it has already considered.
I submit that this is basically contrary to the rules of the House which are used every day against repetition. Indeed, Standing Order No. 22, on irrelevance and repetition in the House, is applied by Standing Order No. 59(5) to Committees. To use an Instruction for this purpose has never been done, and it is a matter of grave principle with implications far wider than the Bill, for which it is merely the occasion.
Moreover, in Committee, if this were to be done, the Chairman would be faced, on the one hand, with Standing Orders against repetition, on the other, with a permissive Instruction for repetition, and, thirdly, with Standing Order No. 33(2) telling him to treat an Instruction and a Motion to recommit as an Amendment. I submit that this Instruction is not admissible.
Erskine May then goes on to classify five categories of inadmissible instructions. The first, which does not affect us, is that the Instruction is outside the scope of the Bill. I mention it only to reject it.
The second group of inadmissible Instructions are superfluous instructions. As whoever put down the Motion has chosen to recommit, if he may, to " the former Committee ", he can only be conferring on that Committee powers with regard to considering Clause 1 of the Bill which it already possessed at the outset under Standing Order No. 42. The only additional power which he would be conferring by an Instruction of a repetitive

429
kind would be to reconsider what it had already power to consider. I submit, therefore, that the Instruction is out of order on the ground that it would be superfluous.
The relevant passage in Erskine May appears at page 542:
" An instruction is superfluous and therefore out of order if it seeks to confer upon the committee power … already possessed by the committee under the provisions of Standing Order No. 42."
The next two categories of inadmissible Instructions do not apply. They are, " Impracticable division of bill ", and " Deletion of part of bill ".
I come, now, to what I believe to be the most important point of order. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is listening to a very serious submission.
Mrs. Thatcher: The most important point of order on the Instruction concerns the fifth category, where Erskine May says that
an instruction is inadmissible if it is not specific.
I submit that this Instruction is not specific. Erskine May says:
" An instruction is out of order unless it is drawn in clear and specific terms, so that the committee may understand definitely what provisions the House desires that they should take into consideration."
It follows that with three precedents. The Motion on the Instruction says:
"…notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause 1 of the Education Bill …"
The only Question put to the Standing Committee was:
" That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th April, 1970; c. 322.]
Clause 1, as amended, was materially different from Clause 1. The Question on Clause 1 was never put to the Committee, and I believe could not be put, and the Committee could not therefore disagree with Clause 1. It is a matter of conjecture what would have happened had it been put, or could have been put. The Instruction therefore refers to an event which did not happen, and rests—I am grateful to the Chief Secretary—upon that non-event.
The Instruction continues:
"…they have power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect."
430
Like effect to what? The Committee disagreed to Clause 1, as amended, but it had no opportunity to disagree to Clause 1. It cannot be Clause 1, as amended, because that is not what the Instruction says, and in any event the provisions in Clause 1, as amended, were radically different from the provisions in Clause 1. I submit, therefore, that the Instruction is out of order because it is not clear; alternatively, because it is null and void, as it depends upon an event which did not happen, and could not have happened.
I turn to the relevant precedents. The first one is the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, 1st June, 1896, in which case an Instruction was ruled out of order for the following reasons. The Instruction was on the Order Paper, and the then Speaker said:
" There are on the paper two Instructions, the first standing in the name of the hon. Member, Yarmouth Division. That is out of order. It is of the highest importance that Instructions should be perfectly clear in their terms, that the Committee may understand definitely what provisions the House desires that it should take into consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1896; c. 977.]
As the Instruction gives no information to the Committee what the provisions are which the House desires it should take into consideration, I think that the Instruction is bad for want of clearness and definite direction.
The second precedent mentioned in Erskine May is the Education (Scotland) Bill, 21st July, 1897. There, an Instruction came before the House, and Mr. Speaker, referring to the first Instruction, said that it
" is out of order in the first place, on the ground that it proposes to instruct the Committee to repeal ' part of Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act 1876'. To be in order it should be clear and specific, and should indicate expressly to the Committee what part of the section it is proposed that it should deal with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1897; c. 641.]
That Instruction was also out of order.
The third and final one in which the Instruction was out of order because it was not specific was the Marriage with Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, 12th February, 1902, in which Mr. Speaker, ruling immediately on an Instruction, said:
" That Instruction is out of order, because think, in the first place, an Instruction to

431
the Committee ought, on the face of it, to state plainly and clearly what further alterations in the law the Committee are to consider …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1902; c. 1112.]
This Instruction is neither clearly one thing, nor clearly the other. Indeed, it is not clear, and hinges upon an event which did not happen.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the submissions which I wish to make, and I am grateful to you for your patience.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would help the House if I ruled on the detailed submissions which the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has made, after which I shall be willing to hear further points of order.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, you may be enlightened by hearing further points of order before you give your Ruling, or your judgment might be influenced by them.
I begin with an apology, in that I have to take the Chair at a meeting of the Trustees of the Members' Fund at 4.15, and I may, therefore, not be present to hear your Ruling.
I want to raise a simple point. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said about the Instruction. The recommittal procedure is, surely, an abuse of the process of the House. The whole of our recommittal procedure was designed so that something could be done in. Committee which could not be done on Report, and it does not apply here at all. It was designed particularly so that Finance Bills could be recommitted, or something could be done in Committee with the approval of the House which could not be done on Report. I submit that to use this procedure for this Bill is an abuse of the procedure of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I think that it would help if I made a careful Ruling on the points which the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has put to me and to the House. I thank her, first, for her courtesy in letting me know the general line that she intended to raise in the points of order that she was put-
432
ting on a day which, in her own words, has no exact precedent.
The first Motion must be considered in the light of the provisions of Standing Order No. 52, which relates to the recommittal of a Bill. I think that it would help the House if I read again the whole Standing Order. It says:
" If a motion to re-commit a bill as a whole be opposed, Mr. Speaker shall permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for such re-committal from the Member who moves and from a Member who opposes any such Motion respectively, and shall then without permitting further debate put the question thereon."
The phrase,
" the Education Bill, so far as amended,"
in the Motion means the whole Bill, with all the Amendments which the Committee has made, up to the point where it decided not to proceed further with the Bill. The usual phrase is " the Bill as amended ", which the Committee uses when reporting to the House on completing its consideration and amendment of the Bill. But in both instances the House is put in possession of the entire Bill, with such Amendments as have been made. The only difference is that in the first case the Committee's work is incomplete.
I have decided that the Motion does fall within the ambit of Standing Order No. 52 and that, therefore, I am permitted to call only one Member to speak for and one Member against the Motion. This is on the first part of the hon. Lady's submission. I would emphasise that the statements on each side according to this Standing Order must be brief and that, if the House desires, a Division may follow.
The second Motion on the Order Paper is an Instruction which, of course, can be called only if the first Motion has been agreed to, since it would relate to subsequent proceedings in the event of the Bill being recommitted to the Standing Committee. Under the normal rules of the House, a Committee which has disagreed to a Clause cannot proceed to agree to it or to similar or identical provisions unless specially empowered by the House to do so.
The Instruction is permissive. It may help the House if I briefly summarise the rules on such an Instruction. Debate on a Motion for an Instruction must be

433
strictly relevant thereto and must not be directed towards the general objects of the Bill to which the Instruction relates, nor may debate on the Instruction anticipate the discussion of any Clause of the Bill. The narrow subject matter of the Instruction is, therefore, whether the Standing Committee should be given the exceptional power of reversing its earlier decision on Clause 1 of the Education Bill. Debate on the merits of the Clause which was disagreed to, or on the subject matter of the Bill itself, would be out of order. I might also remind the House that there is no right of reply by the mover of an Instruction.
The hon. Lady has asked me to comment on the validity of this procedure. It is true that my advisers have been unable to direct my attention to any precedent for the particular proceeding envisaged by the two Motions on the Order Paper. It is not, however, the duty of the Chair to forbid the House from embarking on a course which has no precise precedent. The whole procedure of the House is flexible. Motions to meet unusual circumstances have been tabled before, and, if they are not irregular in form, may be put to the House from the Chair for its decision.
I have given prolonged and careful study to the Motions standing on the Order Paper today and I have also considered all the arguments so clearly put forward by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley. I cannot find that there is any irregularity in the Motions which would prevent me from proposing the Questions on them from the Chair.
The hon. Lady also referred to the phrase " the former Committee ". This phrase means the same Standing Committee with the same Chairman and with the same hon. Members which considered the Education Bill after it was first committed on 12th February and which made a special report to the House on 16th April. There are several recent precedents for a Recommittal Motion in these terms, so the point which she has made has no validity.
Finally, on the last point which the hon. Lady made, and a very important one, it is true, as she submitted, that an Instruction is out of order unless the Committee to whom it is directed understands definitely all the provisions which the House desires it to consider. This
434
Instruction is, of course, permissive. It gives the Committee power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect to Clause 1 of the Education Bill to which it disagreed. I think that the Committee can interpret that Instruction, if it is given, quite clearly. I cannot rule it out of order on the grounds that it is not sufficiently specific.
I have examined all the precedents to which the hon. Lady referred. I have given great consideration to what is a very important issue, which she has raised in a very clear and important way. I have to rule that the two Motions are in order and that the debate can proceed.
Mr. Reginald Maudling: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for further guidance on one point? The Instruction is
"…that, notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause 1 of the Education Bill, they have power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect."
What the Committee disagreed with was Clause 1, as amended, which is a very different thing from Clause 1. It is given powers to insert in the Bill provisions " with a like effect "—presumably not powers to insert provisions with a like effect to something else.
To what does " like effect " refer? Is it Clause 1 as originally in the Bill, or Clause 1 as amended?
Mr. Speaker: That will have to be decided by the Committee when it debates Clause 1.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Maudling: I did not quite hear your Ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I said that what the like effect will be is a matter which the Committee will have to debate when it discusses the Clause.
Mr. Maudling: I accept your Ruling on that, Mr. Speaker, but with respect, the point is that it says " like effect ". Like to what? The Committee must judge what is like, but we must judge to what it should be like.
Mr. Speaker: The Instruction is quite clear. It is like effect to Clause 1 of the Bill.
Mr. Angus Maude: Further to that point of order.

435
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek your guidance on two points. The first relates to your Ruling, when you said that neither you nor your advisers had been able to find any precedent for using this procedure in a case of this kind. I would submit to you that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has said, this is a quite new and important departure, and possibly a breach of the conventions and traditions of the House. Surely, if something without precedent is to be embarked on by the House in a Bill of this kind, it should be done by changing the Standing Orders first, by Resolution of the House, so as to make action on this Bill possible. That is the right way to do it, not to create a precedent which has the effect of changing the Standing Orders simply by reference to a Resolution on the Education Bill. I submit that this, therefore, is the wrong way to do it.
My second paint is the question of this Motion falling within the ambit of Standing Order No. 52. No one questions the fact that, if this is the committal of a Bill as a whole, it falls within Standing Order No. 52 and you are, therefore, bound to limit the debate in the way that the Standing Order provides. But while I see that it can be argued that what is sought to be recommitted is all that is left of the Bill, I cannot see how the recommittal of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 plus the Preamble and Long Title only can conceivably be said to be the recommittal of the whole Bill. That seems to me plainly a contradiction in terms.
The Bill as a whole was the Bill which passed Second Reading in the House and was orginally committed to Standing Committee A in February. The Bill which is now sought to be recommitted cannot be the Bill as a whole, because it lacks the operative Clause. To use the phrase " the Bill as a whole " must surely in this case be nonsense.
Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled on the second point. On the Motions themselves, this is a matter for the House to decide after debate. All that the Chair can rule on is whether the Motions are in order. I have ruled that they are in order and that the procedure will take the form which I have ruled.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Perhaps I may refer to the same point of order as was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), which is about Standing Order No. 52. Erskine May appears to make it clear that Standing Order No. 52 was passed with the object of dealing with Motions to recommit which were, in fact, obstructive and dilatory. It was to restrain that practice that the House passed that Standing Order. It is, therefore, apparently, the first time that the Standing Order has been used in a way which appears to imply that a Motion to recommit by the Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, is of an obstructive and dilatory character.
In these unprecedented circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reconsider your Ruling on the Motion and Instructions, having the two in your mind together rather than considering them entirely separately, because, as my hon. Friend has said, Standing Order No. 52 applies only to a Motion to recommit the whole Bill.
If we consider the Motion in isolation, it could be said, I realise, that the Bill as reported to the House with Clause 1 knocked out is the whole Bill as it stands, but when we also see the Motion for an Instruction which is to authorise a Committee to put back into the Bill provisions which have been struck out, I ask you to look at the substance of the matter; and to recognise that this is, in fact, not a recommital of the whole Bill, but a recommital of a part of the Bill which has then to be supplemented in accordance with the terms of the Instruction. I ask you, therefore, looking at the substance of the matter, because there is no precedent, to rule in that way.
Perhaps I may make just one or two related suggestions. The wording of the Motion betrays the underlying difficulty. It speaks of the Bill " so far as amended ". That is a very strange phrase. If the Motion referred to " the Bill as so far amended " one would understand what that meant; that it referred to the Bill so far as it had been amended in the Standing Committee. That, however, is not what the Motion says. The reference to the Bill " so far as amended " must mean something less than the whole

437
of the Bill. The use of those words means that it is not the whole Bill, but the Bill so far amended. I confess that I find it rather difficult to understand what is meant by that phrase, but that is because of the inherent difficulty of the subject matter.
Turning now to the Instruction, I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether this is not caught by the rule to be found in page 545 of Erskine May, to the effect that an Instruction may not deal with something which has already been dealt with in the same Session. That cannot, of course, mean something dealt with in a Committee, because this is a Motion in the House, but something that has been dealt with by the House in the same Session. Examples are given in the footnotes.
This is a matter that has been dealt with by the House in the same Session, because the Bill as it passed on Second Reading was committed under the Standing Order, in default of a special Motion, to the Standing Committee, and the Committee then struck out Clause 1. If we consider the Motion and the Instruction together, this is a proposal that the House should do something which it has already done in the present Session. Therefore, the Instruction is, in fact, a repetitive Instruction, and underlines the fact that this is without precedent, because this procedure has never been used for this kind of purpose before, and never should be.
Perhaps I may test the validity of this submission by suggesting that the Standing Committee might, perhaps, do the same thing again. Would it then be in order for the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have enough to discuss on this important question of order without the hon. and learned Gentleman seeking a hypothetical Ruling on something that may happen in the future.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I was only seeking to illustrate my point, which is: if the Bill came back on a second occasion would the procedure also be in order? If not, it cannot be in order on the first occasion that it is repetitive. Therefore, I submit that this point is caught by the ruling in page 545 of Erskine May.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with points as they arise.
I have dealt with all the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman has put before the House, and I have ruled on them in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
As to the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to page 545 of Erskine May, in which Erskine May is talking about the way in which the House cannot go back to matters which have been already decided in the same Session, the simple fact is that that does not apply to a Committee. A House can over-rule something on which a Committee has decided, and, although Erskine May says that matters which have already been decided during the current Session cannot be brought forward by an Instruction, that refers to matters which have already been brought before the House.
Mr. Tom Driberg: With regard to the point twice put from the Opposition Front Bench, that the Committee did not disagree and could not have disagreed with Clause 1, is it not the case that when Clause 1 was amended, as amended it automatically became Clause 1? If that is so, does it not dispose of the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)?
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Peyton. A point of order.
Mr. John Peyton: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to put it to you that you have not yet replied to the point of order raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). My right hon. and learned Friend suggested to you that this Motion was an abuse of the recommital procedure on the ground that it did not involve doing something which could not be done on Report. I hope, with great respect, that you will rule on that point for the guidance of the House.
I should like also to put the following point to you. It seems to me that although you have ruled today expressly and explicitly that the House is not inhibited from accepting a Motion for which there is no precedent, that in itself involves us in a very serious situation.
The background is, I think, unarguable. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of

439
the House the other day, with that characteristic modesty and gift for under-statement for which he is well known and well loved, said that a mistake had been made. I think that we would all very warmly agree with that statement. But, that mistake having been made, what I think the House is in some difficulty over is allowing the Government to go to the Clerks of the House and requesting to be salvaged and extricated from their embarrassment. They having enlisted the machinery of the House on their side, there is no protection whatever for the minority—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The second point that the hon. Gentleman is making is a point that he can make in the debate on the Instruction, when the House will have to take a decision.
Mr. Peyton: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
The question which I now wish to put to you, with great respect, is: why are there not two Motions today? You yourself have indicated that this thing which appears on the Order Paper will be put in two bits. Why? It may be, again, that the modesty of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has reasserted itself, and that he does not wish his name to appear twice attached to so disgraceful and shoddy a Motion—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debating point, and not a point of order. It is quite in order to have the two Motions on the Order Paper.
Mr. Peyton: That is precisely my point, Mr. Speaker. There appears to be only one Motion, in that the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appear only once, which indicates to me that there is only one Motion on the Order Paper.
Yet from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Motion will be put in two sections. I should like to know whether there is any precedent for a Motion to appear on the Order Paper and for it to be bisected halfway through.
The other points I wished to raise have already been referred to by my hon.
440
Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), in a most lucid and brilliant submission to you, Mr. Speaker. I can only express my regret that you did not find yourself overwhelmed by the force of her arguments. However, I hope very much that you will remember that the power of the majority in the House changes from time to time. There was a time when, if I may say so with great respect, you, Mr. Speaker, sat on this side of the House as a member of a party —[HON. MEMBERS: " Withdraw "].—which was passionately and very often noisily over a long period of time addicted to espousing the cause of the minority.
I believe that if Parliament goes through with this procedure today it will have taken one more step towards steamrollering and bulldozing the basic rights of the minority on which freedom depends.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might well put his last point in debate. I am sure that he is not suggesting that Mr. Speaker takes any notice of the majority or the minority. It is his job to protect the whole of Parliament. He is not interested in the result of the battle which will take place later. He is in command of the rules of order and must interpret them.
Mr. E. Shinwell: With great respect, will you accept a point of order from this side of the House, Mr. Speaker? I understand that you have given a decision, having listened to the submission of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—[Interruption.] Mind your own business.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am minding my own business.
Mr. Shinwell: I listened to what the hon. Lady said and hon. Members opposite might listen to me. Since then several legal luminaries have addressed you, Mr. Speaker, including some who regard themselves as experts. You have given your decision, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether we might adopt a very simple expedient? Having given your Ruling, let the House decide whether it accepts Mr. Speaker's decision or not. Accordingly, I beg to move, That we accept your decision.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One of the rules of order is that when Mr. Speaker is on his feet every other hon. Member sits down.
I am not prepared to accept the Motion of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
I imagine, however, that by now all the points which have been made in support of the submission of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley are covered by my Ruling, except one, of which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) reminded me. I had forgotten to take note of the point of the right hon.and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), about whether this was an abuse of the procedures of the House. That is a matter which the House must decide in its debate, but not as a point of order.
Mrs. Thatcher: There was one point in your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I did not understand and on which I must ask for further clarification. You said that it was for the Committee to decide the meaning of the Instruction. That implies that there is some doubt about the meaning of the Instruction. I read to you three precedents in which there was doubt about the meaning of Instructions and they were out of order.
You, Mr. Speaker, seemed to say that there was some doubt about the meaning of today's Instruction. Therefore, is it not out of order? If not, should we continue the debate in Standing Committee on your authority that there is some doubt about the Instruction, although it is in order?
Mr. Speaker: With respect, the hon. Lady must not put words into the mouth of Mr. Speaker. I have read the three precedents to which she referred, including the operation of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, 1902, and I carefully and categorically ruled on her point about the clarity of the Instruction.
I repeat that the Instruction is permissive. It gives the Committee
" power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect "
to Clause 1 of the Education Bill, to which it disagreed. I think that the Committee can interpret that Instruction if it is given quite clearly. I cannot rule
442
it out of order on the ground that it is not sufficiently specific.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: On a point of order. I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He maintained that members of the Government had been able to go to the Clerks for advice about the terms of the Motion, but that hon. Members on this side of the House had been denied like facilities. [HON. MEMBERS: " He did not say that"]. That was the implication of the hon. Member —[HON. MEMBERS: " No."] That was clearly implied in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] As a gross aspersion has been cast on the Clerks, without any foundation—everybody knows that hon. Members on both sides of the House can obtain advice from the Clerks and that they are always ready to help us—I think that the hon. Gentleman should be instructed to withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Speaker: I did not understand the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to say that. Every right hon. and hon. Gentleman knows that the Clerks of the House are the faithful servants of every Member.
Mr. Peyton: May I be allowed to make one point clear, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: On this specific matter.
Mr. Peyton: I never said, nor did I in any way imply, that there was any restriction on the rights of Members to go to the Clerks for advice or on the willingness of the Clerks to give that advice. My attack was against the Government. I want to make it absolutely clear that, despite the wishful thinking of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), there was nothing in what I said which cast any reflection on the servants of the House.
Mr. Kenneth Lomas: Is it not a fact that the House as a whole took a decision on the Education Bill in favour of comprehensive education? Is it not also a fact that the Opposition, by cunning, conniving devices sought to defeat the Government—
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point which might be made in the debate when we get to it.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have specifically ruled on all the issues which were raised. I have not minimised their seriousness. I was asked by the hon. Lady, in a very careful submission, to rule on the two Motions on the Order Paper. The two Motions are in order. The debate on the first one is a procedural one and will contain two speeches. The debate on the second is much wider.
Mr. Maudling: There is still one matter in your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, about which we on this side are in some doubt. We would like you to be kind enough to clear the matter up for us. It is a simple point on which there should be no doubt if the Instruction is to be clear. It is whether the phrase
" Clause 1 of the Education Bill "
means Clause 1 in the original Bill, or Clause 1 as amended. This is a very important point.
Sir David Renton: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will be grateful if the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) goes out of order by interrupting him on a point of order.
Mr. Maudling: Would you be kind enough, Sir, to clarify for us whether in this Instruction, which must be clear and subject to no doubt, as you rightly said, Clause 1 means Clause 1 as originally in the Bill, or Clause 1 as amended by the Standing Committee?
Mr. Speaker: I have ruled on this. It is a matter which may be made clear by the Minister when we reach the debate.
Sir Edward Boyle: Mr. Speaker, may I, with the greatest respect, pursue that one more turn, because I was the hon. Member who successfully moved the Amendment to Clause 1 which is now in question? I submit to you that this Amendment had the effect of giving local authorities a wider scope than under the original Clause. It is for this reason that I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr.
444
Maudling) has said and submit to you that the words
" provisions with a like effect "
are not absolutely clear and that at the very least we should be quite clear what the Instruction to the Committee is.
Is it to insert in the Bill a Clause on the lines of Clause 1 as amended, with that considerably greater freedom to local authorities, or Clause 1 as it left the House after Second Reading? I suggest that we are entitled to ask you, Sir, for a little more clarification on this point.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which will emerge in the debate when we come to the Instruction. Sir David Renton.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No matter how important the occasion, only one hon. Member can address the Chair on a point of order at once.
Sir D. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I may be allowed—and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will forgive me—to add yet a third reason why this Instruction lacks clarity when we come to consider the meaning of " like effect ", because my right hon. Friend has already pointed out that it could mean the Clause as it originally stood or the Clause as amended.
The words " like effect " could mean another Clause moved by the Secretary of State in Committee to the same effect, but not in exactly the same form as the Clause which was originally in the Bill. It was for that reason that I somewhat rudely, for which I apologise, sought to interrupt my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet.
I think that this is a very important point for you to consider, Sir, when ruling that this Instruction is as clear an Instruction to the Committee as it might be. In effect, it comes to this—that the Instruction on this point alone could mean any one of three things. I suggest to you, Sir, that we as the House of Commons might not be doing our work well enough—we are creating a precedent and ought, therefore, as has been said, to do it well—if, on this vital point, we put in an Instruction which,

445
far from being clear, could mean three things.
Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, I have ruled on this. The points that hon. Gentlemen are making now are points they must make in the debate when we come to the Instruction.
Mr. Reginald Eyre: Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Committee which terminated its proceedings and thanked its Chairman on 16th April, I seek your guidance, arising out of the words you used in making your Ruling on the final point of order.
You said that the Committee must understand the Ruling. You went on to say that the Instruction gives power to include provisions to a like effect to Clause 1 to which the Committee had disagreed.
As a member of the Committee, I know very well that there are at least two possibilities that could be applied to the words that you used. The first is that you meant Clause 1 as originally drawn, but that cannot be so, with respect, because it was not as disagreed to in the Committee.
The second alternative is Clause 1 as amended. That is substantially different, because of the banding Amendment referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). That cannot apply, because it is not referred to in the Instruction. I therefore do not know what will be included when we are again in Standing Committee.
As it follows that there is a substantial difference as to what a Clause of like effect would be, I submit that the Instruction is unclear. It is certainly unclear to me. As I understand, precedents have been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). The Instruction, to be valid, must be specific and clear. With respect, unless I can be told which of these two alternatives applies, I cannot understand what the consequence of the Ruling is.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has merely repeated with equal clarity one of the submissions made by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley. I have ruled on this. I hope that we can proceed. We have much to debate.
Sir Barnett Janner: Mr. Speaker, you have made a Ruling which will in future, I assume, be accepted as a precedent. The House depends upon precedents. You are fully entitled to make a Ruling, if there is no obvious precedent, which will in itself become a precedent.
In the circumstances, is it not a pure waste of time on the part of those who oppose that Ruling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no good hon. Members pretending that they are not trying to waste time. What they are doing is wasting time. [HON. MEMBERS: " Withdraw."] I shall not withdraw. Protests of that nature are useless. The country will understand—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Sir B. Janner: —that it is a pure waste of time, an attempt to impede.
I seek your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. You having given your view on the matter, clearly and categorically, is there any method by which this type of interruption can be stopped, so that we can proceed?
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman says, we are on a point without precedent. [Interruption.] Order. It is also without precedent for hon. Members to interrupt Mr. Speaker. We are on a point which is without precedent. I had to rule very carefully and after much deliberation and much advice, and, after listening to the submissions, I would hope that we could now proceed with the debate before us.
Sir John Foster: On a point of order. I should like to ask for a clarification of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. You ruled—and I accept it for the purpose of this point of order—that the " Education Bill, as amended " was the whole Bill. Therefore, the definition of Clause 1 under that Ruling must be Clause 1 as amended. It cannot be Clause 1 before it was amended. Therefore, I would ask you whether the Instruction is wrongly worded. I quite see what the framer of the Instruction meant. He meant that the Committee had disagreed to the previous Clause 1, and, therefore, it ought to put in " provisions with a like effect " to the previous Clause 1.

447
As this is an important procedural matter which may set an important precedent, in my submission it must be considered strictly. " Clause 1 of the Education Bill ", in the Instruction sanction, cannot mean the previous Clause 1. The Committee did not disagree to Clause 1, as amended. What it disagreed to was the previous Clause 1. But the Instruction does not say that, and it follows from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the whole Bill is the Bill as amended, that Clause 1 of the whole Bill is the Clause as amended.
Mr. Speaker: We are back on the same topic. I have ruled on the matter. I think that we must proceed.
Sir Douglas Glover: I should like a little clarification Mr. Speaker—and I do sympathise with you in a very difficult position. We are this afternoon creating a precedent. I think that you are well aware of the dangers of creating precedents. As I understand, all that you have ruled is that these two propositions are in order to be on the Order Paper and that it is for the House to reach a decision upon them.
I want to make a submission to you on the first Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Education and Science. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker,that this is in order, but is debateable only under Standing Order No. 52. Further, in your Ruling you have also said that it will be for the House to decide whether this course of action should be carried out or not.
I submit that we are dealing with a new precedent—that is, short-circuiting the Report stage of Bills, because that is what this precedent means—and I submit that this is a matter which ought to be fully debated by the House and that, therefore, it ought to be in order under another Standing Order, not Standing Order No. 52.
Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that it comes under Standing Order No. 52 and when we come to it there will be a brief speech made for it and a brief speech against. I am not proposing to vary my Ruling.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would hope that the House would get on to the issues which the House wishes to debate. We are at present discussing submissions on points of order on which Mr. Speaker has ruled. We should move on.
Mr. Maudling: I am sorry to intervene again, Mr. Speaker, but there is one aspect of your Ruling—which, of course, we accept—which is still not entirely clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends. As you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, Instructions must be clear to be in order. We suggested that the Instruction is not clear because no one knows whether Clause 1 means the original Clause 1 or Clause 1, as amended. You suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this might become apparent in the course of the debate. But the debate cannot take place if the Instruction is out of order and the Instruction is out of order if there is no clarity about what the phrase means.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled that the Instruction is in order.
Mr. John Hynd: You referred to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we are discussing a new situation without precedent. Are we not now in danger of creating another precedent, because I cannot recall a case where, Mr. Speaker, having given a Ruling, the House could then indulge in a debate and criticise the Ruling of the Chair? Is this not a very dangerous precedent? Are we to take it that from now on hon. Members will have the right to discuss and debate Mr. Speaker's Rulings?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that I shared the same view of the history of the Speakership as the hon. Gentleman. There have been occasions, and this is one such. It is an important occasion, but, having said that, I think that now we should get on with the business.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Your Rulings, Mr. Speaker, have been very clear and authoritative on every point but one. It is quite true that the Rulings, which are clear and authoritative, are not completely acceptable to hon. Members on this side of the House, but that will have to be accepted because you have the power of the Chair. But

449
one Ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon which you have not been clear—or one point on which I submit you have not given a Ruling—is the question whether it is the Clause as amended or the Clause as it originally was.
If I may remind you of what you said on that point, you said that it will be made clear in the debate. With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is not a Ruling. I submit to you that whilst you have taken a lot of care—and the House will respect you very much for the care which you have taken—this is clearly a point which eluded you in the previous thought which you gave to it.
I should have thought, from the general demeanour of the Chair and the way in which you handled the very difficult questions, that this becomes clear. It is vital, if we are to accept the precedent, that the House should feel that the Chair itself is authoritative on every point and with respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit you have not been authoritative on this particular point. To get over it, may I suggest that you ask the Government to take this matter back—if need be until tomorrow —so that this particular point, which is not covered by an authoritative Ruling from the Chair, can be made authoritative and we can be clear?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put his point courteously. He has suggested that a point has eluded me, but it is a point on which I have so far ruled six or seven times.
Sir Eric Fletcher: May I try to help the House? I am sure that the whole House is always interested when a procedural question without precedent arises. A great many hon. Members on both sides of the House will not regret that there has been a fairly full discussion about a procedural question of some novelty.
Your Rulings, Mr. Speaker, have been criticised on the other side of the House chiefly on one ground—namely, that the proposed Instruction lacks clarity as to whether the Standing Committee should have power either to insert Clause 1 in its original form or Clause 1 as amended. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to support your Ruling that the proposed Instruction is not lacking in clarity [An HON. MEMBER: " What does it mean, then? "] I am proposing to explain
450
what I think it means. The Instruction gives the Committee permissive power. As I read it, it enables the Committee either to restore Clause 1 in its original form or to restore it in its amended form. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members opposite will have the courtesy to listen for a moment to arguments contrary to those which they have been expressing.
An Instruction to a Committee is not an Instruction to do something precise and specific; it is an Instruction, and called an Instruction, but it is coupled with permissive power. The words in the so-called Instruction give the Committee power to do various things. It would, therefore, be a mistake to suppose that, if it passed the Instruction, the House would be limiting or circumscribing particularly what the Committee is to do with Clause 1 when it comes back to it.
It does not seem to me to be contrary to common sense to say that what the House is being asked to do in this Instruction is to ask the Committee to reconsider Clause 1, and it gives the Committee power to reconsider it in its entirety. That means, does it not, that, notwithstanding any previous consideration or previous vote, it will be open to the Committee either to pass it in its original form, in its form as previously amended, or, indeed, in any other form?
That, it seems to me, is the obvious purpose of the proposed Instruction, to give the Committee the widest possible powers to deal with Clause 1, notwithstanding any previous votes which have occurred on it. If I am right in thinking that that is the obvious construction of the Instruction, it seems to follow that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, cannot possibly be attacked on the ground that it lacks clarity.
The clear intention of the language of the Instruction is to give the Committee the fullest possible power to deal with Clause 1. Therefore, I personally would hope, now we have had this long and interesting discussion, that we could, as you have suggested, Sir, proceed to consider the Instruction.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has reinforced what Mr. Speaker has ruled several times now.
Sir Knox Cunningham: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order arising out of your Ruling. You ruled that " the Education Bill, so far as amended ", would be debated by the House this afternoon. I take it that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members were not members of the Standing Committee. I was not on the Committee. The only Bill which we can obtain from the Vote Office is the Bill, not the Bill "so far as amended ". How can anyone debate this reasonably, how can we find out the Amendments, and is this not making a mockery of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That point, also, was put by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley. We are not debating the Bill. We are to debate the first Order, the procedural Motion, whether the Bill be recommitted.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put to you a point of order which has one intention and one intention only, that is, to safeguard the position of hon. Members who have the privilege of serving as members of the Panel of Chairmen which you choose? We have to recognise, do we not, that any member of that Panel may be called upon to take the Chair at any Standing Committee? I have not had the opportunity of discussing any matter concerning the Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who, I understand, is the member of the Panel of Chairmen who has been Chairman of the Committee on this Bill, but the point I wish to put to you, Sir, is this.
I am concerned about the position of any member of your Panel who may be called upon to take the Chair in Committee on this Bill. Certainly, if it were myself, I should not know, in the light of your Ruling on the question of the Instruction, whether I should be in order to call an Amendment designed to restore the original Clause 1 or to restore the amended Clause 1. In the interest of the Panel itself, I would ask you very seriously, Mr. Speaker, at least to make clear which you had in mind when you made the Ruling you did.
Mr. Speaker: It is exceedingly difficult for Mr. Speaker to reply to one of his
452
Chairmen who seems to suggest that he is speaking on behalf of Mr. Speaker's Panel of Chairmen. I have ruled again and again on this matter this afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman is Chairman of a Standing Committee, he is responsible for the Committee, not Mr. Speaker.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Mr. Speaker, may I, please, clear up a misunderstanding which seems to be in your mind? I would not wish it in any way to be thought that I was speaking on behalf of the Panel as a whole. I said that my intention in raising the point of order was to protect the Panel. I have not the authority of the Panel of Chairmen to speak for them collectively, but I am a member of it, and it is conceivable that I might have to stand in for my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway or, indeed, for any other hon. Member who was the Chairman of a Standing Committee. It was for that reason that I asked my question.
I can only again repeat to you, Sir, that if I found myself in the Chair at that Committee, I would not know what your Ruling really meant.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman, when he reads my Rulings, will find them quite clear.
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: May I raise as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, a matter in this connection which concerns me greatly? At the beginning of this series of points of order, the Chair had no knowledge of what evidence or past precedents back benchers from either side would wish to adduce in offering the Chair counsel on this situation, which has no precedent. What concerns me very much, therefore, is that a Ruling should be given on this highly important point after only one Front Bench speaker had been heard, which accordingly puts all other hon. Members who have put a lot of work into tracing precedents into the position of either having to appear to challenge a Ruling which you have already given, Mr. Speaker, or having to accept that they have no means of drawing to your attention, as I respectfully submit it is their right and their duty to do, the result of their research upon this most important matter.
I respectfully submit that, if we are setting the precedent that a Ruling is given after one submission has been

453
made, though it is obvious that other hon. Members wish to make important submissions on the same subject, the vest majority of hon. and right hon. Members are effectively estopped from making their contribution on matters which are admittedly without precedent. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that, if the House is to keep control of its own proceedings, this is an important point of principle.
Mr. Speaker: I have not noticed that any hon. Member has been effectively estopped from putting points of order to Mr. Speaker. What happened—I thought that the hon. Gentleman appreciated it—was that the Front Bench Member of his own party put in great detail and with great clarity all the points of order which could possibly have arisen. No new one has arisen since.
Mr. Ian Percival: With respect, I thought that the right hon. Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher) rather gave the pot a stir by coming back to the possible meanings of the Instruction. I propose to resist that temptation, Mr. Speaker, and to limit myself to seeking your guidance by a question. I think that we all agree that this is an important occasion and the precedent set today will be important. It is important also, therefore, that both we and future generations have a clear understanding of the basis of your Ruling.
As I understand, Sir, you proceeded on the basis of accepting that an Instruction must be specific to be in order. It would seem to follow from that that the first question one has to decide in ruling whether an Instruction is in order is what it means, so that what it means is an essential part of the Ruling, or the Chair's decision as to what it means is an essential part of the Ruling. We should be far better able to understand the basis of the Ruling if we knew Mr. Speaker's decision on that.
My question, therefore, is to ask you, Sir, if you would tell us what decision you formed as to its meaning in coming to the conclusion that it had so specific a meaning that it was in order.
Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with that point again and again.
Mr. J. C. Jennings: As one who, like my hon. Friend the member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), might have to take the Chair at some time in Committee on this Bill, I would have to interpret what this Instruction would mean. I make clear that in my mind the way I would interpret it, if I were asked to give a Ruling, would be as follows. To me, Clause 1 of the Bill means quite specifically the original Clause 1 of the original Bill. The Instruction says:
" to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect."
It follows quite naturally that the " like effect " means like effect to the original Clause. Therefore, I think that that is in line with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. William Baxter: A very important subject has been discussed this afternoon. Most hon. Members have listened with respect for, and appreciation of, the points of order made by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). Most of us have appreciated the excellent Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given in very difficult circumstances. I respectfully suggest that this matter has been ventilated sufficiently. There has been a great deal of repetition in points of order. I crave your permission to move —this is rather distasteful—that your Ruling be accepted by the House and that the Question be now put.
Mr. Speaker: That is not the way to proceed.
Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I have been seeking for some time to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. The effect of your Ruling on Standing Order No. 52 must be to prevent the House having the advice in debate of senior hon. Members as to how best to get the House, or indeed the Government, out of this particular fix. Therefore, we shall be precluded from consideration of other possibilities.
I ask you, as a member of the former Committee and a potential receiver of this rather dubious Instruction, whether there are not other methods which are much more consonant with our procedure and do not involve a tortuously created precedent. In the ordinary way is it not proper on a matter which the Government of the day wish to put right,

455
and which has been disagreed to in Standing Committee, to deal with on Report in the whole House?
The Bill cannot go any further without having some meaning brought into it. Would it not be possible to recommit Clause 1, or the whole Bill, as the Government might wish, not to revive the former Committee with Instructions in conflict with the established procedures of the House and of our rules of debate, but to send it back to a Committee of the whole House?
Mr. Speaker: That might emerge in the debate.
Mr. David Lane: I apologise for prolonging the discussion for a minute or two, but I feel that I must put a doubt which I genuinely feel as a potential member of the revised Committee, purely over the Instruction. I ask you, Sir, to consider what I believe a fresh aspect which has not been touched on.
If we have power, as the Committee, in accordance with your Ruling, to reinsert
" provisions with a like effect,"
whether or not we interpret that as being Clause 1 in the original form or Clause 1 as amended, there still seems to be a difficulty. My doubt was heightened by what was said by the right hon. Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher). Clause 1 consists of the principle of non-selection, plus several exceptions. I ask whether we shall be empowered as a Committee to add to the list of those exceptions over and above those in the original wording of Clause 1 to add, for example, exceptions about gifted children, boarding education, or various other matters.
If I may link my question to what was said by the right hon. Member for Islington, East, with which you seemed to be associating yourself, may we take it that we shall be resuming consideration of the original Clause 1 with the entitlement to a full discussion of all those issues raised either by the original wording of Clause 1 or possible Amendments to add to the exceptions?
Mr. Speaker: That can be raised in the debate on the Instruction. We come now to the Motion.
5.5 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That the Education Bill, so far as amended, be recommitted to the former Committee.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on the way in which she raised her points of order. She did it with eloquence and had obviously done her homework well. It is not for me to get involved in argument with the Chair on points of order.
To come to the Motion, I believe the House is well aware of the circumstances which led to it appearing on the Order Paper. On Tuesday last week the Government lost by one vote an important Division in the Committee stage on the Education Bill. That is not unusual: other Governments have done so. Although, as other hon. Members have pointed out, this precise situation has not arisen before, and because the Clause itself was fundamental to the Bill this is in a sense a new situation, it is the sort of mishap which has happened occasionally to Governments of all parties. I can recall a number of occasions when Governments have temporarily lost some or all of a piece of legislation.
Last week I mentioned one such occasion. Sometimes these defeats are relatively minor—the sort of Amendments in Committee which are reversed on Report. Sometimes they are serious.
Hon. Members opposite will recall that they lost the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill in 1952—a Measure to which they claimed to attach considerable importance—when the House was counted out and the Order for Second Reading had to be reinstated.
Nor will it have escaped the memory of hon. Members who have been longer in this House that there was a still more weighty instance. We have not acted with the same precipitation as did that distinguished parliamentarian the then right hon. Member for Epping in 1944. His Government were defeated in Committee of the whole House—not in Standing Committee—on an Education Bill. By coincidence it was again by one vote, and appropriately it was on a matter which is still of importance in these days, equal pay. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) spoke about understatement. I thought the

457
way in which he addressed his remarks to me were characteristically arrogant. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh !"]
Here in 1944 was an example in which the right hon. Gentleman asked as a matter of confidence that the House should take steps to reverse its decision. As representing the Government and as Leader of the House, I am not being arrogant towards the Opposition. I believe hon Members opposite, quite rightly, oppose the Bill, for they take a contrary view to the Government. No doubt they will continue; their opposition in Committee. I make no complaint of the way in which proceedings have been conducted in Standing Committee. One has only to read carefully the HANSARD Reports of those debates to see that the various issues nave so far been argued in great detail—strongly, but fairly.
I could give many instances where mistakes have been made. This happens on both sides of the House and is a hazard of parliamentary procedure. The Opposition, rightly, have the opportunity to criticise. I am sure that the result of the Division which negatived the Clause was as great a surprise to hon. Members opposite as it was to my hon. and right hon. Friends in this Committee. But, inasmuch as the outcome of the Division turned upon the temporary absence of certain hon. Members from the Committee, there is no reason to believe that the views expressed by hon. Members opposite had in any way swayed opinion against the Bill.
Our parliamentary procedures also permit in those circumstances opportunity for the matter to be looked at again. Both sides of the House recognise that the Clause deleted was fundamental to the principle of the Bill, which was fully debated, as I have been reminded today by one of my hon. Friends, a couple of months ago and approved by a considerable majority.
I notice that there is an interesting point in Erskine May, page 534, which says:
" A Committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle."
However, it is also stated at page 535 that a Committee can negative an essential Clause of the Bill whose omission
458
may nullify the Bill. There was, therefore, nothing out of order in the proceedings in Committee. Nevertheless it may be thought that these two rules are somewhat self-contradictory.
As I have said, the procedure of the House gives a chance for further consideration in such a situation. The Government were faced with several choices. The first, despite the defeat of this Clause, was that the Committee should continue with the Bill upstairs. Amendments could have been made to the succeeding Clauses, making them self-contained. This would have made the proceedings in Committee more meaningful and in order. I discussed this with my right hon. Friend and took advice. I believed that it would be more appropriate to report the situation to the House and give it a chance to recommit the Bill as a whole.
We felt that this alternative of continuing with the Committee Stage would not be satisfactory; it would not be in the general interests of the House nor of the Bill itself. As I told the House on Thursday, when I announced business and was cross-examined by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleages, I was anxious that if possible there should be adequate debate. I was pressed on this matter and some hon. Members took a contrary view. I have of course been in consultation with the authorities of the House and through the usual channels.
The result is the Motion on the Order Paper which will enable us to have a debate. Although, as you have explained Mr. Speaker, both parts of the Motion are confined to procedural matters, hon. Members will be able to speak more widely than if they had been confined to two brief explanatory statements by Standing Order No. 52. This is why the Motion is split into two parts.
I am sure that the House will recognise that although this means taking up valuable time on the Floor of the House it was in the circumstances the most straightforward and proper course for the Government to follow.
The Motion proposes that the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee, Standing Committee A. That is common form for these Motions. The Committee had already had eight sittings on Clause 1 and had discussed the Clause thoroughly,

459
with considerable understanding. It will obviously be to the advantage of the House if the same Committee is asked to continue consideration of the Bill.
Another alternative, urged upon us by the Front Bench opposite, was that the Bill should be dropped. In circumstances like this such suggestions are traditional. It is a natural line for those who oppose the Bill. There can be no question of this Bill being dropped. This legislation was promised in the Gracious Speech, and it is a most important measure affecting the future of our children.
I have been deeply interested in educational matters, throughout my time in this House and long before. I would very much like to argue in detail the merits of this Bill and of Clause 1, but you would quite rightly rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret that I am not able to deploy these arguments at any length. But I can understand why the rules of the House are as they are. The principles of the Bill and the Clause have on a previous occasion been fully debated in the House, the merits argued to and fro and the principle has been accepted by a large majority. Without further ado I put forward this Motion so that the Committee can resume without delay the job of examining this Bill which is so important to the future development of our educational system.
5.15 p.m.
Mrs. Thatcher: The occasion for this Motion is the inability of the Government to manage their business competently and their inability to foresee what might happen. The Leader of the House has raised many points, the first relating to the Second Reading. A Standing Committee of the House, it is said, cannot disagree with the principles established on Second Reading of a Bill. A Standing Committee's duty is to look at the Bill in the light of the principles and to see whether it is a proper vehicle for putting those principles into effect.
Each Clause usually contains not merely principles but methods of applying those principles. It is quite open to hon. Members to vote against Clauses which contain principles on the ground that the Clause is not a proper means of putting that principle into effect.
460
If there were any suggestion to the contrary it would mean that the Chairman of the Committee would have to direct a Committee that any particular Clause which contained a principle could not be voted against by the Committee or could not be voted against in sufficient numbers to defeat it. It is quite in order, as the 1964 edition of Erskine May says, for it if need be to defeat all the Clauses of a Bill and still not necessarily go against the principles behind a Bill. The two matters are entirely different.
As to the Recommittal Motion, a few days ago the Secretary of State for Education and Science moved, " That the Committee do not proceed further with the consideration of the Bill ". We are now faced with a Motion telling the Committee to proceed further with consideration of the Bill. As the Leader of the House has said, there is no precedent for recommittal being used in this way. The proper way to have dealt with it, I suggest, would have been either to have dealt with the matter on Report, which was open to the right hon. Gentleman, or, to take the precedents cited in the 1964 edition of Erskine May, to have combined recommittal and instruction proceedings. There have been cases, not of whole Bills being recommitted, but of combined recommittal and instruction Motions. All of those Motions have been for recommittals to Committees of the whole House. If there has been a matter upon which a Committee of the House appeared to disagree, it would seem that the only right and honourable course was for the whole House to deal with the Committee stage.
There are no precedents for major Clauses being lost in a Government Bill. There are 11 cases where the effective Clause was lost but all of those cases were Private Members' Bills. In all of those cases no further action was taken, and the Bill was lost.
In a twelfth there was a curious Bill which had on the front of it the name of a junior Minister at the Home Office, but was not a Government Bill. An Amendment was carried, defeating the object of the Bill. The Bill was not proceeded with as such, but the Government introduced a new Bill embodying a compromise. So the present case in the first in which, in the face of a major defeat, there has been

461
a full recommittal to a Standing Committee and the Bill has been proceeded with.
The Leader of the House finally referred to some matters concerning the Bill itself. Let us be quite clear what the Bill to which we are devoting so much time does not do. Clause 1 does not make the abolition of selection compulsory. What it says is that local authorities must have regard to the need for ending it. The Bill, which the Leader of the House regards as so important, will
not take effect in the present Parliament, and for some local authorities it will probably not take effect in the lifetime of the next Parliament, because, as the Secretary of State said in Committee, it would be too expensive to do so.
It is wrong to recommit a Bill under those circumstances, and we shall vote against the Motion.
Question put pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Re-committal of Bills):
The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 222.

Division No. 101.]

AYES

[5.21 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Dempsey, James

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Albu, Austen

Dewar, Donald

Howie, W.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Alldritt, Walter

Dickens, James

Huckfield, Leslie

Allen, Scholefield

Dobson, Ray

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Anderson, Donald

Doig, Peter

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)

Driberg, Tom

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Ashley, Jack

Dunn, James A.

Hunter, Adam

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Dunnett, Jack

Hynd, John

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

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

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Awdry, Daniel

Eadie, Alex

Janner, Sir Barnett

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Edelman, Maurice

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Barnes, Michael

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Barnett, Joel

Ellis, John

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Baxter, William

English, Michael

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Beaney, Alan

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

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

Bence, Cyril

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Faulds, Andrew

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Bidwell, Sydney

Finch, Harold

Judd, Frank

Binns, John

Fletcher.Rt.Hn.Sir Eric(Islington, E.)

Kelley, Richard

Bishop, E. S.

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Kenyon, Clifford

Blackburn, F.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Foley, Maurice

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

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Booth, Albert

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Latham, Arthur

Boston, Terence

Ford, Ben

Lawler, Wallace

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Forrester, John

Lawson, George

Bradley, Tom

Fowler, Gerry

Leadbitter, Ted

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Ledger, Ron

Brooks, Edwin

Freeson, Reginald

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Gardner, Tony

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Garrett, W. E.

Lee, John (Reading)

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

Ginsburg, David

Lestor, Miss Joan

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

Golding, John

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

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

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Buchan, Norman

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Lipton, Marcus

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

Gregory, Arnold

Lomas, Kenneth

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Grey, Charles(Durham)

Luard, Evan

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Lubbock, Eric

Callghan, Rt. Hn. James

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Carmichael, Neil

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

McBride, Neil

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Hamling, William

McCann, John

Concannon, J. D.

Hannan, William

MacColl, James

Conlan, Bernard

Harper, Joseph

MacDermot, Niall

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Macdonald, A. H.

Cronin, John

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

McElhone, Frank

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Haseldine, Norman

McGuire, Michael

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hattersley, Roy

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

Dalyell, Tam

Hazell, Bert

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Mackie, John

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

Heffer, Eric S.

Mackintosh, John P.

Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)

Henig, Stanley

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

McNamara, J. Kevin

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Hilton, W. S.

MacPherson, Malcolm

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Hobden, Dennis

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hooley, Frank

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hooson, Emlyn

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Delargy, H. J.

Horner, John

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

Dell, Edmund

Hougtiton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Marks, Kenneth

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Pentland, Norman

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Maxwell, Robert

Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Mayhew, Christopher

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Symonds, J. B.

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

Taverne, Dick

Mendelson, John

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Mikardo, Ian

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Tinn, James

Millan, Bruce

Price, William (Rugby)

Tomney, Frank

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Probert, Arthur

Tuck, Raphael

Moonman, Eric

Randall, Harry

Urwin, T. W.

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshiré)

Rankin, John

Varley, Eric G.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Rees, Merlyn

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Moyle, Roland

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Wallace, George

Murray, Albert

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

Watkins, David (Consett)

Neal, Harold

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Newens, Stan

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Weitzman, David

Norwood, Christopher

Rose, Paul

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Ogden, Eric

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

White, Mrs. Eirene

O'Halloran, Michael

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Wilkins, W. A.

O'Malley, Brian

Sheldon, Robert

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Oram, Albert E.

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Williams, Alan (Swansea. W.)

Orbach, Maurice

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Orme, Stanley

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

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Oswald, Thomas

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Padley, Walter Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Winnick, David

Paget, R. T.

Sillars, J.

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Palmer, Arthur

Silverman, Julius

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Slater, Joseph

Woof, Robert

Park, Trevor

Small William

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Snow Julian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Spriggs, Leslie

Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

Pavitt, Laurence

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Mr. loan L. Evans.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Clegg, Walter

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Cooke, Robert

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Cordle, John

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Astor, John

Corfield, F. V.

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

Costain, A. P.

Harrison, col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Balniel, Lord

Currie, G. B. H.

Hastings, Stephen

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hawkins, Paul

Batsford, Brian

Dance, James

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Higgins, Terence L.

Bell, Ronald

Dean, Paul

Hiley, Joseph

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Hill, J. E. B.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Drayson, G. B.

Holland, Philip

Biffen, John

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Hornby, Richard

Biggs-Davison, John

Eden, Sir John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hunt, John

Black, Sir Cyril

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

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Blaker, Peter

Emery, Peter

Iremonger, T. L.

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Errington, Sir Eric

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Body, Richard

Farr, John

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Fisher, Nigel

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Jopling, Michael

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Fortescue, Tim

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Braine, Bernard

Foster, Sir John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

Kershaw, Anthony

Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

Fry, Peter

Kimball, Marcus

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Kitson, Timothy

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Gibson-Watt, David

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Bryan, Paul

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

King, Tom

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

Glover, Sir Douglas

Lambton, Antony

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Glyn, Sir Richard

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Bullus, Sir Eric

Goodhart, Philip

Lane, David

Burden, F. A.

Goodhew, Victor

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Gower, Raymond

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Grant, Anthony

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Channon, H. P. G.

Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Chataway, Christopher

Grieve, Percy

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Gurden, Harold

Longden, Gilbert

Clark, Henry

Hall, John (Wycombe)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

464

465

MacArthur, Ian

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Tapsell, Peter

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

McMaster, Stanley

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Percival, Ian

Temple, John M.

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Peyton, John

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Maddan, Martin

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Tilney, John

Maginnis, John E.

Pounder, Rafton

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Marten, Neil

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Maude, Angus

Prior, J. M. L.

Waddington, David

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Mawby, Ray

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Walt, Patrick

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

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Walters, Dennis

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Ward, Dame Irene

Miscampbell, Norman

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Weatherill, Bernard

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Ridsdale, Julian

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Monro, Hector

Robson Brown, Sir William

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Montgomery, Fergus

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Wiggin, Jerry

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Royle, Anthony

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Russell, Sir Ronald

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Scott, Nicholas

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Sharpies, Richard

Woodnutt, Mark

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

Worsley, Marcus

Murton, Oscar

Silvester, Frederick

Wright, Esmond

Neave, Airey

Sinclair, Sir George

Wylie, N. R.

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

Younger, Hn. George

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Nott, John

Speed, Keith

Mr. Jasper More and

Onslow, Cranley

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Ordered
That the Education Bill, so far as amended, be recommitted to the former Committee.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Peart: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee A that, notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause I of the Education Bill, they have power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect.
This Motion, which appears in italics on the Order Paper, is entirely dependent upon the first Motion which the House has just passed and is a natural corollary of it.
Hon. Members opposite have maintained that the Committee could not sensibly continue without Clause 1. I understand this argument since Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill are related to Clause 1. The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has argued that without Clause 1 the other Clauses in the Bill are meaningless. Since the House has decided to recommit this Bill to Committee, a decision which it would not now be in order to debate or challenge, the House must empower the Committee to insert similar provisions in the Bill, otherwise we shall condemn the Committee to a task which would not make sense. Whatever the arguments between the two sides of the House about the merits of the Bill, I am sure that the Opposition accepts that point.
466
You have reminded us, Mr. Speaker, of the rules relating to this debate, rules which are designed to protect the House from repetitious debate. We have had a series of points of order on which Mr. Speaker has given his Rulings, and the House naturally accepts them. The principle of the Bill has already been fully debated and approved by the House. Therefore, the Clauses now fall to be considered in the Committee.
Despite the limitation on debate, I felt it right that this matter should come to the Floor of the House. I do not want to repeat all the arguments. The hon. Lady for Finchley mentioned the Report stage, but after careful examination I thought it right to have a re-committal Motion to allow hon. Members an opportunity to express their views, though not on the merits of the Bill since the House has already made a decision in that respect. The arguments on various Clauses are matters for the Committee.
Last Thursday the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) asked me if it was necessary to spend a whole day on this Motion, and other hon. Members have asked me the same question. I hope, therefore, that this Motion will not lead to repetitious debate, but that we shall proceed reasonably expeditiously to our

467
other business. If there are any points on which elucidation is required, since I have no right to speak again, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will deal with them when he winds up.
5.39 p.m.
Mrs. Thatcher: We are in some difficulty about debating this Instruction. As I understand the situation at the moment, the Bill is to be recommitted to the former Committee to meet at an unknown time on an unknown day. The Instruction has an unknown meaning which it will be for the Chairman of the Committee to decide. We cannot therefore ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is meant by the Instruction since it is not within his powers to say. We are in even greater difficulty because those who serve on the Chairmen's Panel have said earlier this afternoon that, should they be in the Chair when this Committee meets again, they would not know what this Instruction meant. All I can do, therefore, is to ask the Secretary of State what he intended to mean and what his action would be, as representing the Government, in the face of certain Amendments to which the Committee formerly agreed.
May I, therefore, ask him whether he intended the phrase " Clause 1 " to mean Clause 1 of the original Bill or Clause 1 as amended—that is to say, whether he is prepared, subject to whatever the Chairman says, to agree to Amendments concerning banding? As those Amendments were previously passed, would he be in favour of those Amendments being passed again, as he must be if the phrase means Clause 1 as amended? We should like a clear statement about that.
A second point which may be worth mentioning to elucidate the procedure is that as I understand it the Committee may reject the powers in this Instruction. They may reject them because they are not clear or they may reject them on the ground that, according to Standing Order 33(2), an Instruction has to be treated as an Amendment in respect of the Bill. An Instruction, therefore, comes within the ordinary procedure for the selection of Amendments. I ask the right hon. Gentleman
468
whether in his view the ordinary rules of selection of Amendments apply. I have to ask him because I may ask no one else. There are very extensive rules about which Amendments can and cannot be selected and which are out of order. It seems to me that this Instruction comes within the ordinary rules concerning which Amendments are out of order.
Thirdly, does the right hon. Gentleman have it in mind to move a new Clause 1 or new Clause 1 as amended and not to object when the Committee proposes Amendments to that new Clause 1 or new Clause 1 as amended? Will he give the House an assurance that he will not oppose the proposal of such Amendments and the taking of such Amendments in Committee, subject, of course, to what the Chairman says?
It is also important that we are able to move Amendments which were not moved previously if we are to return to Clause 1. That is important for a number of reasons, and I will give two of them. First, we have received letters from the Assistant Masters Association containing copies of a letter to the Minister stating,
" In the view of my executive committee it was unfortunate that consideration of the Bill should have proceeded while, owing to difficulties of the Stationery Office, there was a delay in meeting requests for copies of it."
It is, therefore, important that we should be able to move new Amendments—and that our right to do so should not be opposed by the right hon. Gentleman—to Clause 1 or to Clause 1 as amended—Amendments which we did not move previously because other people had not then had a chance to consider the Bill.
The second reason why this point is important is that the recommendations of the Donnison Committee, which affect Clause 1 or Clause 1 as amended, appeared after we had passed the relevant Amendments. If we are to go back to Committee with these powers, it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should take no action to prevent our raising this matter in the light of fresh evidence. All I can do is to ask the right hon. Gentleman the view which he will take on this matter. Will he give us an assurance that he will not oppose the maximum freedom being given to the Committee to start the Bill as if it were starting a fresh Bill?

469
In considering the latter part of the Instruction, we still do not know what are
" provisions with a like effect ".
We do not know what they are like to. Clearly the Instruction does not state that the Committee must insert a new Clause 1 or a new Clause 1 as amended. But it appears to us that the Committee must insert a new Clause 1 with similar effect to that of the present Clause 1 or Clause 1 as amended, but it may be in entirely different terms, as long as the broad effect is the same.
Obviously that will give rise to considerable procedural difficulties in the Committee to which the Bill is recommitted. In the original Committee we discussed 38 Amendments. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were a number of occasions on which the Committee could not have continued without the co-operation of the Opposition, because without them there would not have been a quorum present. On some days the Committee could not have started had the Chairman been compelled to rely on the number of Members present on the Government side of the Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that point into account in determining his attitude towards this Instruction.
We do not know what the Instruction means. That is a very good ground for opposing it. Chairmen of Committees have said that they cannot interpret this Instruction. We give notice, therefore, that if possible we shall continue the debate when we get into Committee upstairs, if the Instruction is passed. I oppose it.
5.47 p.m.
Mr. R. H. Turton: I wish to make a very brief intervention. I hope that the Secreary of State will forgive me if I am absent for his reply, if he has to conclude the debate early, but I have to attend a meeting of the Committee on Procedure almost immediately.
This Instruction is a very dangerous innovation and I hope that the House will think carefully what they are doing before they pass it. For the first time in the history of Parliament it is the intention to break the rules which state that Standing Committees cannot say both
470
" Aye " and " No " to the same Question. That is the issue. I do not want to raise the arguments about the merits of the Education Bill, because my comment would relate to any Bill. There have been many times in Parliament when Governments have suffered defeat in Standing Committees. Up to now they have always accepted those defeats and have taken the necessary steps to seek a remedy on the Floor of the House. For the first time a Government propose to take a different course. It surprises me that that is being done in the last few months of a Parliament by a Government who may well be sitting on this side of the House in six months' time. That is a contingency which surely the Lord President of the Council might have envisaged. As one who will not be present on that occasion, I beg my colleagues not to take advantage of this precedent, because I believe it to be a very dangerous precedent.
Mr. Speaker earlier said that the rules of procedure are flexible. That is so. But they are designed to aid the private Member in the battle against the Executive, and what we are doing today, whether applied to the Education Bill or to any other Bill, is weakening the power of the private Member and increasing the power of the Executive. I hope that the House will take careful thought before agreeing to this step. I have considerable sympathy with the Government. They have been mortified by the Prices and Incomes Bill and now they are in considerable difficulty with the Prices and the Education Bill.
5.50 p.m.
Sir Edward Boyle: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I will address the House for a few minutes only. May I, first, warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on what we all felt was an outstanding parliamentary performance.
I agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope that the public and hon. Members will not look at this afternoon as a parliamentary exercise. I say that for two reasons. First, it is a serious matter, and should always be regarded as a serious matter, when the Government fail to carry a major operative Clause of one of their own Bills. Secondly, it is always

471
the custom of the procedure of the House for the Government, when they are defeated in Committee, to register this in the print of the Bill that appears before the House on Report, and the onus is on them to put it right. Clearly, as my right hon. Friend has said, it is a quite different matter when the Government on recommittal simply negative the results of their supporters' inaction.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us what procedure he intends on recommittal. Is it his intention to put before us Clause 1 in its original state or as amended? I say this for no personal reason, but I think that on recommittal Clause l, as amended, should be the basis of our new proceedings. The fact of the Government's defeat should be formally registered in the print which is considered by those hon. Members who will he debating the Bill, and the onus should be on the Government to put back the legislation to what they think is right.
As the Secretary of State himself admitted, this Amendment was not an unimportant matter. The Committee spent more than a whole sitting considering the issues of zoning and of banding. The Amendment was not a wrecking Amendment and was never intended as such. It dealt with the whole question of how one can best organise comprehensive education in big cities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put before the new Committee Clause 1, as amended; that is to say, Clause 1 in the form in which it was when the earlier Committee defeated it.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley said about the Donnison Report. I well remember when copies of the Donnison Report were handed out to the Committee. I was speaking at the time and receiving a certain amount of courteous attention when suddenly the whole attention of the Members of the Committee, very reasonably, became directed to the new document which had been put before them. The appearance of the Donnison Report makes it important for us to consider again, more fully, at least one of the Amendments which we have already debated. Time has not stood still since our earlier discussions on Clause 1. While none of us on the Committee wishes
472
to be unreasonable, or to speak at excessive length for speaking's sake, we hope that it will be possible to reconsider some of the important issues which we discussed earlier, in the light of fresh evidence and fresh representations which have been made to us.
We are making this afternoon an important break with precedent. With great respect, some of us were a little worried at what was said this afternoon about our "flexible" procedure in this House. I am reminded of the remark of Mr. Aneurin Bevan, that it is exactly because we have a formalised procedure that we have our degree of freedom of speech. For that reason we should not regard this afternoon's proceedings as in any way otiose or too protracted.
5.54 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: I intervene briefly only to refer to what was said by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He said that we were discussing an important matter, and with that I agree. He added that we must realise that the Executive is enforcing this procedure and diminishing or endangering the rights of individual hon. Members of the House of Commons. This statement should not go unchallenged by the back benchers.
Mr. Turton: May I repeat what I said? I said that the rules of procedure are laid down for the protection of the private Member against the Executive. Therefore, the rule that I quoted about the Committee stage is for the benefit of the private Member, and what is being destroyed is his rights.
Mr. Mendelson: I accept that is what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I quoted the gist of it; that this is a decision which the Executive is taking in contrast to the Members of the House of Commons. This statement should not go unchallenged from the back benchers before a member of the Executive replies on behalf of the Executive.
I repudiate the implication of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, whose views on procedure I always treat with the greatest respect, whether in the Speaker's Conference or in the House. There is no imposition by the Executive, because the Members of the House will

473
make the decision by their vote. For many hon. Members this is not an automatic procedure. I regard this as a perfectly proper procedure, and the best possible and most advisable procedure which will in no way endanger or take away the rights of back benchers or individual hon. Members.
Whilst it is important that the procedure should protect the rights of individual hon. Members, it is equally important that it should allow the majority to carry its business, which is the policy supported by the citizens. If a new precedent is to be created, the rights of hon. Members must be protected and the rights of the majority must also be protected.
The House has no right to instruct the Standing Committee on Amendments. The Committee will be completely free. I do not want to criticise what was said when points of order were being raised. The Committee will be like any other Standing Committee perfectly free to pass any Amendments it wishes to pass. If it is more sensible for a Standing Committee to be able to debate and reinstate the main principle of the Bill, it is in the best interests of the House of Commons and of the standing of Parliament as an institution that this procedure should be followed. I support the procedure which is advanced by the Government because it is the most suitable and intelligent procedure and will do no harm to the standing of Parliament. Any other procedure might damage the debate of the Standing Committee and thereby harm the standing of Parliament.
Mr. Eyre: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he thinks about the proposition that this is to be referred back to the former Committee which considered the matter and came to a decision? Does not he think that it is humiliating to send a matter back to members of the former Committee with the intention that their decision should be reversed?
Mr. Mendelson: I am completely at a loss to understand how the hon. Gentleman can talk about humiliation when the House of Commons decides to refer a Measure to a Committee. I thought that we were debating the matter seriously and trying to get away from propaganda. I am confining myself to the attitude of Members of the House, not members of the Committee only, nor members of the
474
Executive. The replies to the points which have been made will be given by the Secretary of State. However, answering the hon. Gentleman as one back bencher to another, I tell him that there can be no question of humiliation.
What is at issue is the decision as to how most sensibly this business can be discussed and decided. I am confident that every back bencher can feel unrestricted and unafraid that his rights are being diminished and interfered with if he approves the Government's proposal.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is not consistent; he sings one song when he is on the Government benches and another when he is on the Opposition benches. If it had been a Tory Government who were practising this manoeuvre, he would have been protesting throughout the afternoon. I have a fairly long memory and I can remember some of his speeches in the 1959–64 Parliament.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made an excellent speech which showed up the Government's shortcomings. This mess is entirely of the Government's making. At the end of seven and a half sittings discussing Clause 1, the Standing Committee, in its wisdom, decided to vote against Clause 1 as amended. The Secretary of State said at that time:
" I am afraid that I am a bit lost."
He could say that again!
" I have never encountered this situation before. Perhaps the best thing would be to adjourn. I ought to know the answer, but I do not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th April, 1970; c. 321–2.]
The right hon. Gentleman has been Chief Whip for the Government. If he was a bit lost, I suppose all of us were lost. The Government were defeated in Committee, after a fair vote, because three members of the Committee—Government members—were not there, although the Opposition were there in full strength. I do not want to rub salt into the wounds of the three missing members, but I understand from the Daily Telegraph of 16th April—I am not allowed to be present at meetings of the Parliamentary

475
Labour Party—that the Chief Whip gave them a lashing.
On 16th April the Committee met again, and the Secretary of State—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the Motion, which is concerned with exceptional treatment of this issue under the Instruction. He is now getting away from the Instruction.
Mr. Montgomery: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with an exceptional situation.
I was under the impression, as were most of my hon. Friends, that the Instruction had to be specific. I still do not understand what the Instruction means. Time after time hon. Members on this side have asked for it to be explained whether the Clause that the Committee is to deal with is Clause 1 as the Government first intended or Clause 1 as amended by defeat in Committee on an Amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hands-worth.
The Leader of the House said that the Committee would meet without further delay. What does "without further delay" mean? Are the Government thinking that we shall sit tomorrow morning or shall we start sitting next Tuesday?
Different phrases have been used in the Motion. At one time the words "the former Committee" were used. The words now are "Standing Committee A". I think that the Committee which was dealing with the Bill is to deal with it again, which could present difficulties. That Committee began its deliberations several weeks ago. Its members knew what their obligations were and whether they would be able to serve for the full term of the Committee. Circumstances have changed. Thinking that they would be able to see it through to the end, hon. Members on both sides may have commitments to go on parliamentary delegations soon; or they could be ill. Are they to be excused from the Committee?
I hope that when the Committee reconvenes we shall have a full debate on whatever is put in the place of what was Clause 1 in the original Bill. When we were discussing Clause 1, the
476
Donnison Report was published. The Minister of State made veiled references to the report, because she had advance knowledge of what was in it, whilst Opposition Members had no idea. The fact that we will now be armed with the report will lead to a more informed debate.
I am sorry that the Government have been driven to this expedient. I would have been much happier if they had dropped the Bill and accepted the wish of the Committee.
6.6 p.m.
Mr. J. T. Price: I have been fascinated by the manner in which the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) presented her case.
Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you not mean to call the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), to allow him to explain to the House how all this had happened?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Price: I hope that there will not be many interruptions during my short contribution, because, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) knows, I shall have no difficulty in dealing with provocation of that kind. I do not want to be provoked.
I have risen to put this matter into perspective. I do not share the anguish seemingly felt by hon. Members opposite, who have made heavy weather of this matter. Those of us who have any experience of the House extending over some years are sufficiently broad-minded to know that, if a Government have a little accident, as the Government did in this case, the Opposition will extract from that situation the last drop of blood in terms of debating it on the Floor of the House and trying to make the Government look foolish. During the 20 years that I have been in the House there have been many occasions when Governments of both parties have been in trouble caused by snap Divisions, in Committee or on the Floor of the House, or by a little "expedition" during the night.
This puny Bill has suffered a small accident in Committee. Since 3.30 p.m.

477
the Government have been lambasted by hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members have used all the parliamentary devices which they are so capable of using, particularly the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). There has been a small slip here, like the servant girl's little mistake—de minimis.
I remind the hon. Member for Finchley—
Sir E. Boyle Sir E. Boyle rose—
Mr. Price: The hon. Lady gave us a most learned and high-powered speech stemming from a good deal of research in the Library. Whilst this is professionally interesting, it has the effect of clearing the Strangers' Gallery to a greater extent than usually happens on these occasions —not that we are concerned with the Strangers' Gallery; we are concerned with the business of the House and what merit there is in it.
There has been a relatively small slip in handling the Bill upstairs. Some hon. Members were missing, so the Government got a little rebuff, which they do not like, and they are now taking steps to deal with it.
I remind the House that in 1954—I am sorry that the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has left us—not only did the Government of the day lose a Clause of a Bill upstairs, but they lost the whole Finance Bill on the Floor of the House [Interruption.] If I may be allowed to make my speech in my own way it will be shorter, more interesting, and more logical.
I was sitting on the benches opposite in the middle of the night when the Finance Bill was being considered on the Floor of the House in 1954. In those days, the Finance Bill was not sent upstairs. I think that I am the only Member on this side who objected to it being sent upstairs.
The Government of the day were ham-fisted and comatose in the early watches of the night. The Finance Bill, which embodies the financial provisions for taxation during the coming year, had gone through Second Reading and had reached its Committee stage on the Floor of the House. But the Government were in such a somnolent state at four o'clock in the morning that, when Mr.
478
Speaker, who was so annoyed by the procedure that was going on—a great deal of opposition was going on from my side; it is a matter of history and it is on record—said that if there was not more order kept he would leave the Chair, whereupon a "bright" member of my party, who shall be nameless, immediately moved that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair. Before they knew what was happening, the Motion was carried and Mr. Speaker left the Chair and took the Finance Bill with him off the Floor of the House.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I wonder whether this is in accordance with a debate on the giving of an Instruction. It does not seem to be in order. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Strangers' Gallery. There is no cognisance of strangers in this House. Therefore, is not that out of order, too?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is using the occasion of a previous Finance Bill to illustrate the point that he is making. I hope that he will not make it at any greater length.
It is not the practice of the House to refer to the Strangers' Gallery.
Mr. Price: I will not elaborate. I am sorry if I have annoyed the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), but these are related matters. I am using this historical reference to show how exaggerated today's performance by the Opposition has been on this relatively small matter.
If we had a great deal of time I could cite other occasions without going into the Library and spending all day digging through musty old volumes. Anybody can do that. I do not intend any disrespect to any hon. Member who likes that kind of thing, but I do not like midnight oil speeches. If I make an incorrect statement on the Floor of the House, I am sure that someone will check me and go to the Library to prove that I am wrong. I should not object, because that is in the ordinary give and take of politics.
One further serious matter—what I have said so far has been said with a serious purpose—is that on occasions like this, of which we have had many, it is conventional for diligent hon. Members

479
on both sides to plough through all the old precedents and go through the books in a similar way to the procedure in the High Court and to quote on the Floor of the House ancient precedents going back to the last century and sometimes to the century before that. It is all part of the picture of Parliament.
As a back-bench Member I would not do anything which seriously interfered with or impaired the rights of private Members as against the Executive. I think that I have given sufficient evidence of that to the House. I share the point expressed by the Father of the House on that aspect of the matter. But for anybody to try to suggest that, because somewhere in the scrolls of Zion, or an edict of this House, in the 18th, 17th, or 16th century, there was created a code of conduct and procedural way of dealing with a matter, that should be immutable law for all time, is complete nonsense.
This is the High Court of Parliament. Let us never forget that. Parliament is sovereign. Nothing, to my mind, takes second place to the right of Parliament to express the view of the majority. I will fight for minority rights where I believe there is a valid case. But Parliament should not be stultified by immutable laws and precedents that have stood on the books and are capable of being dug out of their coffins. This suits lawyers, because it produces fees for them. But it does not suit ordinary people like us.
In a debate like this, where there is an honest division of opinion on a matter which has to be put right if a mistake has been made, the will of the majority should prevail. If we take seriously the case presented so forcibly and tediously by hon. Members opposite, Parliament would not be a place where the majority will of the people prevailed; it would be a place where active minorities, who have got themselves into little cabals and groups, would claim that minority rights were greater than majority rights.
In having this debate today—in rather a good-natured fashion, I hope—I claim that we have not done anything to impair the power of Parliament to do the right thing, but that we have done something which will enshrine the right of Parliament that the majority will shall prevail in a matter in dispute.
6.18 p.m.
Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr J. T. Price) is an old friend of mine. I usually enjoy his speeches, but tonight his speech was not as good as some that he has made in the past.
The hon. Gentleman referred to this place as the High Court of Parliament and also to courts of law. I think that the Government are guilty of a squalid practice and that they ought to be thoroughly ashamed. It has been the long standing practice in this House and in the law courts that a decision is altered only by a larger or another body. A person is not sent back to the same court to be tried again by the same jury.
In its curious way Parliament works in a similar way. The long standing practice in this House has been that when a Government Bill is lost in Committee the Government do not instruct that Committee to put it right, as is being done in this case; they bring the Bill on to the Floor of the House so that a larger body of Members can rescind and alter the decision taken by the smaller group.
This is done— and the precedent goes back over many hundreds of years—not because of the archaic codes about which the hon. Gentleman spoke, but because the whole basis of our procedure is such that there would be no purpose in Committees deliberating at all if the Government of the day had only to instruct them to replace every Clause or every Amendment when the Government were defeated. It would negate the whole process of Committee operation.
That is why, in law, and in all parliamentary bodies, when a mistake has been made, as in this case, the practice has always been—and I believe that it is a wise practice for the mistake to be corrected by the Government of the day in the full light of publicity on the Floor of the House by committing the Bill to a Committee of the whole House so that the fault can be put right.
Nobody is suggesting that Governments never slip up, but this slip up should be causing the Leader of the House a great deal of concern, because this is not an isolated case. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Chairman of the Committee on the Gas

481
Bill has used his casting vote 11 times. On the C.I.M. Bill, which we started deliberating yesterday morning, we almost produced the same result as with the Education Bill. The most important Clause in the Bill was carried by the Government only by the casting vote of the Chairman.
This is a very worrying situation for the whole of our parliamentary procedure, because if we are not careful we shall turn the Chairman of Committees into what we pride ourselves they are not, and that is political animals. We shall force them to make political decisions, which will be bad for the whole Committee proceedings, and the way we run our chairmanships. I hope that the Leader of the House will watch this, because it is a very serious development in the way our proceedings are going.
I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Government's action in putting down this Motion to put right something which I think all reasonable parliamentarians know happens from time to time. There is a correct procedure for putting this right, one which the House knows, which is well tried and understood, and which does not contain the dangers of this innovation. If this innovation ever becomes popular with Governments, of whatever colour, a great deal of the Committee work of the House will become nugatory, because Committees will receive instructions from the Government of the day to undo what they have decided to do.
It is a long-standing tradition of the House that it is always another group of people who should alter a decision once made. It is also a long-standing tradition that, a Committee having reached a decision, that decision is firm, and that the only place where it can be altered is here, on the Floor of the House, in the public gaze. What the Government are doing by this innovation is bringing in something which, in the long-term, has great dangers. It has great dangers for the future running of Parliament, and one reason why, like my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, I have intervened in the debate is to appeal to any future Tory Administration not to repeat what is being done today, because I believe that this is a disgraceful misuse of parliamentary power.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. David Lane: I should like to add to the pleas which have been made to the Secretary of State for Education to clarify the situation as far as he can so that when we resume in Committee we can get off to a good start, subject to the ruling of the Chairman.
On the best interpretation that I can make of the wording of the Instruction, I am assuming three things, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he disagres with any of them. First, I assume that the Committee will not meet again before next Tuesday. Second—and here I support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)—I assume that the phrasing which will be put back before the Committee will be the original Clause 1 as amended by the banding Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend.
Third—and this, Mr. Speaker, is the point which you invited me to bring out again briefly at this stage in the debate—I assume that the power to the Committee to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect to either the original Clause 1, or Clause 1, as amended, means that we can, if we think fit, seek to widen, or even to narrow, the exceptions to the principles set out in Clause 1.
I shall not repeat what others have said about the late publication of the Donnison Report as the reason why some of the matters which we have discussed could well be discussed for a limited time again in Committee, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what was said during the debate this afternoon, first, by the right hon. Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher), and, more recently, by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). They both said, and I welcome this, that they hoped the Committee would feel reasonably free to discuss again the ground covered by Clause 1, in whatever form it was reintroduced, without undue restrictions being placed upon it by the Government.
Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I said nothing of the kind, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his statement. I said that whilst not wishing to comment on the discussion on the points of order, because I did not take

483
part in that debate, and had, therefore, forfeited the moral right to comment on them afterwards, I thought that the wisest and most intelligent course was to proceed in the way proposed so that the Committee, by a decision of the House, could have a free discussion on all Amendments which it wished to consider. That is what I said—no less, and no more.
Mr. Lane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. That is precisely what I understood, and I believe that it supports the appeal which we are making to the Secretary of State. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say whether he agrees with the three assumptions which I have made, subject to the ruling of the Chairman of the Committee.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Many of my hon. Friends have put in clear fashion the questions to which we shall want answers from the Minister either tonight, or when the Committee reconvenes. Listening to the debate, I have been anything but reassured,because it seems that hon. Gentlemen opposite are inclined to say that if something goes wrong, and the Government are defeated, it is sufficient to bend, or even to change, the rules so that the majority can vote to put the thing right. As a safeguard for free speech, there are rules of procedure and Standing Orders to which we adhere, otherwise the thing becomes a free-for-all and no one has any rights. Indeed, everyone could start speaking at once.
The importance of going back to precedent is to draw upon the collective wisdom of the House in seeking to find a way out of what seems to be a great difficulty. I do not say that it is an impossible difficulty. This situation arose —and it is I think without precedent—because the Bill became meaningless and, therefore, meaning had to be put back into it. The House had to devise a way of doing that. I think we all agree that the will of the majority must prevail, but only with due regard and respect for the rights of the minority.
That means that it must be done in an appropriate and seemly way. Previous Recommittal Motions to a former Committee show a punctilious exactness as to what that former Committee was to
484
do. There was never more than a dotting of constitutional i's and crossing of t's, in each case disposed of in less than one sitting. Now, it seems that we have more than one sitting ahead of us.
Never has an Instruction been given that a Committee should eat its words or go back on its decision. The Secretary of State moved that we should report our difficulty to the House and say that we could make no further progress. We have been slapped in the face by a Government Motion to give us powers to do something which we cannot normally do—go back on a decision and job backwards. If we made a habit of this, we would never make any progress at all—
Mr. Stanley Orme: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this has arisen by accident and not political division? If there had been a political difference in the Committee, if the Government had lost their majority, and they had then come back to the House, the situation would have been quite different, but this is an accident.
Mr. Hill: The hon. Member can call any vote an accident, but the record shows that the Committee reached a valid decision. It will not show why hon. Members were absent who might have been present to support the Government [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to deny it, but some hon. Members who were absent had spoken in a critical way of the Clause. We cannot tell why someone did not vote; nor can the record. When, in future, someone has to look back to 1970, as we have looked back to 1930 for a similar situation in Standing Committee, he will not see why hon. Members did not vote but only that a Standing Comittee came to a valid decision.
There is no question of this being ultra vires, or invalid. People reading Erskine May in future will ask why the Government of the day chose this means of enabling the will of the House to be expressed. He will think it curious that the procedure should have strained precedent and produced an Instruction of a wholly new quality which seeks to give a Committee a power to replace a power which it had exhausted by reaching a decision.

485
All that prevents the Instruction from being out of order is that the Committee had already decided the question of Clause 1. If we had not, the Instruction must have been out of order under Standing Order No. 42, which has made most Instructions out of order because they instruct a Committee to do something which it could do anyhow. Those who study these things closely in future may decide that the Government did this as a political expedient to save time. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Penistone that it is necessary to invent a new procedure. The Government could have recommitted this Clause to the whole House, which is the proper higher authority. That would accord with precedent—
Mr. John Mendelson: I repeat my argument for the hon. Gentleman's benefit—as a matter of judgment, the Committee will be able to do its work intelligently, in a way which will add to the standing of the House, by the procedure chosen, because it will be debating the essential principle de nouveau and will have dealt with that when it turns to the other parts of the Bill. That is why this is a good procedure. The hon. Gentleman must not allege reasons for me which I have not given.
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman says we are debating the principle de nouveau. Had he been on the Committee, he would realise that we were not opposing the principle and that practically all our debates concerned the exceptions to that.
One reason for this difficulty is the drafting. It would have been much luckier if the principle had been enshrined in a separate Clause. It is enshrined in Clause 1(1) which the Committee passed without amendment, but subsection (2) contains the Government list of exceptions. All our debates, and the Amendment successfully moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworfth (Sir E. Boyle), concerned additions to and modifications of the Government's own list. Unfortunately, since both the principle and the exceptions were in Clause 1, we can wrongly be said to have defeated the principle. That was not the Committee's intention—the intention was to widen the exceptions and make the Bill more flexible.
486
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that our attempts in this direction—which he may think are desirable in the light of more and more evidence coming forward each day as the people who have to operate the proposed system make representations about the practical difficulties—can be considered in the ordinary way. The appropriate course, more consonant with the dignity and traditions of Parliament, would be to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House.
It has been said that this is a weak and puny Bill. The Government may today save it from being still-born, but I am sure that it will not last long enough to reach nursery school age. None the less, it is important for our traditions that we should operate a proper procedure. I submit that this Instruction is clearly wrong, even if it is held to be in order.
6.38 p.m.
Mr. Richard Hornby: The Leader of the House said that, unless the Instruction were accepted, we should be directing the Committee to a task which did not make sense. I fully agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) has just said: what we are now doing makes even less sense. The sort of language used by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) shows exactly what I have in mind. He said, in effect, " Come, come. This is a small slip. There was a snap Division and, anyway, this is a little Bill and accidents do happen."
That sort of language is precisely the way in which we, as Parliament, cannot afford to treat any legislation. We have to take the rules and practices of the House seriously. There may be occasions when for some reason the Government of the day face a result other than that for which they wished. That is precisely what debate here is about. It is no good anyone just saying, " Oh, someone was away." We all know that a degree of importance is set by any hon. Member in the House on any Measure, and it is at least indicative of the situation when something like this occurs. No purpose is served in ridiculing it.

487
My second point is that it can hardly be said that there was a snap Division after seven sittings of the Committee.
Thirdly, a considerable nonsense is created in the eyes of the whole educational world. Anyone looking at the proceedings in the Committee will see that there was some very detailed discussion and some very good educational arguments. We are making a mockery of our procedures if all that discussion and argument has to be gone through again because the Committee is told to proceed as though none of that debate had been taken into account at all.
The House should not be treated lightly. The Instruction ridicules all our procedures. The least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to say here and now that, far from wanting to hurry the Bill as fast as he can, careful note has been and will be taken of events outside—the Donnison Committee, and so on—and the various points that have already been made in the Standing Committee.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: It is much too simple to say that the defeat of the Clause in Committee was accidental. For some time now the Government have been running about 10 Standing Committees, as well as the two Grand Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has referred to the number of occasions in just two Committees when Clauses have been saved by the Chairman's casting vote.
What the Government have been doing, in order to turn the House of Commons into a sort of legislative sausage machine before a General Election, has been to set up a number of Committees of small membership in which the hostility or detachment of one, two or three members is of unusual significance. The priority decided upon has been indicated by the attitude of hon. Members to Government legislation. I do not criticise that situation. I quite approve of the order of priorities which some of them have adopted. This attitude of detachment, almost of insouciance, to legislation is to be encouraged.
But what the Government now propose is that if they are defeated by a narrow
488
majority in one of the small Committees they are entitled to ask the House for the debate and vote to take place again in the hope of getting a majority on the second occasion. The corollary is that if the Opposition are defeated by a small majority, they are, presumably, entitled to ask the House to allow the debate and vote to be taken again. That would be a very remarkable state of affairs.
The Leader of the House might consider that that is the direction in which he is leading us in moving Motions which are without precedent in the procedural history of the House, and using our procedure and Standing Orders for a purpose for which they have never been used before. If the Government are defeated in Committee, the only respectable thing to do is to try to put things right on the Floor of the House by appealing to the general body of Members. Instead of that, the Government seek to tuck the Clause back in the Bill again in the relative privacy of a Committee Room rather than in the publicity of the Floor of the House.
Another aspect of the procedural Motion should not be overlooked. The Bill is being put forward for propagandist purposes, inasmuch as it cannot come into effect before the General Election. In those circumstances, it is a waste of the time of the House to have been discussing the Bill at all in the summer of 1970, and it is an abuse of our procedure to seek by this Motion to discuss it twice.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Maudling: There are two points that I want to put, one to the Secretary of State and the other to the Leader of the House. My point to the Secretary of State is about the conduct he envisages for the Committee when it resumes. There was a little discussion earlier about the meaning of the Instruction, but I think that I can ask the Secretary of State to clear up what in his and the Government's mind the Instruction means.
What seems to be its inevitable meaning is that the Bill can be considered again ab initio in its entirety. That must be so, because we will have recommitted the Bill to the former Committee with no limitation.
The words in the Instruction are:
"…notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause 1 …they have power

489
to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect."
That, as I read it, is merely saying, " If you thought that you were to be inhibited by something, you are not ". In other words, the Instruction merely removes what might be a possible inhibition on the discussions of the Committee.
The Committee has disagreed the Clause 1, but it is to be allowed to say, " Despite the fact that we have disagreed on Clause 1, we can go ahead and deal with it again ". So any reading of the two Motions must mean that there need be no limitation whatever to the discussion ab initio by the former Committee on recommittal of the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will be kind enough to confirm my understanding, or, if it is not correct, to explain to what extent it is not correct.
My second point, which is about procedure, I put to the Leader of the House. It is a point that has already been made by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The right procedure should surely have been to bring this matter to a Committee of the whole House. This is really a very important point. It bears upon the public standing of Parliament. It is fair to recall that at the present proceedings in Standing Committees are far from satisfactory. There are too many Committees. There are too many Bills. The constant use of the Chairman's casting vote on occasion after occasion in more than one Committee during recent weeks is a great danger to our whole procedure. The Government must take that danger very seriously.
The point I have in mind, which is serious and important, is that our democratic system in Parliament works by giving dictatorial powers, in form and substance, to the party in power at the time. That is the meaning of parliamentary democracy. The party in power at the time has dictatorial powers, ultimately, to push through the House anything it wishes to push through. But the system only works and can only be tolerated, if those dictatorial powers are used with discretion and are seen to be used with a proper respect for the views of minorities and for the right of the House on occasions to get the Govern-
490
ment to change their mind. We must, therefore, avoid anything that looks like a rubber stamp procedure, but what is proposed really does look very much like a rubber stamping procedure.
I agree that when a Committee has made an Amendment which the Government do not like the Government can get the Committee's decision reversed on the Floor of the House by appealing from the Committee to the House as a whole. On this occasion, however, the Government are appealing from the Committee to the Committee, and that is a very bad arrangement. The Government, are, in effect, saying to the Committee, " You must think again about a decision you took ". People say that it was an accident, but the point is not whether it was accident, folly, or bad organisation. We cannot, and have not the right, to look beyond what happened. It was a recorded decision taken by a vote of the Committee. The Government say, " You must look at this again ". They are not saying, as I thought they might, " You must look at it again because you have acted ultra vires".
Earlier, the Leader of the House pointed out that there was a doubt about this matter and made two conflicting quotations from Erskine May. The Government are not saying, " This is ultra vires. Therefore, you must reverse your decision ". They are saying, " You must reconsider it ". What is the point of saying that to the Committee unless it means that it must change its previous decision? What happens if the Committee comes to the same decision again? In Committee, if a couple of Members fall ill, it can immediately change the situation. It is possible for the same thing to happen again. What would the Secretary of State and the Government do then. If the Committee again produced a result which the Government did not like, would we have another Instruction?
Are the Government telling the Committee to think again, or are they, as I think, telling it what to decide, which would be completely wrong? If we set up a Committee, we must rely on its discretion, to debate within the rules of order, to take decisions and to report to the House. The House then, if it likes, can overthrow its decisions. But to say to a Committee, " We propose to put back to

491
you what you have decided and to tell you to appeal against yourself and to reverse the decision " is making a rubber stamp of the Committee procedure.
I ask for answers from the Government on those two points. First, I should like an assurance about the procedure which will be followed in the Standing Committee when it reconvenes. Secondly, I should like the Government to explain why they should not have pursued the far more logical course of bringing to the Floor of the House an appeal against the Committee's decision.
6.51 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): I shall try to reply to all the points which have been made from both sides of the House.
The hon. Lady the Member for Finch-ley (Mrs. Thatcher) complained that the Bill was going to a Committee on an unknown date and at an unknown time. That is always the case when the House sends a Bill to Committee. There is nothing unusual about that. The hon. Lady then complained that the Instruction which we are discussing has an unknown meaning. I cannot agree with that. I agree with you, Mr. Speaker: if English words have any meaning at all, the meaning is perfectly clear. The Instruction says:
"… notwithstanding that they have disagreed to Clause 1 of the Education Bill, they have power to insert in the Bill provisions with a like effect ".
I suspect that a good many hon. Members have not read Clause 1, which is the essence and guts of the Bill. It requires local authorities,
"in the exercise of any power for the purpose of fulfilling "
duties under Section 8 of the Education Act, 1944, to
" have regard to the need for securing that secondary education is provided only in schools where the arrangements for the admission of pupils are not based (wholly or partly) on…selection."
Clearly, the wording of the Instruction does not confine the Committee. This is the trap which hon. Members have fallen into. Almost all hon. Members have envisaged one wording—the Clause as it originally stood, or the amended form of it.
492
What the House is instructing the Committee to do—or giving it the right to do, because that is all it amounts to—is to reinsert a Clause which will have the like effect—that is, to lay this duty on local authorities. It could be drafted in quite different wording, provided that it has the same effect. This is perfectly clear.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I see what the right hon. Gentleman means about the operative part of the Clause being in subsection (1). But would he agree that the substantial meaning of that is dependent on the amplitude of subsection (2), which is the list of exceptions. Therefore, we would not be putting in something " of the like effect " if we did not reproduce the general effect of the exceptions.
Mr. Short: This is a matter for the Chair in Committee, but I should have thought that the essence of the matter was in subsection (1), which lays on local authorities the duty to have regard to something in carrying on their duties under the 1944 Act.
Sir E. Boyle Sir E. Boyle rose—
Mr. Short: I cannot give way all the time.
Sir E. Boyle: When putting forward a new Clause 1 to the Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the Amendment which was carried to the old Clause 1, which does not in any way negative the general principle of subsection (1)?
Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) with his final words. It does not in any way change the principle or the effect. In other words, the exceptions are peripheral to the main question. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: " Answer."] I will answer the right hon. Gentleman. I always take account of what he says about education, and I will take account of what he and his colleagues have said today. However, I hope that they will bear in mind that I have to consider the rules which the Chair uses for the selection of Amendments.
The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley asked me what the rules for selection would be. She knows as well as I do that I have nothing to do with

493
the selection of Amendments in Committee. That is entirely a matter for the Chair. She asked whether I would object to Amendments. If the same Amendments which we discussed over eight Sittings of the Committee are tabled again, I shall abide by the Chair's interpretation of the rules, as I must. If the Chair decides—and here I reply to the point of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—that we should start ab initio, I would abide by that ruling. If the Amendments are called by the Chair, they will be discussed. But this is a matter, not for me, but for the Chair.
Mr. Maudling: Then it follows from that, does it, that the Chair, when the Committee considers the Bill again, will be in exactly the same position as it was when the Bill was first considered? It will not be inhibited by the Instruction?
Mr. Short: That is not for me; it is entirely a matter for the Chair. I hope that the House will give the Committee an Instruction. It will then be for the Chair to interpret that Instruction in Committee. I should have thought that the Instruction was perfectly clear.
The hon. Lady the Member for Finch-ley asked what amount of freedom the Committee would have. The amount of freedom which we have in the House or in Committee is decided entirely by the rules of order as interpreted by the Chair and not by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The hon. Lady said that the Opposition co-operated in Committee. They did co-operate. The debates which we had over eight sittings were excellent. Before the Committee finally rose, I paid tribute to it for the way in which it had discussed the Amendments.
The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends are being quite illogical. She went out of her way to say that we could not continue with the Committee if the Clause was left out. Yet she and her hon. Friends are opposing the reinsertion of the Clause. They cannot have it both ways.
Mrs. Thatcher: I supported the right hon. Gentleman in his Motion to the effect that the Committee should not further consider the Bill. For that reason, I oppose its recommittal to the same Committee.
Mr. Short: As we are making parliamentary history, we may as well have this
494
on the record for posterity. After I moved the Motion in Committee, the hon. Lady said:
"I rise to support the Minister in his decision but not in his reasoning. It was right to take this course of action. Indeed, under all the circumstances, it was the only reasonable course to take."
Mrs. Thatcher indicated assent.
Mr. Short: The hon. Lady agrees. But she said that after I had said:
"I should like to make it perfectly clear that the Government intend that the Bill shall reach the Statute Book in the present Parliamentary Session. What I am doing now is not dictated by the rules of order—it would be quite possible to go on with the Bill—but it is dictated by good parliamentary manners that we should report this position to the House and begin again. It will then be for the House to decide what action should be taken. I should like to make that perfectly clear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 16th April, 1970; c. 326–27.]
The House is now deciding what action to take. It is on that basis that the hon. Lady said:
"I rise to support the Minister…".
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—I am sorry that he has had to leave, but he has explained the reason—said that we were creating a dangerous precedent; indeed, he said that it was dangerous to create a precedent. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would be the first to agree that it is because the rules of the House are flexible that we can create precedents to meet unexpected situations which are arising all the time. I have been here for 20 years; and I meet something new in the rules of procedure almost every week. It is because we have this flexibility that we can cope with new situations.
Our rules consist of two parts. There are the formalised rules of procedure, and there are precedents created by the Chair. The precedents are just as binding as the formalised rules. It is a philosophical question whether precedent extends the rules or merely interprets them. I think that we in Parliament work on the basis that it does the latter, although in common law I am inclined to think that it does the former. However, when the law of Parliament consists partly of precedent it becomes just as binding as the rules of procedure.
If the House has decided a principle, as it did on 12th February by a majority

495
of 74, we cannot allow a Standing Committee of 20 Members to upset that principle by a majority of one. That is not democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) effectively replied to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) seemed to think that it was normal democratic parliamentary practice for this to happen. I do not. If the House decides a principle by a majority of 74, somehow or other it ought not to allow a Standing Committee to upset that principle.
The right hon. Member for Handsworth asked what kind of procedure we envisaged in the Committee; did we intend Clause 1 as amended or Clause 1 unamended? I pointed out in reply to the hon. Lady that what the wording of the Instruction binds us to is that the new Clause shall have the same effect as the old one, but it does not bind us to either wording. As I said when the right hon. Gentleman interjected, I will consider what has been said today, if he will bear in mind that in my consideration I must consider the rules which govern the Report stage as well.
A number of hon. Members opposite have referred to the Donnison Report. They have said that they may wish to consider Amendments which were not obvious before the report was published. It will be for the Chairman to decide whether such Amendments are in order. What I am so grateful for is that the Conservative Party recognises the magnificent case for comprehensive schools which the Donnison Report makes. It is one of the best cases for the comprehensive school I have read anywhere.
Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: Then let us debate it.
Mr. Short: I would like it to be debated. I am greatly in favour of a wide-ranging national debate on this issue between now and the General Election.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) referred to the occasion when the Conservative Government lost the whole Finance Bill through sheer ineptitude one evening. My hon. Friend did not point out—I do
496
not know whether it is generally known—that the Leader of the Opposition was then the Deputy Chief Whip, so he was responsible for this—just as he was President of the Board of Trade when we had a deficit of £800 million.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that this was squalid practice—squalid practice, presumably, to ensure that a decision of the House by a majority of 74 is not overridden by a Committee of 20 with a majority of one. If the hon. Gentleman calls that squalid practice, he knows little about squalor.
We could have bulldozed this through the Committee. We could have gone ahead certainly, but we chose to bring it back to the Floor of the House. As I have proved by reading the Report, I was supported by the hon. Lady. We did so because the debate would have been meaningless without Clause 1. As I pointed out, we could have amended Clause 2 to make it rather more meaningful, but it would still have been a dull and empty debate.
For this reason, not because of the rules of order, we decided to bring it back to the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I considered all the possibilities; and we had some talks through the usual channels. I am not suggesting that the Opposition committed themselves to anything, but we had all the normal discussions about the matter.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) complained about the very large number of Standing Committees. This is not a matter for me. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has not made clear what the procedure in Committee will be. He seemed to be talking as if the Committee would have to insert a Clause in the Bill like the original Clause 1. As I understand, the Instruction says that the Committee has the power so to insert. Presumably, it has an equal power to insert an entirely different Clause if it so wishes.
Mr. Short: The Committee has not the power to insert an entirely different Clause. It has the power to insert a

497
Clause with like effect, but not a Clause with a different effect. That is perfectly clear.
Mr. Maudling: Surely if the Bill is recommitted the Committee has power to amend the Bill in any way it wants. The Instruction, as I understand it, does not take any power from the Committee; it denies it no power. There is nothing in the Instruction about denying a power to the Committee. It merely says that the Committee has power to put back what it voted out previously, notwithstanding that it voted against it. There is nothing in that which limits the normal powers of a Committee to refuse to put in a Clause like the previous Clause 1.
Mr. Short: I am talking about the effect of the Instruction, which is what I thought the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to do.
Mr. Maudling: The Secretary of State has it wrong.
Mr. Short: No. I have it right. The Instruction empowers the Committee to insert a Clause with like effect. There are the normal rules of procedure. If somebody tables a new Clause, the Chairman will have to decide whether it is in order to discuss it. That is not a matter for me in the House.
Mr. Maudling: This is a very important point. Does the Secretary of State say, or does he not say, that the words
" have power to insert in the Bill "
mean that the Committee has not the power to refuse to insert it?
Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman is saying quite different things. The Committee has the power to vote against it and reject it. There may be another accident, certainly. The right hon. Gentleman is changing his ground and wriggling, as the Opposition always do.
Mr. Maudling: I have made the point five times.
Mr. Short: No. The right hon. Gentleman made two quite different points.
What he asked me before was whether the Instruction would enable the Committee to include a Clause with different effect. I say that it will not. It will enable the Committee to vote against the Clause and, if necessary, reject it. The fate of any other Clause will be governed by the rules of procedure as interpreted by the Chairman.
The question of the number of Standing Committees is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Government have a very large and imaginative legislative programme and I want to make it quite clear to the House that we intend to get it through. We were elected to get it through, and we intend to do so.
It has been said that this is a propaganda Bill. The Bill is vitally important to tens of thousands of young children who are still each year being subjected to the tremendous injustice of the 11-plus, which the Tory Party intends to preserve.
In conclusion, the principle of the Bill has been endorsed in four General Elections out of the seven since the war. It has been endorsed by the House on a number of occasions. It was endorsed on 12th February. Parliament cannot allow it to be defeated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton called " an accident upstairs ". As an ex-Chief Whip, I do not excuse the accident—by no means. It ought not to have occurred, but it occurred because one Member was ill, another Member thought that he was paired when he was not, and another Member went up to the Private Bill Office. The Opposition Whip got into the Committee Room for the Division by the skin of his teeth. If the doors had been closed 10 seconds earlier, he would have been locked out, and the result would have been quite different.
The Bill must reach the Statute Book this Session and the Government intend to see that it does.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 219.

Division No. 102.]

AYES

[7.10 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Anderson, Donald

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Albu, Austen

Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Armstrong, Ernest

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Alldritt, Walter

Ashley, jack

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Allen, Scholcfield

Ashton, joe (Bassetlaw)

Barnes, Michael

Barnett, Joel

Gregory, Arnold

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Baxter, William

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Beaney, Alan

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Maxwell, Robert

Bence, Cyril

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Mayhew, Christopher

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Meilish, Rt. Kn. Robert

Bidwell, Sydney

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Mendelson, John

Binns, John

Hamling, William

Mikardo. Ian

Bishop, E. S.

Hannan, William

Millan, Bruce

Blackburn, F.

Harper, Joseph

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Moonman, Eric

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Booth, Albert

Haseldine Norman

Morris Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Boston, Terence

Hattersley, Roy

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Hazell, Bert

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Bradley, Tom

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Moyle, Roland

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Heffer, Eric S.

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Brooks, Edwin

Henig, Stanley

Murray, Albert

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Neal, Harold

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Hobden, Dennis

Newens, Stan

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

Hooley, Frank

Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip

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

Hooson, Emlyn

Norwood, Christopher

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

Horner, John

Oakes, Gordon

Buchanan, Norman

Hougton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Ogden, Eric

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

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

O'Halloran, Michael

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Howie, W.

O'Malley. Brian

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Oram, Albert E.

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Huckfield, Leslie

Orbach, Maurice

Carmichael, Neil

Huges, Rt. Hn. Clewyn (Anglesey)

Orbach, Maurice

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Huges, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Orme, Stanley

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Oswald, Thomas

Concannon, J. D.

Hunter, Adam

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Conlan, Bernard

Hynd, John

Padly Walter

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Cronin, John

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Paget, R. T.

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Palmer, Arthur

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Janner, Sir Barnett

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Dalyell, Tom

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Park, Trevor

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Pavitt, Laurence

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

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

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Pentland, Norman

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Judd, Frank

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Kelley, Richard Kenyon, Clifford

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Delargy, H. J.

Kenyon, Clifford

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

Dell, Edmund

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

Price, Christopher (Perry Bier)

Dempsey, James

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Dewar, Donald Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Latham, Arthur

Price, William (Rugby)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Lawler, Wallace

Probert, Arthur

Dickens, James

Lawson, George

Randall, Harry

Doig, Peter

Leadbitter, Ted

Rankin, John

Driberg, Tom

Leadbitter, Ted

Rees, Merlyn

Dunn, James A.

Ledger, Ron

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Dunnatt, Jack

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick(Newton)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Lee, John (Reading)

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

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

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Eadie, Alex

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

Edelman, Maurice

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lipton, Marcus

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Lomas, Kenneth

Rose, Paul

Ellis, John

Luard Evan

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

English, Michael

Lubbock, Eric

Ryan, John

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Sheldon, Robert

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

McBride, Neil

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Faulds, Andrew

McCann, John

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Finch, Harold

MacColl, James

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

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

MacDermot, Niall

Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Macdonald, A. H.

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Foley, Maurice

McElhone, Frank

Sillars, J.

Foot. Rt Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

McGuire, Michael

Silverman, Julius

Foot Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

Slater, Joseph

Ford Ben

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Small, William

Forrester John

Mackie, John

Snow, Julian

Fowler, Gerry

Mackintosh, John P.

Spriggs, Leslie

Fraser, John (Norwood)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Freeson, Reginald

McNamara, J. Kevin

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Gardner, Tony

MacPherson, Malcolm

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Garrett W. E.

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Ginsburg, David

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Golding, John

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Symonds, J. B.

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

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

Taverne, Dick

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Marks, Kenneth

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

500

501

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Watkins, David (Consett)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Tinn, James

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Winnick, David

Tomney, Frank

Weitzman, David

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Tuck, Raphael

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Urwin, T. W.

White, Mrs. Eirene

Woof, Robert

Varley, Eric G.

Wilkins, W. A.

Wyatt, Woodrow

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Mr. R F. H. Dobson and

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Mr. James Hamilton.

Wallace, George

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Galbraith, Hn. T. C.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Gibson-Watt, David

Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Clover, Sir Douglas

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Astor, John

Glyn, Sir Richard

Miscampbell, Norman

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

Goodhart, Philip

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Goodhew, Victor

Monro, Hector

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Gower, Raymond

Montgomery, Fergus

Balniel, Lord

Grant, Anthony

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Batsford, Brian

Grieve, Percy

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Gurden, Harold

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Bell, Ronald

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Murton, Oscar

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Neave, Airey

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Biffen, John

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Biggs-Davison, John

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Nott, John

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Onslow, Cranley

Black, Sir Cyril

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Blaker, Peter

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Hastings, Stephen

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Body, Richard

Hawkins, Paul

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hay, John

Percival, Ian

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Health, Rt. Hn. Edward

Peyton, John

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Higgins, Terence L.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Braine, Bernard

Hilley, Joseph

Pounder, Rafton

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hill, J. E. B.

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Holland, Philip

Prior, J. M. L.

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hodern, Peter

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Bryan, Paul

Hornby, Richard

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

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

Howell, David (Guildford)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hunt, John

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Iremonger, T. L.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Channon H P G

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Ridsdale, Julian

Chataway, Christopher

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Robson Brown, Sir William

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jopling, Michael

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Clark, Henry

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Royle, Anthony

Clegg, Walter

Kershaw, Anthony

Russell, Sir Ronald

Cooke, Robert

Kimball, Marcus

Scott, Nicholas

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

King, Tom

Sharples, Richard

Cordle, John

Kitson, Timothy

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

Corfield, F. V.

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Silvester, Frederick

Costain, A. P.

Lambton, Viscount

Sinclair, Sir George

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smith Dudley {W'wick & L'mington)

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Lane, David

Smith John (London & W'minster)

Currie, G. B. H.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Speed, Keith

Dalkeith, Earl of

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Speed, Keith

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Doughty, Charles

Longden, Gilbert

Tapsell, Peter

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Drayson, G. B.

MacArthur, Ian

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

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Eden, Sir John

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

Temple, John M.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

McMaster, Stanley

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

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

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Tilney, John

Emery, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Errington, Sir Eric

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Farr, John

Maddan, Martin

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Fisher, Nigel

Maginnis, John E.

Waddington, David

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Fortescue, Tim

Marten, Neil

Wall, Patrick

Foster, Sir John

Maude, Angus

Walters, Dennis

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

Fry, Peter

Mawby, Ray

Ward, Dame Irene

502

503

Weatherill, Bernard

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Younger, Hn. George

Welis, John (Maidstone)

Woodnutt, Mark

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Worsley, Marcus

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wiggin, A. W.

Wright, Esmond

Mr. Jasper More and

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Wylie, N. R.

Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee A that, notwithstanding that they havedisagreed to Clause I of the Education Bill, they have
disagreed to Clause 1 of the Education Bill, they have to insert in the Bill Provisions with a like effect.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EQUAL PAY (No. 2) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Speaker: As is my wont, I have had posted my provisional selection of Amendments. We shall take first new Clause 1.

New Clause 1

  SERVICE PAY
  (1) The Secretary of State or Defence Council shall not make, or recommend to Her Majesty the making of, any instrument relating to the terms and conditions of service of members of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown or of any women's service administered by the Defence Council, if the instrument has the effect of making a distinction, as regards pay, allowances or leave, between men and women who are members of those forces or of any such service, not being a distinction fairly attributable to differences between the obligations undertaken by men and those undertaken by women as such members as aforesaid.
  (2) The Secretary of State or Defence Council may refer to the Industrial Court for their advice any question whether a provision made or proposed to be made by any such instrument as is referred to in subsection (1) above ought to be regarded for purposes of this section as making a distinction not permitted by that subsection.—[Mrs. Castle.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.23 p.m.
  The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I am glad that we are starting this evening's proceedings on the same harmonious note on which we finished in Committee. I might almost say that this is where we went out, for the final business before the Standing Committee was a debate on a new Clause put down by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and his hon. Friends in an effort to find a way to have the Bill applied in the Armed Forces. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was particularly enamoured of his Clause. Indeed, he said:
  " We have been thrown back on to this form of words to try to find some way of ensuring that there is at least included in the
  506
  Bill the provision that the Armed Forces shall have equal pay ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 17th March, 1970; c. 347.]
  Although I opposed that Clause in Committee, I sympathised with the hon. Gentleman in both his purpose and his difficulty in finding an appropriate way of applying the Bill to the Armed Forces. I promised—he withdrew his Motion on my assurance—that we should continue to work hard to try to overcome the drafting difficulties and we should if at all possible, table our own new Clause at this stage. This we have done, and I hope that the House will think that we have made a good job of it.
  There has not been any disagreement between the two sides of the House on what we are seeking to do here. We have all been anxious to ensure that the principles of the Bill are applied in the Armed Forces. I pointed out on Second Reading that in its Report on the Armed Forces in June, 1969, the Prices and Incomes Board had recommended the application of equal pay in the Armed Forces, and in its report of February this year the board spelled out how Government policy with regard to equal pay was being applied in the recommendations for a new military salary structure. We are all confident that the Government are determined to apply this principle in the Services.
  We wanted to find a way to have the Armed Forces committed to equal pay under the Bill, but there have always been two difficulties in the way. The first lay in the constitutional position and the pay arrangements for the Services. As the House knows, Army and Air Force pay is fixed under the Royal Prerogative through the Royal Warrants, and there is no statutory backing for it except in the case of the Navy. Also, there is the difficulty regarding the method of enforcement. We all agreed, I think that it would not be appropriate for an individual woman member of the women's Services to be able to take the Secretary of State for Defence before an industrial tribunal to argue whether she had or had not received equal pay for broadly similar work or work rated as equivalent under a job evaluation scheme.
  The Opposition had two goes in Committee at trying to solve the problem. They were not very happy about either. I hope that they will be happy with this

  507
  Clause and that we shall be able to pass it without protracted discussion. The Clause would prohibit distinctions as regards pay, allowances or leave between men and women in the forces, providing that
  " The Secretary of State or Defence Council shall not make, or recommend … the making of, any instrument"
  which discriminates, which
  " has the effect of making a distinction, as regards pay, allowances or leave, between men and women… members of those forces…not being a distinction fairly attributable to differences between the obligations undertaken by men and those undertaken by women as such members as aforesaid ".
  I should explain why the phrase " pay, allowances or leave " is used instead of the phrase " terms and conditions of employment ", which is used elsewhere in the Bill. A moment's thought will show why we have to do it in this way. Pay, allowances and leave are the equivalent in the Services of terms and conditions; they are the only matters referred to in the pay instruments, and Service conditions are laid down in the disciplinary code. This, therefore, is the parallel here.
  However, we have to make a slight qualification at the end of subsection (I) of the Clause, for two reasons. There are clear-cut distinctions between men and women in the Services which it is impossible to ignore—for example, in their liability to bear arms, the terms of their contract of service, the codes of discipline to which they are subjected and their liability to serve overseas. The women's services are distinct from the men's services and there are separate instruments laying down their rates of pay. We have to allow for that.
  7.30 p.m.
  But I emphasise that that does not mean that equal pay is being only partially introduced in the forces. We are saying that in the forces equal pay will be introduced for work of equal value, which is fully in accord with the principle of the Bill. But service in the forces is clearly different in character from employment in industry, and we have to take that into account in the drafting of the Clause. That is one of the reasons why we made provision in subsection (2) for the Secretary of State or the Defence
  508
  Council to consult the Industrial Court on any question which arises. That will give us the assurance that equal pay will be introduced fairly, in accordance with the obligations laid on the Secretary of State in subsection (1).
  Mr. John Nott: Could the right hon. Lady give me one example, for instance, of a " Wren " doing comparable work which would merit equal pay with that of a naval rating?
  Mrs. Castle: I recommend the hon. Member to read the February report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. It analyses in great detail the way in which these principles of equal pay for work of equal value can be and should be applied in the armed services. I am sure that that will give the hon. Member the answer which he seeks.
  I hope that the House agrees that we have kept our promise and that all those concerned have shown some ingenuity in doing so. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in helping us to work out what I think is a satisfactory solution.
  Mr. Philip Holland: I express my warmest thanks to the right hon. Lady for keeping the promise she made in Committee to bring the Armed Forces within the scope of the Bill. I confess that last week I had some misgivings that she would find the task too difficult. I have some idea of the difficulties involved, and I was worried that she might not be able to overcome them all and that we might again have the rather difficult debate on this subject that we had in Committee. I much admire her ingenuity and that of her advisers.
  I feel that the Clause covers all the requirements in this respect comprehensively and that there should be no argument in the future that the forces have not equality of treatment with people outside the forces. That is very desirable. I thank her again for producing the Clause.
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: While I welcome the Clause, I wish to put one question arising from it. Some years ago the then Minister of Defence, questioned by me about equal pay in the forces, pointed out that while all other things might be equal, the men had different obligations from those of the

  509
  women. He used the word " obligations ", and it is used in the Clause. He pointed out that in the event of war men might be obliged to bear arms and to risk their lives in battle, and that therefore he could not equate the obligations of the men with those of the women. In peace time they are obviously doing work of equal value—indeed, the same work. If there were to be a war, would the men and women be on different pay bases in war time?
  Mr. Keith Speed: I, too, welcome the ingenious way in which the right hon. Lady and her Department have achieved what we all tried to achieve in Committee. I had the honour of moving the original Amendment, which I was the first to admit was far from satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) tried to introduce a new Clause, which was also defective. With the expertise available to the Department, the right hon. Lady has gone a long way to overcoming the difficulties.
  May I answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I can speak only of the Navy, but there are W.R.N.S. radar plotters working in shore establishments alongside male radar plotters and doing exactly the same work, and there are W.R.N.S. cooks, W.R.N.S. stewardesses, W.R.N.S. photographic experts and W.R.N.S. meteorological experts doing the same work as their male counterparts. The only difference is that, on the whole, the Wrens " serve only in shore establishments whereas their male counterparts may go to sea. If the result of the Clause were to send " Wrens " to sea, I would say, as an ex-member of the Naval Reserve, that we should be prepared to welcome it, although I do not know whether the " Wrens " would then be entitled to hard-lying allowance.
  I am sure that there are many similar examples from the other Services. In war, members of the A.T.S. worked on antiaircraft guns. Women were doing exactly the same work and bearing exactly the same responsibility as their male counterparts.
  Mr. Nott: I understand what my hon. Friend says about the activities of those involved, but the suggestion is not that " Wrens " and naval ratings should be paid according to the activities which they
  510
  are performing. They will be paid according to their rank and seniority. Is not that normally the case?
  Mr. Speed: Yes, but if an ordinary " Wren " is working alongside an ordinary seaman, doing the same job, in a shore establishment, I hope that they will get the same pay. Presumably a leading " Wren " or third officer " Wren " would get the appropriate pay, equal to that of a leading seaman or a sub-lieutenant.
  Mr. Holland: The new Clause refers clearly to " obligations ". That is the criterion.
  Mr. Speed: Exactly. I think that there is no difficulty, but I was trying to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. Those with recent Service experience will appreciate that there are many cases in which people are doing exactly the same work. I believe that, on the whole, women's pay has been about 75 per cent. of men's pay, although in certain trades and skills there has been an even bigger differentiation. I welcome the Clause, which is an auspicious start to the proceedings this evening.
  Sir Douglas Glover: We all congratulate the right hon. Lady on the new Clause. I was not a member of the Committee, and a point which occurs to me concerns referring the question of Service pay to the industrial court. Surely in the Services it is easy to allocate pay on an equal basis, because military ranks are involved, and if a person is doing the same work as others in that rank, it should be possible for the Government to ensure that equal pay is paid. Why might it be necessary for the Secretary of State to refer somebody else in the Government to the industrial court for not doing what it is surely simple to do? Many of the titles in the Services are now the same. At one time women officers were called commanders, whereas the respective men officers were majors or colonels. But most of the ranks are now given the same name. If the women have the same titles, basically they should be drawing the same pay.
  Mr. Robert Carr: I would like to thank the right hon. Lady for bringing forward this new Clause and

  511
  also to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) in congratulating her on overcoming what we know were the very real difficulties in meeting the point which we all wanted to meet.
  I am equally glad that we have started these proceedings in such a harmonious way and trust that we shall continue in the same vein. It must seem strange to the right hon. Lady to hear us being so nice to her. This just shows how fair and objective we are. I am sure that she will realise that we are equally fair and objective when, as is often the case, we criticise her severely. We will always strive to be fair and objective and we hope that we can thank her even more in the future.
  Mrs. Castle: May I reply briefly to the two points that have been raised. First, may I deal with that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). As I said in moving the Clause, there are different obligations in the Services and it is only right that they should be reflected in the remuneration. This was covered in the P.I.B. report by what it called the " X " factor, which is liability to service and so on, and this operates equally in war and peace. It covers the fact that if war comes men might have a liability that the woman would not.
  With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), I want to put this quite straight. He asked why did I have to refer another colleague to the Industrial Court. I will not do anything of the kind. He has misunderstood subsection (2). It merely empowers the Secretary of State for Defence or the Defence Council to ask the advice of the Industrial Court in helping them to be sure that they have interpreted correctly the principles of the Bill and applied them aright to the Armed Forces.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

  REQUIREMENT OF EQUAL TREATMENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN IN SAME EMPLOYMENT
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Holland: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out ' that has been '.
  We withdrew this Amendment in Committee on an undertaking from the Under-Secretary that he would be prepared to take this matter back and reconsider it. The amended Notice Paper gives us no indication that he has done so and we therefore propose once again to delete these three unnecessary and confusing words from this part of the Bill. The Under-Secretary will recall that he was urged in Committee to do this, not only by myself and my hon. and right hon. Friends, but also by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
  Alliances between the hon. Gentleman and hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House are rare but none the less welcome. When they do occur I would have thought that the Under-Secretary might have considered that he had adequate grounds for taking the view that there was some logic behind the argument. As the Under-Secretary has not tabled an Amendment dealing with this, I can only hope that he has decided to accept our Amendment to delete what I regard as three clearly unnecessary, misleading and distracting words from the Clause.
  Either the words are totally unnecessary, adding nothing to the sense of the subsection, or they mean that if, for example, in 1960 a form of evaluation was carried out which resulted in bad and anomalous ratings—and this was subsequently followed during the years till 1970 by negotiated settlements to put the anomalies right, then the basis for comparison must be the original ratings that have been made at any moment of time in the past, rather than the more recently negotiated settlements.
  It seems to be a bit of a nonsense, particularly as this part of the Bill is specifically tied in with job evaluation in subsection (5) on page 2. It gives priority to any pseudo-job evaluated

  513
  rating from the earliest days of experimentation in this area over any current negotiated agreement.
  The Under-Secretary of State has established a reputation for being prepared to listen to reason. I ask him to move just one stage further and not just to listen to reason, but to accept the logic of this Amendment.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): It might save time if I reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) at once. I must, first, recall that this was the first Amendment moved in Committee. In my anxiety to set the tone, although legal advice suggested that the words were necessary, I undertook to examine the words further. Again, legal advice was that these three words are absolutely necessary, because without them there may possibly be some ambiguity of purpose and meaning in the courts.
  However, being anxious to follow the pattern which 1 hope I established in Committee, and anxious to continue the spirit of goodwill—we do not have to rely on Christmas for that—and not wishing to be thought in any sense to be renaging on even a half promise in Committee, can I set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest and tell him that we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: I am delighted to hear that despite the legal advice tendered to the hon. Gentleman he is prepared to accept our Amendment. We are grateful, because we felt that there was a great deal of validity behind our arguments in Committee. There is an atmosphere of good will here and I would add the Under-Secretary's name to the list of those who have been most helpful and co-operative throughout the Committee stage. We believe that as a result we made good progress and that the Bill is in some respects a better one because of the co-operation.
  Despite the legal advice which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned I would submit that it was sensible to omit these words. The Clause now reads:
  514
  " for men and women employed on work rated as equivalent…"
  That makes much more sense than if the words
  " that has been "
  were included. Otherwise, once a job evaluation had been carried out, however far back in history, according to the interpretation of the Bill it would have held good. There would have been great difficulty, because of the out-of-date atmosphere attaching to job evaluation.
  Job evaluation is in its infancy, it is an inexact science—
  Mr. Stanley Orme: You have won.
  Mr. Smith: I know, but it is worth while mentioning these points, because they were developed in Committee.
  Because of these rapidly developing techniques it is wrong to commit ourselves to the job techniques of the past. There will undoubtedly be difficulties when this Bill comes into operation in 1975. No one has ever pretended that there would not be and it is important to get the Bill as clear and precise as possible. That is what we have attempted to do throughout Committee stage and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman that at this very important and early stage of the Bill he has conceded the point. We believe that as a result the Bill will operate more efficiently.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 30, at end insert:
  ' but nothing in this Section shall require an employer to give more favourable treatment to a woman employed at any establishment in Great Britain than is given to a man employed there on work rated as equivalent or which would be given to a man if one were to be engaged on such work at that establishment '.
  This Amendment is in line with a different Amendment, but one which had a similar intention and which was debated at some length in Committee. Our objection to the Clause as it stands is that it would result in uniform rates of pay applying to men and women throughout the country. Regional differences, differences between the cost of living in London and the lower cost

  515
  of living in other parts of the country, would be completely ignored. There would be no compensation in wage rates for the additional expenses incurred by employees elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) gave examples of this in Committee and I will give some simpler ones to illustrate the evil here.
  Let us take the case of a factory in London where the men's wages are £25 and the women's £15, and compare that with a similar factory belonging to another establishment in the same group of companies, situated in Scotland where the men receive £20 and the women £12. The result of the Clause as it stands would be that the women in the Scottish factory would be entitled to claim a wage equal to the men in the London factory, £25 a week. The men working alongside those women in Scotland whose pay had gone up from £12 to £25 a week would naturally want the same rate as their women counterparts. They too would want £25 a week, and they should have the same rate as the women. So the wage rates in those establishments in the same group would all rise to the maximum applicable in the group. It would follow that the rates in other factories not associated with the group but in the same areas would rise to keep pace, so we should have a massive escalation of wages and finish up with the national wage for men and women being the highest rate payable throughout the country.
  In Committee the Under-Secretary of State denied that this could be so, relying largely on the words
  "…at which common terms and conditions of employment are observed…"
  He argued initially that it could not be said that the Scottish workers could claim the same rate as the London workers, because the terms and conditions of employment might not be the same. But under pressure he said that this was a matter to be resolved by the courts. Although he said that it was a commonly-used expression, he was not sure what
  " common terms and conditions of employment "
  would mean. His answer was that the courts would decide, with their experience in solving such problems.
  516
  This is not good enough. It is the duty of the House to express clearly and concisely what we intend the Clause to mean so that we hope there will be no need for anyone to go to the courts for interpretation. If we start off not knowing what we intend the Clause to mean and rely on the courts to try to find a meaning we make complete nonsense of our rôle as legislators. The hon. Gentleman expressed considerable doubts himself in Committee after a fairly lengthy debate in which a great deal of pressure was put on him.
  The hon. Gentleman said:
  "…the courts have long experience in interpreting the phrase terms and conditions of employment '. I do not want to be dogmatic about whether the overall level of remuneration is a term of employment."
  Later, he said:
  " In reply to the question, Is the overall or global sum of remuneration a term of employment? ', I am saying that I do not know whether a court would rule that that was the case."
  If remuneration is not a term of employment, the Clause will have the consequences to which I have referred. It will mean that as of right the highest rate payable in any part of the country would become the uniform rate for men and women throughout the country.
  Later in the debate the hon. Gentleman said:
  "…if someone asked, ' Is not the level of total remuneration a term and condition of employment? ', I certainly would not say that that was necessarily, under this provision, a term of employment. Let us take two workers who in every other respect enjoy absolute equality of terms and conditions, whether they be male and female, or male and male, except that one appears to work on piecework and therefore has higher piecework earnings. That would not mean that they would not have the same terms and conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 19th February, 1970; c. 31–42.]
  The hon. Gentleman's interpretation must result in the wages and remuneration, the total emoluments of the job, not being a term and condition of employment and not therefore being a distinguishing feature between the establishment in Scotland and the one in London. The natural consequence must be that the highest rate will apply.
  The hon. Gentleman also resorted to the provisions of subsection (4)(b), relying on it to prevent some of the consequences to which I have referred. But we see

  517
  from later Amendments that subsection (4)(b) is now to be deleted, so that line of escape has gone.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham, who constantly put this point to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, acknowledged that we would certainly support the object of the Clause, which is to prevent employers evading the Act by employing only women in one factory and only men in another, so that there is no comparison for the women to claim a higher wage rate. The Minister's logic was that if there were only women employed in an establishment, unless they could be compared with another establishment, it might be impossible for them to secure the equality of pay that would have been their right had there been men employed in the same work in the same establishment.
  Our Amendment meets that very point. It is constructive and overcomes the difficulty. The last thing we wish to do is to leave legislation in such a form that we do not know what it means or what the Government intend it to mean. If it is their intention, as we believe it to be, that women doing broadly the same work as men should not be deprived of their rights under the Bill because there are no men in the same establishment doing that work, our Amendment will meet that point.
  If these additional words are not inserted there will at best be a large area of doubt that will have to be resolved by the courts, or at worst—and this I fear would be the case—the interpretation I put on it in opening would follow, and the highest rate applicable in any part of the country would become the uniform rate of pay for that category of work for men and women. I am sure that that would be quite unacceptable to the Government, as it is to hon. Members on this side.
  Mr. Holland: The real reason for the Amendment, as my hon Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) made clear, is that we cannot be sure what is meant by
  " common terms and conditions of employment "
  and to a degree these would include remuneration. I am still not clear what is meant by remuneration. It is easy to define if it is related to time workers,
  518
  because it is the remuneration for the standard working week, but when it is related to any one of the wide variety of premium, bonus or piece-rate schemes, it is necessary to have a standard or norm to compare like with like.
  I wonder whether the
  " terms and conditions of employment "
  would involve the grade rate, or whatever may be the system employed in the company. Could the hon. Gentleman help us on that matter? The confusion and the anomalies created by imprecise definition as to the totality of the phrase will be more than the industrial system of this country can stand.
  8.0 p.m.
  The Minister has said that the Bill will do nothing to iron out the anomalies over regional differentials and variations in the bargaining systems as between one factory and another, or one district and another. Nor is it the purpose of the Bill to do anything about shortcomings in industrial relations or differences in the cost of living as between one region and another. Unless we do something about making the situation clearer and less ambiguous than simply relying on the phrase
  " terms and conditions of employment "
  we will run into all kinds of trouble in future.
  The Amendment does not refer to
  " terms and conditions of employment ",
  but says that if a woman is doing the same work as a man in the same establishment then she shall be paid at the same rate. If, on the other hand, there is no man doing that work, she will be paid the same rate as a man. I am sure that is the basic intention of the Bill. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to look carefully at this matter to see if he can accept yet another Amendment from this side of the House.
  Sir D. Glover: I cannot understand why the Under-Secretary of State has not said that he will accept the Amendment without further ado. Perhaps he intends to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) said that without something similar to the Amendment it would mean that in a particular occupation in an organisation the rates of pay would become the highest rates of pay obtaining.

  519
  These rates of pay vary enormously from district to district. We all know that when civil servants move to London they are upgraded, or if they work here they get a higher rate of pay.
  It is surely not the intention under this legislation that a woman would be put in a more favourable position than a man and treated as a " most favoured nation " in the same way as applies to commercial treaties. In fact, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is not his intention nor that of his right hon. Friend, since such a move would create an inflationary situation. This applies particularly to the regions to which industry is being tempted to move. If women in development areas had to be paid the same rates as women are paid in London, the development area policy would not be successful for very much longer.
  Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment or certainly its spirit, which I feel to be essential to the Bill.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I rise not to satisfy the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) but to disappoint him. I have the feeling that I have been at this point before. We spent a good deal of time in Committee dealing with this matter and I will not attempt to go over the same ground. The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) in moving the Amendment said that the Government's argument hinged entirely on the phrase in subsection (2)
  " terms and conditions of employment "
  as between establishments in which comparisons were being made.
  I pointed in Committee to the difficulty which would arise if these provisions were absent from the Bill and if we were to restrict the basis of comparison to the single establishment. It would provide a loophole for an employer who was seeking to avoid the obligations imposed upon him by the Bill if he were to transfer his female operatives to some other establishment down the road. If, for instance, he employed 75 female press operatives and 25 male operatives in a department, the comparisons provided by the Bill would be destroyed if an employer were to transfer the 75 females to some other work place.
  Sir D. Glover: Surely this is covered by the Amendment in the words:
  "… than is given to a man employed there on work rated as equivalent or which would be given to a man if one were to be engaged on such work at that establishment."
  If he transferred women operatives, they would have to be paid at the rate which men were paid to do that work.
  Mr. Walker: I do not follow the hon. Member's line of argument. The Amendment says:
  " If one were to be engaged on such work at that establishment."
  That is somewhat vague and tenuous as an interpretation. The fears which have been expressed are ill-founded and are already safeguarded against by the provisions of subsection (2).
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Could the hon. Gentleman clear up the illustration I gave, involving two identical factories one in London and one in Scotland? If the emoluments in London were £25 for men and £15 for women and those in Scotland were £20 for men and £12 for women, would they be regarded as common terms of employment?
  Mr. Walker: I am now going through the same experience which 1 had in Committee of being unable to develop the Government's reply in a consistent and continuous fashion because hon. Members opposite seem to assume that I do not intend to deal with the points they raise. I am anxious to clear up any misunderstandings which exist. The differences between us are not substantial and arise from misunderstandings rather than anything of substance.
  I shall try to deal with the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) as to what is meant by the phrase
  " terms and conditions of employment ".
  In reply to the charge that I leaned on the experience and decisions of the courts or tribunals, this surely is inevitable. We cannot take on the rôle of judges in this kind of situation because of the complexities and diversities which can arise in terms of the phrase
  " terms and conditions of employment ".
  Had this not been the case it would not have been necessary for this House to pass the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act. It must be the task in the

  521
  ultimate of the courts and tribunals to determine this matter.
  I repeat the point I made in Committee. By the establishment of common terms and conditions and the need for insistence on common terms and conditions, whatever they are, we will be comparing the totality. The point was made in Committee and has been repeated, by "the totality " do I mean comparison with overall levels of remuneration? If in a factory in Scotland £15 a week is paid for a certain category of work and in London £20 is paid within the same company or an associated company, do we say that the overall level of remuneration is a term of employment and, because the payments are obviously different, they are not common and are incapable of providing the comparison?
  As I said in Committee, this must depend on the particular circumstances. Suppose the workers in the two establishments were on straight time rates. Clearly the time rate would be the term of employment. There would, therefore, be differences in those factories in terms of employment and there would not be common terms and conditions of employment. The workers may be on payment by results. It may be that the differences arise from the difference of effort on the part of the workers. There may be different piece-work bonus earnings even though the basic rates and all other things are equal. In that kind of situation there could be differences in the overall levels of remuneration but common terms and conditions of employment. This is a kind of hypothetical argument which in the last resort would have to be determined, in the event of dispute, by the tribunals.
  There may be a situation where associated companies with establishments widely apart in different geographical areas could have common terms and conditions of employment and a woman in one part of the country could be seeking to establish a comparison with someone engaged on like work. She could use that as a basis for establishing equality of terms and conditions but that is unlikely.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Holland: In the event of the grade rate, basic rate or the basic minimum being exactly the same in two different regions and all other things being equal,
  522
  the terms and conditions would be the same and any other factor making up the total would be considered a difference in terms and conditions?
  Mr. Walker: If the various rates laid down are identical and all other things are equal there would be the common ground which would provide the basis for comparison. Overall remuneration for similar hours of work tends to vary widely between different geographical areas. Differences arise from certain concrete factors and differences of remuneration arise from different terms and conditions of employment, but another factor would have to be satisfied. It is not just any establishment with which comparison can be drawn, but with rates for men employed by her employer or by any associated employer within the terms laid down in the Bill. There we have a dramatic narrowing down of the area and the further very substantial refinement provided by the phrase
  " common terms and conditions of employment."
  There is a hypothetical possibility, but it is a very unlikely one.
  I hope that, without going through all the arguments they made in Committee, hon. Members will accept that their force is ill-founded and will not find it necessary to continue to press this Amendment.
  Mr. Speed: The Under-Secretary has again advanced many of the arguments he used in Committee, but at the end of the day the fears originally expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) in Committee and which have been expressed tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), as the Under-Secretary has admitted, have a foundation. The hon. Gentleman has defended the status quo in the Bill, but he has not dealt with the Amendment.
  As the hon. Gentleman admitted, there are undoubtedly possible certain circumstances which as the Bill is drafted might lead to extraordinary situations which could mitigate against a development area in Scotland or elsewhere. There is certainly a possibility of that. There is a probability. All these points would be taken care of by the Amendment if it were accepted. I believe that it would be watertight and would cover the hypothetical or any other situation in Scotland

  523
  or other parts of Britain. The Amendment is not in any way contrary to the spirit of the Clause nor of the Bill. It would tighten it up and make it more sensible and worth while.
  Since the hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the Amendment, which I believe to be good, fair and sound, I hope that my hon. Friend will have serious thoughts about pressing it to a Division.
  Mr. R. Carr: The Under-Secretary started his remarks by saying that he felt like saying, " I have been here before ". So do I, and I am sure so do my hon. Friends. I am sorry to have to tell him that his remarks have failed to convince us this evening, just as they failed in Committee. His advice and our understanding of the Bill are just as cloudy as they were when we finished our debates in Committee on this point some weeks ago.
  This Amendment is very important. There is undoubtedly a very wide measure of support, thank goodness, throughout the country for the principle of equal pay. Equally, there is genuine concern about the overall economic cost of the operation, and if we get it wrong the possible effect of the introduction of equal pay in upsetting differentials between one job and another and between one region and another. The rapid, escalating, economic and industrial relations effects of disturbing differentials are well known.
  If the Clause allowed the things to happen which my hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, suggested might happen, the effects would be serious. The inflationary effect would be serious not only for the firm and associated firms, and for the area in which they are situated, but for the whole country. The total cost to the economy of implementing equal pay would be probably many times larger than the provisional estimates put forward by the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said, great damage would be done to the employment possibilities and potentials of development areas particularly remote ones. There would be great incentive to the leap-frogging claims which adversely affect industrial relations and inflation in our industrial economy.
  If we imagine the women workers in my hon. Friend's hypothetical factory in
  524
  Scotland suddenly brought up to the level of men working in London, the men in Scotland would have to go up to that level and, before long, the men in London would put in a claim to establish their differential over the men in Scotland because of the extra cost of living in London. The industrial relations and economic effects of this would be serious and escalating.
  We accept that the Government do not intend this effect to occur, and that they believe that the Bill as drafted will not allow it to occur, but the Under-Secretary has failed to convince us that the Clause as drafted will ensure the common intention of both sides of the House. To avoid the effect that we have predicated we must have either this Amendment or something like it. The Under-Secretary says that we must lean on the judgment of tribunals. Of course we must, but when we make law we must surely draft it so as to make our intention clear and reduce to the minimum the risk of the tribunals in this case and the courts in other cases interpreting the law contrary to our intentions.
  If the Clause remains as it is, there is a substantial risk of tribunals interpreting it in a way contrary to the Government's declared intentions. That is also the view of experts in legal matters outside the House. We and the Government both want the same thing. There is no difference of principle or intention between us. The difference between us is whether the Clause as drafted achieves our common intention. We do not believe it does, and that is why we press the Amendment.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) that the Under-Secretary did not deal with the Amendment. If our intentions are the same, and if it is genuinely thought that the Amendment makes the intention clearer, why cannot the Under-Secretary accept it? His only case for rejecting it was that it was not necessary. The Under-Secretary mentioned the case of an employer moving all his women workers up the road, but that is covered completely by the last phrase in the Amendment, which refers to the rate
  " which would be given to a man if one were to be engaged on such work at that establishment."

  525
  If a firm, to avoid the operation of the Bill, moved its women workers up the road to another factory, that phrase of the Amendment would prevent it from avoiding the intention of Parliament.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again. We would willingly give him leave to address the House for a second time. He should at least give us a reason why our Amendment is wrong and, if it is technically wrong, why something like it would not help to make more certain our common intention. We feel strongly that something more is needed and, if the Government cannot accept the Amendment or undertake to produce in another place an Amendment of similar intent, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: I want to give the Under-Secretary a chance to explain to his right hon. Friend the irrefutable arguments which we have advanced while she has been away. I beg him to accept the Amendment, which is the most important remaining Amendment. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the Bill contained safeguards to prevent what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) said would happen. He also referred to his speeches in Committee.
  I will read one paragraph which shows that he has strong doubts on this:
  " If the process of collective bargaining, sought as a consequence of the introduction of equal pay, to readjust some differentials, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. But my right hon. Friend and I, if I may say so, would deprecate this being a consequence of the provisions of the Bill and something which would mitigate against its in troduction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 19th February, 1970; c. 46.]
  I do not know what the last four words mean. The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not want to happen what my hon. Friend said could happen. He has admitted that it might happen. The hon. Gentleman did not give any good reason for refusing to accept our simple Amendment to put this matter right. As my right hon. Friend said, if he does not like our Amendment we would be prepared to accept any which he produced which would have the same effect. It is up to the Government to give serious thought to this matter.
  I read through the proceedings in Committee as an impartial person and it seemed to me that there was a great muddle in the Government's thinking. I wish that they would accept the Amendment. Only by doing so or taking similar action will they make sense of this part of the Bill.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 233.

  Division No. 103.]

  AYES

  [8.30 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Cordle, John

  Harrison, Col. 8ir Harwood (Eye)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Costain, A. P.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hawkins, Paul

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

  Dance, James

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Davidson. James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Bell, Ronald

  Drayson, G. B.

  Holland, Philip

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Biffen, John

  Elliot, Capt. Waiter (Carshalton)

  Hordern, Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John:

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

  Hornby, Richard

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Emery, Peter

  Hunt, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Farr, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Body, Richard

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Foster, Sir John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Brewis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Brinton, Sir Tattoo

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  King, Tom

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Kitson, Timothy

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Clyn, Sir Richard

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Burden, F. A.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lancaster, Col. C. C.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lane, David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Lawler, Wallace

  Gary, Sir Robert

  Grieve, Percy

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Chataway, Christopher

  Gurden, Harold

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Clark, Henry

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Clegg, Walter

  Harrison, Brian (Mafdon)

  Lubbock, Eric

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Percival, Ian

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Pounder, Rafton

  Waddington, David

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Maddan, Martin

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wall, Patrick

  Maginnis, John E.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Walters, Dennis

  Marten, Neil

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

  Mawby, Ray

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Weatherill, Bernard

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

  Scott, Nicholas

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Monro, Hector

  Silvester, Frederick

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  More, Jasper

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Wright, Esmond

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Speed, Keith

  Wylie, N. R.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Murton, Oscar

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Nott, John

  Temple, John M.

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Mr. Anthony Grant.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Edwards, Robert (Billston)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

  Alldritt, Walter

  Ellis, John

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Allen, Scholefield

  English, Michael

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tlpt'n)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Judd, Frank

  Armstrong, Ernest

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

  Kelley, Richard

  Ashley, Jack

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Finch, Harold

  Latham, Arthur

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.)

  Lawson, George

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Barnes, Michael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Barnett, Joel

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ford, Ben

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Binns, John

  Forrester, John

  Luard, Evan

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Gardner, Tony

  McCann, John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Garrett, W. E.

  MacColl, James

  Booth, Albert

  Golding, John

  MacDermot, Niall

  Boston, Terence

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  McGuire, Michael

  Bradley, Tom

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mackie, John

  Brooks, Edwin

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Buchan, Norman

  Hamling, William

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hannan, William

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Harper, Joseph

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Marks, Kenneth

  Concannon, J. D.

  Haseldine, Norman

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hazell, Bert

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Cronin, John

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mendelson, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Henig, Stanley

  Millan, Bruce

  Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hobden, Dennis

  Moonman, Eric

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Hooley, Frank

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Horner, John

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn Douglas

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Dell, Edmund

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Moyle, Roland

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Dewar, Donald

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Murray, Albert

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hunter, Adam

  Neal, Harold

  Dickens, James

  Hynd, John

  Newens, Stan

  Dobson, Ray

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

  Doig, Peter

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Driberg, Tom

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Dunn, James A.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Ogden, Eric

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Durrwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Eadie, Afex

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oram, Albert E.

  528

  529

  Orbach, Maurice

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tinn, James

  Orme, Stanley

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Tuck, Raphael

  Oswald, Thomas

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

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

  Varley, Eric G.

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Rose Paul

  Walden, Brian(All Saints)

  Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Ron, Rt. Hn. William

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Park, Trevor

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Wallace, George

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

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

  Wells, William (Watsall, N.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Witkins, W. A.

  Pentland, Norman

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Sillars, J.

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Silverman, Julius

  Willson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Slater, Joseph

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Snow, Julian

  Woof, Robert

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Probert, Arthur

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Randall, Harry

  Symonds, J. B.

  Mr. Neil McBride and

  Rankin, John

  Taverne, Dick

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry

  Rees, Merlyn

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 16, leave out from ' differences ' to end of line 19.
  In Committee paragraph (b) was universally criticised and, indeed, shot up with withering fire from all directions. I hope that those who criticised will now feel that not only have we responded in the appropriate fashion, but also that we have more than fulfilled our undertaking to take it back and look at it again.
  We have come to the conclusion that the object we were seeking to attain is sufficiently secured by the words in subsection 4,
  " the differences (if any) between the things she does and the things they do are not of practical importance in relation to terms and conditions of employment ".
  The differences would be " of practical importance "—and, therefore, a woman would have no claim to equal treatment —if the men concerned were paid more than men doing the same work as the woman. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that paragraph (b) can be dropped, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.
  Mr. Holland: I was surprised to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that paragraph (b) was universally criticised in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my hon. Friends and I were merely concerned about certain words. We wanted to get rid of the double negative, but we were not party to the removal of the whole paragraph.
  The proceedings in Committee on this point virtually go from column 93 to
  530
  about column 99. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) thought that this would deal with the kind of anomaly which would arise in the extremely complicated arrangement, about which we all talked, concerning factory A, factory B and factory C and the various inter-relationships which existed between men and women in various factories in different parts of the country.
  I recall that the Minister explained that it was not the purpose of paragraph (b) to deal with that kind of situation but, taken with paragraph (a), to prevent a woman getting the best of both worlds by being able to change the comparison to suit her circumstances. For example, if a woman had already decided that the work she was doing was the same as that of a man in the same establishment she could then claim equality of pay. That was right and proper. But if she discovered that a man somewhere else was doing work which was broadly similar she might, without paragraph (b), be able to claim comparability with that man. Paragraph (b) would stop that happening because it would enable her to claim only the one comparison—namely, comparison with the man doing the same work. For that reason the Under-Secretary firmly rejected his hon. Friend's Amendment to delete this paragraph.
  8.45 p.m.
  I cannot understand why the Government have decided to delete this paragraph without taking any further action to deal with this kind of anomaly. If this paragraph is deleted, there ought to be something in its place. If the hon.

  531
  Gentleman does not like the wording of this paragraph, he ought to put something in its place to take care of the situation which he used as an illustration in Committee to show why he could not delete it. I do not understand how the kind of situation which the hon. Gentleman defended in Committee, and to which I have referred, can be safeguarded if this paragraph is deleted, and I hope that we shall get a much fuller explanation about this than we have had so far.
  I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will think very carefully and seriously about whether to proceed with the Amendment. If he does, it will not only create a lot of difficulty, but will give rise to anxiety and concern amongst those in industry who will have to implement the Bill when it becomes an Act, without the few safeguards that there are in it now.
  Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been taking notice of what my hon. Friend said in moving the Amendment. The Opposition are getting nearly everything for which they asked in Committee.
  Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, and he may have got that impression from what his hon. Friend said. In moving the Amendment the hon. Gentleman said that there was fairly universal criticism of this paragraph. If the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) reads the report of the Committee procedings, he will find that the criticism came mainly from his hon. Friends. The only matter which my right hon. Friend and I criticised was the use of a double negative.
  Mr. Reginald Eyre: We would be much happier if the double negative were removed. That was the basis of our case.
  Mr. Holland: That is not being removed, but the paragraph is. I assure the hon. Member for Sedgefield that the Opposition are not getting everything for which they asked. They have not asked for this paragraph to be removed because, after the discussions in Committee, they recognised that it acted as a safeguard against anomalies arising. What we cannot now understand is why this safeguard
  532
  is being removed without anything to replace it.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Unlike the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), I thank my hon. Friend for meeting me on this point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I moved this Amendment in Committee, and we had quite a debate on it. During that debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that—
  Miss J. M. Quennell: May I ask the hon. Lady to give the column reference of her hon. Friend's speech?
  Mrs. Short: I have not got there yet, but it is column 99. My hon. Friend said that he had had " to spend much time trying to grasp the meaning of the subsection ". That underlined what I said when I moved my Amendment, that the subsection was open to at least three different interpretations, and I set them out. I shall not bore the House by going through them again. Hon. Members can read the report if they are so minded. I said that the difficulty was that there were three possible interpretations, and I was not being facetious when I said that it was pure Peter Sellars and nobody could understand what it meant. My hon. Friend then said precisely the same thing —that he found great difficulty in grasping the meaning of this subsection. He explained that some of the thingsof which I was afraid were not involved and that all would be well.
  But, at the end of the debate en this Amendment, after several hon. Members had also confessed that they were foxed by the subsection, my hon. Friend said:
  " It seems the universal opinion of the Committee that this matter should be re-examined. I therefore express my willingness to take the provision back, look at it again and see if the words can be made more clearly to mean what I said earlier they did mean."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee H; 26th February, 1970, c. 99–106.]
  My hon. Friend has obviously decided that he could not take the words back and turn them around or provide a new selection of words to produce what he hoped to produce. So he has come back with the Amendment which I moved in Committee, to delete the whole subsection. I am grateful to him for doing this.
  Mr. Holland: This matter was raised also in column 99, when the Under-Secretary of State clearly stated the purpose of this subsection:
  "…to eliminate the situation in which a woman, by seeking to take advantage of the two fields of comparison open to her, would upset the male differentials."
  I am sure that the hon. Lady would accept that he made its purpose clear.
  Mrs. Short: Yes, he made it clear, but I and other hon. Members were not satisfied, so my hon. Friend gave this undertaking. He has carried it out, and I am grateful to him.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: However enigmatically, the Amendment enlarges the effect of the Bill. I have opposed the Bill on the broad ground that it is bad in conception. I have taken the view throughout, which I repeat, that it is incapable of improvement by Amendment. I am sure that that will be shown to be the position. This Amendment amply illustrates that. It is an Amendment to make the Bill worse by enlarging its effect. That being so, I certainly cannot support it.
  Mr. Speed: I agree with what was said earlier—we really must have some explanation from the Government of what will happen with the elimination of this paragraph. Undoubtedly, there was considerable criticism about the drafting of this Clause and the double negative and the Under-Secretary of State said that he would try to make it less muddled and difficult to understand.
  But, when arguing about this subsection, the hon. Gentleman said:
  " If a woman has established that she is on the same work as a man and has established the same terms and conditions of employment as that man, had it not been for subsection (4)(b) she would find herself subsequently in a position to make a further comparison with men elsewhere not on the same work but on like work. If she were able to say on the assumption that the man engaged on like work could be offered better pay than in the comparison she has already established with a man on the same work and she wants to draw the second comparison and establish the same rate of pay as men engaged on like work elsewhere and is able to succeed in that, the first man with whom she drew a comparison would be on lower pay than the other man."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 26th February, 1970; c. 98.]
  534
  It is a salutary experience to read what we said in Standing Committee, but I understand the Under-Secretary to be saying there—he elaborated it in columns 99 and 100—that there were substantial safeguards. We were arguing about the double negative. May we be assured that the safeguards still apply after the paragraph is withdrawn? We have had no such assurance tonight. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman was acting upon the most highly qualified legal advice.
  Accepting that this part of the Bill is extremely difficult, and has, perhaps, not been as well drafted as it might have been, I do not think we have had sufficient assurance about safeguards which, apparently, were essential on 26th February but which no longer seem to be essential. We are entitled to a somewhat fuller explanation than we have so far had.
  Miss Quennell: I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) in thanking the Under-Secretary for clarifying things by withdrawing part of the Clause. The hon. Gentleman was quite correct in saying that there was considerable criticism of the paragraph in Committee. The use of the double negative lends itself to confusion. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee felt that if the double negative means the affirmative the Bill might have been drafted in more positive language throughout to make it the more comprehensible.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who is deeply versed in the law, does not think that the Clause is capable of improvement as drafted, so the Under-Secretary might explain which earlier wording he considers to be adequate, so that we may be quite satisfied that the aspect dealt with by paragraph (b), which it is now sought to exclude, is satisfactorily covered.
  This is a difficult Clause. It occupies at least half of the Standing Committee OFFICIAL REPORT, and it took up the major part of the Committee's work. Clause 1 is the foundation of the Bill, and carries its whole purpose. We should, therefore, be satisfied of its proper drafting.
  Mr. William Wilson: If it is my hon. Friend's intention to delete paragraph (b) there is no need to have paragraph (a). He should run that paragraph in with the general subsection, and not differentiate. There is no point in having (a) without (b).
  Mr. Harold Walker: I have been astonished at the reaction of hon. Members opposite to a constructive and helpful response to what I believed to be a widely expressed distaste in Committee. I quite distinctly recall the Opposition spokesman in the Committee referring to the paragraph as gobbledegook, among other things. Criticism came from all quarters.
  I had to tell the Committee that we could not accept an Opposition Amendment designed to delete what was described as a double negative, because deletion would lead, amongst other things, to ambiguity and to misinterpretation by the courts. After very carefully examining the position, as I thought in response to the feelings expressed in the Committee, and after obtaining the best legal advice available, I thought that we had come to the right decision, and one which would have been widely if not universally welcomed by hon. Members who took part in the Standing Committee discussions.
  9.0 p.m.
  I said tonight that we had come to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that the object which we sought to attain by having the paragraph in was sufficiently secured by the introductory words of subsection (4):
  " A woman is to be regarded as employed on like work with men if, but only if, her work and theirs is of the same or a broadly similar nature, and the differences (if any) between the things she does and the things they do are not of practical importance …"
  Hon. Members have quoted what I said in Committee. I did not know until tonight that I had been so comprehensive, eloquent and lucid. It is flattering to me to have my words quoted by hon. Members opposite. However, I recall one unforgettable moment when the Chairman of the Committee had to confess that, because of the obscurity of this provision, he was not sure whether I was in or out of order. We were discussing the situa-
  536
  tion in which a hypothetical woman operative engaged on the same work as a man was possibly in a more advantageous position by having some other operative elsewhere in the establishment with whom she could make a comparison on a broadly similar work basis. Clearly, this ran the risk, if it came off, of upsetting male differentials.
  We have come to the conclusion that the third person with whom she might seek to make a broadly similar comparison would, in every case we can envisage, be a person in circumstances in which the differences would be of practical importance. We are now satisfied that it would be best, in order to meet a universally felt view in Committee, to delete subsection (4)(b). I am satisfied that we have the necessary safeguard to protect industry against the situation which might arise.
  Mr. R. Carr: The Under-Secretary of State always tries to be not only courteous, but helpful, and I assure him that we appreciate that. I am sorry if we seem ungrateful on this occasion, but he is under a misapprehension in thinking that we were anxious to remove this provision. It was one of his hon. Friends who tried to do that. I said in Committee:
  " All that we are seeking to do is to remove a double negative from the paragraph."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 26th February, 1970; c. 930.]
  When I used words like " gobbledegook ", which I may have done in the excitement of the moment, I was referring to the difficulty of understanding the Clause and the Government's explanations of it. I pointed out that I had been taught at school that it was always better to be positive rather than use a double negative.
  However, finally we came to the conclusion that we understood the Clause and that we had been convinced of its necessity. It is extraordinary that the Under-Secretary should have made a relatively long speech in Committee defending the subsection and then tonight make a very short speech saying that it is not necessary at all.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Did I not make a long speech defending " that has been "?
  Mr. Carr: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman did not convince us that those words were necessary. He succeeded, after much pain, grief and trouble—I was glad I was not in his shoes—in persuading us that there was some purpose in subsection (4)(b). Having done that at great length, now in a short speech he tells us that it is not necessary and that he expresses this latest view after the most careful consideration with legal experts. He must have had that careful examination and consultation with legal experts before he took the first view. Which view of legal experts are we to take?
  If I remember correctly, the hon. Gentleman was taking the view of legal experts almost continuously while we were considering this subsection. The whole time it was clear that the advice he was being given was substantiating the first advice he had been given, namely, that the subsection was necessary.
  For the benefit of those who were not members of the Standing Committee I shall quote a few of the things the hon. Gentleman said in defence of the subsection; because, in judging what he is doing, we should recall what he said in Committee:
  "Paragraph (b) is crucial to an understanding of the words ' broadly similar '."
  The words " broadly similar " are crucial to the Bill. They are the basis of the Bill. Anything that is crucial to the explanation, understanding and clarification of the basic principle of the Bill is of great importance and cannot be deleted like this.
  To illustrate how crucial it was, the Minister gave the Committee some examples and at the conclusion of those two sorts of example said that the results of what would happen without this provision
  " would be a nonsense and would upset the differentials…
  It is no part of the purpose of this Bill to upset the differentials which exist between men and men as a product of the existing collective bargaining system. We all know
  that anomalies exist, but it is not the function of this Bill to re-dress them …
  Subsection (4)(b) qualifies what otherwise would be the case. This is intended to be a restriction on a possible interpretation of what the hon. Member has drawn attention to in line 11, to eliminate the situation in which a woman, by seeking to take advantage of the two fields of comparison open to her, would upset the male differentials…
  The principal purpose of the subsection is to avoid the possibility of upsetting the differentials between men and men which are the product of the collective bargaining system, whatever the differences and illogicalities"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 26th February, 1970; c. 96–100.]
  These were just a few highlights in a long speech explaining why we must accept the provision. Tonight we have had no real explanation. The hon. Gentleman has merely said that he has taken further legal advice and can now assure us that all these things will not happen without the provision. He does no convince us. I wish he did, because I am sure that he now believes what he is saying, but he gave us a great deal of evidence to support his previous belief, whereas he has given us none to support his new and quite different belief.
  With that lack of evidence, I must reluctantly say to my hon. Friends that I feel that we shall have to divide the House on this Amendment. Although I realise that it is a different point in that it raises again the fear which we expressed on the previous Amendment that, contrary to the declared and accepted intention of the Government, the Bill as drafted, and now as amended, may lead to escalations and the upsetting of differentials which will not only have a far more inflationary effect in the total wage bill of the economy than the Government want or forecast, but, when it comes to upsetting differentials, could be a most undesirable cause of industrial strife.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 143.

  Division No. 104.]

  AYES

  [9.11 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Binns, John

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Alldritt, Walter

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Blackburn, F.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Barness, Michaet

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)

  Barnett, Joel

  Booth, Albert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bence, Cyrill

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Ashley, Jack

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Boston, Terence

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Bradley, Tom

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Oram, Albert E.

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Buchan, Norman

  Hunter, Adam

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hynd, John

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Park, Trevor

  Conlan, Bernard

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Cronin, John

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Dalyell, Tom

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)

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

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Judd, Frank

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

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

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Probert, Arthur

  Dell, Edmund

  Latham, Arthur

  Rankin, John

  Dempsey, James

  Lawson, George

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dewar, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Dickens, James

  Lee, John (Reading)

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

  Dobson, Ray

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rose, Paul

  Driberg, Tom

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Dunn, James A.

  Luard, Evan

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lubbock, Eric

  Sheldon, Robert

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Ellis, John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

  English, Michael

  McCann, John

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Faulds, Andrew

  MacColl, James

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Sillars, J.

  Finch, Harold

  McGuire, Michael

  Silverman, Julius

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Slater, Joseph

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackenzie, Cregor (Rutherglen)

  Snow, Julian

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mackie, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Ford, Ben

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Forrester, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Fowler, Gerry

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Tinn, James

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Gardner, Tony

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Urwin, T. w.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Golding, John

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

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mendelson, John

  Wallace, George

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Bruce

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hamling, William

  Moonman, Eric

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Hannan, William

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Juudith

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hazell, Bert

  Moyle, Roland

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Neal, Harold

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stan

  Woof, Robert

  Henig, Stanley

  Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip

  Hobden, Dennis

  Norwood, Christopher

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hooley, Frank

  Oakes, Gordon

  Mr. Neil McBride and

  Hooson, Emlyn Horner, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. J. D. Concannon.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  O'Halloran, Michael

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Black, S r Cyril

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Chataway, Christopher

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Body, Richard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

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

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Clark, Henry

  Awdry Daniel

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Clegg, Walter

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

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

  Cordle John

  Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Bennett Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Costain, A. p.

  Biffen, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)

  540

  541

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Dance, James

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Julian

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

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Emery, Peter

  King, Tom

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

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Silvester, Frederick

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lane, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Farr, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Speed, Keith

  Foster, Sir John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fry, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McMaster, Stanley

  Temple, John M.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForcst)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Maddan, Martin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maginnis, John E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marten, Neil

  Waddington, David

  Cower, Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Grieve, Percy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wall, Patrick

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

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

  Walters, Dennis

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  More, Jasper

  Weatherhill, Bernard

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Morgan, Goraint (Denbigh)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Murton, Oscar

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wright, Esmond

  Holland, Philip

  Nott, John

  Wylie, N. R.

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hornby, Richard

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Hunt, John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Anthony Grant and

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  Mr. Speed: I beg to move, Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
  (5) The work done by women shall be evaluated by the same methods as are used for men and equal pay shall be given for those components of the work which are shown to he equal.
  Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that with this Amendment we should take the following Amendments: No. 5, in line 21, leave out ' work ' and insert ' job '.
  No. 6, in line 22, leave out ' work ' and insert job '.
  No. 7, in line 23, leave out ' the ' and insert ' a '.
  No. 8, in line 23, leave out ' in effort, skill, decision and other factors ' and insert:
  ' under various headings (for instance effort, skill, decision)'.
  No. 9, in line 23, leave out 'in effort, skill, decision and other factors '.
  No. 10, in line 28, leave out ' on the same factor for men and women ' and insert:
  for men and women on the same demand under any heading '.
  Mr. Speed: I will not say much about the right hon. Lady's Amendments, which we are considering with my Amendment. They go some considerable way to meeting points which were raised in Committee, but there remains a major objection, which is why I have moved this Amendment: we believe that the Bill still misunderstands the method and practice of job evaluation. I know that the subsection which we propose to delete derives from subsection 1(b) and amplifies the provisions of that paragraph. Nevertheless, the subsection seems to misunderstand the working of job evaluation.
  In fact, job evaluation is important, as was said on both sides of the Committee. We had considerable support from hon. Members opposite when moving a similar Amendment in Committee. Job evaluation is not an exact science. It is still based on individual opinions and is still changing. It is still a matter of subjective judgement. But certain principles are agreed, and they are not fully understood by the present wording of the Bill.
  Report No. 83 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes was quoted in part on the subject in Committee. I

  543
  should like to quote one or two paragraphs which are relevant. Paragraph 7, on page 3 reads:
  " Job evaluation is impersonal in the sense that it is concerned solely with jobs, not with the particular quality, competence or effort of the individuals who perform them."
  I agree completely with that. It seems to me that that is where the wording of the Bill is faulty. It continues:
  " In intention, at least, it is the job that is evaluated, not the job's current occupant."
  I say " Hear, hear " to that. It adds:
  "Job evaluation is concerned, therefore, with the determination of basic wage-rate or salary structures. Where it is desired to reward such elements as individual performance or long service, other components must be added to the job evaluated base to make up the total pay structure."
  I am sure that that is fundamentally right, and it is completely opposed to the subsection which we are seeking to delete.
  I turn to paragraph 142, on page 41, although I will not quote the whole of the paragraph. Part of the paragraph reads:
  " Apart from the advantage which job evaluation offers to management by establishing an accepted pay structure, thus limiting discontent and ' leapfrogging ' claims by different sections of the working force, it also forces on management the same disciplined approach to personnel problems as is required in other spheres."
  There are definitions of " job evaluation " listed on page 48 of the Report. The International Labour Office, in 1960, said:
  " Job evaluation rates the job, not the man."
  The United States Department of Labour, Bureau of Labour Statistics, Washington, 1950, says that job evaluation
  " is always applied to jobs rather than to qualities of individuals in the jobs."
  It is our criticism of the subsection that it does not do those things, but applies to the individual rather than to jobs. It talks of the demands on the individual rather looking at what the job is about.
  If we are to make sense of the Bill, and the Bill is to be widely accepted, as we all hope it will be, it is important, when we are dealing with comparatively new and sophisticated techniques, that the wording of the Bill should not be directly
  544
  contrary to what is generally understood by industry, trade unions and other people who have made it their business to discuss job evaluation. A job can be evaluated and described in a system by a number of different means and methods.
  The demands on an individual can vary with his physical and mental capacity, his aptitudes, and even as to whether he had a good breakfast or had a row with his spouse before leaving for work. A worker on a specific job can at different times in the same day be stretched at the same job and find that he has not the capability to do the job properly, while at other times he finds that he is coasting along and the job is well within his capacity. All these things are ignored or misunderstood by the wording of the subsection.
  Our Amendment seeks to define job evaluation as understood by industry, by the unions, by the I.L.O. and by the N.B.P.I. It is in that spirit I put forward the Amendment.
  Mr. Harold Walker: These Amendments reflect long discussion in Committee on what I referred to one at one stage as the quagmire or minefield of job evaluation. The subsequent discussion proved my description to be justified.
  Amendment No. 4 reflects one of the debates we had in Committee and I am surprised that the Opposition still seem to think that the form of words they have chosen has a kind of sanctity endowed by the N.B.P.I. That board used these words in a recommendation in a report on the Armed Forces, but there is a difference between the words used in such a recommendation and words to be embodied in a Statute.
  The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) drew attention to the link which exists between subsection (5) and subsection (1). Subsection (1)(b) says that men and women should get equal treatment when they are employed on work that has been rated as equivalent. Subsection (5) defines in careful detail the circumstances in which work is to be regarded as " rated as equivalent". The redraft proposed in the Amendment does not, on the face of it, relate back to subsection (1)(b). It is not clear whether the subsection as amended is intended to be restricted to situations where a proper job

  545
  evaluation exercise has been carried out. A great deal depends on the meaning to be given to the word " evaluated ". Quite rightly, the hon. Member has drawn attention to the precise way in which this is sought to be used these days compared with the loose, jargon-like way in which it was used in the past.
  I think that the Committee agreed with me when I said that there is a certain amount of scientific misuse of the word and that to describe it as a science, as some people do, is to mislead. At best, it is a quasi-science.
  Mr. Holland: It is because we certainly go along with much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said that we have prepared the Amendment, which simply lays down that the work done by a woman shall be evaluated by the same methods as are used for men. Whatever form of job evaluation is used—and there are different forms and variations—the same method should be used in evaluating the work of women.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Walker: if the hon. Gentleman will wait until the end of my speech, he will see that we are very much aware of the argument, and it is our argument that the subsection meets that point. We are now repeating one of the arguments in Committee. On the ordinary meaning of words, the amended subsection would apply to any kind of evaluation, that is, one not necessarily based on a job evaluation exercise but possibly and probably one that was merely the result of negotiation or of an employer's general judgment, or, as I described in Committee, possibly a carve-up between male-dominated trade unions and an employer. It is meaningless to say that where men's work is evaluated by negotiation or an employer's general judgment women's work should be evaluated " by the same methods ". In these sets of circumstances the situation is taken care of by Clause 3.
  The second half of the proposed sub-section says:
  "… equal pay shall be given for those components of the work which are shown to be equal."
  It is our view that this point is already covered by subsection (1)(b), which says that men and women must get equal
  546
  treatment where their work has been rated as equivalent and where
  " the terms and conditions of both are determined by the rating of their work ".
  For these reasons, the proposed new subsection must be unacceptable to the Government.
  With this Amendment we are discussing Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 tabled by my right hon. Friend. We had a lengthy debate on the subsection in Committee, when various criticisms were made, and our Amendments are in response to the views expressed in Committee. The N.B.P.I. Report emphasising the importance of rating the job and not the worker was the subject of some criticism of the Clause. We have sought to respond positively and I hope in a manner that will be acceptable to the Opposition and my hon. Friends who made the same points in Committee.
  Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together make it clear that it is the job that is being evaluated. Amendment No. 8 makes it clear that " effort, skill, decision ", words which were the subject of criticism in Committee, are only examples of the sort of factor which should be used in a typical evaluation scheme, and that it is not necessary for all these headings or factors to be included in a job evaluation scheme for that scheme to be covered by subsection (5).
  Amendment No. 10 makes it clear, as the present wording does not, that a man's job and a woman's job must be given the same value under any particular, heading of a job evaluation system only when the jobs make the same demand on a worker under that heading.
  We consider that, taken together, the Amendments are an improvement on the subsection. I should express our gratitude to the Committee members on both sides who drew our attention to these points and have strengthened the subsection as a result.
  I hope that my explanation of the Government Amendments will also be treated as a reply to the point made in Opposition Amendment No. 9. We have sought to meet the point raised in Committee and largely embodied in the Amendment.
  Mr. Christopher Ward: The Minister referred to the quagmire through

  547
  which he was wading in connection with these provisions. There is one relatively straightforward route through it and it starts off in Clause 1(b), where we are talking about equivalent work and trying to decide, evaluate, or judge in some way what that is. What I do not understand is why, when we come to (5), instead of evaluating the work or the job we alter the concept by introducing an entirely subjective element and try to evaluate the demand which it makes upon the worker, which may be a different thing from time to time.
  It may be, and this is something which I do not think my hon. Friend dared to mention on the Bill, that the demand upon the worker may vary according to whether the worker is a man or a woman. If the job is shovelling coal, clearly this will make a very much greater demand on a woman than it might on a man. To say that we must evaluate or judge in some way the demand made on the worker when the worker must either be a man or a woman for the purpose of this exercise, seems to be a nonsense, departing from the fairly clear statement in 1(b).
  Then the Government say that they will delete " the " and insert " a ", so that they will assess the demand made on a worker. That does not take us very far at all. Before we knew that we were talking about either a man or a woman. Now we have to determine what the demand might be on a worker without knowing whether it is to be a man or a woman. On what sort of worker will the Minister assess the demand? Will there be a British Standard worker on which we can assess the demand, which will be a mixture in some proportion between man and woman, having an appropriate proportion of the capabilities of both?
  Unless the Minister has a concept of this sort I do not see how we can assess the demand which the job will make on a worker. It is this concept of the demand on a worker instead of the work for the job which makes this subsection so difficult and that is why I support the Amendment.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: I had criticisms to make about this in Committee and the Government Amendments help materially to eliminate some of my
  548
  fears. Looking at the Opposition Amendment, I would have thought that the first line would be acceptable—perhaps not necessary, but acceptable. But when the Opposition go on to say that certain components of the work should be accepted for equal pay it may be that that would be contravening the whole principle of the Bill.
  There are many skilled rates which do not mean that the skilled man is working to the full extent of his capacity during the whole time that he is doing the job. One of the qualities of management is to get the greatest amount of skilled work out of a man. It would be a mistake to believe that at all times he would be working to 100 per cent. of his capacity on skilled work.
  If we follow the suggestion literally in the second line of the Opposition Amendment it seems that we would get into an awful jam. We would be giving the equivalent of the skilled rate for that part of the job applicable to his skill, but refusing to do so for the parts which were not applicable. At the end of the day there would be a huge conglomeration of differentials which could not be applied. Hon. Members opposite have tried to meet a difficult situation, but their Amendment would not achieve what obviously they are trying to achieve.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: I appreciate that there is some basis in the case put forward by the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), but the phrase " broadly similar work ", which is a key phrase of the Bill, would take account of that position. Where there was a majority of components this trouble would not arise. We put forward our Amendment because it is better than the longer and more complicated phraseology in the Bill. We are sorry that the Government cannot accept it, or something like it.
  We welcome the approach of the Under-Secretary, who has gone some way to meet the points made in Committee on this difficult part of the Bill. Although we are sorry that he cannot accept our Amendment, which would interpret the Bill more successfully, with the Amendments the Government have put forward subsection (5) will be much more intelligible to the ordinary person. That will be done by replacing the word

  549
  " work " by the word " job ". I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has even now got it entirely right by using the various headings of " effort, skill, decision ". The previous wording was rather arbitrary and it would have been better to leave the subsection out altogether, but the hon. Gentleman has gone some way to meet us.
  In Committee we were very critical of the drafting of this Bill, particularly as we are trying to pioneer new ground. We considered that the drafting should be as simple and clear as possible. This subsection is far from simple or clear. I have held the view that Bills are sometimes drafted by lawyers for interpretation by lawyers. This part of the Bill will have to be interpreted by laymen on both sides of industry—by trade unions and employees and by employers. It is important that they should understand what is meant. I have had the impression that the harder the Government have tried to define the question of job evaluation and comparability of work the further they have got into the quagmire. The harder one tries to define the more obscure the meaning sometimes becomes. Therefore, any amendment of this part of the Bill is welcome.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) was right to say that job evaluation is an impersonal exercise. It is important that it should be so if it is to be effective. This subsection as drafted, and even when it is amended, will deal with the individual. I do not wish to press our Amendment to a Division because we agree that there are complications, but the phrase " the same methods " would tie up with subsection (1)(b).
  We thank the hon. Gentleman for paying attention to what was said in Committee. This proves that Committees can be valuable if Governments pay attention to points made by hon. Members. By putting forward these changes the Under-Secretary has helped to make the Bill more effective.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Whilst I welcome the Amendments which the Government have made, I regret that they have not given more thought to this Amendment, the object of which is to introduce simplicity; otherwise, the Bill will be a lawyers' paradise. It would be tragic.
  550
  when both sides of the House are united, if the Bill failed because we are unable to express our objectives clearly and concisely. The Clause, even as amended. is open to misconstruction and misinterpretation. The Amendment sets out quite simply what we want, which is that the same yardstick shall be applied to the evaluation of women's work as to men's work, which is what the Bill is about.
  Mr. Speed: Half a loaf is indubitably more nourishing than no bread.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No 5, in page 2, line 21, leave out ' work ' and insert ' job '.
  No. 6, in line 22, leave out ' work ' and insert job '.
  No. 7, in line 23, leave out ' the ' and insert a '.
  No. 8, in line 23, leave out ' in effort, skill, decision and other factors ' and insert under various headings (for instance effort, skill, decision) '.
  No. 10, in line 28 leave out ' on the same factor for men and women ' and insert:
  ' for men and women on the same demand under any heading '.—[Mrs. Castle.]
  Mrs. Renée Short: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 28, at end insert:
  'At any place of work where there is a recognised trade union or unions, the job shall be jointly evaluated by the employer and the appropriate recognised trade union or unions '.
  In Committee, I moved an Amendment which aimed at bringing the trade unions into evaluation exercises carried out at any work place, to make sure that the trade unions were consulted and were carried along at every stage of the evaluation exercise. My hon. Friend, in reply, said that technically the Amendment was not progressive, but would have a restrictive result by precluding the carrying out of evaluation exercises at places of work which had no trade union organisation.
  This Amendment make it clear that at places of work where there are recognised registered trade unions or a trade union, those unions or that union shall be consulted where job evaluation exercises are

  551
  conducted to determine equal pay for work of broadly similar value.
  A basic requirement is that we should carry the trade unions with us. For employers to carry out job evaluation exercises without consulting the trade unions is a recipe for disaster. At the end of the day, if the unions are not satisfied—as they may well not be if they are not consulted—the exercise may be in vain, and the result may not be accepted by the trade unions.
  As we have heard, more and more job evaluation is needed. Although it is unscientific, it is often the only means of assessing the value of a job, or part of a job, in determining the pay of the workers who carry it out.
  We have had a good deal of strong and firm advice about the way in which the trade unions should be consulted in this kind of exercise. We had it in the report of the Prices and Incomes Board, which said clearly that they ought to be consulted. A classic example of the way in which this exercise should be carried out occurred when the coal industry was nationalised. An enormous and comprehensive job evaluation exercise was carried out throughout the whole industry in consultation with the unions concerned, who were brought in from the very beginning. The job was done with the minimum of friction and difficulty simply because the unions had been brought in.
  Recently, the T.U.C. Women's Conference brought out a report on equal pay. Obviously, these are the women trade unionists most concerned with the Bill. The report says that the Bill should be amended along the lines I suggest, in order to make provision for consultation with the trade unions. We thus have firm evidence of a desire by the trade unionists most concerned for an Amendment to this effect.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that an evaluation exercise could be the employer's own crude judgment. This is what the Amendment seeks to guard against. In a firm where there is strong trade union organisation, there will not be this difficulty because the unions will ensure that they are consulted and are brought in at every stage of the exercise. But one is also concerned with those firms where
  552
  there is weak trade union organisation, where the unions are not in a position to enjoy the same kind of consultation with the employers as in a firm where there is strong trade union organisation. Spurious schemes could well be put forward by such employers which were completely unacceptable to the trade unions. In Committee, my hon. Friend was clearly aware of this possibility.
  One of the advantages of the Amendment is that it would encourage trade unions to organise themselves and set up the kind of negotiating machinery we want to see in factories and other work places. It would give them encouragement and great kudos if they were able to organise and meet the employers on equal terms. But, to do this, they have to recruit membership within such places so that they are able to meet the employers to discuss these very important problems. It is in the interests of the working people within different places of work and in the interests of the trade unions concerned. There is great and authoritative support for the Amendment.
  My hon. Friend was obviously won over to this view in Committee. He made it clear that he supported the principle when he said:
  "I agree with the view, not confined to one side of the Committee"—
  this was so, since many hon. Members on both sides spoke on the similar Amendment then before the Committee—
  "that before—indeed, this should apply to schemes after they have been established—the introduction of job evaluation schemes there should be the fullest consultation with trade union representatives and the maximum possible agreement reached."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee H. 26th February, 1970: c. 126.]
  I assume from what the Minister said that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment. It is desired by and in the interests of the trade unions. Indeed, it is in the employers' interests to carry the trade unions with them from the beginning of the exercise. We know that if the trade unions are consulted that is half the battle. A great deal of our industrial difficulties arise because there is no consultation with the trade unions. So my right hon. Friend is taking out a very good insurance policy for the minimum of friction if she accepts the Amendment—[Interruption.] " In Place

  553
  of Strife " is, indeed, a very good insurance policy.
  I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment and will bask in the pleasure that this will bring not only to trade union Members in this House, but also to all women trade unionists outside and to those trade unions which have already gone on record in support of the Bill.
  Mr. Holland: As a practitioner in personnel management, who has carried out job evaluation schemes in three firms for both staff and employers, I am bewildered by the wording of the Amendment. I fail to understand how the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) can link it with what the Under-Secretary said in Committee at column 126. While I agree with what the Under-Secretary said, I cannot find that this is in line with what is proposed in the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman said that there should be the fullest consultation. Before starting any job evaluation scheme one should consult and make certain that not only the trade union representatives and shop stewards, but also the employees know what is proposed.
  Mr. John Ellis: Not always.
  Mr. Holland: I am saying that that is what should be done. One must make sure of this to have a successful exercise. Without willing co-operation by the people doing the jobs being evaluated a successful exercise is not possible. There must be willing co-operation to get a successful exercise—
  Mrs. Renée Short Mrs. Renée Short rose—
  Mr. Holland: If the hon. Lady will be patient, I will explain why this is not what the Amendment would achieve. It is only with the willing co-operation of and understanding by the employees of what is being done that one can hope to achieve a reasonable result and a reasonable basis for deciding comparability of work and job.
  This is not an exact science. It is still in the process of development. It has progressed from what it was 10 years ago, but it is still not an exact science. Therefore, it needs all the help that it can get to achieve a successful outcome.
  554
  I agree that there must be consultation. This is inherent in doing a good and efficient job. But I do not see how two bodies can share the job other than the way in which the employee shares it with management. The employee being assessed fills in a form, the departmental head or supervisor also fills in a form, and the two are considered together and evaluated by a small committee of people with wide experience in that industry or undertaking.
  This is a joint effort, but it is not a matter of management and unions vying with each other, or working together in doing it.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  Mr. Ellis: The hon. Gentleman is trying to teach his grandmother how to suck eggs.
  Mr. Holland: Not quite. There must be consultation before the commencement of what is to be done, but that is different from what the Amendment says. It says that the job shall be jointly evaluated by the employer and the trade unions.
  Mr. Ellis: Would the hon. Gentleman go as far as saying that there must be, not just explanation, but agreement?
  Mr. Holland: I said at the beginning of my speech that ther must be willing co-operation, and one does not get that if there is not agreement with employees, not just employee's representatives, because it is the employees who fill in the forms. They must know what it is all about if they are to co-operate, and that is where I cavil at the Amendment.
  I agreed with a lot of what the hon. Lady said when she talked about consultation, but I cannot agree that this job can be done jointly by bodies with differing interests.
  Mrs. Renée Short: It seems that there is nothing between us. The hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with most

  555
  of what I said about consultation, and what follows from the initial consultation between employers and trade unions on a job evaluation exercise. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will join me in the Lobby this evening if it is necesary to divide?
  Mr. Holland: In industrial relations, and in politics, we are supposed to be able to communicate ideas and thoughts. It appears that I have failed utterly tonight to communicate my ideas to the hon. Lady. I agree with what she said about consultation, agreement, and cooperation before the exercise is undertaken, but I do not understand how this can be organised and directed by two different bodies. There has to be a central direction once it is in operation.
  That is why I cannot accept the wording of Amendment, which says that the job shall be jointly evaluated. I find this difficult to follow, and impossible to support, because I do not understand what it is getting at. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite understand what I am getting at, even if the hon. Lady does not.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the whole exercise should be carried out by managerial representatives, but that it should be agreed to by employees and their representatives, the trade unions?
  Mr. Holland: Nearly, but not quite, because the evaluation exercise is carried out by the employee, the supervisor, the departmental head, and people who are concerned with the matter. It is not just the management, as the hon. Gentleman put it.
  What I am saying is that before any evaluation of comparability between jobs is started there should be the fullest consultation with employees, and that if there are trade union representatives they, too, should be brought into the discussion. There should be complete understanding of what is being done, and how. Once that is achieved, one can rely on full and willing co-operation in evaluating and making comparisons between one type of work and another.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: What my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is saying
  556
  is that she wants it to be a joint exercise right from the start.
  Mr. Holland: Yes, and it is when one gets beyond the start of the actual mechanics of the thing that I do not understand how it can be a joint exercise. This is where I differ from the hon. Lady although I go with her right up to that point. That is why I sincerely regret that I cannot follow her into the Lobby. It is on that ground and that ground alone. However, on the concentration, of course I agree with her.
  Mr. Albert Booth: The subject of the Amendment will be crucial to the majority of the women who can benefit from the Bill. A minority will benefit from the wage-fixing aspect and a minority from the like work provision, but a majority will be able to benefit from the job evaluation provision, providing that it is done properly and democratically. The danger of not having women represented by union representatives at the point of job evaluation is that different criteria can be used in evaluating the jobs done by women and those done by men.
  Job evaluation schemes are already sufficiently sophisticated to be designed to produce predetermined results within fairly narrow limits. Unless the guidelines of job evaluation are agreed in advance between the employers and union representatives of the women employed in the works, there is no adequate protection to ensure that this part of the Bill will operate correctly.
  Mr. Holland: Would the hon. Gentleman define guidelines? Is he talking about the factors used in a job evaluation scheme? These are usually formally set out in general use, and many different firms use the same factors. Does he mean the weighting given to each factor? What other criteria has he in mind when talking about guidelines? How far does he go?
  Mr. Booth: I used the term " guidelines " as a shorthand to cover factors and weighting. Both have to be covered in an agreement on guidelines. The only effective safeguard is trade union representation at this point. It can be argued that Clause 1(5) gives some statutory guidance about the acceptable form of

  557
  job evaluation, but in practice this could not possibly safeguard a woman.
  To try to use this, a woman would have to say to a tribunal, " I want equal pay on the basis of job evaluation, but the job evaluation scheme in my firm does not correspond with Section 5(1)", and then argue that case. Not one woman in a thousand in industry would seek that course to obtain equal pay. What a woman in industry will do is look to her union to safeguard her conditions when jobs are being evaluated. So it is fundamental to have trade union representation at the point of job evaluation.
  I would not want us to be bogged down on the words of the Amendment. Enough hon. Members with knowledge of industry, at least on this side, know how this thing can work in practice and what we mean when we say that there should be agreement between employers and unions on guidelines before progress is made on job evaluation.
  I appeal to the Secretary of State to overcome this serious difficulty by agreeing to accept the words which the T.U.C. has included in the report which will be put before the T.U.C. Wowen's Conference which takes place tomorrow and on Friday at Weymouth. These words are simple and straightforward and they come from page 19, paragraph 54 of this report:
  " The General Council consider that the best safeguard would be to amend the Clause in order to ensure that when job evaluation exercises are undertaken, there must—at all stages —be agreement by the trade unions concerned and they have suggested that Clause 1(5) should be appropriately amended."
  I am sure that the House will understand what is meant by that simple phraseology.
  If the right hon. Gentleman will accept that to be the purpose of the Amendment we can all go away happy this evening. If not, many of us will be forced to support the Amendment in a Division.
  Mr. John Hall: I intervene briefly because a firm with which I am concerned has had job evaluation going on for about 10 years which is accepted as fair by those whom it affects.
  There is a measure of agreement on both sides of the House on this matter. The issue is really a question of the wording of the Amendment. It might meet the case for all concerned if the latter part of the Amendment were to
  558
  read, " and the job shall be evaluated after full consultation with the appropriate recognised trade union or unions ".
  What we all want is full consultation with the trade unions—
  Mr. Ellis: We are on the right track; we are making progress. But it is not just a question of explanation. What we want is that one step forward to agreement. If we can have that, it is fine.
  Mr. Hall: I would not dissent, because without agreement with the employers and the recognised trade union representatives we get nowhere. Employers require the guidance and help of the trade union representatives, who can explain exactly what is happening, and why it is happening, and can help employers with their problems. 1 am sure that we ail accept the spirit of the Amendment, but some of us on both sides will Lind great difficulty in supporting it as it is at present worded.
  Mr. Orme: The Amendment and its inference go to the kernel of the problem. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) spoke of the mutuality within industry. When the engineering agreement was approved about 15 months ago, this question of mutuality was at the centre of much of the dispute between the engineering unions and the engineering employers. Mutuality gives employees the right to negotiation at all stages whatever may be the issue within the factory.
  When we move on from male employees to female employees, mutuality becomes more essential than ever. My right hon. Friend, who is so keen on women asserting their rights, and who recognises the need for women to be in trade unions, must also recognise that if this provision is not written into the Bill women will still not have pressure put on them to appreciate that their interests lie within the trade unions, and negotiations, and particularly job evaluation, within many factories will take place without their views being consulted.
  " Job evaluation " is an easy phrase, but those of us who have worked in industry for some years know exactly what it means. As soon as it takes place one can either have friction, mistrust and industrial disputes, or one can have negotiations with the employers which are meaningful, and which both

  559
  employers and trade unions accept. Friction can be caused by job evaluation.
  10.15 p.m.
  This is an absolutely central issue. My right hon. Friend has been concerned about worker participation in industry and that workers should play an important part in industry. That can happen only if women in industry have the opportunity of full consultation. I hope that she will accept what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has said. There appears to be a great deal of agreement in the House in this issue. The hon. Member for Carlton considerably narrowed the differences on it.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises that there is a wide measure of agreement in the House and that the question of consultation is at the centre of it. I hope that we can write into the Bill, if not the words which my hon. Friend suggests in his Amendment, then something like the T.U.C.'s suggestion. The T.U.C. suggests that provision about consultation should be written into the Bill to make it apparent that it is in the interests of employers and employees that the trade unions should be consulted.
  This is a matter of great principle. The T.U.C. has made many suggestions about the Bill to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She has not been able to meet many of them. I support the general principle in the Bill. I recognise my right hon. Friend's difficulties, but I urge her to meet the point which has been raised tonight.
  Sir D. Glover: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said. There is a great deal to be said for the Amendment. I would not argue about the form of words. What strikes me, as a non-member of the Committee, is that there is all too little about trade union participation in the Bill. I have tabled an Amendment about the rôle and activities of the trade unions. I visualise that the only vehicle which would be able to deal with job evaluation and with questions of equal pay on an equitable basis with the employers is the trade union. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Too many impromptu debates are taking place.
  Sir D. Glover: I do not think any hon. Member wishes to be adamant about the wording of the Amendment. No one thinks that it is sacrosanct. It is admitted that there may be weaknesses in its wording. However, we should like to hear from the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State that some provision to deal with the point will be written into the Bill, perhaps in another place. If it is not, the Bill will be short of the practical machinery necessary to solve many of the problems which will inevitably arise.
  I hope that the right hon. Lady realises that there is a good deal of agreement on both sides of the House about this problem. Perhaps she would view the Amendment with sympathy.
  Mr. John Lee: There is a great deal of agreement on this matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not feel inhibited from taking a favourable view of the situation merely because of certain textual criticisms which may be made of the Amendment. Earlier, there was criticism of the wording of Amendments and it was said that the more closely we tried to define these matters the more difficult they became. That is not the right approach. There is not a clear distinction between consultation and integrating the trade unions in the process of evaluation.
  The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and his hon. Friends have taken a reasonable attitude, but I believe that they draw an artificial distinction. I have worked as a member of a grading team. It is important that all those involved in the exercise should be incorporated from the start.
  Mr. Holland: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to imply that I have a purely textual objection to the Amendment. I have a real and solid objection to something which I believe is impracticable. Our agreement was with many of the right hon. Lady's statements about consultation—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Report. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment. Any intervention should be brief.
  Mr. Lee: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. Having gone ac far as

  561
  he has and shown considerable sympathy with the purport of the Amendment, I am surprised that he is unable to go the whole way with it.
  I have taken part in grading exercises. Such an exercise is rarely done by one or two people. Many people are involved. There has to be a great to-ing and fro-ing with those whose jobs are being evaluated. If an Amendment such as this is not accepted, even where there has been sympathetic and conscientious consultation with those whose jobs are under consideration a decision may be made which turns out to be unpopular and all the consultation which has taken place will not sugar the pill, because the decision will he made by one side. As long as this is being treated as exclusively a managerial decision, there is the likelihood of friction arising.
  Although job evaluation is not a precise and scientific exercise, a considerable body of knowledge has been built up over the last 15 years. The criteria are not known only to management. The trade unions and their research organisations can avail themselves of the data. There is no reason why they should not participate in the process of evaluation.
  I know that my right hon. Friend is concerned to secure good labour relations. She has had some traumatic experiences during the last year. If she accepts an Amendment such as this, she will not only endear herself to hon. Members below the Gangway but will make life easier for herself in her relations with the trade unions.
  Mr. Ellis: I am convinced that there is nothing dividing me from the hon. Members for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). Hon. Members feel that the words
  " the job shall be jointly evaluated by the employer and the appropriate recognised trade union "
  will result in a mish-mash of a trade unionist and a management representative, neither of whom knows anything about the technical aspect of the job, but who will go round the works making a meal of it. That is not what we on this side of the House want to see. Indeed, there is general agreement in the House about what we want to achieve—a fact of which I am sure my right hon. Friend is sensible.
  562
  We feel that this issue is crucial. We all know of the sophisticated techniques of job evaluation, but it is unthinkable that a group of men about to undertake job evaluation should charge into a factory and begin taking measurements without first telling the trade unions about it. Were they not to tell the trade unions it would be a recipe for industrial disaster. In practice, the trade unions are informed and there is discussion and explanation in respect of the criteria, and there is agreement. Both hon. Gentlemen opposite agreed with me about that.
  There may be some argument about the drafting of the Clause, but it is clear in principle that we want to ensure consultation. We want to see that where trade unions are established in a factory, the men undertaking job evaluation do not charge into the factory unannounced, but that first, there are explanations and agreements. There will be agreement about what is to happen and about the criteria. They will then move on to the factory floor. Often they are technical men doing a technical job. But they are not employers' men and they are not trade union men. There is usually agreement on both sides of the industry about the jobs which they are to evaluate.
  I believe, from the murmurs of approval which I hear, that I have carried the House with me so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) hit the nail on the head when he said that what we are seeking to state is that when job evaluation exercises are undertaken, there must be trade union agreement at all stages. That is crucial.
  I believe that we are all agreed about this matter. It was a mistake for a suggestion of a Division to be made in this atmosphere of sweet reasonableness and light. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not deal with the Amendment on technical grounds. I hope that she will say that she understands the argument and will see that the necessary Amendment is made in another place. If she says that, presumably hon. Members opposite will be happy and I shall be happy, and we shall have achieved what we do not often achieve—sweet reasonableness and light.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I want to make only four short points. It is obvious that the spirit of the Amendment is generally acceptable, although I have reservations whether it ought to be written in the Bill, certainly in the words on the Notice Paper. The word " shall " is an impossible word to use in this context, because it removes all flexibility from management and at the end of the day job evaluation is essentially a matter for management decision. That is not to say that management should not consult the trade unions. It would be remiss of any management concerned with job evaluation not to consult the trade unions.
  Most managements today do this. Clearly, it is the trade unions' job to work within the factory or works to see that management does consult with them. There are many demarcation disputes in industry and they usually arise because trade unions are engaged with management in consultation on job evaluation. It often happens that a dispute arises because one union cannot agree with another. To ask management to consult with trade unions would be putting the obvious into the Bill, because this is what happens.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Not always.
  Mr. Lewis: The general structure of the Bill as far as it applies to equal pay will encourage them to do so. I am not sure where this comes in on equal pay, since the whole of the Bill is based on the need for management to have a look at the pay structure of women in relation to men. In so far as they have to do this in any event, under the Bill they will be involved in a revaluation of jobs as they relate to women and as applied to the rates that men are receiving.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that some trade unions are now training their staff in the techniques of job evaluation? Does he not feel that these people should be brought in at the very start of such an exercise?
  Mr. Lewis: I have no doubt that managements who know that trade union representatives have been trained in this area will make good use of them. It is to the advantage of management that they should do so, since it is all to the good
  564
  to get the co-operation of the unions. This has been a valuable debate, but I doubt whether this Amendment is acceptable and should be written into the Bill.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: The principle we are arguing tonight has been accepted in industry for the last 50 years. Job evaluation as we now see it has developed as a refinement—it is not yet an exact science —of the old piece-work system, which was resisted by the unions for many years and accepted only when they could get the employers to sign on the dotted line that the trade unions would take part in determining the manner in which the piece-work was applied.
  When we see the development of it into the new techniques of job evaluation, it would be absurd to believe that in any factory where there is strong or medium trade union organisation any employer would be so crazy as to try to get away with something like this without consulting the unions. Maybe I was lucky, but I have been fortunate during my life in having been in the midst of a strong trade union organisation. We occasionally allowed the employers to consult us; we were very democratic. This problem will not arise where there is strong trade union organisation. In that case I do not believe that the tribunals we are setting up will ever have to be consulted.
  I am not talking of brute strength being applied in a factory. I am talking about the understanding between management and union. They would consider it a defeat to have to take anything outside the factory. They would say that it was a weakness which would have to go. We are concerned to get the same kind of high-quality decisions in factories where there is inadequate union representation. It would be completely unfair to employers who are working jointly with unions and getting proper results from negotiations if employers with whom they have to compete were allowed to get away with applying their own criteria, without having any trade union to put its view.
  If the wording of the Amendment is not acceptable, there are times when another place can serve a useful purpose. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to find a way of incorporating the principle for which my hon.

  565
  Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) asks. It is obvious that, as this is accepted by both sides, it would be acceptable to another place. We should ask my right hon. Friend to get the words right and get this matter out of the way.
  Mrs. Castle: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) for his remarks about me. Listening to some of the earlier rather hectoring speeches, I began to get the impression that hon. Members thought that I alone in a united House of Commons was dedicated to the destruction of the principle that trade unions have a right to be consulted before job evaluation schemes are introduced. I therefore appreciated the fact that my hon. Friend reminded the House that I think I have said and done more than anyone in the House to further the principle that employers must not only consult, but take their workers with them in all changes of industrial practice if we are not to have absolute chaos and bitterness on the shop floor. I have said this about productivity and certainly about job evaluation schemes, and I say it again.
  Let us get this clear. There is no division whatever between us, not only on the desirability but on the absolute essentiality of having employers, where they have trade unions in their factories, taking the commonsense step of good management and consulting the chaps and taking them with them all along the line.
  Sir D. Glover: And the girls.
  Mrs. Castle: Unisex—" chaps " includes girls.
  But we are all agreed—even the mover of the Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), I think, and certainly her supporters—that this Amendment will not do. It will not do for a number of reasons. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) argued very cogently, and, I thought, constructively. I thought that he was with the spirit of the proposal and I was sorry that he was jeered at to some extent when he pointed out that we need this agreement at the outset of a scheme, but that there are technical
  566
  processes involved in the actual evaluating work which could not be done jointly.
  They are too technical and even employers would not be capable of carrying them out. The words " jointly evaluate " carry technical connotations which it is impossible to accept. Let us be adult and recognise that.
  There are other difficulties about the Amendment. It is not clear what the Amendment would have us do about job evaluation exercises carried out before the operative date of the legislation. Are they to be re-evaluated, with a process of trade union agreement, step by step? There is also a suggestion that the Amendment might make job evaluation mandatory. I am not standing on these technicalities, but on something much more fundamental, that the Amendment is not what the T.U.C. has asked for. It has not asked that jobs should be jointly evaluated. The appropriate passage has been read out from the report on equal pay which is going to the T.U.C. Women's Conference. It says that there must at all stages be agreement with the unions.
  Of course, we are agreed on this, but the impression has been given tonight that there has been a great issue of principle at stake between the Under-Secretary of State and me on the one hand and the T.U.C. on the other. I want to get this into perspective. I have genuine anxieties about the right way of tackling this which I want to put to hon. Members and which I hope the House will accept as being sincerely expressed.
  I have never been at issue about this with the T.U.C. In a letter of a few days ago the T.U.C., after further considering the Bill, asked me to give consideration to substituting certain words designed to secure this effect. Of course, I am prepared to give consideration to it. There is not a single proposition that the T.U.C. has put forward that I have not given careful consideration to. I have met a great many of them, just as I have met several points raised by this side of the House in Committee. If I am convinced that this is the right place and the right way to do it, and that it will carry out my aim, why should I object to it?
  The reason we did not respond to my hon. Friend's Amendment in Committee

  567
  was that it was restrictive, as she has admitted. She has had another shot—jolly good luck to her, but she has not got it quite right. I am genuinely afraid that if these words are inserted they may produce a restrictive effect in another form. Any reference in the Bill to consultation or agreement with trade unions about job evaluation schemes would have to be limited to the purpose of avoiding discrimination against women, because this is an equal pay Bill.
  My hon. Friend said that job evaluation schemes should be agreed with the trade unions—as if anybody disagreed with her! She quoted the nationalisation of the coal industry, when the pits were nationalised and a joint job evaluation scheme was carried out in consultation with the trade unions, but that had nothing to do with equal pay.
  We want to fight for the principle that any job evaluation scheme in any circumstances is carried out in agreement with the trade unions, as part of good industrial relations practice, not only as part of our struggle for equal pay.
  Mr. John Homer: If that is the general concept, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a good place to start?
  Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend may succeed in convincing me, but I am putting the reasons that have made us hesitate, and they are very good industrial relations points. I want the House to listen to them before I put a certain proposal to the House.
  10.45 p.m.
  This has been our reason for anxiety in resisting the Amendment. My hon. Friends may say that it would be a starting point, but we would be taking a general industrial relations principle which should go into an industrial relations Bill and putting it into a Bill dealing with equal pay. We have not got a form of words we could be happy about in this context, but if we accepted the Amendment we should be placing on the tribunal not only the job of interpreting whether the law on equal pay was being fairly applied, but of interpreting an industrial relations situation. It would have to deal with such ques-
  568
  tions as what is the appropriate recognised trade union. It would start off with an argument about that.
  I am putting the sort of problems that we have had to think about. We have to think about what words will mean in law and their practical consequences. With this Amendment, we would be in danger of saying and this is what I am afraid of—that, unless the job could be proved to have been jointly evaluated by the appropriate trade union, the woman might be losing her rights. These are the kind of difficulties I am concerned about.
  What we want is trade union agreement to all types of job evaluation schemes. My hon. Friend said that this would be the right starting point logically, but it may be the most illogical starting point because, if the employer has not taken into account the views of the trade unions, has not won their agreement and, therefore, has produced a job evaluation scheme which they think is full of discrimination against women, they have the tribunal to go to.
  This is the point of reference for the trade unions where they can make their challenge. The fact that the tribunal is there, and that the trade unions can take the employers before it, will be a massive lever for making sure that any employer in his right senses will take the precaution of consulting the trade unions in the first place about a job evaluation scheme. I put these points to my hon. Friends as issues of validity.
  Mr. Orme: I understand the serious points which my right hon. Friend is making, but I think that she is making a hypothetical case of the difficulty of differentiating between trade unions within an industry. If we write a provision like this Amendment into the Bill, the trade unions will resolve the negotiating point. If the matter has to be taken to the tribunal, it will still have to come back to the factory to be resolved. We should surely start by trying to resolve the matter in the factory itself and not by taking it outside.
  Mrs. Castle: But if the tribunal finds for them, then that becomes part of the contract of employment of the women concerned there and then. There are counter-arguments of substance from our point of view which should be given

  569
  more thought than they have been given by my hon. Friends so far and by the T.U.C.
  The reason is that it is only in the last few days that the suggestion has been made that I might reconsider this matter after consultations have been held face to face with the T.U.C. I suggest that it would be absurd for us to quarrel about the best way of applying something on which we are all wholeheartedly agreed. It would be absurd to divide the House and pillory the Government, because they might have a genuinely sound basis for disagreeing about how it should be done.
  I suggest that I should tell the T.U.C., having received its letter and now that I have this point, that it needs to be further discussed between us face to face so that I can put the anxieties that I have explained to the House. I might convince the T.U.C. I do not know. The T.U.C. might convince me. But together we might work out a form of words. If that were done, and I was satisfied that there was something that we ought to do in the Bill which would not prejudice other situations, and we could find a way of doing it, there is another place where it could be done. However, I should not wish to accept this suggestion, even in principle, until I have had these further consultations with the T.U.C.
  Sir D. Glover: Is not what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) pertinent to this point? The right hon. Lady has said that the matter will be taken to the tribunal, but the tribunal is not in a position to evaluate jobs. Therefore, the hon. Member for Salford, West is right in saying that, whatever the decision of the tribunal, it will have to be taken back to the factory floor to be sorted out. The tribunal would only be able to say that the firm in question was not carrying out the Act. So the matter would then have to go back to the factory floor, the trade union would have to be brought into it, and the job would have to be evaluated. I do not see why the right hon. Lady is objecting so much to what has been proposed.
  Mrs. Castle: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) would wish to find himself in partnership with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—[Interrup-
  570
  tion.] Really, my hon. Friend and I were getting on perfectly well without the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We were understanding each other very well and I hoped that we were about to reach agreement.
  One of the purposes of the tribunal is so that the union can go to it and claim that a job evaluation scheme is, in certain respects, discriminatory against women and that the scheme has to be amended. But everything has to go back in the end to agreement on the shop floor. This is what we want. We are arguing about the best way to achieve it.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the National Superannuation and Social Services Bill, two weeks ago, there was a similar argument concerning consultation with trade unions about pensions? We voted against that Amendment. But at a later stage the Minister of State brought in another Amendment worded in a different way which gives trade unions the right to be consulted about pensions. Could not my right hon. Friend follow a similar course on this occasion?
  Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend could not have heard what I said. Not having discussed this matter with the T.U.C., it having come in as an afterthought from the T.U.C., I want an opportunity to discuss it and to air my anxieties. Then, if I feel that something should be done, I will come back with an appropriate Amendment through another place. I ask the House to accept this course, because I believe that there are points which it would be wise for me to discuss with the T.U.C.
  I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment, for the reasons that I have given, so that we can proceed along the lines that I have suggested.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I thank my right hon. Friend for the way that she has explained her view on the Amendment.
  I am not one to turn aside a friendly proferred hand. I understand that my right hon. Friend will have her discussions at the earliest possible opportunity and that she will come back at some suitable stage with a form of words embodying the spirit of the Amendment, which has been accepted on both sides,

  571
  and which my right hon. Friend, of course, accepts. Certainly, no one on this side has suggested that she was apart from us on this matter because it is a good, sound Socialist principle on which we are all united.
  On that understanding I would wish to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mrs. Castle: May I, just to be perfectly clear, —
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mrs. Castle: —on a point of explanation—
  Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Lady has not had the courtesy to ask the House for leave to speak again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Minister does not require the leave of the House to speak again.
  Mrs. Castle: I am sure that I do not need the leave of the House to be honest with my hon. Friend, which is what I am anxious to do. I said that I would consult the T.U.C. The outcome might be that it will agree with me, and not with my hon. Friend. I do not want my hon. Friend to be under any misunderstanding about what I have undertaken to do. If I can reach agreement with the T.U.C. on something which we both feel is of value, I shall certainly take action in another place.
  Mr. James Ramsden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was not my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) right in saying that if leave is asked to withdraw an Amendment, and the debate then continues, the Amendment cannot be withdrawn?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) had not completed her speech when the Minister rose to intervene. Mrs. Renée Short.
  Mrs. Renée Short: May I make it clear that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  DISPUTES AS TO, AND ENFORCEMENT OF, REQUIREMENT OF EQUAL TREATMENT
  Mr. Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 3, line 25, leave out ' an industrial tribunal ' and insert ' industrial arbitrators '.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we take the following Amendments: Nos. 36, 38, line 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45.
  Mr. Booth: This is a further Amendment which embodies a view of the T.U.C., and on this one there will not be any argument about whether there has been recent prior consultation, because representatives of the General Council met my right hon. Friend the First Secretary on 18th February and expressed concern about this matter.
  The Amendment proposes that industrial arbitrators should adjudicate in disputes on equal pay claims instead of industrial tribunals. Those who, like myself, have had the fortune, or misfortune, of representing employees before industrial tribunals know that at such a tribunal one usually faces three men, one of whom is deemed to be a work-people's representative, frequently somebody proposed by the trades council, one of whom is an employer's representative, and one of whom, usually the man sitting in the centre, is a lawyer.
  The difficulty which one usually experiences is that of explaining to the lawyer what one is talking about when referring to the conditions which appertain in the factory or the place at which the person one is representing normally works. The worker is generally liable to be bewildered by the fact that the lawyer cannot understand any of the terms which he, the worker, comes across every day in his work place.
  While the chairman of the tribunal, who is the lawyer, is undoubtedly completely independent, he is not knowledgeable about industry in terms of what happens on the workshop floor. His rôle is not only to be an impartial third party, but to advise on questions of law. It seems to me that when we come to consider what sort of tribunal should consider whether an equal pay claim is being properly met there will not be quite

  573
  the same necessity for someone to have an understanding of the law as there is in industrial tribunal cases.
  There will, however, be an even greater necessity to understand what happens in industry. Therefore, it is important that those who are to adjudicate should have a fairly sound working knowledge of the industry on which they have to adjudicate—or the industry whose wage claims they have to adjudicate whenever there is a contested claim by women employees seeking the tribunal's protection.
  11.0 p.m.
  If one is a lawyer among adjudicators, one may hear of working practices or of a job one has not previously heard of. I have had the experience of a chairman with no knowledge of the job or process concerned. If he asks what certain machines or tools are, the sort of answer he receives will depend on the sort of impression one is seeking to make with him. If one is seeking to make the impression that the job is different because it has a different name and must therefore, be different in value, the question will be answered in one way, but the trade union member will tend to answer in the contrary way, that the job is the same and of equal value. The distinctions will be meaningless in terms of equal pay claims.
  It is reasonable to suggest that we need to have industrial adjudicators who know a lot about the industry which is to be discussed when they come to adjudicate. I am not suggesting that one does not need some legal knowledge, or that adjudicators do not need an appreciation of legal processes, but the knowledge of law they require is of a relatively small branch of the law, whereas the knowledge required about the industry from which the claims come has to be reasonably wide and is not the sort of knowledge which they can acquire by question and answer in the case before them.
  That is the basis of the Amendment and I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to respond to this Amendment, appreciating, as she will by virtue of her post, the vast complications of considering claims if one has no detailed knowledge of the industry. It must have been her experience since she took over her difficult post, to have been faced with precisely the same sort
  574
  of problem which lawyers face as chairmen of tribunals.
  Amendment No. 36 proposes to remove Clause 2 (2), which empowers the Secretary of State to act on a woman's behalf by taking her case to an industrial tribunal. This subsection would, or could, advantage non-trade unionists as against trade unionists, since, judging by the interpretation which the Secretary of State put on this on Second Reading, it is evident that the Secretary of State would regard the sort of person requiring this protection as the sort of person not normally having trade union representation. My right hon. Friend would probably take the view that if a trade unionist went to a local branch of the Department of Employment and Productivity, and suggested that the Secretary of State should act on her behalf, the answer she would probably receive would be that she should get the union to do it for her.
  It is not the job of Members of Parliament with trade union interests to support legislation which places the non-unionist at an advantage. There is a danger that tribunals would regard in a different light those cases in which they dealt with the Secretary of State, from those concerning local people or union representatives, since the very fact that the Secretary of State had referred a case to it would contain the element of approval by a Government Department. This will not make for the fairest consideration by tribunals.
  We have to consider at what stage the Secretary of State should offer protection to a person who has gone to a tribunal. I accept that an element of State protection is needed, but it should be the same as that under the Redundancy Payments Act and the Contracts of Employment Act. That is to say, where it has been agreed before the tribunal that the complainant has a justifiable case for back pay and the employer still refuses to meet it, the Secretary of State should then act to see that the employer complies with the tribunal's decision. That is the Secretary of State's proper rôle.
  Although we cannot take a decision on the Amendment tonight, I hope that the Secretary of State will consider this further, and perhaps deal with it at a later stage.
  Mrs. Castle: There are two separate points here. The first was my hon.

  575
  Friend's concern about the type of tribunals. I found it a little difficult, in view of the hubbub, to follow all his points, but I hope that I have understood him. I understand that the Amendment, in substituting industrial arbitrators for industrial tribunals, seeks an alteration not in the procedure or sanctions but merely in the nature of the chairmanship. My hon. Friend said that he did not think this an appropriate case for a lawyer to be in the chair. As we have said previously, this is a matter for the procedural regulations, and does not need any Amendment to the Bill.
  There are strong arguments for having lawyers on tribunals, because they are not arbitrators. They are applying the law to particular cases and if the women are to get their legal rights, this is what we must ensure. The industrial expertise which he rightly says is essential to these tribunals is provided by the representatives of the workers' and employers' sides. They are drawn from people experienced in industry for that purpose.
  I therefore do not reject my hon. Friend's suggestion out of hand. There might well be cases in which one might wish to have non-lawyer chairmen, or what he would call industrial arbitrators. But is it a matter for the regulations. It is not necessary to amend the Bill in order to have chairmen from industry. We will consider the matter very carefully before drawing up the regulations.
  By Amendment No. 36 my hon. Friend has reopened the argument which some of my hon. Friends have used before against my having a residual power to take the initiative in bringing a case before the tribunal. He seems to think that this would put the non-unionist at an advantage in relation to the unionist. I think that he is stretching the point a very great deal. In taking this power it is not proposed that I should be popping up every few minutes with this case and that, and doing the trade union's job for it.
  That would be wrong. As I have said at every stage of our discussions, it is no part of my job in this legislation to make it unnecessary for women to join trade unions: on the contrary, I have made it clear the only way in which women
  576
  will reap the full advantage from the Bill is by joining trade unions.
  It is, therefore, only in the very minority of cases that the power is likely to be used, but I feel it necessary that, as guardian of public policy in this respect, I should have this residual power, so that in flagrant cases where trade union organisation is non-existent or very weak —and in dealing with women's legislation we are, unfortunately, always dealing with an area of very weak trade unionism—employers should not be able to get away with a grave affront to public policy because of the lack of this residual power.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will accept what I have said, and that the House will reject the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir D. Glover: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 27, at end insert
  'or by the representatives of such persons '.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
  11.15 p.m.
  Sir D. Glover: Our debate on Amendment No. 11 was all sweetness and light until the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State, who is notorious for it, allowed the vitriol to come out in connection with a perfectly innocent and sensible interjection on my part. That was rather foolish of her. It tempted us to change the atmosphere of the House from that of peace and quiet to, perhaps, that of party controversy.
  The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) made clear in that debate what a vital part the trade unions will have to play in this procedure but, as I understand it, under Clause 2 it will be the Secretary of State, and not the trade unions, who will make representations to the tribunal. If equal pay is to be implemented, it is vital that persons affected should be able to appoint their representatives, which in most cases could mean a trade union, but it could mean other organisations, to put their case to the tribunal. It is a great weakness in the Bill that this does not appear to be so.

  577
  The Under-Secretary said that he himself was not clear about the implications of certain things. There seems to be a certain degree of cloud about what is and is not covered. As I understand, under Clause 2 a person who feels that he is adversely affected and believes that the object of the Bill has not been carried out would have to make representations to the Secretary of State, who would make representations to the tribunal. Such a person would not be allowed to let his representatives make direct representations to the tribunal.
  The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), who is a lawyer, will appreciate that this will cause chaos. The ordinary, sensible way for any of the Bill to work would be for a recognised and accepted representative of workers, either through their association or their trade union, to be able to make representations. Hence the Amendment. In Committee, the Government refused to accept a similar Amendment which would have secured this desirable result.
  I do not understand how the right hon. Lady envisages that the system will work in practice. We are talking about millions of people. If there is no machinery by which their representatives can make representations to the Tribunal, and if in every small factory workers who feel that they are adversely affected and that their employer is not carrying out the objects of the Bill, will have to form a committee and make submissions to the Department, it will not work in practice. There must be machinery on the ground so that anybody who feels adversely affected can immediately go to the local branch of his union or to some other organisation, which would then be responsible for making representations to the tribunal.
  I do not put myself forward as an expert, but I think I have a degree of common sense. Unless the Amendment is accepted, I cannot see how the scheme will work—unless there is much more decentralisation than there appears to be under the Clause.
  Mr. John Page: If there are two nonmembers of trade unions and one member, what is to happen to the nonmembers?
  Sir D. Glover: The bulk of people will have a union to represent them. That is
  578
  why the words " the representatives " appear. I am not saying that the Secretary of State should not have any right to make representations, because I accept that there may be people who are so under-represented that there may be only the right hon. Lady and her Department who could protect their interests. I do not wish the Secretary of State to be taken out of the provisions but I wish the trade unions to be brought into them. In many cases of small firms with nonunion labour it might be felt that the only way to have a grievance remedied was to approach the Department. That might apply to one case in eight.
  Mr. Holland: The Amendment refers to " representatives of such persons ". They could appoint anyone they wished to make representations. If they were trade unionists, they would appoint their trade unions—but they could appoint someone else.
  Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hoped that I was making that point clear.
  If the Amendment is accepted, then no doubt in most cases the trade unions will make the representations on behalf of their members. But in a non-union firm, the employees might form a committee to become the representatives of the workers in that firm. If the Secretary of State is the only person who can make representations on their behalf, the Department will be inundated, certainly in the early days, by requests from people who feel that the Bill is not being implemented quickly enough in their organisations.
  None of that trouble need arise if the Amendment is accepted. Under our proposal, no doubt in five cases out of six the trade unions would make the representations to the tribunal, but in a non-union organisation a committee might be formed—or they might even engage a lawyer. The Department would be involved only in a very few cases. If the Amendment is not accepted the Department will be bogged down with the administration of the Act.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The Amendments seek to provide in the Bill itself for the right of organisations representing women employees and individual employers, and in

  579
  particular trade unions and employers' associations, to take cases to industrial tribunals and to appear before them.
  When the matter was discussed at some length in Committee, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), undertook to consider whether the matter might not be dealt with in the Bill rather than in regulations. It was right that that undertaking to reconsider the matter should be given, because it is obviously of great importance that employees and employers, and indeed industrial tribunals, should have the assistance of trade unions and employers' associations in connection with the proceedings under the Bill.
  On consideration, however, my right hon. Friend and I, too, still think that the Amendments are unnecessary and that the course proposed of dealing with these matters by regulation is the appropriate course. I hope that when I have explained what is contemplated, the mystery that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) sees in the proposed machinery will no longer be mysterious.
  In my view, it is not necessary—indeed, it may well be undesirable—that the Bill itself should contain a specific provision to cover the points which are raised in the Amendments. It is a sound general rule that if Acts of Parliament are not to be unduly lengthened, procedural matters should be dealt with in subordinate legislation. An illustration of the application of the rule is, perhaps, Section 3 (6) of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949. It makes no specific provision for the representation of one person by another and it is noteworthy that the rules made under it—the Lands Tribunal Rules, 1963, which were made by a Lord Chancellor of the previous Administration—provide right of audience:
  " In any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party may appear and be heard either in person, or by counsel or solicitor, or by any other person allowed by leave of the Tribunal (or by leave of the President or of the registrar in the case of an interlocutory application) to appear instead of any party ".
  That scheme and way of dealing with the matter is on all fours with what is proposed in the Bill and the regulations that will be made under it.
  580
  If in the Bill we were to depart from the rule that procedural matters should be dealt with in subordinate legislation, we should have to go on doing so in similar legislation hereafter. That, however, is not the only objection to the course that is proposed in the Amendments.
  Although industrial tribunals are relatively new, they have been functioning for several years and dealing with cases relating, among other things in industrial relations, to the important matter of redundancy payments. The industrial tribunals which have been dealing with redundancy payments questions are set up by regulations and the procedure before them is dealt with in those regulations. It is imperative that those regulations should contain, as they do, adequate and appropriate safeguards to cover the position of trade unions and employers' associations, and, indeed, the individual non-trade unionist who may wish to bring matters before them.
  My right hon. Friend is under a statutory duty under Section 46(1)(e) of the Redundancy Payments Act to make regulations to cover equal pay matters, and this she will have to do if and when the Bill becomes law. Moreover, she is under a statutory duty to consult the Council on Tribunals about the form and content of the proposed regulations.
  The House will recall that the Council on Tribunals was set up by Parliament to oversee the working of such institutions as the industrial tribunals as regards both the regulations which govern their practice and procedure and as regards their functioning generally to see that justice is done in their proceedings. I can certainly give an assurance that the regulations will provide that the rights with which we are concerned will be fully and adequately dealt with.
  I understand that two points are raised by the Amendments: first, the right to institute proceedings; and secondly, the right to appear before the tribunals once proceedings are started. I have taken the opportunity of looking into what happens under the Regulations which deal with proceedings before tribunals under the Redundancy Payments Act. Those regulations, which were made in consultation with the Council on Tribunals, should furnish an appropriate precedent for the

  581
  regulations that we shall make for equal pay cases.
  11.30 p.m.
  On the right to institute proceedings there is no specific provision in the redundancy payments rules for trade unions and employers' associations to be able to commence proceedings on behalf of their members. This is because it is entirely unnecessary that there should be such a provision. Trade unions and employers' associations are entitled to act in these matters on behalf of their members and it is accepted that they may do so as their members' agents. Since the redundancy scheme has operated trade unions and employers' associations representatives have appeared in hundreds of cases, and there has been no difficulty about their right to initiate proceedings and to appear before the tribunals.
  These matters have never been called in question. There is no difficulty here, and there will be no difficulty under this scheme. As I have said, the power and authority of unions and associations has never been called in question, and those rights are being exercised almost every day, as they have been for several years. It would be very undesirable for us to call this right to institute proceedings into question, as accepting the Amendments might do.
  An unwanted side effect of the proposed Amendment might be to create doubt where none now exists. There might well be a danger that unions and employers' associations could not act in redundancy matters on behalf of their members without our having to introduce some specific Parliamentary authority, which at present does not exist. This might cause considerable difficulties, and might undermine the whole position in respect of redundancy cases.
  Sir D. Glover: Surely, as a lawyer, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that it is far better for the public good if something can be clearly laid down in a Statute, in simple language and few words, rather than be produced by regulations afterwards.
  The Attorney-General: I have sought to explain why, in legislation dealing in industrial relations, suddenly to try to do so now, when the matter is not in dispute and is accepted as permissible prac-
  582
  rice would create nothing but confusion and doubt. The matter has been unchallenged and accepted for a long time.
  The right to appear before tribunals—the right of audience and the right to address tribunals in the proceedings—is confined in courts of law to the legal profession, but in cases coming before industrial tribunals it is necessary and appropriate that trade unions and employers' associations should have the same rights of audience as the legal profession has in the courts and before tribunals. It is right that it should be spelt out in the regulations, as undoubtedly it will be.
  For instance, in the Industrial Tribunals (Redundancy Payments) Regulations, we see, in Rule of Procedure 7(1) —on the subject of representation—
  " Subject to Rule 3 (2)"—
  which is not relevant for this purpose—
  " at any hearing of or in connection with an originating application a party may appear and may be heard in person or be represented by counsel or solicitor or by a representative of a trade union or of an employers' association or with the leave of the tribunal by any other person "
  That is the kind of rule of procedure that we should adapt for the purposes of these equal pay references. Accordingly, the regulations are the right place to deal with this matter. It is the appropriate place, and while I appreciate the concern which gave rise to the Amendments, it is unnecessary to do what is proposed and it might create confusion where none now exists.
  Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 were debated at considerable length in Committee. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to take a question to an industrial tribunal when it appears to her that it is not reasonable to expect the women concerned to take steps to have the question determined. We consider that the provision is essential for the protection of women who might otherwise be inhibited, for fear of causing bad relations with their employer, from taking a case to the tribunal. It is especially necessary in situations where the trade union organisation is not strong and we believe that equal pay will have a wide application in such areas. It is not something which could be done by procedure or regulations, but is properly provided for in the Bill.

  583
  Amendment No. 15 would replace the Secretary of State's powers by a corresponding power for organisations representing the person concerned. This, I submit, would weaken the Bill because it cannot be assumed, in every case at any rate, that trade unions, even where there are trade unions involved, and there may be cases where there are not, would be willing to be active in taking equal pay cases to a tribunal. There are precedents for the Secretary of State taking cases to a court on her own initiative. The most useful precedent is in Section 19(5) of the Wages Councils Act, 1959. Under that Section, the Secretary of State can initiate civil proceedings in the courts to secure the payment of proper wages under the Act. Under Section 12 of the Agricultural Wages Act, there is provision in respect of the Minister of Agriculture of a similar kind.
  The provisions in regard to reinstatement in employment in the National Service (Amendment) Act, 1948, also included the power for the Minister of Labour to take cases on his own initiative to the courts. I submit that it has to be borne in mind in considering the rights conferred on the Secretary of State in this Bill that there is no provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to operate an inspectorate along the lines of that in the Wages Council area. In the light of this it is not unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have the right to access to tribunals on behalf of aggrieved women in the exceptional circumstances where the situation might call for her intervention. Women are bound to come to her Department for advice from time to time, as they do, and in some cases it may be appropriate for her to take up their cases for them.
  Amendment No. 16 would add to the power of the Secretary of State to take cases to an industrial tribunal a corresponding power for trade unions—not apparently for employers' associations—to take cases to a tribunal. This is similar to the thought that prompted Amendment No. 14 proposing that claims to a tribunal could be made by the representatives of the women concerned. They will certainly have the power to do that under the proposed regulations. If it is any reassurance to the House I will undertake that I will examine the regulations before they are introduced
  584
  to ensure that they do give effect to what I have said.
  I hope the House may feel that, while it was right to raise these matters to be sure that there is a proper right of audience and a proper way of dealing with these matters, in the light of what I have said the Amendment should be withdrawn.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that detailed and helpful explanation. It is with some hesitation that I venture to challenge or question one or two of the assertions which he made.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman relied on this being a purely procedural matter. I suggest that it is more; it is fundamental. When, on Second Reading, the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) made an intervention, it was stressed that normally the person's trade union would take up the case. It was implicit that the right of representation would be spelled into the Bill, but the Attorney-General has relied on this as being appropriate for regulation as it is purely procedural, but I suggest that in following subsecution there are other matters which are no less procedural.
  Subsection (3) refers to the procedure to be adopted in striking out claims and counter-claims and the like, matters which with all diffidence in the light of such learned opinion I should have thought appropriate for regulations. If they are to be in the Bill, it is surely no less right that this fundamental point about right of representation should be in it.
  The Attorney-General expressed some doubt as to the consequences that would flow from this. If I understood his argument correctly, it was that it is unnecessary to put this in the Bill because it would appear in regulations and to put these words in the Bill might cast doubt on matters which are now clear. He referred to the Redundancy Payments Act as a precedent, but he said there was no statutory authority for the representation as it is now by custom permitted under that Act. The custom adopted under that Act is to be continued here and to give it legislative form and the authority of the Act might reinforce something which by custom is now

  585
  accepted but which has no legal validity. That is the weakest of all arguments and it strengthens my support for the Amendments.
  The Attorney-General: The position as I see it is that the trade union or employers' association is deemed to be the agent of the working person concerned or the employers concerned. No issue has been raised about this; it is a simple problem of agency.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Again with great humility, I wonder whether the question of a union as an agent for an individual is clear beyond all doubt. Responsibility for the relationship between a union and members of a union is a rather special matter which I will not develop on this Amendment.
  Sir D. Glover: Another aspect which the Attorney-General has not covered is that under the Amendment representatives who might be a committee of a group of workers would not be covered.
  Mr. Boardman: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I had in mind a situation where a group of people who are not members of a trade union decide to appoint one of themselves or someone with specialised knowledge to represent them before a tribunal. To give legal validity to that, these words should be written into the Bill.
  When the Attorney-General quoted instances where representation is allowed but without statutory authority, he did not go so far as to say that there was no precedent for having such words in an Act. No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe many Acts provide that a person can appear by representatives before various types of tribunal. I have done no research on this, so I cannot quote one, but I would be surprised not to find a precedent for an express right of representation. I urge that the Amendment which allows a group of workers to appear in this way should be written into the Bill.
  A later Amendment deals with the right to initiate proceedings. This should not be left to custom. Workers should know from the time the Bill becomes law that there is a right for representatives on their behalf to initiate proceedings before the tribunal. There is the rather
  586
  different issue of the merit of taking out of the hands of the Secretary of State the power of initiation, but I will not develop that argument now.
  I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on the dangers to which he referred if these words are inserted, and weigh them against the undesirability of leaving the matter in doubt, a doubt which he has expressed in referring to the way in which custom operates in other cases.
  11.45 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I feel like an intruder in intervening in this debate, in which, so far, the dialogue between the two sides of the House has appeared to be a continuation of private conversations in Committee. I do not object to that, with certain exceptions. It is not inappropriate to mention that the growing habit of the Government to appoint smaller Standing Committees, no doubt desirable from the point of view of Government back benchers, has the unfortunate side effect of eliminating Liberal representation on the Committees, and making it necessary sometimes for us to ventilate on Report points which might have been pursued in Committee had we been there to do so.
  I understand from the Attorney-General that the points made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), which I support, are conceded, and that the Bill, when it becomes law, will work in precisely the way he desires. I was not sure what weight to attach to the Attorney-General's presence, since the Under-Secretary, in dealing with an earlier Amendment, said that the Government had had legal advice to keep certain words, but would, nevertheless, accept the Amendment. As the legal advice was ridden over roughshod on one occasion, I wondered whether I should attach great importance to it on this occasion.
  The Attorney-General, in rejecting Amendment No. 15, pointed to the need for the Secretary of State to have a role in the institution of proceedings. Industrial tribunals are not appropriate bodies to deal with matters which require a detailed knowledge of the nature of the work and of the bargaining system. I am very much on the side of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr.

  587
  Booth), who argued this on an earlier Amendment. The Bill needs conciliation machinery. What the Attorney-General has told us about the role of the Secretary of State as one of the persons to institute proceedings means that the Secretary of State can involve herself or her Department at an early stage. Does this mean that there will be conciliation procedures? Are we to see an extension of the conciliation procedures which already exist within the Department?
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's rejection of Amendment No. 15 means that this is feasible, and perhaps one of the things which will work under the Act although not spelt out in it, I shall be reassured, because I have fears about the possibility of there being a gap between a feeling of complaint arising and the bringing of that complaint to an industrial tribunal. We need something in between by the provision of conciliation procedures. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer herald the existence or development of procedures of that kind?
  Mr. R. Carr: We had from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General a lucid and courteous approach to the Amendments. But I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that it was just the sort of approach that sometimes makes non-lawyers despair of the law. It was clear and courteous, but, by its complete obsession with precedent, was completely out of touch with the feelings and the need for change.
  One of the greatest difficulties, and not only in the law—as a Conservative I certainly feel it—is to combine respect for valued tradition and precedent with a proper awareness of the danger that one can be so hidebound by tradition and precedent that one will not adopt new methods and new approaches.
  What were the right hon. and learned Gentleman's two main arguments about Amendment No. 14 and, perhaps, Amendment No. 16? First, he said that they were unnecessary. I think that possibly he convinced me that they are unnecessary. They are unnecessary unless one has no faith in what the Government say about their intention to introduce regulations, and we are not accusing the Government of lack of good faith. We
  588
  are sure, when they say they will introduce the necessary regulations, that they will do so. But the matter goes beyond that.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the Amendments would possibly be objectionable because for one thing they might create confusion, might create doubts that what was an accepted right was no longer to be taken for granted. That seemed to me an extraordinary legalistic argument. If that is the way our lawyers, courts and judges work, it brings me back to my remarks about despairing of the law, but I cannot believe that it is the way.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) said, this is an accepted right but not a statutory right. The precedents which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted were not really on all fours with this case. First, the Bill deals with terms and conditions of employment. That is a more emotional subject even than redundancy payments, which is fairly near to this matter, although some of the other precedents he quoted are far removed from the psychological atmosphere of work in industry.
  When dealing with terms and conditions of employment, it is necessary to recognise that it is just as well to state rights and not to expect people to understand these legal precedents, which may be commonplace and common knowledge to right hon. and learned Gentlemen but not to the public at large. That applies particularly in this Bill. This is surely a Bill in which ordinary people should be able to read and understand what their rights are.
  The Bill was criticised in Committee as being in many places—and I so described it—gobbledegook to the ordinary person. So much of it is very unclear. I suppose, however reluctantly, we may have to accept that we cannot put into the Statute the main provisions of a Bill of this kind without talking in language which the ordinary man and woman particularly woman in this case—may find it difficult, if not impossible, to understand.
  But, for that very reason, since it affects everyday life, I think that somewhere the Bill should make very clear

  589
  indeed that a man or a woman can definitely, without doubt of any kind, turn to his or her trade union, or, if he or she is not a member of a trade union, know by the statement of a trade union's rights in the Bill—this would be a good reason for joining a trade union—that there is somewhere to go, first, to have their rights explained and, secondly, if necessary, to have them referred to, and be represented at, the tribunal.
  There is a case here, which perhaps does not apply to other Bills, for stating this fact clearly in the basic Bill. I do not believe that the reasons given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman against doing that were nearly strong enough to override the practical day to day reasons for doing it.
  The other argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman against it was procedural. I do not want to spend time on that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West answered that point very clearly by pointing out immediately that there are other parts of the Bill which are clearly procedural. If we can write certain lengthy procedural parts into the body of the Bill, why cannot we write in about five words, even though they are procedural, to make clear to people reading the Bill what their rights are?
  Thus far, I believe that I may be speaking not just for myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, but for a number of hon. Members opposite, and a number of trade union leaders, trade unionists, and ordinary people outside the House. I realise that what I am about to say now about the powers of the Secretary of State may command less common consent than on another group of Amendments, but, nevertheless, I want to say it. We believe that we are right in having an overriding objection in principle to
  Ministers getting directly involved in intervention in industrial relations. I argued this point in Committee at somewhat greater length, and I will not repeat it at this hour of night. However, I ask the House to accept that we believe that there is a principle involved here.
  We are not impressed when the right hon. and learned Gentleman quotes precedents like the Wages Councils Act. The approach of lawyers at times makes us despair, because they delve back into the past. Surely, in 1970, conditions are totally different from what they were when the wages councils legislation was passed. The intention was that this sort of regulation should be temporary.
  The Donovan Report, only two years ago, took up the point and tried to give the Government a push on in getting rid of wages councils; it encouraged their removal. In 1970, we ought not to be bringing into argument a precedent based on legislation enacted many years ago in totally different conditions which was intended to be temporary and which certainly we all wish to see made unnecessary as soon as possible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has certainly not convinced us by his arguments.
  We accept the good faith. We accept that the result which we want can be achieved without our Amendment, but we nevertheless believe strongly that the arguments for writing into the Bill the words at least of our first Amendment are much stronger than the arguments against writing them in, and if the Government will not think again I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 179.

  Division No. 105.]

  AYES

  [12 midnight

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Allason, James (James Hempstead)

  Chataway, Christopher

  Emery, Peter

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clegg, Walter

  Farr, John

  Biffen, John

  Cordle, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Fry, Peter

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Costain, A. P.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Dance, James

  Clover, Sir Douglas

  Body, Richard

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Dean, Paul

  Cower, Raymond

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Grant, Anthony

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

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

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Grieve, Percy

  Burden, F. A.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Speed, Keith

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Marten, Nell

  Stainton, Keith

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hastings, Stephen

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

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Monro, Hector

  Temple, John M.

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Holland, Philip

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Waddington, David

  Hordern, Peter

  Murton, Oscar

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Hornby, Richard

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wall, Patrick

  Hunt, John

  Nott, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Percival, Ian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pounder, Rafton

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  King, Tom

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Lane David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Worsley, Marcus

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wright, Esmond

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Younger, Hn. George

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  MacArthur, Ian

  Silvester, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins and

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

  Mr. Jasper More.

  McNair-Wilton, Patrick (NewForest)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Alldritt, Walter

  Gardner, Tony

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Areher, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)

  Garrett, W. E.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Ashley, Jack

  Golding, John

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Bagier, Cordon A. T.

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

  Barnett, Joel

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bence, Cyril

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mendelson, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamling, William

  Mikardo, Ian

  Binns, John

  Hannan, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harper, Joseph

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hazell, Bert

  Booth, Albert

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Boston, Terence

  Hobden, Dennis

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Horner, John

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Moyle, Roland

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Neal, Harold

  Buchan, Norman

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Newens, Stan

  Carmichael, Neil

  Huckfieid, Leslie

  Norwood, Christopher

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Cakes, Gordon

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hunter, Adam

  Ogden, Eric

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Dalyelt, Tarn

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

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

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rbondda, West)

  Park, Trevor

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Judd, Frank

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dempsey, James

  Kelley, Richard

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Kerr Mrs Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Dickens, James

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Pentland, Norman

  Dobson, Ray

  Latham, Arthur

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Doig, Peter

  Lawson, George

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Driberg, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Probert, Arthur

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Ellis, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rees, Merlyn

  English, Michael

  Luard, Evan

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

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

  Mabon Dr. J. Dickson

  Rose, Paul

  Faulds, Andrew

  McBride, Neil

  Sillars, J.

  Fernyhough, E.

  McCann, John

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  MacColl, James

  Sheldon, Robert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Macdonald, A. H.

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

  Ford, Ben

  McElhone, Frank

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Forrester, John

  McGuire, Michael

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  592

  593

  Silverman, Julius

  Urwin, T. W.

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Stater, Joseph

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Walden, Brian (An Saints)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Woof, Robert

  Taverne, Dick

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Thin, James

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Tuck, Raphael

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

MILITARY ENGINEERING EXPERIMENTAL ESTABLISHMENT, CHRISTCHURCH
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
12.10 a.m.
Mr. John Cordle: I wish to raise a question of the deepest concern to my constituents—the running down of the Military Engineering Experimental Establishment at Christchurch. I am glad of the opportunity to debate this matter and for the Minister's presence. I want to describe how this sad affair arose and how it has shocked the council and people of Christchurch and the employees of M.E.X.E. Rumours began to circulate towards the end of last year that the establishment was to be run down. As a result, I had a meeting with the Minister just before Christmas at which I was given to understand that, although there would be slight alterations at M.E.X.E., there would not be a serious rundown.
Then, on 1st January this year. the Ministry of Defence wrote to the Town Clerk of Christchurch and other interested parties, announcing in effect that M.E.X.E. was to be run down to 40 per cent of its present size, that 400 men would lose their jobs and that about a quarter would be offered alternative jobs at the Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment at Chertsey.
A number of questions immediately arise. Why was a serious rundown like this sprung on Christchurch and on M.E.X.E. employees after assurances that all was well? Why are decisions like this allowed to explode with no prior warning or discussion? Conduct and
594
behaviour like the Ministry's would be roundly—and rightly—condemned if private enterprise acted in this way. This is hardly the right way to treat the employees or the community in which they have their homes and play a valuable role. This point must be stressed, for it underlines the concern felt in Christchurch at the Ministry's action.
The rundown of M.E.X.E. was properly described by the Mayor of Christchurch as " a great blow " to the borough, and so it is. For one reason, as he went on to argue:
" What we need is more jobs in the town, not fewer."
But there is far more to our objections to this partial closure. For example, the cost to Christchurch ratepayers is likely to be £10,000, or a 1½d. rate, and the redundancies will have a bad effect not only on employment and the borough finances, but also on the general level of trade in Christchurch.
However, the chief reason for our concern can best be understood when it is realised that M.E.X.E.'s links with Christchurch go back to 1919 and that only last May, Christchurch conferred the freedom of the borough on the establishment. Many of its employees have given devoted public service to the borough and they and their families have been an integral and valuable part of our community. We are concerned about their future as well as that of M.E.X.E. and Christchurch.
I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions which have disturbed all of us in the area. First, I want to refer to the way in which the decision was made and the reasons put forward by the Department for making it. We have been told that a Ministry working group took the decision to transfer M.E.X.E.'s work on equipments in the mechanical and electro-mechanical spheres to F.V.R.D.E., at Chertsey, so as to promote greater efficiency and long-term economy.
Economies are needed, apparently, because of the general cut-back in

595
defence spending. As part of the economy drive, I was told in a letter by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army:
" We intend to test the willingness of industry to undertake more of this work, and the cost implications."
I understand that the Ministry believes that after 1974, when the reorganisation is completed, savings of £300,000 a year will accrue, but, before 1974, savings will be partially offset by capital expenditure at Chertsey.
I want to know, first, whether the working group which made the decision was looking at all defence establishments or only at M.E.X.E. and, if the latter is the case, why was M.E.X.E. singled out? Is it the case that savings here are thought to be larger than possible savings elsewhere, or only that the Ministry believes that the social effects and costs would be lower in Christchurch than elsewhere.
Secondly, how exactly have these savings been computed? What allowance has been made for the other side of the equation, namely, the cost of redundancies, of social upheaval and of the lack of use of existing premises at M.E.X.E.?
Thirdly, in calculating savings, what allowance has been made for the hardship caused to individuals by the Ministry's decision?
Fourthly, is the Ministry's belief that industry will be able and willing to undertake some of M.E.X.E.'s work just a pious hope, or is it based on concrete evidence and research? Why was not this factor—and, in particular, the " cost implications " referred to by the Minister in his letter—looked at in detail before any decision was taken? Surely the Ministry should have gone into this in more detail before arriving at its decision.
My next major point concerns the move to Chertsey. On a general point, surely the Ministry's decision reverses the national policy of moving civil servants out of London. The employees who are moved are bound to suffer. For example, house prices are about 10 to 20 per cent. higher in Chertsey than in Christchurch, and there is no indication that local authorities in the Chertsey
596
area have enough land for their own housing requirements, let alone for coping with an influx from outside. How much disturbance allowance will be paid to those who move, and was this amount taken into account when the savings were estimated?
It has also been argued that the office and workshop accommodation at the F.V.R.D.E., at Chertsey, is completely inadequate for the present staff, and that no proposals have yet been put forward for new buildings to house the extra staff from M.E.X.E. At the same time, I understand that the F.V.R.D.E. has great and continuous difficulty in recruiting supporting staff, such as clerical grades, typists and draughtsmen. If this is the case, it seems senseless to move people out of new buildings in Christchurch into an establishment where there are inadequate premises, and into a high cost area where recruitment is difficult.
There are a number of other questions which the Minister should answer. How many of those employees offered jobs in Chertsey have accepted? Has any progress been made in finding alternative employment for those M.E.X.E. workers who have been declared redundant? What help is being tendered to them at present? What is to become of the test grounds at Hurn and Barnsfield Heath, and what is to happen to the lands and premises—some of them new—which will fall into disuse?
I hope that the Minister can answer some of these questions tonight, and if there are any that he is unable to answer now, perhaps he will be good enough to get in touch with me later, for these are vital matters which deserve the closest and most sympathetic attention from his Department. The people of Christchurch feel that M.E.X.E. has been sold down the river, and that the Department's decision was arbitrary and ill-founded. We suspect that the Ministry has made the wrong decision, that it is making false economies on inadequate information, and that it has ignored the needs of the M.E.X.E. employees and of the community in which they live.
I appeal to the Minister to reverse this decision or, at the very least, to give us tonight a far better, more open and more informed justification for sticking to his guns.
12.20 a.m.
The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) for giving me this opportunity of setting the record straight. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman right away that M.E.X.E. has not been singled out for special treatment. As was made clear recently by the Government's observations on the Second Report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, it is our policy continuously to study the need for establishments and the possibility of amalgamation. Similarly, we examine the way in which R. and D. work is done. This applies to Government R. and D. establishments, whether under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence or of the Minister of Technology.
Our concern is to obtain the equipment needed by our forces at a minimum cost in manpower and money. At the same time, when establishments are reduced or closed down, we have a duty to do everything possible to ease the human problems which inevitably arise.
It may be helpful if I say something about why and how we tackled the case of M.E.X.E. which, with effect from 1st April, 1970, has been integrated with the former Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment, at Chertsey, into the combined Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment under the charge of one director.
The origins of M.E.X.E. go back to about 1919, shortly after the end of the First World War, when the Experimental Bridging Company of Royal Engineers was set up at Christchurch. Over the years, and particularly from 1962 to 1968, M.E.X.E. was expanded to undertake an increasing programme. In 1968, the peak of this programme was reached. It was then evident from our review of requirements in the longer term that there would be a substantial reduction of both the range of equipment and the quantities needed. This situation was indisputable, whether or not the remaining work was to be done at M.E.X.E.
This was the background to our appointing a working party in 1968, including distinguished representation from outside the Service, to examine the nature
598
and size of the resources required to develop our future requirements of engineer and logistic equipment for the Army and the R.A.F. The staff side and the trade union side were informed as far back at September, 1968, of the appointment and terms of reference of this working party. Thus, it is 18 months since notice was given of the possibility of future changes.
The working party reported in mid-1969. It recommended substantial reductions in manpower to accord with the smaller programme and put forward alternative courses for the future conduct of the remaining work, including one for complete closure of Christchurch and another for partial transfer of work. It also recommended that, wherever possible, recognising that there are limitations on this, development work should be done in industry.
We were concerned before making final decisions that the full implications of these alternatives should be studied. The hon. Member will be the first to recognise that if a smallish establishment is being reduced substantially, its overheads such as police, firemen and other services tend to bear more heavily on its output. If, therefore, all the remaining work can be transferred to another establishment without too much capital expenditure, whether in bricks and mortar or compensation, this can be worth doing.
There were, besides, a number of special features in the M.E.X.E. case, such as the need for water test facilities for bridging. Other Departments had also to be consulted.
Such was my concern about the rightness of the decision that I went down, with the information supplied to me, to see what the position was and examine it with my advisers. Following the brief look that I had at the situation, I arranged for a small team, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army, who I regret is not able to be here tonight—he is away on Ministerial business in Germany—to consider the whole question carefully and urgently. Therefore, everything was done to ensure that the fullest possible information was before me when the decision had to be taken.
The decisions taken following the recommendations made by this group were

599
made known to the hon. Member, as he said, and to other hon. Members who have constituency interests, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army wrote to them on 2nd January, 1970. Reference was also made to the decision in paragraph 16 of the Statement of the Defence Estimates, 1970.
The essentials are that there is to be a reduction in the strength of M.E.X.E. from 270 non-industrials to about 100 and from 390 industrials to about 160. These reductions are planned to be achieved over the next two or three years, so that there has been a substantial element of warning. The Bridging Wing, related materials laboratory, engine and container testing facilities, are to be retained at Christchurch, and the balance of the work is to be transferred to Chertsey, where staff will be increased as necessary. As I have said, the two establishments are under the management of the Director, M.V.E.E. The approximate reductions in strength, taking the two establishments together, are: non-industrials, 110 industrials 150. As new projects arise for consideration, we shall look at the possibility of industry taking over some responsibility.
The retention of the bridging work at Christchurch stems, as the hon. Member knows much better than I, from the special physical attributes of the site and from the substantial capital expenditure which would have been involved in transferring this work elsewhere. On the other hand, the transfer of the Mechanical Power and Plant Wings was attractive because of common ground between the two establishments—for instance, in the development and testing of military vehicles, under a variety of conditions, and of components and ancillary equipment for vehicles and materials handling equipment. Their similar tasks require the establishments to have facilities such as test tracks and laboratories, workshops, drawing offices, and administrative services generally.
In consequence, we expect to achieve very useful savings from this rationalisation about one-third of the total annual saving of £300,000 a year which we estimate will result from the rundown. We do not reach this level until about 1974 because of the capital expenditure on works, removal, and so on, during the
600
intervening years. Benefits are also expected from integration under common management of work in areas where there are interfaces, for example, tanks equipped to carry bridges and to be used for other engineering purposes. The reduced capacity at Christchurch will enable us to free about 12 acres of this valuable site for alternative use.
I turn to other points made by the hon. Member. I recognise, of course, that the announcements must have been very unwelcome to the council and the people of Christchurch, with whom the establishment has built up a very happy relationship over the years. But the hon. Member will be the first to recognise that it could have been made much worse. I suspect that there was a sense of relief that the bridging and other facilities are to remain and that M.E.X.E. is not to be closed. First, I understand that when the hon. Member met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army, just before Christmas, his primary concern, because of gossip in the area, was to ensure that M.E.X.E. was not to be closed down completely, or considered in isolation, but examined on its merits. The hon. Member was assured that there was no question of M.E.X.E. being singled out or treated unfairly. He was told of the importance attached to the special advantages of M.E.X.E. for bridging work.
But I understand that the right hon. Member was not told of the precise nature of the proposals nor were the manpower implications discussed. I have seen the text of the release for the Press which was agreed with my hon. Friend at the end of the brief discussion, and that seems to be consistent with my understanding. Certainly, there was no reference to slight alterations. I cannot agree that this rundown was sprung on M.E.X.E. employees. As I have said, we gave notice of the examination through the normal Whitley machinery as long ago as September, 1968. The Institution of Professional Civil Servants submitted evidence to the original working party and both the Staff side and the trade unions had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State's working group in the autumn of 1969. The organisation of the combined establishment is to be discussed with the staff and the rundown itself is to be phased over two

601
to three years. There was, of course, no point in announcing the possible decision before it was taken. This would have caused unnecessary alarm. We have ensured the fullest possible consultation on this issue and given very lengthy warning.
The hon. Member asked whether, in estimating the savings, allowance had been made for extra cost. I confirm that it was. We took into account the cost of additional accommodation and facilities at Chertsey, removal expenses, excess rent allowances, other forms of compensation and frictional disturbance resulting from the changes.
The hon. Member's third point was about the allowance made for hardship caused to individuals. All the staff, non-industrial and industrial, who are transferred from Christchurch will be entitled to removal terms, which include payments for transport of furniture, etc., disturbance allowances, additional costs of accommodation and expenses connected with house purchase. There are special terms for those who have only two or three years still to serve and who do not wish to move their home. There will be compensation for those whose employment has to be terminated. I assure the hon. Member that the whole problem is being tackled very sympathetically by all concerned.
On the willingness of industry to undertake some of the tasks of M.E.X.E., the nature of and incidence of the work is such that the scope for major transfer is relatively small. Indeed, it would be something of a bonus. The planned rundown is based on the reduced programme and savings from rationalisation.
The hon. Member is misinformed about the workshop accommodation at Chertsey, which is entirely adequate. It is true that some of the office accommodation is not of the latest standards and there is a scheme for modernisation. However, there will be no major transfer of staff to Chertsey before suitable accommodation is available. As to recruitment, we do not expect that, given the length of the period over which the changes are to be phased, there will be undue difficulty in recruiting such additional staff as may be needed in the Chertsey area.
The hon. Member also asked whether this decision reverses the national policy
602
of moving civil servants out of London. Chertsey is not regarded as London so far as allowances are concerned. But I agree in principle that, in general, we would have preferred not to move staff from the South Coast nearer to London. We discussed this fully with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and with the Department of Employment and Productivity and it was agreed that, since the numbers involved are small, the employment and regional aspects are outweighed in terms of efficiency and economy.
I cannot yet answer the question about numbers of employees who are willing to go to Chertsey. Plans are being worked out very carefully and there will be full consultation with the staff side and the trade unions. We will fit in with personal circumstances wherever this is possible. I understand that there is concern, quite naturally, among the staff to know as soon as possible the names of those who will remain at Christchurch and those who will transfer or become redundant. I am glad to say that in this last category there are likely to be very few non-industrials. The most specialised staff in the establishment are the scientists, engineers and experimental grades. We expect to settle the future of these grades by about June next. Of those who will not be needed at Christchurch, the majority will be offered posts at Chertsey or elsewhere in Government service.
We expect that the numbers and grades of the other non-industrials who will be retained or available for transfer, or employment elsewhere, will also be known by June, although names will not he known until later. The rules for established civil servants require them to move according to the interests of the Service. However, cases of special hardship will receive sympathetic consideration, and every attempt will be made to fit them and certain temporary staff, who are not obliged to move, into vacancies elsewhere in the area.
On industrials, here again the numbers and grades to be retained will be known by June. Established staff will be offered transfers to Chertsey or elsewhere. As to staff who prefer to remain in the area, or will be redundant, so far they seem to have done reasonably well

603
in finding alternative employment and, given the length of time over which the rundown is to be phased, we hope that they will be absorbed fairly readily. An examination is in hand of the economics of continuing to use the test grounds at Hurn and Barnsfield Heath after the P.R.A. wing transfers to Chertsey. Factors to be taken into consideration are the availability of land and facilities at Chertsey, and the cost of movement between the two places.
I think that what I have said can be summed up as follows. The need to rationalise was recognised. We did detailed and careful studies. I went there myself, as did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We had the advice of outside experts as well. There was the fullest possible consideration of the issue. There was the fullest possible consultation before coming to a decision. Then the decision itself was announced, and from the moment of announcing it the actual phasing down is to take place over a period of two or three years.
I think that we in the Ministry of Defence, however popular or unpopular the decision may be—and I appreciate the sentiments of the people
604
of Christchurch—can hold our heads high for the way in which we have managed this difficult issue by giving the fullest possible warning to the people involved and catering for their needs.
I would like, finally, to pay tribute to the outstanding work of M.E.X.E, particularly in military bridging. It has achieved world recognition in this field and I am glad to say that recent bridges, particularly the medium girder bridge, the successor to the celebrated Bailey bridge, look like achieving and holding the lead for a long time to come. I am sure that this tradition will be maintained in future from the excellent base which is being retained at Christchurch.
We believe that the decision we have taken is sound and fully justified by our changed situation. Having taken the decision, the detailed working out of the proposals is being handled through well established procedures which will be operated sympathetically and spread over a period which, we hope, is long enough to avoid undue hardship for anyone.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Hunter Report
  Hunter Report
  Shellfish Industry (Levy)
  Shellfish Industry (Levy)
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Anderston Comprehensive Redevelopment Scheme
  Anderston Comprehensive Redevelopment Scheme
  Aberdeen Harbour (Fishery Section)
  Aberdeen Harbour (Fishery Section)
  Scottish Food Hygiene Council
  Scottish Food Hygiene Council
  Western Shores (Pollution)
  Western Shores (Pollution)
  Opticians (Domiciliary Examination Fees)
  Opticians (Domiciliary Examination Fees)
  Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Primary and Secondary Schools, Ayrshire
  Primary and Secondary Schools, Ayrshire
  Muirkirk Primary School
  Muirkirk Primary School
  Auchinleck Academy
  Auchinleck Academy
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Agricultural Workers (Wage)
  Agricultural Workers (Wage)
  Unpaid Fines
  Unpaid Fines
  Drug Offences
  Drug Offences
  Water Supply (Harris and South Uist)
  Water Supply (Harris and South Uist)
  Afforestation, Isle of Lewis
  Afforestation, Isle of Lewis
  Agriculture (Financial Assistance)
  Agriculture (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. J. M. Suttie (Letter)
  Mr. J. M. Suttie (Letter)
  Seashore and Beaches (Public Access)
  Seashore and Beaches (Public Access)
  Fee-Paying Schools
  Fee-Paying Schools
  Private Houses (Rents)
  Private Houses (Rents)
  House Building Industry (Costs)
  House Building Industry (Costs)
  Hunter Report
  Hunter Report
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Junior Hospital Doctors (Married Accommodation)
  Junior Hospital Doctors (Married Accommodation)
  Hospital Pharmaceutical Service
  Hospital Pharmaceutical Service
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Rehousing (Glasgow)
  Rehousing (Glasgow)
  Employment
  Employment
  Hill Farms
  Hill Farms
  Further Education Centres
  Further Education Centres
  Further Education (Teachers)
  Further Education (Teachers)
  Scottish Statistical Office
  Scottish Statistical Office
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Firearms (Offences)
  Firearms (Offences)
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  Nurses (Lodging Charges)
  Nurses (Lodging Charges)
  BOARD OF TRADE
    Invisible Exports (Committee's Report)
    Invisible Exports (Committee's Report)
  Inspectors of Companies
  Inspectors of Companies
  Handley Page Aircraft Company
  Handley Page Aircraft Company
  Air Traffic Control (Wisley Beacon)
  Air Traffic Control (Wisley Beacon)
  Surrey (Aircraft Routes)
  Surrey (Aircraft Routes)
  DEFENCE
    Malaysia (Butterworth Base)
    Malaysia (Butterworth Base)
  Sapper Keith Curtis
  Sapper Keith Curtis
  Nuclear-Powered Vessels, Portsmouth (Safety)
  Nuclear-Powered Vessels, Portsmouth (Safety)
  Naval Engines, Fareham (Testing)
  Naval Engines, Fareham (Testing)
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
    Potato Supplies
    Potato Supplies
  Bread
  Bread
  Wool Prices
  Wool Prices
  Weedkiller
  Weedkiller
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
    Nursery Schools, Wales
    Nursery Schools, Wales
  Higher Education (Grants)
  Higher Education (Grants)
  EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
    Cost of Living (Index Changes)
    Cost of Living (Index Changes)
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    Rhodesia (Portuguese Consul)
    Rhodesia (Portuguese Consul)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Release)
  Prisoners (Release)
  Noise Abatement Act
  Noise Abatement Act
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Radio Broadcasts (Jamming)
  Radio Broadcasts (Jamming)
TRANSPORT
  Workers (Transport)
  Workers (Transport)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Owner-Occupied Houses (Capital Gains Tax)
  Owner-Occupied Houses (Capital Gains Tax)
  Personal Income and Expenditure
  Personal Income and Expenditure
  Form P11D
  Form P11D
  Tax Refunds (Delays)
  Tax Refunds (Delays)
  Interest, Profits and Dividends (Outflow)
  Interest, Profits and Dividends (Outflow)
  WALES
    Water Abstraction (Fee)
    Water Abstraction (Fee)
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

ANGUILLA, ST. KITTS AND NEVIS
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present position in respect of Anguilla; for how long British police will remain in the island; and what progress has been made in securing harmonious agreement between Anguilla, St. Kitts and Nevis.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE. FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, so far as the situation in Anguilla is concerned, I am glad to say that the island remains calm. Law and order is being satisfactorily maintained, and good progress is being made with the development projects being undertaken by the contingent of Royal Engineers stationed there. As was stated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on April 16, the police are there because they are needed. Their function is to assist Her Majesty's Commissioner in his task of maintaining law and order, and they will remain there so long as their presence is required in this role. The future of Anguilla is, as the House knows, at present being considered by the Commission sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Hugh Wooding.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very encouraging reply, may I ask him whether he can give an approximate date on which some decision will be made regarding the relationship of these three islands?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, clearly Sir Hugh Wooding is aware of the need
710
for an urgent and speedy answer, but this is a difficult problem and I should not myself wish to put a date when we could expect conclusions from this Commission.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government remain committed to the view that the future of Anguilla shall be according to the desires of its people?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend of what my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said—and he has repeated it on a number of occasions: that it is no part of our policy that the Anguillans should live under an Administration which they do not want.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can my noble friend say what the Commission can do for Anguilla? It is a barren island, and all they can get is salt from the sea. Are we going to take new industries to that island? Because it is a hopeless island.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should not like to say that it is a hopeless island. Clearly, there are some in Anguilla who feel passionately about the island. But certainly we must see how we can help the lot of the people who live there.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords., can the noble Lord confirm that the Commission's Report will be published?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords, I would expect so. The Commission was set up by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of St. Kitts, but I am fairly certain that the Report will be published.

POLLUTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLES
2.40 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: 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 information they have on the use

711
of platinum as a catalyst for the suppression of pollution by internal combustion engines.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, platinum catalysts substantially reduce the emission of exhaust gases, but are expensive and would have a short life in engines using currently available types of fuel. There are other, possibly more appropriate, methods of achieving any reduction of such emissions which may, after full consideration of the subject, be found desirable.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Have the Government made a comparative study of this and other systems, and have they issued any instructions to the oil or motor industries as a result of those evaluations?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, naturally we have given consideration to this, but we have not given instructions. If this particular method were adopted, all of us would need to move away from petrol that contains lead. That of course would mean major reorganisation and development in the petrol companies and, I fear, would add quite substantially to the cost of petrol.

PEERS AND PARLIAMENTARY VOTING RIGHTS
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce this Session a Bill to abolish the disqualification of Peers from voting at elections for Members of the House of Commons, so that Parliament may have an opportunity of passing it into law before the next General Election.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the Government remain of the view that in the context of a reformed House of Lords it would not be appropriate to maintain this disqualification, but they have no plans for legislation this Session to abolish it.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, may I ask whether he considers that the question of giving Peers the right to vote at elections depends upon the reform of the House of Lords? Is it not the case that the House of Lords has already been substantially reformed by the creation of Life Peers, leave of absence and so on? Is it not also the case that even after the reform of the House of Lords, as envisaged in the Bill of last year, it will remain more or less the same as it is now?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think your Lordships' House has certainly undergone some reforms, but I think your Lordships are susceptible of further reform; indeed, the majority of us voted very strongly for it. I am not, as the noble Lord knows, out of sympathy with what he is saying. In my view, the present position is anomalous, not to say anachronistic. But there is a relationship —indeed, quite a fundamental constitutional relationship—because if the noble Lord consults some of the authorities, such as Coke, in his Institutes, he will there find (I will not read the whole of it, but I recommend it to him to read at some time) that there is, in fact, representation and anyone who is not a Lord of Parliament and of the Lords' House is of the House of Commons, either in person or by representation, partly coagmentative and partly representative. The noble Lord is himself in Parliament and represents himself in your Lordships' House. I fear that I can make no further promise at the moment, beyond expressing a great deal of sympathy for what he has had to say.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we have a 2 per cent, lead according to the poll in today's Daily Express, and that we can now be generous on this issue?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I regret that noble Lords would be unlikely to be in a position to influence the result either way, at least by their votes.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is there not the practical difficulty that, even if legislation were passed this Session, the names would not in fact be on the register for an Election at the time when most of us think it is coming?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am unable to forecast the date of the General Election.

POST OFFICE PAY AND PRODUCTIVITY
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 conditions with a bearing on productivity are included in the new Post Office pay offer, and what is the average percentage increase offered.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Post Office has informed my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications that the increases, which averaged about 11½ per cent., were given subject to undertakings by each of the unions concerned to give full cooperation, both generally and through specific measures, in increasing productivity, efficiency and profitability.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider 11½ per cent, a fair average for others to follow in negotiations of this kind, or has it to be taken as an exception? Secondly, can he not give us a little more specific information about the productivity clauses?—because this is a matter which affects us all. Will these agreements achieve something worth while, and mean the end of restrictive practices? Because on that may depend whether the increased charges will be substantial.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am finding it slightly difficult to curb the length of the noble Lord's supplementaries since I am about to answer them. But to answer the noble Lord's first point, he would be very unwise to argue from the particular to the general. If he wishes further details about the makeup of the 1l½ per cent., I can tell him the increases varied for different grades for different purposes and depended on the dates of previous increases—and I am sure he will accept that.
The noble Lord also asks for details of particular measures. I do not wish to go into much detail, for the simple reason
714
that I do not believe it would be right for me to give it, since this is basically a matter for the Post Office, which is a nationalised industry. But I have made inquiries, and without prejudice as to whether or not I should give this information, I may say that the specific measures included, for example, the introduction of new methods of measuring and recording productivity in local offices and an assurance of the continued acceptance of the principles of mechanising mail handling and of cooperation in the development and implementation of mechanisation in the letter and parcel services. I have in fact inquired pretty directly, and I find also that the Post Office are keeping very closely in touch with the productivity experts in the Department of Employment and Productivity. On the whole, if I may say so subjectively, I think the situation is rather encouraging.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for being so specific. Can he follow it up by saying that the achievements are likely to be so great that we need not look forward to any increases in postal charges?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is a very optimistic Member of your Lordships' House.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bessborough, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which he has given Private Notice— namely,
"Whether Her Majesty's Government will make a Statement on the safety of British subjects and property in Trinidad and Tobago?"
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will answer that Private Notice Question shortly after 3.30 p.m.

HAVERING CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

TONGA BILL [H.L.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision in connection with the attainment by Tonga of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

MEDICAL EDUCATION: THE TODD REPORT
2.49 p.m.
LORD BROCKrose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am sure your Lordships will be sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Todd, is unable to attend today because of ill-health. He wrote to me over the weekend to say that he is progressing but his doctors will not allow him to come to Westminster.
My Lords, the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education was published in April, 1968. Although it gave rise to plenty of discussion, much of this was imprecise and made no headway. Indeed, as one observer commented, it seemed to produce a stunned silence. Two years have now passed, and no lead has come from Her Majesty's Government to encourage official debate on the Report in either House. But policy decisions have been announced based on the Report, and it has become apparent that at any time legislation may be introduced. It seems wrong that in such an important matter as medical education,
716
policy decisions should be made or legislation proposed without the opportunity for open debate. This implies that the findings of the Commission are wholly acceptable to the medical profession; but that is far from so, and many criticisms, fears and reservations exist that must be respected.
In considering a document of this type, it is only human to criticise. Courtesy and expediency also demand that one must begin with an appraisal of its merits. It is a lengthy, serious and thought-provoking document compiled by 20 members of a Royal Commission, carefully chosen, and their conclusions clearly must inspire careful attention. The Report contains a number of generalisations which are based on opinion rather than on factual evidence and it is a pity that such opinions are often not logically argued. Among the recommendations that must be generally acceptable is that which aims to improve the pattern of general practice away from the one-man type of practice; from the doctor's surgery existing in isolation towards the team sharing a group practice or a health centre, with all the advantages and increased efficiency that can result. There is also the principle of improved training for general practice, by which a doctor is no longer to be thrown in at the deep end soon after qualification but will spend time in postgraduate training organised in such a way as to raise general practice to the importance and dignity it deserves. The principle is good; the details suggested are not so readily acceptable.
The plans for improved postgraduate training for the specialities are also acceptable and, in fact, conform with the plans and intentions that the Royal Colleges have already followed for several years. The recommendations for a planned increase in the numbers of doctors in training are fully acceptable from a simple consideration of the present shortage and the even greater shortage that threatens. The Commission rightly emphasise that medical education is a university responsibility and must be judged from that viewpoint. They state that the undergraduate course in medicine should be educational and that medical education should continue throughout professional life:
"Its object is to produce not a fully qualified doctor but an educated man who will become fully qualified by postgraduate training."

717
Much of the Report is concerned with the medical schools of London, and the recommendations about London are some of the most controversial. Moreover, they seem to be the most unpractical and costly recommendations. From the very early days of the Commission it was widely stated that their Report would contain a deliberate attack on the London system of medical education. It is hard to say this, but the measure of prejudice against London that was widely alleged appears to be substantiated. It is assumed that the conditions in the regional provincial centres are of special merit and that a similar regional parochialism can with advantage be imposed upon London. What is good for Birmingham and Manchester and Newcastle must be good for London! Clearly there are conditions, methods of training and other features in the provincial organisation that can be applied with advantage to London. But, my Lords, we should do well to remember that London is unique and from its very size and complexity presents a special problem that will not be solved by trying to turn it into a number of smaller provincial-like centres.
The very size of London is inescapable as also is its traffic problem and the distances to be travelled between its hospitals and colleges. It is impossible to brush aside its position as a huge centre of international importance, not only in medicine. It is involved in the education of about one half of all doctors. There is also the part it plays in postgraduate training. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, in a recent debate on the Green Paper, emphasised that the number of postgraduate doctors who come to London from overseas is larger than that of all the doctors trained yearly in Great Britain. Some of the detailed recommendations of the Royal Commission in regard to the London medical schools have the aura of being doctrinaire in origin and inspiration.
This problem of the handling of London is as vast and complex as London itself. The dean of one of the great London medical schools points out that the Report comments:
"London medical degrees rightly hold a high reputation; that the London medical schools attract entrants of high ability and that the medical graduates of the University of London obtain higher professional qualifications such as the M.R.C.P., after a shorter time than do medical graduates of other universities apart
718
from those of Oxford and Cambridge, and that they fill a larger share of consultant posts in Great Britain."
This seems scarcely criticism but high praise of the London medical schools. The Report further states:
"… the University of London as a whole has shown a remarkable degree of flexibility and adaptability to modern educational needs."
Appendix 14 of the Report is a valuable presentation of the origin and development of the University of London. It sets out the problems that have arisen as a result of the persistence of 12 independent undergraduate medical schools. Those of us who remember the situation in the 1920s will have no difficulty in understanding the unsatisfactory state of the medical schools when they had to rely on their own financial resources. This meant great deprivation of funds for leaching, for equipment and research and for the salaries of teachers. All this was changed by the coming of grants via the University Grants Committee which enabled the schools to take a powerful forward step. Unhappily the interwar years did not see the formation of enough professorial departments to impart further strength to the schools although the number is now more satisfactory. It was hoped that the residual problem of the London medical schools could be helped by the Todd recommendations. When one considers the many solutions suggested over the last 100 years for this problem, it seems that the recommendations of this Report are not necessarily any more likely to be successful than the many previous solutions suggested.
Briefly, the Report states that the 12 medical schools are too many, that they are too small and that the total number of medical students is as big as is manageable. It recommends that the 12 schools should be paired so as to produce six medical schools. It is stated that this would permit larger scientific departments which would attract a larger staff, with consequent practical and academic advantages. It recommends also that each of the six new medical schools should be closely associated with a multi-faculty institution. Few would disagree that advantages might follow such an arrangement if it could be implemented. But many doubt the depth of the advantages that would follow such a multi-faculty association in the absence of a residential

719
system. From the details given in the Report, all that would be achieved would be lip service to an idea: an idea that would often be only a pipe dream.
But what would pairing of the London medical schools involve? It would take too much time to consider the problems presented by each pairing. I confess that my own reaction to the plan was at first largely unfavourable. I now think that advantages can follow fusion of some of the schools, but the suggestion of a straight pairing is too pragmatic; it lacks all finesse. Such an upheaval can scarcely be handled by such a simple device, and I suggest that the details demand much more careful study. For instance why should all schools be paired? It may well be that some other arrangement might suffice. Some of the pairing seems unpractical and in nearly all cases the cost of implementation either would be so great as to be impossibly difficult or would delay pairing for many decades. If we accept the policy of thoughtful, not pragmatic fusion of certain schools, then it should be applied first to schools in which the conditions are favourable. In some the proposed pairing demands delay. But the whole exercise is so complex that it can be achieved efficiently only if great thought and discussion are given to the details. It is too complex a problem to be dealt with just by doubling up.
I must make it clear to your Lordships that you should differentiate between hospitals and their medical schools. It is not intended that the hospitals should amalgamate, although there has already been fruitful sharing of clinical effort; for example, between Guy's Hospital and King's College Hospital in neurosurgery and in psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital. The pairing of medical schools can give rise to great difficulties from the geographical separation between hospital and medical school; the cost of building on a new site may be prohibitive. Especially difficult would be the deprivation of the close liaison that should exist between pre-clinical departments and the clinical needs of the hospital. In any pairing there is bound to be a favoured partner and a deprived partner. If the new medical school is built away from both hospitals, for instance at a multi-faculty college, both will be deprived.
720
Already it is being suggested in one such pairing that the loss of the physics department to one partner should be corrected by a small physics department being retained or formed at the parent hospital so that its clinical needs would not suffer. This would be a complete negation of the policy enunciated by the Todd Report that pairing should permit the organisation of large and more efficient departments. It reveals an inherent weakness of pairing. Guy's and King's are suggested as a natural pair but they illustrate yet another problem.
The Todd Report remit does not include dental education but it is unrealistic to ignore the dental schools that share certain pre-clinical departments and teaching. There are five dental schools in London whose students, like the medical students, have to be provided with training in basic sciences. King's College Hospital has a dental school with an annual intake of 50 students and a new and large building. Guy's has an annual intake of 80. The medical school and the dental school at Guy's together have 1,024 students; a number already large enough by the Todd criteria to provide viable departments worthy of full academic support. Their intake of 200 students a year equals the optimum entry suggested. What is to be done in this case? Are the two dental schools to be paired as well as the medical schools; and, if so, on which site? At Guy's or at King's? Much more detailed thought is necessary to solve the many problems. No clear indication is given as to where the large sums of money are to come from for the six new medical schools.
Next are the recommendations about postgraduate hospitals, and here again we see the apparent prejudice against London. It is proposed that the small but highly specialised postgraduate hospitals of London should be merged with the undergraduate teaching hospitals. The achievements of the special hospitals in heart disease, nerve disease, lung disease et cetera have brought them worldwide fame and much credit to this country. Postgraduate students flock to the Metropolis from all parts of the world because of this success and because of the teaching the associated institutes offer. It is now suggested that they can do better work in small departments in separate undergraduate hospitals. The bare statement that they will benefit

721
from this is just not good enough. An advantage could be the sharing of expensive laboratory, library and interdepartmental services, but this could also be achieved if the postgraduate hospitals and their institutes were combined in one or two large postgraduate centres, as has already been explored and even begun in the Chelsea scheme.
In such a scheme the postgraduate student attracted to London could gain great advantages rather than by attending small departments at individual undergraduate hospitals. It is a pity if the Pickering Report on postgraduate centres is to be rejected. The Commission do not seem aware of any difference between teaching basic education to undergraduates and training postgraduates in a specialised and highly technical discipline. The two are entirely different.
My Lords, it is also remarkable that the great achievements of the Postgraduate Medical Federation and of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith during the last thirty years have been largely ignored by the Commission who seem to have been reluctant to draw on the experience and achievements of these very successful bodies. There is no evidence that any member of the Commission has firsthand knowledge of the London postgraduate hospitals and Institutes, nor that any study in depth of their work and achievements was made. All the postgraduate hospitals have important links through joint staff appointments with most of the undergraduate hospitals as well as with the University of London. There is, in fact, no isolation. The existing links could well be increased, but not if this would involve loss of administrative control and loss of individuality.
The suggestions in the Report for postgraduate education include plans for systematic training schemes and in particular for general practice. In so far as the various specialities are concerned, the recommendations of the Royal Commission are in line with the thoughts and actions of the Royal Colleges who for several years now have been concerned with organising systematic training after taking advice from the various specialities. Their plan is similar to the Commission's, that a period of general or basic postgraduate training should be followed by a period of special training after which
722
the individual could be recognised as a trained specialist in his particular discipline and could then be registered.
Difficulties arise in connection with the recommendations for training in general practice. The plan is for all doctors, after graduation, to spend four years in general professional training and then to spend a further four years in what is called " vocational training", making eight postgraduate years in all. In the case of general practitioners, this means that it will be eight years before a doctor can become: a principal in general practice. Such a long training period gives rise to many practical problems such as rotation of posts every six months for up to four years. This could raise great difficulties in regard to married quarters and for married women doctors.
There is grave danger that this greatly increased time spent in training for general practice, eight years after qualification, will drive many doctors from Great Britain to other countries where they can obtain satisfactory employment without such a long period of waiting. It is difficult to see how these long years of training can be made compulsory. But even more important will be the effect of the conditions in general practice into which doctors will be going. Unless great improvements are made in the conditions of general practice doctors will just not be content to spend eight postgraduate years in training.
It is only fair to draw attention to the great advances that have actually been taking place in postgraduate training for general practice and so on, irrespective of the recommendations of the Commission. This is shown by the several hundred postgraduate centres formed throughout Great Britain, paid for by local funds raised for the purpose and providing libraries, lecture rooms and many valuable educational amenities.
My Lords, it is necessary now to consider the position in regard to the Royal Colleges. I suppose I should declare an interest in that I am a former President of the Royal College of Surgeons of England and am Director of one of its research departments, but I hope to show that I base my support of the" Colleges on reason and not on prejudice. A number of comments in the Report of the Royal Commission are felt to be unfairly critical of the Royal Colleges. This is

723
especially seen in the attitude of the Commission to the higher professional examinations of the Colleges. The pass rate for the F.R.C.S. and the M.R.C.P. at each examination is about 25 per cent., and it is suggested that this is far too low and in fact constitutes an unfair barrier to specialisation. It is suggested that the pass rate should be much higher and almost automatic, being based essentially on reports of satisfactory progress from the postgraduate student's teachers. It is significant that the same pass rate is arrived at independently by the two Colleges.
My Lords, the Royal Colleges have a statutory obligation to satisfy themselves that a man who receives their higher diplomas indicating ability and fitness to become a recognised surgeon or physician is indeed properly trained. Many feel that it is not possible to do this unless a set examination of a certain standard is passed at some stage. This is especially so in regard to those who come from overseas and whose training and knowledge may be quite unproven and is often inadequate. The Commission actually state the reverse in regard to doctors from overseas. Just because a man decides that he would like to become a surgeon, or perhaps his parents may have decided that ambition for him, it is suggested that by expressing the intention and doing some work he inevitably acquires a 60, 70 or 80 per cent, chance of obtaining the appropriate higher diploma without examination. I repeat that the Colleges have a statutory obligation to satisfy themselves that the public is properly protected against an imperfectly trained or incompetent surgeon or physician. That the pass list for any one examination is only 25 per cent, does not mean that the examination is unduly harsh, nor that the percentage of candidates ultimately successful is so low.
The examinations of the Colleges are managed very fairly and are meant to select those who are sufficiently prepared to embark on a final course of postgraduate training. Once the candidates have shown that they have the basic knowledge, it is not intended that they should be required to pass yet another examination hurdle in the course of their organised vocational training period. The
724
set examination is meant to show that they are fit to receive further training. It is difficult to understand how anyone can deny the need for an examination to test knowledge before allowing a surgeon or physician to practise on the human body: he may be lazy, unintelligent or indifferent.
A question that must be asked is: who will start the proposed reforms? Will the control of medical education be an integral part of the National Health Service, and therefore be essentially under Government control? This would be a great danger. Medical education should not be controlled by the service needs of the National Health Service. Indeed, we must remember the observation of the Royal Commission, that medical education should be a university responsibility. The Royal Colleges will be unwilling to surrender their responsibilities, which they feel they are fully capable of honouring. They will be willing to accept modifications and improvements after discussion, but will not submit to dictation. It would seem that a great deal of academic freedom is at stake, and the acceptance of the Todd Report could be the first step in the loss of academic freedom by imposed State action. Particularly important is the attempt to suppress originality or differing standards and ways of training. This threatens the recognition of excellence and encourages egalitarianism.
Of special and sinister significance is the recommendation that the present system of boards of governors of teaching hospitals in England and Wales should be discontinued and that the teaching hospitals should be brought within the framework of the Regional Hospital Boards. This is an especially unattractive and dangerous recommendation. The interposition of two or three tiers of management between the teaching hospitals and the Ministry would inevitably cause delays, hindrance and extra difficulties of management, harmful to the teaching hospitals and to the National Health Service. The recommendation is against the weight of enlightened management opinion, and the task of administering these hospitals will no longer be as attractive to hospital administrators as it is now, with the current measure of freedom and independence. Able and experienced hospital administrators are already in short supply.

725
Improvement in medical education affects everyone, and it must be unsatisfactory to force upon the profession and the public policies and decisions that have been formulated without full discussion and agreement. Peremptory unilateral or authoritarian instructions will get us nowhere. The only recommendations in the Report that justify priority are those related to increasing the numbers of medical students, and hence the number of qualified doctors, and those recommendations related to improving the standards of general practice.
My Lords, it is not possible in a single speech to cover fully the many fundamental matters this Report raises. I leave much to following speakers, and I hope that my remarks, if critical, will not be thought disparaging of this important and thoughtprovoking Report. I beg to move for Papers.
3.14 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, it is with temerity that I stand at this Box this afternoon, greatly daring in speaking in a debate that will justify itself by the quality of informed and knowledgeable speeches we shall hear from those who are expert in this technical and controversial subject of medical education. But it is a matter which is important to us all as eventual patients. Perhaps, therefore, as one who is sometimes at the receiving end of the complete process of medical education, I may be forgiven for my audacity. I must confess that this afternoon thirtyseven years ago, when I was being married, I would have hardly believed that thirtyseven years later I should be addressing your Lordships on the subject of medical education. I feel extra gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Brock, for affording me this unforeseen privilege and at the same time I add my regrets to his that the noble Lord, Lord Todd, is unable to be with us here today.
The Royal Commission on Medical Education was set up to:
"… review medical education, undergraduate and postgraduate, in Great Britain; and in the light of national needs and resources, including technical assistance overseas, to advise Her Majesty's Government on what principles future development (including its planning and coordination) should be based."
It is just two years now since the Commission presented their unanimous Report. It seems to me that it was a
726
remarkable achievement to have completed so important and technical an inquiry so expeditiously. I often think that Parliament does not sufficiently declare its gratitude to highly qualified and very busy men and women, who nevertheless make time to give of their best in public service by carrying the burden of a Royal Commission such as this. Parliament has not debated the Commission's Report at all until today and even now it is not on the initiative of the Government. Implementation of it, of course, depends largely upon what money the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to provide—and I hope that he will be imaginative and realistic. Advance in medical science is now one of the highest priorities in the whole of medical care.
The Commission in their recommendations were looking forward not just to the immediate future, but as far ahead as possible, and obviously realised that many of their plans would take years to implement. Looking at the future pattern of medical care, the Commission came down in favour of general practice continuing in Britain, even though the idea of general practice seems to be disappearing in some other countries. It is thought, however, that general practitioners will in future tend to work here in larger groups and that single-handed general practitioners will gradually disappear.
The Commission were so right to envisage much closer integration between general practice and the Hospital Service and the services devoted to community medicine. This is one of the main subjects of the Government's recent Green Paper on the future of the National Health Service. Larger groups of general practitioners should work in properly organised premises, such as health centres, the Commission thought, and they should be much more closely in touch with the hospitals. The suggestion that the most widespread practice in the future will be groups of 12 or more doctors, with assistance from nurses, health visitors and other non-medical staff, needs close examination from the practical point of view. Some; of those already engaged in large group practices claim that with more than eight doctors an administrator would be needed, which would add considerably to the cost, and in spite of the

727
efficiency of the health centres, general practitioners using them do find them expensive.
As for the future pattern of the Hospital Service, the Commission foreshadowed that the idea of the district general hospital, with seldom less than 800 beds, would be developed and that smaller hospitals would gradually disappear. While realising that a standard pattern would not necessarily be applicable in every part of the country, the Commission thought that most cities and large towns would have such a district general hospital, with perhaps a general practitioner health centre attached or near to it and close relations with other general practitioner units farther away. The new health centres would be able to furnish more help for the doctors in the way of secretarial assistance and of what are called the paramedical personnel—that is, nurses, health visitors and so on.
Unless the Government make up their minds about the future of the National Health Service soon, no more new health centres will be forthcoming. For what local authority, threatened with the loss of its responsibilities for community health, will continue to spend its ratepayers' money upon capital equipment for services which will shortly be outside its control?
Although theoretically the future pattern of the Hospital Service as envisaged by the Commission may be attractive and appropriate in large cities, what of the thousands of less sophisticated patients living away from the towns, who are surely deserving of some consideration? One cannot read the Report without suspecting that most members of the Commission were less closely in touch with these. I fancy that a great many of your Lordships live in the country. When you leave London tomorrow night and return home you may smile at the passage in the Report which speaks of modern developments that will "ease the lot" of those who live in the countryside.
Where I live, in a village just outside of a small town, we have available a splendid new district hospital 13 miles away in an industrial town which is rapidly expanding, and also an excellent local hospital, like a big cottage hospital, serving a wide country area near a small town. Where do the patients from the
728
small town and the villages want to go? To the local hospital nearly every time. And why? Because they are greeted as friends; they know what to do and where to go; and as outpatients they spend the minimum of time in waiting to see a doctor, to be X-rayed or to receive the necessary treatment. Inevitably the big hospital, though better equipped, is much more impersonal, and there are much longer waits. All cases that need the more intensive care available in the new district hospital are sent there; but the personal desire is always to stay nearer home. And I must say that this attitude has my sympathy. After all, the Hospital Service exists for the patients, and not for the doctors, administrators or members of committees.
To come back to the subject of medical education and the would be doctor, the Commission said that candidates for a university medical course should have good "A" levels in chemistry or physical science, together with two other academic subjects chosen from the whole range available for "A" level; mathematics would be useful, and for those with inadequate science training preliminary courses at a technical college should replace the three medical courses formerly given in medical schools. In spite of the obvious and admitted potential wastage affecting women candidates through marriage, the Commission recommended that the main criterion for admission to a university medical school should be quite simply the ability of the applicant to profit from the course and to become a good doctor. This should be the criterion for admission regardless of sex, and the justifiably maligned quota system for women candidates should be abolished. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, must have felt fortified when she read this.
The Commission said that the duration of the undergraduate course should continue to be five years; that it should be firmly in the hands of the university (I expect that is why the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is replying to the debate), and that the aim of the undergraduate course should be to produce not a finished doctor, but a broadly educated man who can become a doctor by further training. That seems to me to be the heart of the Commission's thinking: that all doctors ought to be, in addition, specialists in particular branches of

729
medicine, and that postgraduate training, which has hitherto had an insufficient systematic basis, should be keyed to that. I am not expert enough to say whether the detailed proposals made by the Commission for implementing that are the best, or whether they could be improved upon. I know that my noble friend Lord Cottesloe is going to speak on it from his special knowledge as Chairman of the Postgraduate Hospital at Hammersmith. All I would say is that if we are to attract young men and women of high quality into the profession and to offer them prospects worthy of their abilities, we must get this postgraduate training right. We obviously need much larger numbers of young men and women to opt for medicine as a career. We must be able to offer them a training worthy of the next fifty years in the profession, and a career where ability will be rewarded and advancement will not depend so much on chance.
Of course, a crucial question is how many doctors are likely to be required in the future. If one looks at the present medical personnel available, at the expected growth of the population and at prospects of death and retirement, it seems to me certain that there is going to be a serious shortage of doctors by 1975. The Commission said that the aim should be to have a ratio of 1,800 doctors to every one million of the population by the end of the century. Part of the shortage could be alleviated by making use of the services of women doctors parttime. Many trained women doctors cannot at present work fulltime because of home responsibilities, and many of them are deterred from making the attempt by the tax position. If they are married to a doctor, or to a member of some other profession, they will be worse off financially by returning to fulltime practice, because the joint income of husband and wife will exceed £5,500 a year and therefore the wife's additional earnings will be subject to surtax as well as income tax, and her taxed earnings will be less than the extra she has to pay for work in the home which she no longer has time to do herself.
It means a lamentable waste of professionally skilled womanpower, but until Treasury Ministers are willing to recognise the unanswerable case for effecting further tax changes in this field we
730
shall continue to waste scarce national resources. Fortunately, this is a matter which a Conservative Government are pledged to rectify. On April 14 of last year, twelve months ago, the Secretary of State for Social Services made in another place a Statement upon medical school places in which he said that the Government had completed their consideration of the recommendation of the Royal Commission about the number of doctors to be trained in our medical schools by the mid-'seventies. They accepted the main finding, that having regard to current shortages and likely future demands further provision was needed to produce a substantial increase above the number being trained at present and beyond existing plans for expansion. The target accepted as the practical figure for the annual entry of pre-clinical students was 3,700 a year by 1975—about 40 per cent. up on current figures. The Secretary of State went on to say that the plan for expansion would consist of two parts—and I quote:
"The first is the maximum use of existing facilities … Only when all that has been done shall we rely on new medical schools. Nevertheless, the sooner we decide to have new medical schools, the better, because it takes years to build them."
Can the noble Baroness who is to reply tell us what progress has been made in existing teaching hospitals to enable us to reach the accepted target of an extra 1,000 a year intake by 1975, and what progress has been made in the development of the new medical schools which the Secretary of State referred to twelve months ago?
It costs about £10,000 to train an undergraduate medical student. Although the numbers of doctors emigrating each year are apparently difficult to estimate, it is thought that a figure of some 300 a year is about correct for the past few years, excluding those who are going to give service for a time in underdeveloped countries. That is about onesixth of the annual output from our medical schools; and these are trained doctors, going to developed countries such as the United States and Canada. It represents an investment of £3 million a year for their undergraduate training alone. Can we afford this annual drain upon our medical and financial resources? Ought not much greater trouble be taken to study the reasons for it? If it were not for the

731
help that we receive from doctors of other countries, especially India, the British Hospital Service would have broken down long ago.
Is this a situation with which any Government can be content? Today there are over 5,000 overseas doctors filling junior posts in the Hospital Service, about half of the junior staff strength. We know that many of these overseas doctors cannot easily be spared from their own countries, except for limited periods of advanced training; and they may at any moment stop coming here either because their Governments will refuse to let them come any more, or because they may prefer to go elsewhere. But why are so many of our own younger doctors leaving this country when they are so badly needed here? Broadly, those who are emigrating are doing so in the belief that they are going to find better equipment, better working conditions and facilities, better opportunities, better earnings and a larger net income to spend on themselves and their families, because the countries to which they are going have a more intelligent and less discouraging system of direct taxation. Could the noble Baroness tell us whether the Government have any positive plans to remedy this fantastic failure to keep from emigrating across the Atlantic those whom we need in this country, our own British doctors?
My Lords, it is well known that medical education in London began long before the foundation of the University of London, and that it was substantially based upon the hospital teaching tradition of apprenticeship and practical tuition. In London there are over 200 hospitals, some of them very small, 26 boards of hospital governors and 12 separate medical schools. Is this tremendous concentration of medical schools in the capital city really sound in the present-day conditions? Many of them were founded a very long time ago when there was ample population resident around them to provide clinical material for teaching. That is not so today. Industry and offices have absorbed the space hitherto occupied by people, and this population change has presented some of the teaching hospitals with considerable difficulties. Can the noble Baroness tell us what the Government plan to do with
732
regard to the Commission's recommendations to reduce the number of London medical schools from 12 to six? That is a question on which the noble Lord, Lord Brock, has spoken with deep feeling in the debate this afternoon. My Lords, it was the Government that appointed this Royal Commission, and it will be Government, after consultation, that will decide whether its recommendations can or cannot be implemented.
The Departments of Health and Education will have to examine the division of financial responsibility for medical education. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether this has been done and with what outcome. The sooner the present consultations are completed and the Government are ready to announce their decisions, the better it will be for everyone concerned. But I am also sure that the greatest possible wisdom will be needed in coming to any final conclusions, and for the future of this country's health and for the satisfaction to be enjoyed by the doctors of many tomorrows, let us hope that that wisdom is available in large measure.
The problems posed to us by this Royal Commission are not insoluble. This country is great enough to supply itself with all the doctors its people need, and to break loose from its present humiliating position of not managing to staff its own hospitals. There is no more honourable profession than healing the sick. But the training must be right and the career offered to a young British doctor must be reasonable, evoking his ambitions and his loyalties. Now that we have a National Health Service, all these are matters for the Government; and our part as Members of Parliament is to insist that the Government shall take decisions.

TRINIDAD DISORDERS
3.34 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was asked earlier to make a Statement on the safety of British persons and property in Trinidad and Tobago. The Statement is as follows:
"Our High Commission is in touch with the United Kingdom community. No reports have been received of incidents involving injury to the lives and

733
property of United Kingdom nationals."
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we must be most grateful to the noble Lord for having given us that information. We must all hope that it proves to be correct. I was awoken by a long interview on the news this morning between the BBC. and the Chief of Police in Trinidad, and I gathered that the situation is now calm. I hope that the noble Lord can confirm that. Further, am I right in saying that Black Power representatives were recently in Montreal, gave a great deal of trouble there and were put in in prison? I do not know whether it is the same group who have been causing trouble in their own home country. Am I also right in saying that one of the main problems is the very high rate of unemployment among the sugar workers in the country? Perhaps Mr. Williams, having been in power for some 14 years, is having some discontent and no doubt he is right in taking a strong line with these troublemakers. Would the noble Lord tell me this—and this is very important: what does he think might be the effect on the rest of the Caribbean if Black Power were to seize control in Trinidad? I realise that Trinidad is no longer a United Kingdom responsibility but, none the less, we must be concerned about the situation in the Caribbean as a whole.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I have noted what the noble Lord has said, and I expect him to keep us informed on any further developments which may occur.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wish I could inform the House that the situation is calm in Trinidad. There is still disorder, and there are some soldiers who have mutinied and who are now being dealt with by the loyal forces of the Trinidad and Tobago Government. So far as Black Power and their representatives in Montreal are concerned, I know that there have been disturbances in other parts of the Caribbean, apart from Trinidad, as a consequence of the trials in Montreal arising from disturbances in the University in Montreal. It is true that there is severe unemployment in Trinidad, and this may have been something which the Black Power people have exploited. So far as the Caribbean as a whole is concerned, we know that there
734
has been a growth of Black Power. I expect that the Governments of the Caribbean will pay more attention to this particular influence as a result of what has occurred in Trinidad.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, while appreciating the assurance that he has given us, whether it would be possible, in view of the fact that there is this unhappy conflict—or tension, as I prefer to call it— between Indian and African populations in many of the West Indian islands, and extending to beyond them, for Her Majesty's Government to suggest to those Governments that there might be a Caribbean conference to deal with this problem—racial tension and unemployment—which largely gives rise to these events?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think that the disturbances in Trinidad can be laid at the door of what is called racial tension between those of Negro extraction and Indians. So far as my noble friend's suggestion of a conference is concerned, this is entirely a matter for the Governments in the Caribbean. I should have thought in a realistic sense that it was the responsibility of the Government, Parliament and people in each territory to put their own situation right, and not to look to some discussion group, as a conference could well become, to do this. I think the responsibility must lie in the country itself.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, while I know that the leaders of this disturbance in Trinidad call themselves Black Power, would not my noble friend agree that it is a very misleading name for them? Because it suggests, as my noble friend Lord Brockway has pointed out, that the dispute in Trinidad is primarily one of a racial character, whereas it has nothing whatsoever to do with race but is solely of a social nature?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, even we who have been watching the reports in the past few weeks must have some doubt as to the real causes of the present conflict in Trinidad. One thing is perfectly clear: the steps and actions that have been taken by the militants, and those who have been organising disturbances there, cannot solve the economic and social problems in Trinidad.

MEDICAL EDUCATION: THE TODD REPORT
3.40 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, we now turn from the troubles in the Caribbean to the troubles and problems here. But I do not think that the troubles to which I am going to refer and which I found in this Report are anything like as serious as the troubles we have just been talking about. When I first read the Report when it came out, and when I read it again last week, I thought there was very little in it with which I did not, broadly speaking, agree. There are, of course, one or two points on which I should like to ask questions and one or two points on which one wants to be a little critical.
If I may comment briefly on some of these, I should like to begin by saying that I am pleased to find that the Report attaches a great deal of importance to the work of the general practitioner and to proper training for the general practitioner, so that he can have the same amount of postgraduate training as somebody going into one of the recognised special branches of medicine. I thought that that was rather supported by what the Commission say: that the majority of the doctors becoming principals in general practice do not take up their job until they are aged thirty or more, whereas most of them have done their first preregistration job by the time they are twentysix so that they have been doing five or six years of some kind of postgraduate training, whether it is in hospital or whether in working as an assistant in general practice before becoming a senior member in general practice. So I am not very worried about the amount of time it is going to take before somebody can become a principal in general practice.
I thought that two points were important about the work of the general practitioner in the future and what he is going to do in his training. It is an important recommendation that he should do some work with the local authority and do some work in the occupational health service. For a very long time—the situation is not as bad as it was—there has been a certain hostility between the local authority medical services and the general
736
practitioner medical services; and I am sure that a great deal of this hostility occurred because people did not know what the other service was. Therefore, it is a very good recommendation that general practitioners should know something about the work of the local authority.
In passing, I should like to say why I think there has now been a great change in the attitude. Recently we were debating the Green Paper about the importance of getting rid of the tripartite system in the National Health Service, and I ventured then to say to your Lordships that where good will was existing between the various branches of the tripartite system—the general practitioners, the local authority and the hospital services—there was remarkably little difficulty; a certain amount of administrative extravagance might arise, but from the personal point of view there is very little difficulty at all. I also said that, supposing there were not good will between them, I did not think we could make good will in Parliament. I should now like to emphasise what I said then.
The second point I would touch on is the steps taken to increase the number of doctors in the country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, has said, there is going to be a big shortage in the near future. There is no need to go into the causes of that. We know that more people are growing old and therefore more people will need care. Another point is quite important and will arise on the Bill we shall be discussing next week. It is that more people are disabled, either with congenital conditions or with conditions they have acquired, who not so very long ago would have died when they were young or first injured or contracted their illness. What is occurring now? They are not dying; their lives are being preserved, but a number of them are not going to be fully normal and independent people; they will have some kind of dependence and will need some kind of medical care which would not have been required formerly. These factors are among the various reasons for the increased need.
A very interesting letter appeared in The Times about four days ago from young doctors at King's College Hospital, in which they explained quite categorically and well that when they joined medicine, as indeed applies to all of us,

737
they knew that they were going to be on call for most of the 24 hours. What they were saying was wrong, and what they did not approve of, was that the Ministry (or I suppose I should now call it "the Department") says that a normal working week for them should be 90 hours and that for more than that they should be paid overtime; whereas, as they pointed out quite firmly, that really would not do any good from the point of view of their becoming too tired to deal with patients properly. What was needed was more young doctors in hospitals so that one should not have a position in which, with the complications of medicine, doctors were having to work longer than they reasonably could. It does not matter whether they are paid extra or not; additional payment is not going to make any difference to their competence when they are tired.
The first comment I should like to make on the shortage of doctors—and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, will agree with me here—is to ask: why do we not have more women doctors? It seemed to me totally absurd when I read in the Commission's Report that the number of women medical students admitted represents only 24 per cent. of the total—not more than that! I am told that the number who apply is only 26 per cent., but I am sure (and again I feel the noble Baroness will agree with me here) that the reason for that is that women are not encouraged to apply by their schools because it is known that they cannot get in. Therefore, it is felt, why go and knock at a door which seems permanently shut? There are an enormous number of women doctors in foreign countries. I think there are up to 75 per cent. in the Soviet Union, and I cannot think why we cannot do more in this connection. Here I should like to quote again—because I think the more we quote it, the better it goes down— what the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, has already referred to:
"The main criterion for admission to a university medical course should be the ability of the applicant to profit from the course and become a good doctor."
I am sorry to repeat the same words as the noble Baroness quoted, but it is important to emphasise that point from the Royal Commission's Report.
738
We need more new medical schools. One might ask, "Can you not expand the existing ones?" I do not think, with the present system of training we have in this country—which is not done by demonstrations in great lecture theatres but more by intimate ward rounds with students and professors, which I am sure is a far better way of teaching medicine —that we can expand the schools much. But why does it take so long to get a new school founded? We have been talking about Nottingham and Southampton for years and years; I cannot remember when I first heard them spoken about, and I believe they are just about to start or perhaps have now started. But we are going to lose a certain amount of good material and good opportunity. Why could a school not be founded immediately at Durham? Durham was one of the oldest medical degrees in the country. It has gone now because Newcastle has become an independent university, but there is the nucleus of a setup at Durham now and it seems a pity not to use it.
If I may go across the Border into Scotland, there is another example. There is the University of St. Andrews, which for a long time sent students for their clinical work to Dundee. Now that Dundee has become an independent University, the authorities have told the University of St. Andrews that Dundee cannot take their clinical students and they must go to Manchester. That may sound all very well on paper, but, as is pointed out in the Report of the Royal Commission, the sharp difference between pre-clinical and clinical students is gradually going to fade away and their more pre-clinical teachers are working with clinical material, and vice versa, and obviously the two sides of the training are going to be integrated. So what is going to happen to poor St. Andrews if they have to walk across the road to Manchester, which is quite a long way away, whereas at Dundee they can really walk across the road, which is much simpler, now that the Tay Road Bridge is built? So it seems that much could be done to help those places which are now giving medical degrees, to continue to give them.
I should like to say a word about the number of doctors who emigrate abroad. The thing which is always extremely

739
difficult to find out is whether they go abroad permanently or only for one or two years. I always encouraged young men and young women who were working with me to go to America or Canada for one or two years if they get the opportunity. The vast majority come back again, and I think a good deal one hears about the emigration of doctors is due to people going abroad temporarily. It is extremely difficult to find out the exact position, although I do not know why it should be so.
There are just one or two small points I should like to raise. In paragraph 475, the Report says:
"a teaching hospital, …. should provide medical services for a local community as well as for a selected group of patients."
The hospital where I worked, University College Hospital, was the first to become a district hospital, and that must have been eight or nine years ago. The effect has been excellent. There has been no falling off of interest and one feels that one is doing the job right in the middle of the area. I hope that movement will spread. Indeed, I think it has spread to one or two other places. Of course it may be partly due to the fact that University College Hospital was the first in London to start to train medical students and not to treat the sick poor. There may be something in that; I am not quite sure.
I was interested to see the suggestion that the teaching hospitals and the non-teaching hospitals should be more or less merged and that one should not have the great separation between the boards of governors and the Regional Boards. That system has worked perfectly well in Scotland. They have four Regional Boards and at the top of each Regional Board is the teaching hospital. I do not want to bring too much down from Scotland to England, but I cannot see why if it works in Scotland it should not work down here in England. I think, too, that boards of governors have a certain amount of financial difficulty because, large and grand though they are, they have not the same financial resources at their disposal as a Regional Board has. Therefore they find it rather more difficult to obtain big sums of money if they suddenly require them.
Another point is that the Report recommends that there should be more
740
married quarters for young married staff working in hospitals. That is quite right. People get married today very much younger than they did twenty, thirty or forty years ago. One may say, "Well, it is foolish to get married", but we cannot stop them. One sees the difficulty, because when a young man or woman is doing his or her first job there is not much money to support a family. It makes it difficult for them, and I believe that if they cannot live with their wife in the first few years of marriage it may well encourage people not to be too keen to stay in England. That is because, first, they naturally want to live together, and secondly because it is much more expensive for them to run two homes. So I hope that that recommendation in the Report will be put into practice.
Then a point is made, with which I am sure everybody would agree, about giving help to the developing countries; but the question is, what kind of help do they require? It always seems to me that one of the difficulties is that they do not have to go through the process that we went through a long time ago, of starting off by getting good sewerage and water supplies, and so on. They want to get their first-class research medical schools going right from the start, and the environmental work, on which all health really depends, takes second place. Therefore when dealing with the developing countries one has to be careful to know what is the best thing for them.
I apologise for speaking at such length, but there is one further point that I should like to raise. Somewhere in the Report it is said that environmental hygiene will get more and more into the hands of technically qualified people and not people with public health experience. It has always been a source of anxiety to me that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has no medical staff. In my younger days, when that Ministry was combined with the Ministry of Health and I was one of its medical staff, we had some say on such matters as water supplies, housing, and so on. Now the medical people have no say at all. It may be said that there has been no difficulty, because the foundations were well laid and things have carried on under the momentum started in the nineteenth and twentieth

741
centuries; but it seems to me to be rather alarming that it should get more and more technical and less and less professional. That is something we should try to stop now, although I am not sure whether we can do so.
I am interested to see what the Report has to say about vocational and specialist training. I do not want to go into that aspect because the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, will be talking about it: it is something he knows much more about than I do. But I am pleased to see that the Royal Commission look upon such training with a kindly eye and do not feel that it may lead to a certain inflexibility and rigidity. That was what one rather feared when one first heard about it. But having read the Report, and knowing the views of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, I realise that such apprehensions were not based on anything very solid.
My Lords, that is all I want to say about the Report, except to give it a general welcome. The only general comment I can make is that it is a little too idealistic and perfect; and whether all the recommendations can be implemented at the present time I am not quite sure. I wonder whether it is not a very long-term project. However, that does not mean that the Report should not be regarded as being a worthy document which has been brought out by such an eminent body of people.
3.59 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I stand, with the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, as a diffident speaker as a layman in these matters, but I do not think any of us need be too diffident. I was looking at the list of members of the Commission, and the second name I saw was that of the noble Lord, Lord Platt; and I remembered that only a week or two ago he was using the columns of The Times to enlighten the nation as to the exact value of the Old Testament, of which I understood he took a poor view. So there is evidently some overlapping of spheres of influence in these days. I also saw the name of Dr. Carstairs, who I think a short time ago was in much demand as an adviser to the youth of England on matters of sexual morality. So perhaps a mere Bishop can have a few opinions about this very important and valuable Report.
742
I do have some slight personal interest, by the pure coincidence that my own college at Cambridge was Gonville and Caius, which was always associated with medical education; and the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, and I sat for several years at dinner under the portraits of John Caius and Sir Clifford Allbutt and other famous figures in medical history. Many of our friends were medicals, and one of the diversions was for non-medicals to be taken by medicals into the anatomy laboratory in order to be shown what wonderful sangfroid they had in their daily work.
I was also interested in the extraordinarily striking parallels between the problems which the medical profession are facing in matters of recruitment and training and those which the Church is facing. I notice exactly the same impatience among the students, if I can use that word, with anything other than something immediately and strictly relevant; a great impatience with all the normal traditional objective, factual learning which we have been accustomed to take as the basis of our education. I notice the question of early marriage, to which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree has referred; I notice the attempt to combine teaching hospitals; and I can only warn the medical profession that if they have as much trouble over this as we have had over combining of theological colleges they are in for a lively time.
I notice that there is going to be, if we are not careful, a shortage of 11,000 doctors by 1975. If there had been a similar shortage of clergy by that time this would have been headlined as "End of religion in sight", but I do not imagine anyone thinks that this means the end of medical learning. We hope not. I hope, incidentally, that among the new medical schools there will not only be the one at Durham which has been mentioned but also the one at Leicester, which I feel holds great promise. I had the privilege of blessing the postgraduate Institute, which we already have, on the day it was opened, and I hope that perhaps the noble Baroness may be able to tell us that our prayers are likely to be answered and that the medical school will soon be established there.
Coming to the Report itself, I think that, as a layman, I should say that its immediate value is in bringing this sub-

743
ject vividly before the country, because it is something in which the whole community is concerned. It is fair to say, I think, that it needs popularising if it is to be the subject of general debate in the community as a whole. The Report is rather a difficult document. It says on page 231 that the Commission's treatment of the subject has been brief and selective. All I can say is, "If that is really the case, may I be spared from reading a Report that is full and comprehensive!" I notice (this is of course a matter of one's own ignorance) that the use of the words "undergraduate" and "postgraduate" is specialised to medical readers. Anybody who has been mixed up with medical education at Oxford or Cambridge thinks of the moment of university graduation as the actual marginal over which one has to pass. But one soon learns that this is used here in a special sense, in relation to medical qualification.
I was surprised when I read the section on "General Professional Training" to find that this has nothing to do with the training required in order to become a doctor, but refers to the training to which doctors had to submit, or were asked to submit, even after doing one year of qualified medical service. I am not at all happy about the way in which, in all our professions, we are extending the word "training" to cover such a wide variety of phases of experience. I cannot help feeling that there is something not very apt about describing a man who has already had six years of training in the ordinary sense and is going through a period of another two or three years as a "trainee". It does not seem to me a very good word to use for him. And if it should be overheard by the patients I should think they would be somewhat concerned—and quite wrongly so, of course, because the word is being used in a highly specialised sense.
I should therefore like to see a more popular version of this Report—possibly a Green Paper or something of that kind —not only because medical education concerns the whole community, in the sense that almost everybody requires medical care at some time or other, but because the visual and tactual props, the aids which are used in education for this purpose, are living persons, and they
744
are at their most vulnerable when they are ill, and sometimes very worried. I think that this alone makes the whole question of medical education something that cannot be left entirely in the hands of those who are professionally concerned with it.
There is a certain amount of anxiety in the country as a whole as to whether the doctors during their intern year are overworked. This point has been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. There is the anxiety lest these men and women should be really so tired or strained that they are unable to give the best service to their patients. This is a matter that needs to be approached with a certain amount of care, because some allowance must be made for the enthusiasm of youth, and for the pleasure and satisfaction they feel at being able at last to do the job for which they have been preparing for a long time. We must make it clear that, if any kind of legal restraint is put upon them, it is only in their interest, and the interest of the patients.
The question then moves on to what happens to the man or woman after his or her intern year. Broadly speaking, the answer given in this Report is that from then onwards everybody shall be a specialist. It is rather like the situation in A lice in Wonderland: everyone has won and everybody gets a prize. One welcomes that, in so far as it brings out the point that general practice can be, and indeed is, a specialism. I have to say this to my own clergy, who themselves nowadays get impatient because they feel that they are jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none; and I say that your generalism is your specialism.
One notices a certain amount of bluff in that attitude, and I do not think one should disguise from oneself the fact that, particularly in the early stages of any great profession, there are bound to be some who set their eyes on the highest goals. I do not believe that you can finally satisfy that and can damp down ambition by saying that everybody is going to be a specialist. I think that, even if the division between consultant, registrar and general practitioner is abandoned, you will then have a new kind of sorting out as people within these different groups of specialist make their way forward.

745
The last matter on which I would say just a word is one that perhaps comes a little nearer to the kind of interests which we on these Benches are, I suppose, meant to represent: I refer to the whole question of the authority attaching to the medical profession in matters wider than purely medical concerns. The Report contains two most interesting paragraphs about this matter. The first is paragraph 29, and I think I will delay your Lordships by reading a few words. Towards the end of the paragraph these words appear:
"The leadership which the doctor often has to exercise has sometimes in the past appeared to be based on the assumption of a charismatic authority which has already ceased to be convincing and in the future will be completely inappropriate. The basis of the doctor's leadership will be his superior knowledge of the central facts of the clinical situation, his ability to exercise a decisive influence on the patient's illness, and his capacity to guide and coordinate the work of others whose cooperation is essential."
In other words, so far as that paragraph is concerned there is as definite a retreat as possible from what, in theological language, is called "charismatic authority". There is a retreat into the purely technical medical side of the work.
Paragraph 260 returns to the subject. Here, it looks as though the other school of thought have a little more to say, because there is a quotation taken from the evidence, that,
"the doctor is still considered to be an 'oracle' and the student should recognise the responsibility this entails."
The rest of the paragraph says that that is all nonsense, and that the doctor should not recognise any responsibility or authority outside the strictly limited field of his medical specialism. But the paragraph goes on to say that of course he must have a general authority which will be sufficient to impart to him a personal philosophy which will enable him to deal with special and difficult questions—
"matters of moral and social controversy … abortion, drug addiction and artificial prolongation of life"—
and so on. I welcome the fact that this matter is clearly seen as a problem. I welcome the fact that it is proposed to give education in what are called the behavioural sciences, sociology and psychology, quite apart from psychiatry. I think all this is to the good.
746
I cannot actually quarrel with the formal statements of the Report. I do not think it would be right to expect all doctors nowadays, in the present state of society, to become general advisers, pastors and teachers in matters outside their qualification. But I want to go on to say that I believe there always will be some doctors who will want to take a wider view of their work and responsibility than the purely technical, and I do not think we want to say anything to discourage them. I think we must remember that still by far the larger number of our people leave school at quite an early age and, to put it at the very lowest level, the doctor has had seven or more years of further education. He ought to have something to contribute to those less fortunate than himself in that matter.
Further, it will take a long time before England forgets the image of the family doctor. It is all very well to say that this is quite outdated, that there are going to be new health centres, that one's illness will be reckoned up on a computer, and all the rest of it. For a long time to come the doctor is going to be a person who is given special respect. May I give one example of that? A doctor goes into a court of law and gives evidence. Immediate attention is given to him. Do not tell me that this is purely a matter of his technical education. He is a doctor; he stands for something in the life of the country. We do not want to discourage that too much, although we must face the practical facts.
I welcome the paragraph on sex. I think that it is a most sensible and objective paragraph. It points out that young medical students may themselves need help in coming to grips with their own problems of personal relationships. I think this is necessary. Perhaps I may give a small example. I have heard of cases of young medical students at dances asking nurses for privileges which at any rate I should think were not those that they should ask for, and where, when told by the young nurse that she could not sleep with him after the dance, her partner has actually left her standing on the dance floor. This is not a matter about which we need to be concerned here in its detailed, ethical aspects. We can all have our own views about that. The point I want to make is that to the young

747
nurse the young medical student is more than a young man; he is a man who, at her age and level, represents a profession which in her mind is worthy of the greatest respect and attention. Therefore, it is most important that young male medical students should have this thought in mind, and should acquire an attitude of responsibility early on. I hope that they will be trained in hospitals where there is a recognition of the wider aspects of pastoral and physical care than those of a purely medical and material kind. I hope that they will find it customary for the chaplains to be treated as partners and colleagues in the general service of the patient.
I end with a quotation from Leonardo da Vinci which I think is not irrelevant. In one of his notebooks he said this:
"You know that medicines when well used restore health to the sick. They will be well used when the doctor, together with his understanding of their nature, shall understand also what man is and what life is."
4.20 p.m.
LORD EVANS OF HUNGERSHALL: My Lords, I hope I may be treated still with a moderate degree of indulgence, for I have not ventured to address your Lordships' House since I made a maiden speech. This has not been due to indolence, but I am trying to exercise the modest, but not unuseful, virtue of listening to other speeches, a virtue which, if I may say so, cannot be overexploited even in your Lordships' House. I have found on so many occasions that the wealth of distinction and experience available to your Lordships is such that any comments that I might make would be redundant. I will quote a recent example. On March 10 we had a debate on the Green Paper on the National Health Service. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, spoke with such authority and such effect that really to attempt to add anything to what they said would have been useless. Indeed, they spoke with such effect that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, was able, at the end of the debate, to announce the appointment of a Committee that I am confident will solve a number of problems that came up during that debate. It would be very gratifying if such a result could be reached at the end of our discussions this afternoon.
748
We are again this afternoon placed in a situation where there is a mass of expert opinion and knowledge. Indeed, had I had the privilege of reading the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brock, before I prepared my own notes, I do not think I should have had very much to say. In consequence, I shall be very brief. I can only claim, as a layman, that I have been a governor of one or two of the major teaching hospitals for over thirty years, and I am very unhappy, as is the noble Lord, Lord Brock, about the conclusions of the Report about the London teaching hospitals. However, I should like to express my admiration for the Report as a whole and our indebtedness to the noble Lord, Lord Todd. I am sure that we all feel a great sadness that the noble Lord, Lord Todd, cannot be with us this afternoon. He is a very old friend, and I happen to know how much energy and labour he put into this Report.
All of your Lordships interested in this question have emphasised that so far as the United Kingdom is concerned the great advances in medicine have been made in Scotland and in London. I am not sure that Scotland was mentioned even by the noble Lord, Lord Brock, or by the noble Baroness, but, as I sit here on these Benches I become increasingly aware of Scotland. After all, one must be just, and it was in Scotland that the first great advances were made, and after that in London. It is true that the Report does pay some tribute to this, as the noble Lord, Lord Brock, emphasised, but I do not think that it pays an adequate tribute to the part that London must continue to play if we are to have an advancing place in medicine. Without a solution of the London problem there can be no adequate advance; that is, a solution of the complex problem of the London teaching hospitals, the postgraduate institutions, the great libraries, and of course the Royal Colleges. For ten years and more the London teaching hospitals have been hampered even in their normal development from lack of funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Brock, has already emphasised.
It could be urged that the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Todd, innocently, but no less effectively, is just a charter for the provincial hospitals and medical schools. It is to this issue that I should

749
like to confine the few remarks that I shall make. They are all centred on paragraph 438 of the Report—the noble Lord, Lord Brock, outlined this in detail —and concern the plan of taking the 12 major teaching colleges in London and reducing them to six. I am not speaking this afternoon—I do not think it would be proper—on behalf of any of the teaching hospitals. I have no contact with any of them. I have naturally consulted some of them so that my remarks should be a little more informed than they would otherwise be. Indeed, I find that many of my medical friends do not agree with what I am saying this afternoon; they are fare more optimistic than I am. There is a charming, innocent optimism about medical people, which may be dangerous to the lay public. Some of them are so naive that once they have their steering committees and the like going they cannot distinguish the difference between stating the solution to a problem and the actual solution itself.
Your Lordships will recall that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and his colleagues was to bring together into closer unity these major teaching hospitals and medical schools. On academic grounds, or professional grounds, I am sure that that is all admirable; but when will it happen? There is a question here far wider than that considered by the Royal Commission; it is the whole relationship of Royal Commissions to practical action. The noble Lord, Lord Todd, as indeed I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, suggested, was given general terms of reference, a mandate for him and his colleagues to explore the problem of medical education—not about research, but I will not deal with that—and make the most desirable conclusions. They were given no suggestion of what finance would be available. This is not a political issue I am making—no one on these Benches need apologise for what they have done to help medical education—it is the general issue that they were given no suggestion about what finance was available, or what practical support there could be. That is the situation in which one Royal Commission after another finds itself, and they go away and produce these wonderful proposals which waste the time of distinguished men for years without any practical results. What would happen if
750
I.C.I. Limited or Marks and Spencer put forward plans in the same way? There would be mild complaints from those who are immediately concerned.
I think the first issue is that of funds. If we take the recommendation of the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Todd, about the London medical schools, we are faced with the fact that the funds are not available. Neither this Government nor any other Government, by any magic of surmise or any hypothetical finance, could ever produce the funds that are necessary to implement the proposals which are here made. The second matter is not one of finance; it is deeper. The Report of the noble Lord, Lord Todd, seems to treat London as if it were a piece of plasticine; the sort of thing that one can remodel at will. If you try to put some of these proposals into practice you will have to buy sites. But the University Grants Committee is never allowed to buy sites at other than the district valuer's price, which means that it can never buy a site in London at all. So that charmingly to say, "We will move from here to here in London" is completely and absolutely meaningless.
The paragraph in the Report that has worried me most—and I am sorry to be dealing with only the paragraphs about which I am unhappy—is paragraph 488. As it is very brief I will venture to quote it. It says:
"We recommend that general responsibility for the implementation of all aspects of the complete plan for London should be placed in the hands of a Committee for Medical Education in London which should be appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in consultation with the Minister of Health. The Committee should include representatives of the University of London, the University Grants Committee"—
which has so little money—
"and the hospital authorities; it should also include independent members, one of whom should be chairman."
Then there is this final sentence:
"The Committee should remain in being long enough to ensure that, in future developments, short-term convenience is not allowed to nullify long-term planning."
All members of the Committee must be endowed with longevity beyond Methuselah if they are going to achieve that result. If the Todd recommendations are to be put forward, then, purely on the basis of sites, my own estimate—

751
and I shall not be here to find it confounded—would be at least 20, 30 or possibly 40 years.
As regards the Royal Free Hospital, their immediate short-term plans are being ruined; they have been held up by this Report. There is also the more difficult relationship of King's and Guy's. On the other hand, I am quite prepared to admit, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Brock, did in his opening speech, that there is much to be done about the London medical schools. I have wondered whether, as the debate on March 10 ended with a suggestion that there should be some discussion of these proposals, with which the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, agreed, such a discussion could come about. For if these proposals stand, nothing will happen. If compromise proposals come about, which realise that London cannot be changed overnight, and if somebody would travel by public transport from one of these places to another—which I gather no member of Lord Todd's Commission did—or would even travel by car, which takes a little longer, then it would be realised how much of the time of clinical and pre-clinical teachers would be taken in travelling across London when they were not engaged on steering committees.
4.34 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, this is a monumental Report by a Commission which included men of extreme distinction. We must all deplore the illness that prevents the noble Lord, Lord Todd, from being with us this afternoon while we discuss the Report's far-reaching recommendations — recommendations which rest on idealistic aims; recommendations so far-reaching that they have been criticised, not this afternoon, but widely, as going much beyond the Commission's terms of reference. They certainly do; but I do not myself feel any ground for complaint on that score.
I propose to confine my remarks to the applications of the Report to the Metropolitan area, with which the University of London is concerned, and for the most part to matters of postgraduate medical education with which I have been privileged, and I may say very proud, to be concerned as a layman for the last quarter of a century, for ten years
752
as Chairman of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith, and latterly as Chairman for the last ten years and more of that school of the University known as the British Postgraduate Medical Federation, a school that comprises the Postgraduate Medical School and the institutes attached to the London specialist postgraduate hospitals.
The Report is informed by idealistic aims, but also also by some questionable assumptions. What may be best as a matter of pure theory is not always in practice best in the limited and imperfect world that surrounds us. The ideal setup in London, as the Principal of the University remarked in his Report for 1968–69,
"… now becomes one multi-faculty institution, a pair of twinned undergraduate medical schools with an average of at least two postgraduate medical institutes, and a general teaching hospital incorporating two specialist hospitals alongside."
Whether such a vast and heterogeneous aggregation as that is really, in terms of practical human affairs, the ideal is, I think, very much open to question, but for purposes of planning development at the present time it is, in any case, utterly impracticable, as the Principal went on to point out and as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Hungershall, has said this afternoon. In an earlier Report for 1967–68 the Principal related that the Chairman of the Commission before whom he was giving evidence
"… paid me one of the greatest compliments I have ever received in my life by calling me the 'apostle of the practicable'."
I do not think that was intended as a compliment.
Of course it is right to work towards an ideal, but it is more fruitful to approach it by a process of constructive evolution built on what is found to work well in the world as it already exists. In the two years since the Report of the Royal Commission was issued the uncertainties and problems resulting from the lack of balance in its recommendations between the ideal and the practicable have had a most severely depressing effect on the morale of a large proportion of those concerned and have caused a great deflection of thought and of effort that have been most harmful to their teaching work.
So far as the twinning of under-graduate medical schools in London is

753
concerned, there is a great diversity. There are, I think, three pairs that seem practicable and relatively straightforward; that between Bart's and the London, in association with Queen Mary College; that between University College Hospital and the Royal Free, in association with University College; and that between Westminster and St. Thomas's, in association with King's College through the development of a biomedical centre for which a site appears to be available. This last present a tremendous academic opportunity that ought not to be frustrated by any inhibitions about the linking of boroughs joined by bridges across the river, for purposes of the Health Service reorganisation. In peace time a river is no longer a tank obstacle. But, my Lords, if these developments, which seem to be practicable in the reasonably near future, are to go forward at all, the policy decisions and the provision of the capital finance needed must be treated as a matter of urgency; for the opportunity must be seized to secure the necessary sites, and morale must not be allowed to evaporate as a result of delays into hopelessness. I hope that the Minister may be able to tell us what is proposed to be done about these particular pairings.
I must now turn to the postgraduate medical work of the University of London. The Report of the Royal Commission says a good deal about postgraduate education and training. Chapter 3 discusses the subject for 44 pages and in paragraph 178 proposes the setting up of a Central Council for Postgraduate Medical Education and Training in Great Britain—a proposal on which action is already being taken. Then, in Chapter 9 there is a section on postgraduate medical education in London, with specific proposals. Paragraphs 559 to 565 discuss postgraduate students from overseas; and Appendix 14 gives an account of the creation of the Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith Hospital in 1935 and of the British Postgraduate Medical Federation, as an outcome of the Goodenough Report, in 1945—and a table on page 302 gives its constituents.
There is thus a great mass of material on postgraduate medical education in the Report. But, my Lords, there are two very surprising omissions. In the first place, there is no attempt to differentiate
754
between two entirely different kinds of postgraduate medical training: first, the further training of general practitioners all over the country, for the most part in regional hospitals, which is a purely domestic affair; and, secondly, the intensive training in depth of specialists, consultants and, most important, teachers, as it is carried on by the University of London in the Royal Postgraduate Medical School and the Institutes of the Federation—a unique national and international service to which, I was so glad and grateful to see, the noble Lord, Lord Platt, paid a generous tribute in our recent debate on the Green Paper. My Lords, those two kinds of postgraduate medical education of course overlap, but they are two quite different things, and in any comprehensive discussion of postgraduate medical education in this country the distinction between them is of great importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Brock, has drawn attention to the second and even more surprising omission from this mass of material. It is that, although the Report gives an account of the creation of the British Postgraduate Medical Federation in 1945, it leaves it there. The Report entirely ignores its development in the last quarter of a century, under the inspired direction of that great teacher and administrator, Sir Francis Fraser, and, since his death, of Sir James Paterson Ross and the present director, Sir John MacMichael. No one reading the Report of the Royal Commission would for one moment imagine that the development and progress of the Postgraduate Medical Federation, its school and its institutes is the outstanding success story in the history of medical education in Britain in the twentieth century. But so it is; and to set the record right I must give your Lordships a few facts and figures.
There is no indication in the Report of the scale of the pioneer work done by the University of London in meeting the domestic requirement, the further training of general practitioners in the metropolitan regions through the courses arranged by the Federation. Starting from scratch, without much help or encouragement, the Federation arranged in 1948–49 for 56 such courses, which were attended by 856 practitioners. Twenty years later, the demand for these courses had grown so greatly that the Federation arranged in 1968–69 for 325

755
courses, which were attended by 10,087 practitioners. Of course, this figure of 10,087 includes the same general practitioner attending, occasionally, more than one course in the year; but if your Lordships will compare that figure of more than 10,000, in the metropolitan regions alone, with the total number of general practitioners in practice in the whole of England, which is less than 20,000, I think you will realise that the scale and the value of the pioneer work done by the Federation in this field is remarkable and dramatic. But it is not mentioned at all in the Report.
On the other front, the intensive training in depth of specialists, consultants and teachers in the Postgraduate Medical School and the specialist Institutes of the Federation—the national and the international field—the tale is, I think, even more remarkable. But no-one reading the Report could for a moment imagine the scale of that work or its growth. Again, I must give your Lordships a few figures. In 1949, there were 10 professors in the Federation—6 at the Postgraduate Medical School and 4 in the Institutes. Twenty years later, in 1969, there were 77 professors in the Federation—23 in the Postgraduate Medical School and 54 in the Institutes.
So much for teachers, my Lords. What about students—and they are all, of course, qualified doctors. In 1958–59, the number of students was 2,182. Ten years later, in 1968–69, it was almost double—4,154. Of these 4,154 doctors enrolled last year, less than half came from within the United Kingdom. More than half—2,141, to be precise—came from overseas, literally from all over the world: from 30 Commonwealth countries and British dependencies (did your Lordships know there were so many?), and from no fewer than 61 foreign countries. They came, in fact, from every country in the world. For many years Nicaragua was the sole exception—I have not the slightest idea why—but last year a doctor from Nicaragua turned up to complete the tally.
As I told your Lordships when we discussed the Green Paper, and as the noble Lord, Lord Brock, has said this afternoon (but it is worth repeating), more doctors come to London from overseas for training as consultants in the School
756
and the Institutes of the Federation than the total output of new octors from all the medical schools in the United Kingdom. In a single city on the other side of the world, the city of Melbourne, there were as long ago as 1960 no fewer than 50 medical teachers who had received training at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith. The work done by the University of London through the School and the Institute of the Federation in fact fertilises and pervades the practice of medicine throughout the world.
Of all this, which redounds to the great credit of the nation, there is no mention whatever in the Report we are discussing. There is, in paragraph 453, a rather grudging acceptance of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School and Hammersmith Hospital, faute de mieux, "for the present". There is a suggestion that the word "British" in the title of the Federation is a misnomer. I doubt whether your Lordships, having regard to the international service given by the Federation, will be disposed to agree with that; and in paragraph 563 there is an indication—no more than that— that perhaps overseas doctors ought on the whole to seek their postgraduate training at home.
What does the Report propose, to remedy what the Commission appear to regard as this sorry state of affairs? In the domestic field, it proposes that the work in which, in the Metropolitan regions, the Federation has achieved such notable pioneering success (albeit still not developed to its full potential) should be taken over by regional committees under the Central Council. My Lords, it is, in the Metropolitan regions, the province of the University of London, and for its continued development it seems to me that it should so continue, administered by the Federation and financed by the Department.
Secondly, the Report recommends a special organisation to coordinate London's special facilities and an overseas advisory office. These already exist in the Federation, which coordinates the resources for postgraduate training in London and advises each year 6,000 overseas doctors, giving a highly efficient service of which the Royal Commission seemed to be totally unaware. And, thirdly, so far as the Royal Postgraduate

757
Medical School and the specialist institutes of the Federation are concerned— well, the Report would let the School go on although they do not approve of it in principle. But as the noble Lord, Lord Brock, pointed out, they would dismember the Federation by the absorption of its specialist institutes piecemeal into the twinned undergraduate schools and their specialist hospitals into the undergraduate teaching hospitals.
It must, I think, be clear to your Lordships from what I have said that such a process would break up and destroy a valuable organisation and its works without replacing it with anything that would be able effectively to continue that work. The Federation and its constitutent parts make no sort of claim to perfection, but they must be allowed to continue their work, to develop and improve it by a process of evolution. Of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School I have spoken already. As a postgraduate school providing the medical services of a general hospital, it is unique. In my view the School should continue its associations with the Institutes of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and of Child Health particularly; and the hospital, Hammersmith Hospital, together with the new Charing Cross Undergraduate Teaching Hospital at Fulham, should be university general hospitals in an area extending Westwards from Hammersmith and perhaps including Ealing, Hounslow and Hillingdon. Every effort should be made to find space (Wormwood Scrubs Prison fills the role of Naboth's Vineyard in this case) for expanding Hammersmith Hospital and the School; for their present site is so intolerably constricted as to stifle development and handicap efficiency. The School should also be associated with Imperial College with which it has already forged some links.
The specialist Institutes of the Federation are a mixed bag. large and small, strong and not so strong. In some cases a merging of two or more would be advantageous and practicable. But certainly all, or almost all, should retain their identity and should continue to be administered by the Federation as a School of the University of London. The Institutes of Psychiatry and the Maudsley Hospital, with their remarkable concentration of talent and their special experience in neuropathology, in psycho-
758
logy, in psychopharmacology, in social and in forensic psychiatry are unique; and this concentration must not be dispersed. They already have the close links with King's. College Hospital and Medical School that are necessary to the health of their work.
The Institute of Child Health at Great Ormond Street and the Institute of Neurology on the adjacent site in Queen's Square, work in close conjunction with each other and should so continue. I may say that the idea that Great Ormond Street deflects money and talent and so weakens doctor training in child health is quite fallacious; on the contrary, it adds knowledge and skill to the whole London medical scene; and if the paediatric departments of the undergraduate schools are small, this I think certainly is due more to the smaller child population of Inner London than to Great Ormond Street which draws on a wider area.
My Lords, let us hold on to the peaks of achievement and not allow egalitarianism to flatten them down. Similar considerations aply to Moorfields and the Institute of Opthalmology which have a unique standing in their own field, of which I spoke in more detail in our discussion on the Green Paper. It is envisaged that the Heart Hospital will in the not very distant future move to Brompton when the Institutes of Cardiology and Chest Diseases would form a natural merger as a Cardio-Thoracic Institute. With this, the Institute of Cancer Research nearby may be linked. They would no doubt be associated with the re-sited Charing Cross Hospital and School. The Institute of Dermatology and the Institute of Orthopaedics might be closely associated with, though not incorporated into, the Middlesex Hospital Medical School as also perhaps the Institute of Dental Surgery at the Eastman.
My Lords, I do not think I need attempt to put forward a complete blueprint on this occasion—indeed I have already spoken far too long. But your Lordships will see the general pattern that, as it seems to me, should enable this great work of postgraduate teaching to go forward and to develop as it ought. I hope that the noble Baroness when she comes to reply may be able to tell us that some such arrangement that I have outlined will be considered, rather than the

759
sweeping and destructive proposals put forward by the Royal Commission in respect of the postgraduate medical institutions of the University of London.
5.0 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Brock, for initiating this debate. Since the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education was published it has, of course, been the subject of prolonged discussion and deep concern to all who are engaged in medical teaching throughout the country; and to some, anxious about its many implications, it was beginning to look as though discussion of it in Parliament might never come. I am sure that everyone, whatever reservations he or she may have about specific points, would like to thank all those who have made this Report possible. Whatever other results it is destined to achieve, it has already succeeded in making medical men in every hospital and university think about the future of their profession and about the best methods of meeting the needs of coming generations, both in this country and others for which we have responsibilities.
The Report, of course, covers a very wide field, and one cannot hope to comment on more than a very small part of it. I propose therefore to concentrate mainly on certain aspects of its findings with which I have been more intimately concerned in connection with postgraduate medical teaching, in which I have been engaged for over thirty years at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, particularly in relation to the training of doctors from overseas, and also as a pathologist. In so doing I hope to underline some of the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Brock, and by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe.
I am naturally particularly interested in the recommendations of the Report as they affect my School and the British Postgraduate Medical Federation of which it is such an important part. I must say that it has come as a shock, particularly to those who have been working for so many years helping to build up this internationally famous School, to learn that apparently the whole concept of an institute dedicated exclusively to
760
the postgraduate teaching of doctors from this country and overseas has been a mistake, and that postgraduate medical education should essentially be carried on alongside undergraduate training. Such a fundamental reversal of the findings of the Athlone Commission and the Goodenough Committee—with which the Ministry of Health and the University Grants Committee policy has been fully in line—can be justified only by the most compelling of arguments, which are certainly not brought out in the Report.
The support that the Royal Postgraduate Medical School received in its recent building appeal from countries all over the world, including no fewer than twelve Commonwealth countries, and even the People's Republic of Burma, is further evidence of the worldwide esteem in which it is held and the contribution it has made to international medicine. As the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, has said, there are literally scores of ex-members of the staff and ex-students holding Chairs and senior teaching posts in universities in this country and throughout the world.
The lack of recognition in the Report of the part that the School is playing as a training ground for teachers, and also of research workers, for this country and overseas is therefore somewhat difficult to understand, particularly as the training of more medical teachers is vital if the envisaged expansion of our medical schools is to be implemented. Postgraduate medical training is expensive and it would be most unfortunate if an institute founded specifically for this purpose were to suffer as a result of diversion and dilution of resources available for the purpose, as seems implicit in the Report.
One wonders whether the Commission, in recommending this fundamental change of policy, affecting as it does in particular postgraduate medical teaching in London, have paid sufficient attention to the unique position which London has, in the extent to which it is able to cover the whole spectrum of postgraduate medicine, compared with other university cities, and the great advantages to be gained by coordinating postgraduate teaching in one unified organisation. I wonder also whether, when the Commission make this recommendation, the opinions of the

761
students themselves have been adequately canvassed—surely a sine qua non nowadays. I believe that most doctors seeking postgraduate teaching training would rather go to an institute devoted specifically to this purpose than to medical schools, however eminent, where, with the present urgent need to train more doctors, emphasis must inevitably be placed on teaching at the pre-registration level.
This is not to say that a postgraduate institution might not gain by closer collaboration with undergraduate medical schools, or, for that matter, with nonmedical multiscience institutes, both in teaching and research, such as that being fostered between the Royal Postgraduate Medical School and Imperial College, as the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, has already said. It is essential, though, that the identity and distinctiveness of the postgraduate teaching institutes should be fully safeguarded. The fears that have been expressed in many quarters, that if the specialist institutes were to be linked with large undergraduate medical school complexes in the way suggested they would eventually become completely absorbed, are in my view only too likely to be justified. There is the further likelihood that if specialist postgraduate training is too closely associated with undergraduate teaching the latter will tend to become unbalanced.
My Lords, I still believe that the concept of the grouping of the special hospitals and institutes in the Postgraduate Federation is the right one, whatever the Report may say, particularly if one or more of these groups could be located geographically in fairly close proximity to the Royal Postgraduate Medical School. The mutual advantages would be enormous. And here I find my ideas slightly different from those of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe. The acquisition of the land involved is of course a major problem, but I do not believe that all the possibilities have been exhausted. It would mean, though, that such planning must be regarded from a national point of view, to which all departmental and local interests should, if necessary, be subordinated. After all, as has already been mentioned, Wormwood Scrubs prison (which is next door to the school) is due to be rebuilt somewhere else
762
eventually—and one would hope sooner rather than later—and, as the Report stresses, developments in postgraduate medical education must be regarded from a long-term point of view. If the proper priorities could be established, not only within Government Departments but also between them and the Treasury, the problem might be solved.
If this principle were accepted, a start might be made immediately on the rebuilding that is most urgently required. For example, I understand that a plot of land, off Wood Lane and overlooking Wormwood Scrubs, within a stone's throw of Hammersmith Hospital, is up for sale by the local authority. It is just under an acre, and the price asked is over £400,000. This, of course, is quite unrealistic for the purpose and, as between Government Departments, so between them and local authorities, it seems to me that cooperation in establishing priorities in the national interest is essential. There are also many acres of surplus railway land in the neighbourhood which are likely to be available in the near future; some of which, though I agree by no means all, might be suitable if a means of access were provided.
My Lords, I have made this point in several quarters before, but I feel that I must make it again in your Lordships' House. The concept of what would be a unique complex of postgraduate medical institutes, both general and specialist, to serve as a focus for postgraduate medicine for the benefit not only of our country but of the world is, I am convinced, a most forward-looking and imaginative one, and would appeal to more than one philanthropist—a not unimportant consideration. In my view it will be a tragedy if this possibility is not considered further. If the will were there, I am sure that a way could be found.
Considering further the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the extent to which postgraduate teaching can be carried out alongside pre-registration training must to some extent depend on the branch of medicine concerned. In my own subject of pathology, for example, the organisation of fulltime formal courses which are such an important part of postgraduate training, with the special laboratories and the large number of specialist teachers that are

763
involved, would be quite out of place, and indeed impossible in undergraduate medical schools in London or the Provinces, with their already heavy load of teaching and demands on space. In any case, the most economic way of utilising financial resources for the purpose must be to concentrate such training in one or two centres. In this subject also there will always be a very heavy demand for training from students from overseas. This brings me to the recommendation of the Report that, in general, professional postgraduate training in medicine is best done in the student's own country. In coming to this conclusion, I feel that it gives insufficient consideration to all the factors involved.
It seems to me that the balance is very much in favour in giving such training to doctors destined to work overseas, and in particular in developing countries, primarily in this country, especially if they are to become medical teachers; and in view of the magnitude of the problems involved this must be the main aim in helping these countries raise their health standards. Here they can learn how to teach. Here perhaps they can undertake research under skilled direction, working for a higher degree, essential training and qualification for wouldbe medical professors. Here they can meet with doctors from many other countries and not only discuss medical matters but broaden their horizons in other fields. Here they can learn the higher standards of medical practice and laboratory diagnosis. It may be asked: "Of what use is this, if they are going back to relatively primitive conditions? If and when they do go back, they will be profoundly dissatisfied." I can only say, from talking to many of our ex-students, that they do not feel this way. They regard the year or so spent in this country as one of the outstanding and most rewarding of their lives and would not have missed it for the world.
One argument put forward by the Report in favour of giving postgraduate training to doctors from developing countries in their own country is that they will meet with many indigenous diseases not found in this country. But the provision of this specialised training must be of secondary importance compared with the need to give the best possible general
764
postgraduate training, such as can be obtained in this country, particularly to those destined themselves to become teachers; and wherever possible such specialised training as they require should come afterwards. In any case, it must depend on adequate numbers of highly qualified medical teachers being available in these countries, and there is a great shortage of these. According to the Report, in Appendix 12, paragraph 11, some 200 British medical teachers are urgently required; and with the present shortage at home this need is most unlikely to be met in the foreseeable future.
The secondment of teaching staff from our medical schools, for long or short periods, must involve the provision of additional staff, in view of the heavy teaching load all these schools have at the present time, and this implies financial considerations. Moreover, such posts are not always easy to fill, as they may interfere with current research and even with the chances of promotion on the academic ladder. I believe that the training in this country of postgraduate students from developing countries is the most practicable and also the most economical way of helping them to raise their health standards. The whole subject is of course bound up with the wider problem of how best we can give aid to the developing countries, to which I referred recently in the debate in your Lordships' House on the Green Paper on the Health Service. The financing of the training of these doctors is not only the responsibility of the Department of Health, the universities or the British Council, but even more that of the Ministry of Overseas Development, as is suggested in paragraph 462 of the Report, though this refers specifically only to their training at the Institute of Basic Medical Sciences. There seems to be a very strong case for a greater allocation to be made to the Ministry of Overseas Development, not only for the training of medical teachers for the developing countries but also specifically for adequate facilities for the use of their teaching work when they return. Surely this is a form of "aid with strings" to which no one could take exception.
Turning to the major terms of reference of the Committee—namely, to review the need for doctors in this country and to consider how this need can be met—I

765
propose to restrict myself to the training of pathologists. Of this, the Report says:
"Pathology plays an important part in postgraduate training in many branches of Medicine and the facilities and staffing of many Pathology Laboratories must be improved if they are to make their proper contribution to professional training."
This need to train more pathologists is generally recognised and is likely to become all the greater when the Department of Health plans for setting up regional laboratories have been implemented.
One of the difficulties experienced by those who wish to make a career in pathology is that these medical graduates, as the Report brings out, should have had at least one year's experience in clinical medicine before being accepted for training in this subject. This, in our experience, should be followed by two years in hospital laboratories before they can be accepted for training in formal courses of instruction, which, as I have said, are such a valuable part of the training in the subject. At this stage of their career, the great majority find it impossible to meet out of their own pockets the living and tuition expenses of such courses. Nor, if they are employed as paid junior hospital pathologists, can they obtain the time off for the purpose. The only exception to this, so far as this country is concerned, are those relatively few who are seconded from the Services. The supply of fully-trained pathologists in this country can never be fully met until there is an adequate system of grants to students to meet their needs during this training period.
With postgraduate students coming from overseas, the position is very different. The Governments, the British Council, the Colombo Plan or the World Health Organisation usually meet all their expenses while they are in this country, and as a result there is a long queue of those wishing to attend our fulltime courses, which last for one year. As one example, I may quote from a letter I received a few weeks ago from the Cultural Counsellor of the Saudi Arabian Embassy:
"We very much hope that Dr. (So-and-So) can be allotted a place, as the Saudi Arabian Government attaches great importance to the postgraduate training of its own nationals in this country."
Nor is the demand, great as it is, confined to the less well developed coun-
766
tries. The Director General of Health for the Commonwealth of Australia also recently wrote to me as Chairman of the Departments of Pathology, requesting that the two places we reserve for their trainees should be increased to three or four out of the 24 postgraduates that we now usually take. All the expenses of those they sponsor are met by their Government.
Those concerned with postgraduate medical teaching in pathology are naturally most anxious to meet the needs of this country as well as others, but the lack of financial aid to our students is a serious inhibiting factor. In so far as the British Council and some other sponsoring bodies are financed by the British Government, it seems a little odd that equivalent support is so hard to obtain for our own nationals. It is interesting to note that overseas countries, almost without exception, attach much greater importance to formal fulltime courses in pathology than does this country. They are not even mentioned in the Report. Perhaps it is only those who have attended such courses who are fully able to appreciate their value.
In conclusion, I should like to turn to a very different subject, to one aspect of medical education with which I have not been personally involved though it has close links with my own subject of pathology and is of considerable concern to some of my friends and colleagues. I refer to training in forensic medicine. This is not mentioned in the Report, apart from one passing reference to forensic psychiatry. Yet the subject is one of enormous importance, in the interests of the patient, the doctor and the State. Teaching in it in general is hopelessly inadequate, particularly in some universities in England. Not only are there few lectures in forensic medicine during the whole period of clinical training but the student is never examined in the subject. In Scotland, though, it has always been taken much more seriously and is regarded as an essential part of medical training.
The term "forensic medicine" or "legal medicine", a better term, covers a very wide field. One of the most obviously important aspects is in the assistance that the forensic pathologist may give in the detection of crime—a

767
subject that is on everyone's mind nowadays—tout this cannot be of any value without the preliminary observations of the ordinary doctor, who in many cases sees and suspects it first. It is for this reason that the anxieties that Professor Camps expressed recently about the training and future supply of forensic pathologists, who are the backbone of those who teach, are very pertinent, and they have not been allayed by the answer given when the subject was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago. One can only hope that the Report of the Broderick Committee, due to be published this summer after five years of waiting, will adequately reflect the seriousness of the situation and the steps that must be taken to remedy it.
To those most in a position to know, there is an urgent need for one or more Medico-legal Institutes, such as they have in practically every country on the Continent, or a National Forensic Pathology Service, perhaps based on the universities, where undergraduate and postgraduate training would be given and which would provide regional centres and an adequate career structure. Failing this, fewer and fewer will take up the subject, either to teach or to practise. The teacher will be less well trained, and lack that enthusiasm that is so essential if the subject is not to be boring to the student, as it so often is made to appear nowadays. Fewer students will therefore be attracted into this branch of medicine, and the vicious circle will continue. Those who do take up the practice of forensic pathology will also be less well trained, and whatever those who feel that the situation is being exaggerated may say, this must have serious consequences in the war against crime.
But forensic pathology is only one aspect of a much wider problem. Legal medicine is becoming of increasing importance throughout the whole field of the Health Service. It includes knowledge of the problems and issues involved in legislation on abortion and drugs, to take but two of several medico-legal issues of national concern. Instruction on the legal and ethical aspects of doctor-patient relationships might well avoid increasing complaints and claims against
768
a doctor or hospital, in which the Department of Health, as employer, must be intimately concerned. Forensic pathology includes also the training of a doctor as a medical witness in court in cases of accident, assault or rape. Lack of such training has often resulted in an inexperienced doctor, called as a professional witness, failing when his testimony and opinion might have been of vital importance.
Recent and impending legislation lays even greater stress on the argument for including blood grouping in disputed paternity as part of the subject. Then there is the problem of certification of death. On the accuracy of this depend all our vital statistics, not only national, but international; and so, too, may the discovery of industrial, environmental and pharmacological hazards. All these fall within the scope of legal medicine. So, too, does the appreciation of the right of the industrial worker or the victim of a road accident to compensation for which their legal advisers must have advice. A more mundane subject is the decision as to when a person is dead— for none of us would appreciate waking up in a refrigerator!
Research is also an important aspect of forensic medicine. Topical subjects are cot deaths and battered babies. Other fields wide open are drug addiction and the side effects of drugs and poison. There is also the need for organised training in forensic psychiatry, a knowledge of which is not limited to assessing the responsibility of a criminal for his actions. It is essential to guide most doctors through the intricacies of the Mental Health Act.
One does not therefore have to be a pathologist, or even a doctor, to feel a deep sense of anxiety at the lack of emphasis placed on legal medicine in the present training of a doctor both at the undergraduate and the specialist postgraduate level, and, even more, that apparently its importance is not being recognised in the structure of medical education of the future. There must be a reason why the Royal Commission on Medical Education in their Report fail even to comment on the evidence put before them by official bodies, such as the British Academy of Forensic Sciences, who represent the considered opinions of

769
law, science and medicine, the Medical Defence Union and Medical Protection Society, but, on the face of it, this seems inexplicable.
While there is much to criticise in the Report, there is also much that one can wholeheartedly support, and it contains a tremendous amount of valuable information. Whatever else it may or may not accomplish, and even though many of its far-reaching recommendations may have to be deferred for financial reasons, it has, at least, as I have said, made everyone concerned in medical teaching think about the future of their profession, and how best they can collaborate with others in teaching and research, even if their views do not entirely agree with those of the Royal Commission. The Report which is the subject of today's debate will, I believe, prove a landmark in the history of medicine in our country.
5.27 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, undoubtedly this Report is of the utmost importance because, whatever decisions are made regarding the recommendations it contains, they will inevitably change the whole structure of medical education for the next few decades. I am glad to see that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester has come back into the Chamber, because I was struck by the comment he made when he said: "Let us recognise now that this will change a certain institution. The health centre is very desirable, of course, but we shall say farewell to the family doctor". That is of importance. Families have been brought up with the doctor's house at the corner of the road, and in certain respects they are often moulded, as the children in the vicarage and the manse are moulded, in a certain way. This change of approach will mean an end to that kind of life. As I happen to be one of them, I feel quite sad to think that the old Victorian corner house that we all recognise as the doctor's family home will disappear.
I should like to say something about the format of this Report. It is a very big Report—almost a tome, I feel, because it is so closely written—of nearly 400 pages, and I was surprised to find that it did not contain a summary of recommendations. This is of great importance. What is the good of all these
770
eminent men (incidentally, I note that they were mostly men) sitting all these years, and then finally putting their great thoughts on paper, when it is presented in such a way that the people throughout the country who should read it, the doctors, who are overworked and exhausted, physically and mentally, look at it and say, "I really cannot tackle it." This really is a reflection on the Commission. If I may dare say so. it shows a lack of common sense. What has happened is that the British Medical Association have felt that the first thing they should do is to provide a summary of the recommendations, in order that this document shall be thoroughly studied by the people whom it concerns.
I am very glad that the noble Lord who has just spoken said quite bluntly that he was simply going to talk about pathologists and the training of pathologists. I propose to devote most of my remarks to Chapter 5 of the Report, on Selection and Preparation for the Medical Course, and to talk about the medical training of women. However, I cannot forbear to comment on the suggested extension of training. Again, while I am reluctant to criticise these eminent gentleman, surely this is completely unrealistic. Much of this Report presented very good, sound thinking, but some of it makes me feel that their feet were not quite on the ground.
How can we encourage the recruits to medicine whom we so desperately need when they are to be given so many years of training? Women will almost say, "I cannot get married and have my children early because I shall still be studying." I think the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, mentioned this aspect. He said that if this training was so long we must get down to providing married accommodation before we did anything else, in order that the students themselves should be accommodated.
When I mentioned general practice just now I meant to say that I find it difficult to understand, having regard to the fact that 90 per cent. of illness is dealt with within the ambit of general practice, why a general practitioner was not chosen to serve on the Committee.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I intervene? Dr. Parry was on the Committee. He was a general practitioner.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Perhaps that is one, my Lords, just as there was one woman. My point is that 90 per cent. of the work—indeed very often the first diagnosis—is made by the general practitioner. It seems to me that these eminent gentlemen, with their brilliant qualifications, should have recognised that they ought to have co-opted on to the Commission general practitioners who are closely in touch with the needs of the people.
I believe that the concept of a rigid or compulsory programme of general professional training will not prove attractive. It is no good our presenting a structure for medical education if the potential students resent it; if they do not offer themselves, and say simply, "Well, I will go to some other profession." I should have thought there should be more flexibility between the various training schemes, so that doctors are not inhibited from moving from one branch of medicine to another. I recognise that financial success in medicine, as in other professions, depends upon an individual's going up the professional ladder, and that to change course in the middle must generally be related to a willingness to accept lower earnings. This fact must be taken into account when this particular plan is being made.
Now I come to Chapter 5, and women. The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, mentioned this aspect in her speech, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also raised the matter. I have raised it time after time. It would be quite absurd if, in a debate on medical education, I failed to make my point once more, and perhaps amplified it in such a way that I might persuade the Government, after many, many years, to take some action. It seems to me that in considering medical education it is of the first importance to ensure that the most suitable students are forthcoming. On that I think we are all agreed. The need for more doctors is not in dispute. We hear today about young men and women working 90 hours a week, and then a generous Government say that they are going to pay them overtime over 90 hours. It seems scarcely possible that such conditions can exist in our "Great" Britain. The need for more doctors is quite desperate. They are working in this way because very often there is nobody else to take their place.
772
In paragraph 358 of the Report, dealing with migration, there are some figures. I do not like figures, but these are very important. In this paragraph it is assumed that over the next ten years there will be annually an outflow of 430 doctors —300 to developed countries and 130 to developing countries—and an intake of 250. The annual net loss will thus be 180 doctors. According to the Report, we expect a continuing steady inflow of doctors from Ireland and the older Commonwealth countries for permanent employment in Britain. Why are we relying on this source of supply? I have said time after time how can we keep on taking, let us say, doctors from Pakistan to look after us while they are desperately needed in their own countries? In the hospitals North of the Wash, 50 per cent. of the doctors come from countries where their services are needed by people who are in greater medical and surgical need than we are. I repeat, why should we go on relying on this source of supply? I should like to know why we are failing to use the very fine student material in our own country which can be found in the sixth forms of our girls schools. They are there.
Before I develop my theme, I must again express surprise at the composition of the Royal Commission, which contains only one woman doctor. We cannot blame the Commission, for the Government decided on their composition; they chose one woman doctor and one general practitioner. Does this indicate that in some places the same prejudice exists as one is led to believe by seeing the low figures of women engaged in our hospitals? There is no doubt about the potential medical ability of our girls, and I ask noble Lords to look at the Report. It says that between 1955 and 1965 the proportion of pupils who gained A level passes in all the main science subjects rose considerably more for girls than boys. And to follow the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who talked about girls not liking to come forward because they were told that there was no room for them, may I quote from the Report, which says:
"Headmistresses believe that many of their best pupils do not apply (often it seems on the advice of their teachers) and that many girls whose capacities and inclinations are fitted to a career in medicine do not take

773
the relevant science subjects in the sixth form because they believe that admission to a medical school will not be open to them on merit alone."
This is, of course, a fact which was not denied by the University Grants Committee when I took a delegation containing headmistresses and women doctors to them to ask them to use their influence to increase the percentage of women in our hospitals.
Although it has been said by some noble Lords that the Commission think as I do on this subject, I regret that when one reads paragraph 302 one gets the impression that the Commission are attempting to bolster up the present position. That paragraph reads:
"The high proportion of women now accepted in some British medical schools is an indication that the admission of women raises in itself few or no serious problems."
This statement is certainly not supported by an examination of the percentages of women admitted to many medical schools.
It will be recalled that the Goodenough Committee over twenty years ago recommended—and if this recommendation had been acted upon there would have been no shortage of doctors in this country— that a substantial proportion of students at all medical schools should be women. The University Grants Committee stipulated that the proportion should not fall below 15 per cent. That was twenty years ago. I have just received the lists from many of our hospitals. The latest figures in 1970 reveal that Cambridge takes 13·8 per cent. of women; Guy's, London and Baft's all take approximately 14 per cent.; St. Thomas's takes 15 per cent.; King's College takes 18 per cent.; then Westminster, University College, St. George's and Middlesex become very generous, with 19 per cent. I listened to my noble colleague Lord Brock just now describing the activities in London and the London University and he really could find nothing wrong at all. He probably has forgotten just how they treat women. The reputation of the London hospitals with regard to the education of women is disgraceful— absolutely disgraceful!—and is something for which the noble Lord, Lord Brock, should blush.
Is this discrimination made because women have failed in medicine? Have they made bad doctors? Not a bit of it!
774
Women are sought after; women surgeons have long lists of people who want them to operate on them. There is no question: they have made good doctors. And may I tell the House, in case it may think I am being subjective on this subject, what the Commission say about them? They say:
"The work of women medical students is widely acknowledged to be better on average than that of men students though this may simply reflect more stringent selection."
The reference to "more stringent selection" bears out the headmistresses' contention that girls are deterred from choosing medicine as a career because merit alone will not determine their chances before a selection committee. Later, I am glad to see, the Commission rally to the cause of women, and say:
"We think that the imposition of an arbitrary upper limit on the numbers of women admitted to the medical course would have the most unfortunate consequences for medicine ".
These are very welcome expressions of appreciation and I am sorry to say that the Commission then do not follow them up. They make no attempt to challenge those who are imposing "an arbitrary upper limit" in medical schools and thereby discriminating against able girls. As I have said, it is significant that only one woman doctor was chosen to serve on the Commission. It seems that the "arbitrary upper limit" of women doctors on the Commission was one.
I feel that this policy of discrimination against potential women medical students contravenes the Sex Disqualification Removal Act 1919. In February, two months ago, I put down a Question asking the Government whether this was not so. The Sex Disqualification Removal Act says:
"A person shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function or from being appointed to or holding any civil or judicial office or post or from entering or assuming or carrying on any civil profession or vocation or for admission to any incorporated society."
On February 19 I asked the Government
"whether medical schools, which limit the admission of women students to a small percentage of the total intake, are contravening the Sex Disqualification Removal Act 1919."
My noble friend Lady Phillips, who is to wind up, was given the unpleasant job, as usual, of answering. I must confess that in this House I am surprised to see

775
how much work the women have to do, how detailed it is, and how often how very unpleasant some of it is. My noble friend said:
"…it is not for Her Majesty's Government to construe the law. Moreover, I am advised that if there were any contravention of the Sex Disqualification Removal Act 1919 it would not be for Her Majesty's Government to enforce the law, and that the remedy would be by way of civil injunction by any woman aggrieved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; col. 1286.]
Surely it would not be contended that, by failing to admit suitably qualified women students, the medical schools are either preventing women from entering the civil profession of medicine or are refusing to admit women to an incorporated society. I have been advised, just as my noble friend was, that action can be taken only by a person aggrieved because her own rights were being infringed. How old is an aggrieved person in this case? An aggrieved person is a girl of 17 or 18. She is probably a brilliant child who has been working very hard; shy, exhausted, a little introverted, longing to become a doctor— knowing very well that she has been turned down because of her sex. And we are told that this is the individual who will have to take action! My Lords, where is our law? Where is its compassion? Of course I have tried to find this girl; I have got in touch with headmistresses. They know; I know; but how can we expect a child of this kind to apply for an injunction?
So here we are today, short of doctors, shamelessly taking Pakistani doctors and doctors from all over the world, from sick, miserable, inarticulate people— shamelessly! Yet here we have a brilliant source of supply but we are allowing convention, prejudice, discrimination, to be used against these girls. I ask the House to join with me and with others who are pressing for this position to be changed. I want to ask the Government whether they will not now decide to stop medical schools, particularly the London medical schools, from contravening those important provisions of the Sex Disqualification Removal Act 1919.
5.47 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I propose to confine myself to one relatively small but I think important aspect of the Royal Commission's
776
Report. It is dealt with in the phrase which the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, omitted from the terms of reference which she quoted. That phrase is:
"having regard to the statutory functions of the General Medical Council and the current review by that Council of recent changes in the undergraduate curriculum".
That review had been undertaken by the General Medical Council and their recommendations were published in 1967. I do not propose to discuss the details of those recommendations, but if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, or the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, would care to look at them they would see that the recommendations of the General Medical Council cover their doubts about ethics and legal medicine.
May I say, as President of the General Medical Council, that the Royal Commission's Report departs in no way from the general philosophy of medical education which the recommendations of the General Medical Council set out. The General Medical Council are not of course concerned; they have no statutory mandate for dealing with many of those matters under the umbrella of the Royal Commission. But the essential philosophy is that it is no longer possible in present conditions to regard the undergraduate education and the pre-registration years as sufficient to produce a qualified doctor who lawfully may practise independently. That is a view which was held by practically all, if not all, of those who gave evidence to certainly the General Medical Council; and I think it can be said that it was the view expressed by the British Medical Association, who wrote that:
"We would stress that the undergraduate course and immediate post-qualification time is only the initial period of instruction in a continuing education. It should be followed by planned vocational training for all branches of medicine, including general practice."
It was not the first time that a committee of the British Medical Association had expressed that view, and it was a committee almost entirely composed of general practitioners, for in 1948 a committee of the British Medical Council wrote this:
"General practice is a special form of practice which must be founded on general basic principles and appropriate postgraduate study. In the committee's view, the undergraduate medical course should be primarily concerned with the training in those basic

777
principles of medicine which are a necessary foundation for all forms of medical practice."
Certainly there is strong and cogent advocacy in the Report of the Royal Commission why it should be so, and indeed there has now been established a central council which will advise on the provision for postgraduate medical education.
Then there comes the question: if there is special vocational training, how are those who have successfully attained the standards which are necessary for a vocational training to be recognised? The answer which the Royal Commission gave was that there should be a register of specialties. Since then there has been a misconception, and indeed considerable inaccuracies have been uttered about the nature of a specialty register. Only a day or two ago an important committee said that specialty registration is premature, if not superfluous. May I then put forward why, in the view of the General Medical Council as in the view of the Royal Commission, there should be specialist registration.
It may be recalled that the first profession to have a register was the medical profession, and that was in fact established by the Medical Act 1858. The Preamble to that Act gives an indication of why registration is not only desirable but indeed necessary. The Preamble reads thus:
"Whereas it is expedient that Persons requiring Medical Aid should be enabled to distinguish qualified from unqualified Practitioners: Be it therefore enacted …"
and so forth. Clearly this has a twofold purpose. It is to safeguard the public so that the public may be able to see from the register who is qualified and who is not qualified, because I should explain that in this country, as distinct from many others, anyone may practice medicine. It is true that certain restrictions are placed upon non-registered medical pracitioners: for example, they cannot work in the National Health Service; they cannot sign statutory certificates; they cannot prescribe certain drugs; they cannot perform midwifery—they cannot, in fact, do many things which the registered medical practitioner may do. So there are those special privileges, including, I might add, that the registered practitioner may sue
778
for fees. No unregistered medical practitioner may so do.
The idea of the specialist register is that it shall in the same way identify those persons who have reached standards of skill and experience which show that they are fully competent to exercise independent judgment and responsibility in practising in that special field. Until now the only way in which that was determined was by the appointment of a doctor as a consultant to a hospital. The average age for the appointment of a consultant is about 37, so for 12 to 14 years after qualifying—sometimes much longer—the doctor waits for a consultant appointment, and if it is not attained there is discontent. I believe that this is one of the factors leading to the "brain drain". Therefore the specialist register will provide the earliest public recognition of the fact that a man has successfully cleared the hurdle of specialty training, and I trust that from that many fruitful consequences will flow, some of which I mentioned at an earlier date in your Lordships' House.
I am not suggesting, of course, that specialist registration should be in any way restrictive. There is no reason why a gynaecologist should not remove a gall bladder; there is no reason why a general practitioner, sufficiently competent, should not do an appendectomy; but the fact is that the public has information, and it is indicated to the public who has reached the standards required for specialist registration. If there is to be specialist registration it seems to me abundantly clear that there should be one body responsible for that registration, through acceptable machinery which shall be determined after full consultation, and the functions of that body would be to determine the minimally acceptable standards to be reached in a specialty, and also to determine which specialties justify registration.
Clearly one of the reasons why there must be one body and not many is that it is necessary to determine a harmonisation of standards as between the specialties. It clearly would be absurd, for example, for surgery to allow 25 per cent. of candidates for any specialty examination to pass whereas the standards of dermatology would allow 90 per cent. of the candidates to pass. Therefore the General Medical Council—and I think

779
this is true also of the Royal Commission—would suggest that all those who were chosen to start the specialty training should, except for very few, reach the standards required for specialty training.
The other point is that any body, whether it be a university, or a college, in this country or overseas, which can demonstrate that its degree or diploma or certificate guarantees that that standard of proficiency has been reached, should have that diploma or degree accepted for registration. In other words there should not be a single portal of entry to the specialist register. Already many universities are giving degrees which would be of specialist standard. I can think in my own University of Liverpool of the mastership of orthopaedic surgery; in the University of London the mastership in philosophy, in psychiatry. Membership of the Royal College of Pathology, for example, already indicates a standard which would justify specialisation. But that is not true, of course, nor do the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons suggest that it is true, of the membership of the Royal College of Physicians or the Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons, which are regarded as indicating that their holders have reached a stage at which they are now capable of profiting from higher specialist training.
I would remind your Lordships that specialist registers are already in being in the United States of America, in Australia, in South Africa, in New Zealand, in all the countries of the European Economic Community—and that last point is important, because if we enter the Common Market, under the Treaty of Rome there is a mutual recognition of qualifications, and we shall be at a serious disadvantage if the E.E.C. countries have the specialist register and we do not.
Who should maintain the register? Here again I should like to quote quite briefly from the Royal Commission's Report, paragraph 158:
"The time has now come, in our view, for the establishment, on similar lines "—
similar lines being those similar to the primary qualification—
"of a system of vocational registration as the necessary complement to a proper system of
780
professional training; we recommend that the General Council should be the vocational registration authority."
And in paragraph 185:
"We have already indicated that in our view the General Medical Council should assume a function in postgraduate education and training similar in principle to that which it now efficiently discharges in the undergraduate sphere."
Finally, the last two sentences, indeed the penultimate sentence, will give the necessary indication. In paragraph 185, the Commission say:
"We have every reason to expect that the Council would approach postgraduate education with the flexibility and broadness of purpose that have characterised its approach to undergraduate medical education in the past ten years or so."
Perhaps I ought to remind your Lordships that in another place on July 24, 1969, the Secretary of State said this:
"The Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible to enable the General Medical Council to maintain specialist registration."
I do not propose at this stage to discuss in detail how the General Medical Council arrives at its recommendations. It does so by taking evidence from those bodies which give medical qualifications; and it then prepares a report which goes back to those bodies and, subsequently, to the Council itself for deliberation. And, as a former President of the General Medical Council has said:
"Our recommendations are the expression of a concordat amicably reached, not an ordinance which is issued by an external authority."
Some are suggesting that the universities and the colleges should, without reference to any centrally recommended standards, issue certificates marking the end point of a training devised by themselves, and that the General Medical Council should accept these for specialist registration. I should, I think, make it clear to your Lordships that the General Medical Council does not regard as appropriate that it should be called upon to accept for registration the names of those who have satisfied other bodies not answerable to the public, and for whose standards of training, including facilities for training and examination, the General Medical Council has had no responsibility, and that this should apply retrospectively if specialist registration is postponed; that is to say, if it does so at

781
the moment, and later specialist registration comes in and is placed under the aegis of the General Medical Council, the General Medical Council would then not accept the certificates which had been given earlier and over which it had no responsibility whatsoever.
If the Government decide that specialist registration should be still further postponed, or that it should be the responsibility of a body or bodies other than the General Medical Council, I think there are two additional grounds on which we could reasonably say that that would be less than the best. The first is that no other body than the General Medical Council is free from medico-political activities, and indeed pressures, and no other body has the wide territorial responsibilities that the General Medical Council now has. But perhaps even more important is the point which was made a little earlier in a rather different way: that medical education can no longer be divided into neat compartments labelled "pre-clinical", "clinical" "undergraduate" or "postgraduate".
The Royal Commission emphasised, and rightly, the increasingly scientific basis of medicine, and suggested how the undergraduate curriculum might be adapted to meet this situation. They recommended that there should be no change in the average length of the medical course—five years, plus one pre-registration year—but that in the undergraduate course there should be greater emphasis on the medical sciences; and if this is carried out then there will be less time for clinical instruction. To my own knowledge, these recommendations have been sympathetically received, and many universities would wish to implement them. But they realise that, as the law now stands, they have to produce not only young men and women with a sound knowledge of basic medical sciences, but also doctors who, after a year's pre-registration training, are lawfully entitled to set up in independent medical practice. Most medical teachers agree that they cannot therefore easily reduce the clinical content of the undergraduate course and thus provide the time for the urgently needed improvement in scientific studies.
Perhaps I might add that in the undergraduate course great care is taken to emphasise the ethical implications of
782
medicine, and the treatment of patients as human beings. When I was a clinical teacher I not infrequently reminded students of some words written well over a century ago by one of England's greatest poets. He then said, when science was advancing rapidly:
"True it is that nature hides her treasures less and less.
Man now presides in power where once he trembled in his weakness;
Science advances with gigantic strides.
But are we aught enriched in love and meekness? "
I told them that if they were to be doctors they must give a resounding affirmative in answer to Wordsworth's question.
May I, then, in conclusion say, lest I have given a somewhat pessimistic view of the specialist registration, that the consultations between the General Medical Council, on the one hand, and universities, colleges and other medical licensing bodies of the British Medical Association on the other—consultations which are concerned with the implementation of the Royal Commission's proposals on specialist training and registration—are still in progress.
6.10 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, the Royal Commission devoted a whole chapter to medical education in London, and although I am sure that as a member of the University of London I ought to declare an interest, I hope that your Lordships will be kind enough to judge whether what I have to say is perhaps a matter of national importance, rather than one merely of personal loyalty to my own institution. There is a very simple reason why this should be so. The medical schools in the University of London teach 40 per cent. of medical students in the country. Whatever happens in the next 30 years London will continue to be by far the largest single trainer of doctors, and also the national centre of postgraduate studies and all forms of medical research. If London medicine flags, then the standards of British medicine will fall. Here may I say how indebted I am to Lord Brock and Lord Evans for having used the broad brush to paint the London picture, and if I indulge in petit point embroidery and go into some matters of detail, perhaps 1 may be forgiven.

783
I am sure we shall all agree that the Royal Commission were right to stress that there are too many medical schools in London. I welcome the Commission's recommendation, and so do my colleagues, that these schools need to be integrated with the pre-clinical departments of London colleges which teach subjects such as biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology and anatomy. But I have to add that at first sight these marriages are going to be pretty costly—we reckon at least £4 million apiece. And although the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, was absolutely right in saying that probably there are only three starters in the immediate future, nevertheless this might suggest that a quite sizable bill is coming along.
Each complex needing a sum of this order has to buy a large enough site for this new faculty, or school of medical science, and to build upon it. There will also then have to be on that site the facilities to bring together the pre-clinical and the postclinical students and teachers, and also the research elements in the school. But, looked at in another way, I think that these marriages will not be all that expensive: first, because the Todd Report is certainly not a Casanova Charter—there will be no divorce in this case—and, secondly, because the present medical schools have lasted for over 100 years and we can discount the cost over that period of time for these new schools of medical science. I might at this point say to Lady Summerskill that I blush, as she asked me to do. I do not know, having been so acquainted only recently with the medical schools, why the lack of women students should be so marked. I have my suspicions, but I will not voice them. And, as I have blushed, and although I noted that Lord Brock's withers were completely unwrung, I think I had better leave it to him to make any reply, should it be necessary.
I think this "twinning" of schools, and their connection with the London colleges, will be good for medicine. Will it be good for universities as a whole? Clearly, these sums cannot be found from the present allocation of the Department of Education and Science to the University Grants Committee. But I am sure that no one has really imagined that the Todd Report could be implemented without
784
additional expense. For the past ten years the civic universities outside London, new and old, have received the lion's share of the U.G.C. capital grants —and quite right, too, because it was more economic to expand higher education out in the Provinces than in London. But after such a lean decade London University hopes it will be acknowledged that expansion in London is a necessary condition of expanding medical education. In the case of the Todd Report the major expenditure I believe, should be in London, if there are to be not only more doctors but better doctors.
This "twinning" of medical schools (which in London we hope does not mean the "twinning" of hospitals) is, I think, an admirable solution to the problem of medical education in London. What I am about to say, I hasten to add, is my own personal judgment, and is in no way the judgment of my colleagues, but I want to make it clear that I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, who asked whether it was still necessary to have as many hospitals and medical schools in London as existed, for example, at the beginning of this century. I ask whether, in the next century, there will be sufficient patients in the centre of London for all the hospitals that are there now. I wonder whether the very strong loyalties which the medical profession has towards these great institutions, whose history in many cases goes back for many years, and also their strong links with the University of London, did not restrain the Commissioners in their Report from taking an even harder look than has already been done, at the question of whether there is a need for so many hospitals with teaching schools in the central area. I should like to make it plain to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that in regard to my own institution (again, I am expressing a personal view) I should welcome triplets rather than twins, and I am quite prepared to have them, because in our case this would mean that that great hospital, the Middlesex, could also come into the Royal Free /University College Hospital Scheme, with University College.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would bear this interpolation which I am going to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, because in her

785
speech she said one thing that I feel was rather unfair to the Government. The noble Baroness condemned the Government for their failure to pay doctors and to equip hospitals well enough, and she argued that there was a great waste of the money spent on medical education, because so many doctors emigrated as a result of the lack of Governmental care in this whole question of medical education and the payment of doctors. The first thing I would say on this point is that this is not the fault particularly of this present Government. It is a situation that has continued ever since 1945, during which time we have certainly seen a marked increase in emigration by doctors.
And on this point I would ask the noble Baroness whether she would prefer to see the medical profession and the doctors of this country respected, as they are, everywhere, and many doctors loved in our own National Health Service, or the situation in the United States, to which so many of these doctors emigrate, where doctors are loathed and the medical profession reviled because of their bitter opposition to medi-care: a state of affairs that has resulted in a situation in which not only the lower-paid classes, but also the vast middle class of America, dread falling ill, because they feel that they will be ruined by the exorbitant fees charged by doctors and by the astronomical hospital costs which no private insurance scheme can possibly hope to meet. I think that this is of relevance to the question of whether we should educate doctors merely so that they may emigrate.
Another item of expenditure ought to be mentioned. The Todd Report recommends that the training of a doctor, which now takes six years, should take nine years. One of these years would be after clinical training had been completed and before registration; and the succeeding last three years would be spent as a registered doctor, but working in a hospital if the doctor wished to be regarded as qualified for certain posts in the future. I am afraid that I must tell your Lordships that these proposals have received something considerably less than a warm welcome from medical students. It is not so much that they object to lengthening the course, but that they fear the very low pay which they receive in
786
pre-registration year will not be substantially increased after registration. They look on the proposal as an attempt to strengthen the Health Service "on the cheap". So I hope that, as soon as possible, putative scales of pay will be published for these last three years of qualification, so that these fears can be allayed.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to one other matter of concern in the University of London? We all want hospitals to be good hospitals, but some of the hospitals have to be "more equal than others". It seems to me that you are bound to draw a distinction between what used to be called a "teaching hospital," and other hospitals. What special privileges must a teaching hospital have? I do not think it can be disputed that it must have a more generous level of staffing on the clinical and diagnostic side and in the laboratories than there is in other hospitals. For one thing, it has to include basic sciences within its orbit, as well as biomedical and pre-clinical subjects. For another, the staff, or a large part of it, must have time not only for care of patients but for teaching and for research and for the heavy burden of administration that I am afraid goes with these activities. We have heard a reference to the overwork of doctors in teaching hospitals, which I am sure is true, and it is not really a good enough guide to see a staff/student ratio of one to four and think that this is an enormously lavish way of staffing. First of all, I think that crude staff/student ratios do not tell the whole story; and, secondly, one has to go into the hospitals to see the burden which is put on the great teachers and researchers in the teaching hospitals.
Then again, the Faculty of Medicine in which the medical school will exist, and the teaching hospital itself, ought to retain the right to appoint its own staff. This means that all medical staff of consultant grade, as well as fulltime clinical academic staff, should be appointed in future by the associated medical school. I wonder, therefore, whether it would not be wise to set up academic appointments boards with external university advisers upon them to make appointments.
I hope it does not sound pedantic, and possibly alarming, to hear this emphasis

787
on academic standards being applied in appointments. I expect that most people would think that every important hospital post needs doctors with practical experience rather than theoreticians. But it cannot be repeated too often that the care of patients, which is the prime concern of all hospitals, is only one of the concerns of a teaching hospital. Our teaching hospitals are the places where the research takes place which is going to improve the care of patients in the future. That is why teaching hospitals should remain free to take patients from all over the country if their illness is one with which that particular hospital is specially equipped to deal. That is why if a choice has to be made on the head of a department (say the department of pediatrics), between a man who is popular with staff and with patients and who has given long and devoted service to the hospital, and a woman who also has an excellent record in patient care but, in addition, has published some very useful papers which could result in more effective treatment of patients, then the woman doctor ought to be appointed. That is sometimes a difficult point to get over.
Finally, my Lords, there is the administrative structure which was set out in the Green Paper. I do not know any administrative structure which is more complicated than that of medicine and health. Directly life and death come into question it appears that you have to double or treble the number of committees needed in any other field. I find this very paradoxical. I must say that anything which I add on this point I add with great diffidence, because I am really very ignorant of the medical administrative structure. Until now the success of the London medical schools, which depends on the high standard of their associated teaching hospitals, has owed a good deal to their being administered by boards of governors. In the new deal, London University's teaching hospitals and the special postgraduate hospitals will require some supplementary finance. Could not this be done through an earmarked grant for medicine through the University?
The reason I ask that is as follows. The structure of the new Area Health Authorities contains some rather worrying features. In the Green Paper they
788
seem—and I want to repeat, they only seem—to have been set up without any regard for medical education and research. Among those 90 Authorities, quite a number will, in fact, be responsible for teaching hospitals. Now I am not criticising the Green Paper on this point. Nor have the universities been turned down on this matter, because the Green Paper sets out only the broad administrative structure. Yet I venture to suggest that when the details are spelled out in some subsequent paper, more protection for teaching and research will be needed than appears at present. In the present Green Paper the only time medical education gets a look in is on the Regional Committees.
Again. I am not for one moment suggesting that the universities ought to be represented more strongly on the Area Health Authority Board. There are already too many pressure groups struggling to be represented on these Boards. I rather doubt, too, whether to set up a parallel committee structure on the academic side would help very much. But I do suggest that a way must be found to earmark money for teaching and research so that they are not dependent for finance upon the Area Board, which inevitably will put patient care as its highest priority. Furthermore, the medical schools and the postgraduate institutes will need some form of government. Could this be provided by basing it on the committees of management of existing medical schools or postgraduate institutes? These committees could be expanded so that they became a locally responsible executive controlling authority with financial control, answerable to the Area Health Authority for matters concerning provision of health service in the area. But could this controlling authority also be made directly responsible to the University of London for matters concerning staffing, teaching, research and development? I am not asking the noble Baroness to give me answers to these questions, but if she would draw these matters to the attention of her right honourable friends I should be greatly obliged.
6.27 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, I should like to echo the words of my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, and say that it is with

789
great temerity that I venture to address your Lordships on this extremely specialised subject of medical education. As your Lordships will appreciate, I have no real knowledge of this subject, but I was for 17 years a member of the board of governors of a London teaching hospital, and for 13 years I have been, and still am, a member of the board of governors of a postgraduate teaching hospital. I have also read the Report of the Royal Commission and heard it discussed by many eminent members of those two boards, and have been allowed to see some of the papers they have written on the subject. It is on those grounds that I venture to make a few remarks on the Royal Commission Report.
I have been rather carried away by the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, because he spoke on a subject about which I should love to speak; that is, the Green Paper, because I think it comes into this debate very closely. However, I dare not do so, and I think I must stick to the brief, which is the Todd Report. There are many good points in this Report, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Hungershall, that the Report is too idealistic and not always very practical. It is going to cost an awful lot of money, and I wonder where that money is coming from. I would also say that it is rather out of date. One example of that is that it suggests that teaching hospitals should take on the role of a district hospital, whereas, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, a great many teaching hospitals have already done that and have been doing it for many years.
The Report also seems to be rather vague and undecided in its views as to whether teaching hospitals should go under the regional boards—or area boards as they are now to be called—in the same way as in Scotland, or whether the pattern which has been planned for Nottingham and Southampton should be the one to be followed. It seems to me, as an amateur, that it would be more reasonable to wait until the full implications of Nottingham and Southampton are realised before proposing such drastic changes from the present method of administrating teaching hospitals.
There seem to be so many different proposals for administrative reorganisa
790
tion and I feel convinced, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, that there are many things which teaching hospitals will wish to retain. I think they will want to retain, if possible, some personal form of committee or governing body. They will want to have very close and intimate links with their medical schools. I am sure that they will want to have separate and adequate finance, both revenue and capital, rather than have a doling out from the area boards. I am also sure that they will want to control their own endowment funds which they have used so much in the past, both in research and in rebuilding. I am certain, too, that they will want to employ their own staff and, while very happy to provide district services, will wish to retain the right to admit patients irrespective of their locality of origin.
I am afraid that I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that the Todd Report takes adequate account of the distinction between general continuing postgraduate medical training and the specialist postgraduate medical education provided by such hospitals as the Hospital for Sick Children in Great Ormond Street, the Hospital for Nervous Diseases in Queen's Square, the Bethlem/ Maudsley and the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith, each in conjunction with its own Institute. The Report does not sufficiently acknowledge the work of these specialist postgraduate teaching hospitals in London, or the British Postgraduate Medical Federation. There is practically no mention of it at all, as has been said so frequently by the speakers who preceded me.
Again, as I have already said, it also fails to distinguish sufficiently between the continuing postgraduate professional vocational training in the general sense, and the highly specialised postgraduate education provided in the London postgraduate hospitals. The former is really the responsibility of the Health Service throughout the country. The latter requires a concentration of special knowledge, skill, equipment and research which can be found only in university centres devoted to these specialised subjects.
Here I should like to put before your Lordships the example of the Bethlem/ Maudsley Hospital and Institute of

791
Psychiatry. This is the largest institution for psychiatry in the Western World. It has the largest output of specialised teachers and research workers. Not only does it produce specialists, but, more important, it produces the teachers of the future in psychiatry and allied fields. Already they are linked with King's and Guy's, and have a district position; and they are also starting to train nurses for community work in their neighbourhood.
The national and international role of the London postgraduate specialist hospitals can be illustrated, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, by the fact that the number of overseas doctors coming to London each year to obtain postgraduate experience and training, who are looked after by the Postgraduate Medical Federation, exceeds the total annual output of new doctors from all medical schools in the United Kingdom. This cannot be over-emphasised.
Eminent critics of the Todd Report, such as Sir John McMichael and Dr. Avery Jones, have drawn attention to the enormous dimensions of overseas demand and the considerable part which the London postgraduate teaching hospitals and their Institutes play in meeting this demand. To quote Sir John McMichael, he said:
"The Postgraduate Medical Federation in London has blazed a trail in this direction and played a full role, although this is scarcely acknowledged in the Todd Report."
And Dr. Avery Jones said:
"The postgraduate centres in London have developed as in no other city in the world, and form a national asset of which we should be very proud."
I was very worried by the proposals in the Report for these big university centres and big combinations of teaching hospitals—the " twinning " which is, perhaps, going to be better than one expected. But I feel it is going to cost an enormous amount of money, and I only hope that the standards of teaching, research and even treatment will not be lowered by this combination. I am glad to hear that the hospitals themselves are to retain their own identity, even though their schools and pre-clinical schools may be joined together. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Cottesloe said, every postgraduate hospital will not necessarily
792
have to be treated in exactly the same way. Some of the smaller ones may wish to redevelop in closer proximity to an undergraduate hospital and medical school. But in the interests of progress in all fields of medicine, such hospitals as centres of concentrated effort on specialities, however they may develop in the future, must retain their individuality, a large measure of independence and the closest links with their institutes.
In my view, it is essential that the larger postgraduate hospitals and their Institutes should retain their individual governing bodies and control of their endowments, which, after all, were given by generous donors to the hospitals in question. Much of the success of these postgraduate hospitals and Institutes has, I think, been due to their having personal and dedicated boards of governors, independent enough to obtain and deploy resources sufficiently large to meet the ever changing and expanding needs of their Institutes and hospitals. It is therefore very important that the Institutes of these hospitals should also retain their separate committees of management, and that they should be closely linked with the hospitals' boards of governors. It would be a tragedy if, as a result of the recommendations of the Todd Report —some of which have already been discarded—such alterations should be made that the Institutes, so long the admiration and envy of medicine throughout the world should be handicapped in carrying on the purposes for which they have been built up.
6.37 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I think it is sometimes forgotten that the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education appeared after three years of intensive work by one of the most distinguished and high-powered Royal Commissions ever appointed by any Government. I say this allowing for the possible omissions which have already been mentioned, although at this late stage I do not wish to be diverted by any war of the sexes. Two of the leading figures on that Commission are Members of your Lordships' House, and we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brock, the most distinguished cardiac surgeon of his generation and one who has spent a lifetime of service in medical education, for initiating this debate.

793
Unfortunately, with a profession so independent and so fiercely individualistic as the medical profession, the Report seems to have met a fate which it hardly deserved. When it first appeared grave doubts from all quarters cast a gloomy shadow over its future. And the question was asked: If this thoughtful and painstaking Report is not to be plunged into one of those pigeonholes which are specially reserved for Reports of Royal Commissions, who will initiate 'the reforms that it advocates? Were the Royal Colleges to make a start and adjust themselves to changed conditions? Was the General Medical Council to give a lead to the profession and set machinery in motion to implement the recommendations?
Clearly, these recommendations also called for Government action. If the Government have been somewhat dragging their feet, can this inaction be justified by the plea that the medical profession itself was divided among its own members? Of course that is true, but the fact remains that the medical profession has never been united in the past, is not united at the present time and can see little hope of being united in the future. Perhaps that is one of the glories of medicine: that differences of opinion, on administrative as well as academic matters, are widely accepted and very freely discussed.
Meanwhile, some of the problems pointed out by the Todd Report may grow more and more intractable with the passage of time. The Royal Commission expressed the hope—and I quote:
"… that action will follow swiftly on the publication of our Report … Some of our recommendations will require changes in legislation to make them fully effective. We hope that these changes will not be long delayed …"
That is on page 232. Two years have since elapsed, and I would ask the Government now: what changes have since been effected? When is the necessary legislation expected to come before Parliament? Rugged individualism in any profession is all very well, but it can create problems from the patients' point of view. If we are to maintain all our hospitals at the high level of efficiency of our London teaching hospitals and keep abreast of modern scientific and technological developments in medicine, some action cannot be any longer
794
delayed. We may have to pay a heavy price, both in terms of money and in terms of human values, if these problems are neglected, and if some of our great voluntary hospitals are allowed to cling to their time-honoured traditions and to remain outside the stream of modern technological advances.
There is no time at this late stage of the debate to deal with many of the Royal Commission's recommendations. Many of the earlier chapters, such as those on the future pattern of medical care and on postgraduate education and training, verge on the platitudinous, and have found general acceptance. But I should like to comment on some of the administrative changes proposed. If we are to achieve an annual intake of 5,000 students into our medical schools in the next twenty years, half at least will be trained in the provincial centres. I believe that the recommendations, of the Royal Commission for the future of the medical schools in the Provinces have generally been warmly welcomed. Cambridge as an undergraduate clinical school, Nottingham and Southampton as new medical schools, and especially the extension of existing facilities in Leeds and Sheffield—all these should now develop apace, so that the target figure of 2,500 annual intake should be attainable during the next few years.
But it is when we come to the future of the London medical schools, as has been mentioned by other speakers, that bitter controversy has arisen. All our great London hospitals are to retain their separate identities: it is only their medical schools which are asked to undergo a radical change. But what is the point of reducing the existing medical schools from twelve: to six and merely pairing them off? Is there anything specially sacrosanct about the number six? If two schools amalgamate, such as London and Bart's, or Middlesex and St. Mary's, or Charing Cross and Westminster, there is bound to be some rivalry among their staffs, even if their rivalry on the rugger field may disappear. Questions of prestige, of precedence: and of personal status are almost bound to arise and to create difficult working conditions, at least in the short term. And even greater difficulties are bound to arise in linking the new groupings with six multi-faculty colleges of London University.

795
The six designated colleges are: Queen Mary's, University College, Bedford College, the Imperial College of Science, new buildings in place of the old King's College, and a projected and entirely new college for Tooting or Guildford, or somewhere in the wilds of Surrey. At present, the links of the medical schools with most of these colleges are of the slenderest and in some cases are almost nonexistent. And the building of any new colleges for pre-clinical studies, rather than the extension of existing colleges, would be a sheer waste of public money in these difficult days.
I would suggest that if there is merit in six groupings, there might also be merit in four groupings, or even three. I throw this out merely as a suggestion, because it is very easy to demolish the case for amalgamation, as the noble Lord, Lord Brock, has to some extent done. But why not combine the medical schools of London Hospital and Bart's with Universitly College Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital into one large eastern group for the purpose of pre-clinical education; or Middlesex and St. Mary's with Westminster and Charing Cross, at Fulham, into one large western group, again for the purpose of pre-clinical education; and, equally, Guy's and King's College Hospital with St. Thomas's and St. George's, at Tooting, into one large southern group? It appears that the Royal Commission has been somewhat unsure of itself in its London amalgamation proposals—and I agree with Lord Brock that the clinical teaching is far better left as it is today, unless the teaching hospitals themselves decide otherwise.
These larger pre-clinical groupings could bring about enormous advantages in administration and in the saving of public money. Students would have a much freer choice of their future teaching hospital, as they now all enjoy at Oxford and Cambridge. They would have far wider contacts in their pre-clinical years, and would be not only better trained but better educated in the fullest sense of the term. With these wider pre-clinical amalgamations, personal rivalries and questions of prestige among the teaching staffs would be minimised; and there is also likely to be some measure
796
of safety in greater numbers. Our small specialised hospitals could be more readily available for postgraduate teaching, and could be made more attractive to the far larger number of graduates who wish to specialise. And the saving of public money would be enormous, especially in obviating the need for building new pre-clinical colleges. But most important of all would be the wider pooling of existing resources, the increased efficiency of the larger units, and the economies that could be achieved in the purchase of new and more up-to-date equipment.
These problems of pre-clinical education are tremendously important, not only in attracting greater numbers but in ensuring the highest quality of our medical students; and I sometimes feel sorry for the young medical student who has to go right through the whole of his five, six or seven years of medical training always in constant company with the same fellow students in one particular teaching hospital. If not acted on very soon, valuable time may have been lost and the leeway may be almost impossible to recover. It is all very well to muddle along, but not, I hope, at the cost of still further overworking our already heavily-overworked doctors, be they specialists or general practitioners. So I would ask the Government to take the initiative in working out now, with all the representatives of the teaching hospitals and the colleges concerned, plans to extend their pre-clinical medical facilities and to ensure that future medical students are given the widest possible contacts in the multi-faculty colleges to equip them as fully as possible for any responsibilities they may have to face in the future.
6.50 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, in the first place I should like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Brock for giving us this opportunity of debating the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education which he opened in his best forthright and critical manner. Secondly, I must give to the House the very great regrets of my noble friend Lord Todd whom I saw only the other day (though "regrets" is too weak a word to use for what he feels) in having to miss this debate after chairing this Commission —which he did so splendidly. As your

797
Lordships know, he is one of those people who finds it difficult to believe that he himself could ever be ill. He reminds me of a doctor friend of mine who, in similar circumstances, said that he always thought that this kind of thing only happened to patients. Anyway, he is doing very well now and is filling up his time learning Chinese; which will be a nice addition to the portfolio of languages, including Russian, which he already speaks with considerable fluency.
My Lords, as I am the only other member of the Commission who is also a Member of your Lordships' House, it falls to me to say a good deal in reply to some of the criticisms that have been made of the Report. But I hope that you will remember that Lord Todd, I am sure, could have done this very much better and is more familiar with his own Report than I am, although I had a great deal to do with it, and that what I say is not to be taken as "the word of Todd".
My Lords, this is not going to be a very easy task because so many criticisms have been made—particularly of the section which deals with the University of London. In the first instance, I should like to say—and I shall go into it in some detail later—that we had to divide ourselves up into subcommittees. I was not myself on the subcommittee which dealt with medical education in London. By saying that, I am not trying to make any excuse or to say that I disagree with this part of the Report—because I was quite convinced, and more and more convinced as our meetings went on and we got the reports of the subcommittees, that they were on the right kind of track and that many of their recommendations were very wise ones.
My Lords, you could think of this Report in general terms, dividing it in various ways. You may think that some of it is really a matter for universities and the University Grants Committee, whereas other parts of it obviously require political action and decisions at Government level. Or you may see it in two ways: on a time scale as containing certain things which really do require immediate action, such as the increase in the number of medical students to be trained, and certain others which are no more than a blueprint for the future and which contain our ideas of the directions that medical education should take.
798
These are by no means meant to be implemented in the next year or two or, above all, to be taken as oracular pronouncements from our Royal Commission. These thoughts are relevant to our recommendations for the pairing or twinning of the London medical schools and the changes which might take place in the administration and grouping of the postgraduate institutes. If one reads the Report carefully, it will be seen that we are merely making suggestions knowing that a great deal of this has to be threshed out in the years to come. What we do mean, and mean strongly, is that before major decisions are taken about rebuilding or increasing the size and so on of the London medical schools, there should be very considerable thought as to whether these changes will fit into the pattern of the future of medical education as we see it.
I should like also to make it clear— and this answers one of Lord Segal's points—that many of our recommendations are not original at all. The noble Lord, Lord Brock, also referred to several of our recommendations as being things that the Royal Colleges had already been doing for a good many years. We were codifying them; we were telling those who wished to read the Report that we agreed that these were good things and that they should be done. And in this connection we found ourselves helped by the Report of Lord Cohen of Birkenhead from the General Medical Council and by Reports from bodies such as the Royal College of General Practitioners.
I accept, of course, that it is an important function of your Lordships' House to be critical, and that therefore many of the things of which you really approve in this Report perhaps have not been stressed as much as they might have been. This may perhaps be paralleled by the Commission's not giving full enough praise to Institutions like the Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith or the Postgraduate Institutes of London. These are absolutely splendid, with worldwide reputations attracting people from all over the world; and we should be loud in their praise, all of us. If we have not written that out fully enough, then I think that I can apologise on behalf of the Commission. I would remind your Lordships that we did our work in two and a half years—not three

799
years, as the noble Lord, Lord Segal said. I do not mean therefore that it is a rapidly drawn-up and ill-considered Report; I mean that we did not want to pack it with a lot of detail which perhaps was not entirely relevant.
Therefore it is probably very easy to find instances of omissions—as did the noble Lord, Lord Stamp. I am sure that forensic pathologists will say that we did not do them justice; I am sure that child psychiatrists will say that we did not do them justice; and there are many other areas. Some of these are for the people themselves to look after. Surely Professor Camps and Lord Stamp himself might be "getting at" the universities over the question of education in forensic pathology; it is not necessary for a Royal Commission to go into every detail of that kind.
Some of the matters with which we dealt have had very little attention in this debate; and I shall not delay the House over them at this late hour. We considered the future trends in medicine. I think there is quite an interesting chapter on that which I hope that most of your Lordships may have read. It is a matter for speculation, of course, but it seems that the conquest of the great bacteriological diseases by prevention and treatment has left a hard core of illnesses, very often in old people—illnesses due to degenerative processes in the body which are very much more difficult to tackle. One cannot at the present moment, for instance, say that any great progress is being made in these directions. Of course there will be changes in the nature of medical practice; a great deal more will be automated and will depend on computers, though I do not think that the personal interview between doctor and patient can ever be dealt with in that kind of way.
My Lords, perhaps I might at this moment say something about the staffing structure. There is a Report of a working party—usually called the Platt Report— on medical staffing which was issued a good many years ago. One of the things it pointed out was that this question of shortage of staff at the junior hospital level is not a matter simply of the National Health Service. It exists in America, for instance, where in the City of New York we were informed that
800
about 50 per cent, of the junior doctors in the hospitals had had their training abroad. They came from Puerto Rico, the Philippines and various other parts of the world. The same problem exists in Germany. It is a problem of the nature of the medical processes carried out in hospitals which is different from what it was in my day, when for some years I was the only medical registrar in a large hospital. Now, I suppose, eight people do my work—I am not surprised at that, of course. Enormous technical progress has meant that people at that stage of their medical life are particularly appropriately equipped to carry out these technical procedures, and the need for them has increased enormously.
Under the present staffing structure, these are looked on as temporary training posts. If you increase the number of medical graduates to fill all these places with our own men, and still they hold them only for a few years, they will be out of work for the rest of their lives. So you cannot do it that way; and the Platt Working Party suggested that there should be somebody called a medical assistant. It was an illchosen name, and I do not think that we gave him enough scope for independent judgment. But it was suggested that there should be such a person who would be prepared to take a post of this kind on a more permanent basis. This idea was not looked on with any great favour in the profession. But, on the other hand, if you tell the consultants that they should do more of this work, that also is not looked on very favourably.
We in the Todd Commission tried to get over this by a period of training which would give a man the rank of hospital specialist. A man who had done this amount of training would be able to take hospital cases on his own responsibility, without referring them to a consultant in every instance. We think that this is, in fact, going on today to quite a large extent, although the men are called registrars and senior registrars. We think the profession might possibly be more willing to accept this kind of thing; and from the best of these specialists could be chosen the consultants of the future, who would hold the final responsibility as heads of units, and to whom difficult cases would be referred by other members of the team. This is one of the

801
reasons why we recommended that there should be specialist registers about which the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, has spoken.
My Lords, we thought that there must be a controlled system of postgraduate training and that the present system is chaotic. Young men go from post to post, and as soon as they start work in one post they are applying for the next job. They may have to move their families around the country, and there is no coordinated plan; so we planned for that. We felt strongly—and in this we were backed up by the B.M.A. and the Royal College of General Practitioners —that there must be a much better programme of training before a man becomes a principal in general practice. In itself, general practice is a speciality that needs further training.
The noble Lord, Lord Brock, said that there were to be eight years postgraduate training before general practice, but it is unknown to me how he reached this figure. There is the postgraduate year, the pre-registration year, which remains more or less as before in our Report. That is followed by general professional training for three years, which we believe should be partly in hospital and partly in general practice—if a man's aim is general practice. That seems to me to make four years, after which the man becomes an assistant in general practice, which is what he would be doing now. That makes five or six years, if you look upon an assistant as still under training— as, up to a point, he is. We are increasing the time by three years but not making it eight years. That is absolutely wrong, and it may be just a misreading of what we said.
I will not bother to go into other details of postgraduate education. I have already mentioned staffing structure and training for general practice. We have pointed out the importance of proper teaching of psychiatry, preceded by pre-clinical teaching of psychology, which I think has been very much neglected in the past. This leads us to one of the reasons why we feel that medical schools in London have to amalgamate. It is because we cannot go on for the next 20, 30 or 40 years thinking that the only things a student needs to know before he comes on the wards are physiology and anatomy. We now take the view
802
that he should have a grounding in sociology and phychology, at the very least, and probably also in statistics, and be introduced to various other subjects at that time. You are not going to get St. George's, the Westminster, Charing Cross, Bart's, Guy's and so on, all to set up special departments of sociology and psychology, and the rest of it, in order that their students will not have to go away.
I will not go into the question of community medicine, and the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, has dealt adequately with vocational registration. We had a lot to say about the reform of the undergraduate medical course which we thought we would try to make more flexible. I think that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester was the only one to refer to sex education. I myself wrote the chapter in the Report on that subject. It is quite extraordinary, I would say to the right reverend Prelate, that until recently sex education in medical schools has been entirely an extracurricular activity. We did refer— I thought quite a bit—to women in medicine, and I think that we said the right things. But we should not deceive ourselves by thinking that if we brought a large number of women back into medicine we could get rid of all the foreigners who are in our hospitals at the present time, because the two problems are different ones.
We considered how new places could be found, having determined, first of all, that we were quite sure that there really was a shortage of doctors. Obviously the more economic way is to expand the existing schools, rather than to build new ones, but new schools are now starting at Southampton and Nottingham, and we have recommendations of places where some others will be needed.
That brings me to the suggestions that have been made that the Report is prejudiced against London. We may have been lacking in some grace in not saying enough about the excellence of London, but we have put it in several places. For instance, after saying how London has led the country and the world in medicine we say, in paragraph 419:
"Failure to accept the need of an overall plan for development during the next thirty years or so might well lead to a serious

803
decline in the importance of London as a centre of medical education."
That surely does not suggest that we want to see the decline of London in any form or that we do not think it important at the present time. Our Report further says:
"… only the radical action that could be taken as the result of the recommendations of a Royal Commission is likely to be effective if London's special position in medical edution is to be related to the needs of the country as a whole and if the high standards of the past and present are to be maintained in the future." (paragraph 420.)
What we were putting forward is a blueprint for the future, but we knew that our suggestions were very tentative and would have to be worked out by a number of bodies concerned. As most of your Lordships know, there is a Steering Committee of the University of London, under its Vice-Chancellor, Sir Brian Windeyer, who was a member of the Royal Commission, working in close connection with the Medical Committee of the University Grants Committee. So things are already happening, and I think that they are by no means wholly anti-Todd.
I have already said that a number of new pre-clinical subjects are developing and need looking after. Also, there has been a big change in medical research. In the nineteenth century, when most of the postgraduate institutes and special hospitals were founded and built, there was need for people with a special interest in subjects like neurology and ophthalmology to get together and work together on new methods of treatment, and so on. But recent advances in medicine have not always come from persons studying a single special subject with a special technique. The next advances in ophthalmology, for example, may come from a physicist, a chemist or an immunologist and not from the eye men themselves. This is one of the principles we have in mind when we say that some of these special and very famous postgraduate hospitals and institutes would now be better off if gradually, as opportunities arose, they could group themselves nearer to general hospitals where all these other disciplines are to be found developing and developed and, if possible, nearer to schools of science and scientific research. Dermatology surely benefits from being in closest touch with general medicine rather than in a hospital devoted
804
only to the diseases of the skin. So our recommendations in these respects are based simply on the directions in which we think the scene would gradually go, knowing full well that in four or five years' time, when new opportunity arises, the scene may have changed and the exact recommendations of our Report may no longer be appropriate.
But with regard to the question, London versus the Provinces, I think perhaps there is too much concentration of expertise South of the Wash and that a little more might be devoted to the Northern universities. We had a very interesting report showing where medical students settled, after graduation, and whether it was really the case that a man who graduated from Sheffield was most likely to be found in the Sheffield region. This is so, but not to the extent that some of us imagine. What we felt was that the reason for siting a new hospital further away from London was not so much this question of where people settled, which might solve some of the shortages of doctors in the North, but because a good many sixth-formers or fifth-formers in places like Leicester and Hull, big cities which have no medical schools at all, might be more inclined to go in for medicine if there was a medical school in their immediate neighbourhood.
There was a little confusion in the mind of one speaker, I think, between general postgraduate medical training, which is dealt with in Chapter 3, and specialist postgraduate training in depth, which was really the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, and is, in a way, a different subject altogether. But he was very right in reminding us of the great work which the Postgraduate Medical Federation has done in its courses for general practitioners as well as in looking after its special Institutes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, referred to the fact that there was only one medical woman on the Royal Commission. I am sure that that was regrettable. I think that we might have had more than one general practitioner. But I would remind her that we had no anatomist. We did have another woman, the Head of Bedford College; we had a headmaster and a hospital administrator. We tried to get a wide body of knowledge and wisdom on the Royal Commission, rather than the representation of

805
every possible specialty. I have already referred to the speech of my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead. I agree that the philosophy of medical education pronounced by the General Medical Council, a good deal of which I think was written by the noble Lord, was absolutely in tune with the views of the Royal Commission, which benefited very much from his Report.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, which I thought showed a great deal of wisdom. The noble Lady, Lady Ruthven, mentioned the special position of postgraduate education; the need to look after it, the need if necessary for earmarked grants, and especially the need for the present teaching hospitals, postgraduate and undergraduate, to hang on to their endowment funds, which have been so important in doing things when public money could not have been found for the purpose.
My Lords, I think that is all that I need say at this time of night, except to conclude by reminding Her Majesty's Government that we know that it will cost a lot of money to put some of these recommendations into effect. But a large amount of money will have to be spent on medical education, in any case, whether the Government follow the lines of the Todd Report or reject it. I hope that the necessary funds will be found.
7.26 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, as several noble Lords have said, it is now nearly two years since the Royal Commission on Medical Education issued their Report, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brock, for giving us the opportunity to discuss developments since then. I believe that on a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, referred to the composition of the Commission as including " a weight of intellect and experience ". I can endorse that. Also, the quality of the debate that we have had today reflects the knowledge of noble Lords in this field. I should like to add my good wishes for the speedy recovery of the noble Lord, Lord Todd. We are sorry that he could not be with us today, and I am sure we all hope that we shall soon see him back in your Lordships' House.
The Royal Commission, under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord
806
Todd, carried out their remit with great thoroughness, and I would endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, said and pay tribute to the Royal Commission on behalf of the Government. I am told by those who have analysed the Report that there are at least 144 recommendations. Perhaps it was rather clever not to tabulate them, because it forced us to read the Report much more carefully in order to discover what the recommendations were. This formidable tally directly affects or concerns nearly as many institutions or organisations. I think that is the important point. Most of those are autonomous bodies, and it is for them to decide how far they are prepared to implement the suggestions in the Report. Thus, Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to deal with the Report as a whole.
One of the main reasons for setting up the Royal Commission was, as some noble Lords have indicated, the serious impending shortage of doctors that became apparent in the early 1960s. Medicine is a university faculty (that explains why I am standing here replying on behalf of the Government) and it is for the University Grants Committee to determine priorities between universities and between faculties in their building programme allocations. In the case of medicine, however, where the course is long and costly and the development of the schools closely linked with that of the hospitals, the Committee have always kept closely in touch with the Health Departments so as to match provision of places as closely as possible to ascertained manpower needs.
As soon as it became apparent, soon after 1960, that the supply of doctors emerging from the schools would fall short of need, the University Grants Committee and the universities took remedial action. It was, however, clear that the position was serious enough to warrant special consideration, and this was a major factor in the decision to set up the Royal Commission. Before the Commission had reported, the Committee and the universities—with some extra funds from the Government—had pushed the annual intake to the schools up from 2,000 in 1960 to 2,550 in the autumn of 1967, and had made plans that enabled 2,700 I to be admitted to the pre-clinical schools in the autumn of 1969. Those plans

807
included provision for a start on a new medical school at the University of Nottingham, following the University Grants Committee's advice, accepted by the Government in 1964. A start on the building of the pre-clinical school has been unavoidably delayed, but the first students will be admitted to temporary accommodation this autumn.
While the University Grants Committee can do much to expand existing medical school facilities in the context of university development as a whole, a completely new school is a very costly undertaking, involving close integration with hospital development. The complete job, pre-clinical and clinical, is likely to cost upwards of £7 million, apart from the cost to the Health Services of the hospital itself. This means that the Government are involved in such a decision, even though the decision as to location is primarily an educational one dependent on the University Grants Committee's advice. Some 15 universities have made known to the University Grants Committee their interest in establishing medical schools, and in general it was felt that the decisions should be left until the Royal Commission had reported. In one case, however, Southampton (and I wish that I were replying to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southampton, which might have made things a little easier), planning of a new hospital had reached a stage in 1967 when a decision had to be taken if it was to provide clinical teaching facilities. The Government made extra capital provision available so that the project could proceed with a view to admitting the first students in 1971. The work is now well advanced.
The Royal Commission examined evidence about the future need for doctors, and concluded that, despite the then existing programme of expansion of medical schools, there would be a continuing and increasingly serious shortage of doctors. As soon as the Report was published, examinations by the central Departments of the manpower recommendations and by the University Grants Committee of the suggestions for expansion of the schools, were put in hand concurrently, and, of course, in consultation. This meant that when the first-phase manpower target—requiring 3,700
808
entry places in the schools by 1975—had been agreed and announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services on April 14, 1969, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was able at the same time to make known the plans for providing the places. Broadly, this was—apart from the new schools at Nottingham and Southampton—to expand existing schools.
I think that perhaps this would be an appropriate point at which to mention the selection of students for the medical schools, to which several noble Lords have referred. If I may remind your Lordships, the medical schools as university institutions are responsible for their own admissions policy and selection of students. There are, I know, always many more candidates than there are places available, and it is for the medical schools to decide what action to take regarding the suggestions in the remarks about selection in the Report of the Royal Commission. I would endorse completely the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and, indeed, those of the Royal Commission on this subject. I share the view that the main criterion for admission to a medical school should be the candidate's suitability for it, the ability to profit from it (and we might say that this should be the criterion for any post) and to become a good doctor. I was delighted that my noble friend Lady Summerskill did not miss the opportunity to press home her point. I am only sorry that after twenty years it is still necessary for her to do this.
The figures that I was given of the admissions seem a little more heartening than my noble friend's, though I would at once suggest that they are not good enough. Some of the hospitals have admitted 25 per cent. of women; one has actually admitted 30 per cent. In each case they appeared to be over the recommended number or the number that they mention in their prospectus; and as my noble friend will know, happily some hospitals make no reference at all to a figure. This is not a dramatic move, but at least I hope that my noble friend will agree that it is a move in the right direction. Certainly the comments of the Royal Commission, and the remarks

809
made in the debate to-day, will again reinforce the need for the appointment of students on the ground that they will become good doctors, irrespective of their sex. As my noble friend herself has indicated, there are many excellent examples of splendid women doctors.
The Royal Commission's terms of reference were not only to consider how many doctors were needed and how the medical schools should be expanded; they were to examine the way in which doctors were educated and trained. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Brock that the Report made a number of recommendations and suggestions about the organisation and content of the undergraduate medical course. I feel it is not necessary to remind the noble Lord that, as in the case of all university courses, this is essentially a matter for the universities themselves, although in medicine they need to ensure that their courses and examinations are acceptable to the General Medical Council for the purposes of registration. I do not propose to touch on this question further in relation to registration, because I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Cohen, did this so splendidly, and it will be quite unnecessary for me to attempt to follow up the very valuable points that he made.
I understand that the General Medical Council last year asked universities for comments on both the Council's own recommendations made to the schools in 1967, and to the Royal Commission's suggestion. The replies show that many of the medical schools are making or considering making the changes suggested by the Council and those mentioned in the Royal Commission's Report. There is some movement towards science degrees within the undergraduate course, towards changing the pre-clinical/clinical balance towards all sorts of progressive assessment. Some schools, not surprisingly, expressed reservations about making changes until the pattern of post-graduate training emerged more clearly. Having regard to the statutory function of the General Medical Council, and the importance of preserving the freedom of the universities to determine the pattern and content of their own courses, it would be inappropriate for the Government to seek to press the universities to action on these recommendations. Perhaps it would
810
not be out of place to say that we are glad to see that the Council's and the Royal Commission's labours in this respect are attracting interest and inspiring promising developments.
Now I turn to postgraduate medical education and training, to which the noble Lords, Lord Cottesloe and Lord Brock, referred, as did several other of your Lordships. Postgraduate medical education and training is a complicated subject, and the three main contributors to it—universities, Royal Colleges and National Health Service—cannot be put into neat and separate compartments. The Royal Commission's proposals for postgraduate medical training have been the subject of considerable discussion within the profession. In fact, if I can believe what I hear, it has been quite animated discussion. This discussion is continuing and for this reason it will not be possible to-day to make a firm fore-cast as to the extent or pace at which the Commission's proposals will be implemented.
The Government have a great deal of sympathy with the views of the Royal Commission, but equally accept that the control of standards of training within the medical profession is a subject on which it is vital to have the full and considered views of the profession itself, and we shall not know finally what those views are until after a special representative meeting of the British Medical Association in May. In this connection the noble Lord, Lord Brock, suggested that the Todd Report proposals would lead to Government control off postgraduate educational Standards. If I may remind your Lordships, the Todd Report recommended that the General Medical Council, in conjunction with the College and universities, should set standards in postgraduate education fulfilling a somewhat similar role to that which it already fulfils in the under-graduate field. I do not think anyone would suggest that the Government control standards in undergraduate education, and I do not see why it is thought that this is what would happen in postgraduate education. We certainly do not wish to see education subordinated to the needs of the National Health Service; nor indeed did the Todd Report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, asked about the Government's decision

811
on the division of finance for postgraduate education between education authorities and the National Health Service. The Secretary of State for Social Services announced last July that the Government accepted the Royal Commission's view that the National Health Service should pay for professional postgraduate training for National Health doctors, and the universities for academic training. This is broadly what happened in the past. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness.
Now I turn to possibly the most controversial area, that of the reorganisation of medical education in London. I again admired the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was a propagandist for the University Grants Committee, and I should have done exactly the same thing were I in his position. I am always intrigued by the way your Lordships so very ably use every opportunity to press the claims of anything with which you are particularly concerned. This is splendid, and is probably one of the best functions of a debate of this kind.
The London medical schools are schools of the University, and the Royal Commission's proposals for reorganising them in pairs and associating them with multi-faculty colleges was primarily a matter for the University, in consultation with the schools concerned and with the University Grants Committee. The teaching hospitals that provide clinical teaching facilities for the schools are, however, playing an increasingly important part in providing hospital services for their local communities in London, and this was an essential factor when their reorganisation was considered. After full and careful examination of the Royal Commission's suggestions, the University Grants Committee and the University of London issued in August, 1969, a joint statement agreeing to implement four of the proposals for pairing medical schools. These were: The London and St. Bartholomew's, the Royal Free and University College Hospital, the Middlesex and St. Mary's, Guy's and King's Charing Cross and St. George's, which were already being rebuilt at Fulham— I am happy to see that it is still called Fulham, as we suffer from it being called Hammersmith—and Tooting were left
812
unpaired. This left Westminster and St. Thomas's and, although pairing them had much to commend it educationally, their health service district responsibilities made pairing the hospitals undesirable. Possible links short of full pairing were left for further examination. At the same time, as some of your Lordship's have mentioned, the Secretary of State for the Social Services announced that he considered it appropriate to link the first eight hospitals in the same way as the medical schools, but indicated that for service purposes Westminster should co-ordinate with other hospitals North of the river and St. Thomas's with those to the South.
In passing, I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke—she made some reference to the large hospitals to which people might be brought from a great distance—that I am at the moment visiting a very famous teaching hospital not too far from here, in which all the patients in the ward come from very long distances. I do not see that this diminishes in any way the quality of the attention, and certainly not the kindness, of the nurses. Sometimes we are a little hard on the large units because they in turn reflect very much the quality of the people who work there.
The plans to rebuild the Charing Cross medical school at Fulham and that for St. George's at Tooting, with the new hospitals, were too far advanced to be put aside to take account of the Royal Commission's suggestions. The Report had made it clear that the Commission's suggestions as a whole represented a long-term development plan, but were not impossible to change in detail. The London medical schools are the oldest established medical schools in the country, and they have a proper pride in their own identities and traditions. There is no reason why these traditions should not be maintained and their reputations enhanced under the new arrangements, as and when these come to be implemented. This is a time when the best possible use of resources is of considerable importance. The combined schools, with greater numbers, will offer opportunity for staff with a greater variety of specialities and more and better equipment than they could command as separate smaller institutions.

813
The Royal Commission recommended also that the postgraduate institutes in London should be linked to and later become part of the merged undergraduate schools and that their associated postgraduate hospitals should be rebuilt near or within the undergraduate teaching hospitals, and a scheme of linking was suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, both challenged this recommendation; and Lord Cottesloe went on to make a number of suggestions for the future disposition of the individual institutes which the Federation comprises, as well as their associated hospitals. The University of London and the University Grants Committee felt it right when considering the Royal Commission's Report to give priority to settling the pattern of undergraduate schools before turning to that of the postgraduate institutes. But discussions on the needs and future role of the postgraduate institutes are in hand, and I understand that the stage will soon be reached when the outcome can be announced. I feel certain that the views expressed today will be borne in mind, particularly coming from one as knowledgeable as the noble Lord. The future of the associated special postgraduate hospital is of course bound up with the decisions on the future of the postgraduate institutes.
The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, referred to the great part which the British Postgraduate Medical Federation and its institutes had played in postgraduate medical education; and I think he felt a little sad that there was not more reference to it in the Report. I would certainly not wish to dissent from that. The postgraduate institutes, most of which are associated with postgraduate teaching hospitals, have been widely recognised as centres of excellence with an international reputation, and I see no reason to doubt that they will continue to play a leading part in the training of teachers of medicine.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Hungershall, mentioned the reorganisation of the London medical schools and suggested some sites. I would say to him that the problem of finding appropriate sites has now been taken in hand by London University, with the University Grants Committee, in consultation with
814
the medical schools concerned. Their suggestions were outlined in a general statement by the University Grants Committee and the London University in August, 1969. I understand that negotiations in respect of the sites concerned are now proceeding. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, suggested the pairing of St. Thomas's and Westminster. The pairing has much to recommend it educationally, but the health services have district responsibilities which make the pairing undesirable. Possible links short of full pairing are still being explored, and I hope the noble Lord will get some comfort from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, spoke about the implementation of the Committee, for the London reorganisation—I think it was almost the last item in this section of the Report. That was not accepted because it would have interfered too much with university autonomy. Indeed, the matter is now being handled by the London University's own coordinating committee and consultations are taking place with the University Grants Committee and the Department of Health and Social Security.
The noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, referred to the Green Paper and expressed some concern about the implications for the teaching hospitals and the medical schools under the future organisation of the health services in England. I would merely say to the noble Lady that the proposals in the Green Paper are for an alternative form of organisation relating to the health services comprehensively, and not of course just to the hospital specialist services. The Government made it quite clear that the proposals in the Green Paper are still for consultation, but they do, of course, spell out in the Foreword the points on which they must take firm decisions: the Health Service to be reorganised outside local government; the health areas to correspond in general in number and size with the new local government areas (with special arrangements in London), and the division between health and social services to be as shown in the Green Paper.
As regards the teaching hospitals, noble Lords may rest assured that my right honourable friend appreciates and is very well aware of the unique contribution they make in medical education and

815
research. I would remind your Lordships that when the Green Paper proposals were debated last month my noble friend Lady Serota emphasised that special care would be taken to ensure that this contribution would not be lost and that the central Department in approving programmes of capital and revenue expenditure of area health authorities would ensure that proper account would be taken of the needs of the medical and dental teaching services and research. My noble friend also mentioned that this important Working Party had been set up, which includes representatives from the University of London and the University Grants Committee.
Several of your Lordships referred to the question of doctors emigrating overseas. I think the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made a most valuable contribution when he emphasised that this figure has remained fairly constant under not only this Government but the previous Government; and that the reasons for migration are several. But the improvements in postmedical education recommended by Todd would, if implemented, surely discourage this. This is something to which we must put our hand. It is, of course, the policy of the British Government to help the developing countries of the world to build up their own public health and medical services, and in the medical aid programme the Government give the highest priority to the development of training institutions within the developing countries themselves. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, entered a caveat there and thought perhaps that this was not all as desirable as it might be. But that is a deliberate policy of the Government and has been built up over a period of years.
My Lords, I have endeavoured to cover the questions that were put to me directly in relation to Her Majesty's Government, and I think your Lordships will be heartened to know that, bearing in mind the number and the range of the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the many interests involved, which will always be a factor in slowing things up, the progress that has been made since the Report was published
816
represents considerable achievement. The first stage of the expansion of medical schools is under way; broad agreement has been reached on the London undergraduate school reorganisation, and the discussion of the postgraduate proposals is far advanced. The proposals for postgraduate training and career structure may not have moved as fast as was hoped, but consultations are now in progress and they will ensure that, when changes come, they will be firmly based on agreement among all those vitally concerned. My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Todd, can look back with pride on his Commission and their work, and I hope with satisfaction at the way in which it has shaped, and will continue to shape, the development of medical education in this country.
7.47 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, at this late hour I will be as brief as I can. I think we have had a useful, full and comprehensive debate, and I am personally very grateful to all those who have taken part. There have been so many intelligent, skilled and practical comments that it is difficult to acknowledge them all. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, said that a certain number of items in the Report had been criticised—and this of course is one of the inevitable results of a Report—but he also drew attention to the fact that a very large number had not been criticised; and he quite rightly assumed that therefore we all agree with them in general. I am grateful to him for his admirable survey and summary of the debate.
Quite obviously there are certain general features of agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, observed that the Report had made medical men everywhere think deeply about the question of medical education and research. This is a very important observation. I was also impressed by the observation of the right reverend Prelate, that he would like to see a shorter version of the Report, so that many more people would be able to understand it and profit from it.
It is necessary to take ladies first. I noted Lord Amulree's comment, that only some 26 per cent. of medical students were women; and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, quoted only 15 to 19 per cent., although I believe that that figure was largely corrected by the noble

817
Baroness, Lady Phillips. I was of course attacked by Lady Summerskill, who said that she thought I ought to blush. I am afraid that I do not blush. I have been through the whole expanse of this question of education, or acceptance, of women medical students, and the medical school to which I belong is only one of the diehards in London that refuse resolutely even to think of taking women.
I remember one day in 1944 when the Dean of the Medical School at Guy's had a telephone call from the Dean of the Medical School for Women in London, who said, "We were hit by a bomb last night. We are in trouble. Our laboratory has been destroyed. Can you help us?" The Dean of the Medical School at Guy's said at once, "How many students would you like us to take?", and she said, "We should like you to take 50"; and he said immediately, "We will take them".
It was a year or two later that the Goodenough Committee said that we should take 10 per cent. of women, and I am interested to see that the percentage has now crept up until it has now reached 25 per cent. In my view, it would have been unreasonable to expect us to accept straightaway 50 per cent. of women medical students. I do not blush at this. I think we are proceeding in a reasoned and intelligent way to the figures that have been suggested by some of the speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, asked why could we not have double the number. Personally I shall be content to see the higher numbers, because I have noticed that the women medical students have a very high standard indeed; and as house officers and residents the women doctors who have been my residents I count as absolutely first-class. I cannot remember ever having an indifferent one.
The problems of postgraduate education and the postgraduate hospitals have been well presented by the noble Lords, Lord Cottesloe, and Lord Stamp, and also by the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland. Their appeals were almost impassioned, and I notice that it has been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that the view of the Government will be influenced by the comments that have been made. I was particularly impressed by the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Stamp,
818
that the provision of postgraduate training for overseas teachers is very important and is one of the best ways of providing help to backward countries overseas.
With regard to the length of training, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, was not worried about it, but the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, finds it unrealistic. I believe that there is a great deal to be said for that view, and I think she commented that it may well deter a great many potential students. Many people are in fact deterred by the ordinary length of five years for medical training, and if the period were to be pushed up another x years it would be even more disturbing. In this connection, I have taken note of the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the importance of assuring postgraduate trainees that they will not have to struggle for many years on very inadequate pay.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, questioned the accuracy of my statement that eight years of postgraduate training were required for general practice. I had anticipated great disbelief among my listeners in regard to this because I thought myself that it sounded somewhat unlikely, so I went into the matter very carefully, and if your Lordships will forgive me I will just read the lines that I quoted:
"The plan is for all doctors after graduation to spend four years in general professional training, and then to spend a further four years in what is called vocational training, making eight postgraduate years in all. In the case of general practitioners this means that it will be eight years before a doctor can become a principal in general practice."
I was interested in the reference to the time needed for the implementation of these recommendations, because this is one of the things which has struck me as being a barrier to their implementation. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Hungershall, mentioned a time such as twenty or thirty years. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Platt, say that he realised that in four or five years' time their recommendations may not be appropriate. This is my difficulty. I cannot see how we can today plan for twenty or thirty years ahead. I know we can provide plans which we hope may go on progressively, but to say that we are going to do something in London in twenty, thirty or forty years' time

819
seems to be unrealistic. The question applied to a great extent to the sites available for the fusion of medical schools. There are great differences in cost and it presents a need for urgent action. I was relieved when the noble Baroness stated that we are in fact intending to take urgent action on the acquisition of sites.
The difficulties of the pairing of medical schools have already been stressed, and I think it is clear from the discussion that careful thought is necessary before we go into the details of them. It is interesting to me, when I read the recommendations of the Commission, to find that they are already largely out of date—at least, not out of date but that they have been very considerably changed. I was most interested that the noble Lord, Lord Segal, suggested that there are alternatives to the question of pairing. That was something I emphasised.
The eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, presented specialist registration to us in a way that needs no further emphasis, but I am particularly interested in this matter because he may remember that some five or six years ago I came to the General Medical Council headquarters with my two brother Presidents in London and presented to them the very thing that he has been putting to your Lordships, because we recognised, as a result of our own plans for postgraduate organised training, that it would become necessary to have a specialist register.
I am relieved to find that Her Majesty's Government do not wish to support a medical education for the service needs of the National Health Service. That gives me great comfort, because in common with many of my friends I have been disturbed at the thought that that might creep up on us unawares. Hence I am glad to hear this definite statement. Finally, I would mention the teaching hospitals and the boards of governors. I was interested in the emphasis placed by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on the need for more protection for teaching and research in the organisation of Area Health Boards. He emphasised that it is necessary to find a way to earmark money for teaching and research. That is something which I feel
820
we should remember and endeavour to implement. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

RAIL SERVICES IN SCOTLAND
7.58 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they are satisfied that the present service provided by, and the future planning of, the British Railways Scottish Region meet the needs of the community. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am asking this Question because of the wide feeling of unease on this subject in Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to dispel at least some of this unease when he replies. However, this sense of unease exists despite the essentially Scottish character of the Regional Board and the personnel at Buchanan House. Perhaps some of what is said here tonight—and it is not my intention to carp—may well strengthen the hands of the management and of the Scottish Board in their dealings with the Transport Authority. Perhaps even it may encourage the Secretary of State (if he requires such encouragement) in his efforts to promote the claims of Scotland to an adequate transport system. Incidentally, I am one of many who wish that he had a seat in the inner Cabinet.
The 1968 Transport Act is extremely specific on the subject of the duties of the Ministry and their powers to support railway services for social or economic reasons. The Act lays down in no uncertain terms (and I refer to Section 39) the powers of the Ministry in the matter of grants—of course subject to the Treasury. Is it possible that the Treasury is, as so often, what shall we say, the stumbling block? It must be borne in mind that outside the intercity services the background in Scotland is one of numerous railway closures, closed stations and curtailed services. Some of these closures were of course inevitable. Some, I believe, might have been avoided by a more imaginative approach by management and labour. Other closures are now threatened. That some of the closures have been arguable, and some downright incomprehensible, may well be due to the absence of public knowledge of the

821
relevant facts, particularly the financial facts. But this is one of the disadvantages of nationalised industries, whose shareholders, the people, do not have available to them information to the extent that it is available to shareholders of a public company.
There is also a political angle. The setup under the Transport Act 1968 brought a sense of disappointment in Scotland—indeed, of resentment at the apparent increased subordination of the Scottish services to London direction. There is an undercurrent, too, in the general attitude of the public in Scotland for which I have some sympathy; namely, that the very substantial losses in, say, London commuter services are a charge on the total revenues of British Rail, and therefore on overall costs and resultant fares: a charge vastly in excess of the comparatively fractional shortfall on a number of axed or threatened services in Scotland. Further, I know from experience of services discontinued and stations closed because the operations were unprofitable through lack of traffic, when in fact the reason for that lack of traffic was that the services offered were timed so that they did not meet the needs of the community and therefore were not used. On the passenger side, for instance, the possibilities represented by diesel-electric railcars, successful in some countries, were never, in my opinion, properly exploited; and it is conceivable that something of the sort might yet be developed, not only for rural areas but to relieve urban traffic congestion in cities which have suburban routes, now discontinued, by making use of them again.
Incidentally, the running-down of suburban services continues. East Kilbride had to fight to retain its railway link, and hardly had the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study been published than British Rail withdrew trains after evening peak from lines proposed for electrification. They also withdrew a number of Sunday services, although the Study had stressed the importance of:
"accelerating the implementation of proposed public transport improvements",
because
"it is easier and makes more sense to sustain a high level of public transport patronage by the early introduction of service improvements than to attempt belatedly to regain patronage after it has been allowed to decline."
The major proposals for the electrification of the trunk Crewe-Glasgow line have received great publicity, including indications of the large outlay involved; but no published estimates of traffic figures at which this outlay will prove to be remunerative are available. I personally believe that it will eventually pay and, therefore, that the decision to go ahead now with reconstructing the signal system fully immunised against the high tension traction equipment is a correct one. This point was established in the debate on an Unstarred Question by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on July 17 last.
As for this modernisation of the signal system, there is another factor besides the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, on that occasion; namely, that ultimate savings will accrue in costs by going "the whole hog" with immunisation now. The additional factor to which I wish to refer is the problem of staff reductions in the signals section which must flow from it, and in the interests of those most intimately concerned the transformation should be extended over as long a period as possible.
There are, of course, those who hold the view that large sums of money such as the electrification of the entire trunk route involves would be more wisely spent on avoiding the economic and social damage which follows from the curtailment of the existing, if subordinate, network throughout the land. There are also fears that the need for high traffic density on the trunk route to make the electrification pay may mean the curtailment or discontinuation of the East Coast mainline service. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to dispel these fears later in the debate. We must remember the bitter blow dealt to the Border services by the closure of the Waverley line, something which could have been avoided by a true approach to the ideal of a properly integrated transport policy. I refer your Lordships to Section 1(2) of the Transport Act. I wonder: was the need for traffic on the trunk route to justify the trunk electrification a factor in the closure of this line?
Now there are threats to the Dingwall/ Kyle of Lochalsh railway when the grant runs out in 1971. If the grant is not

823
renewed; and if the Stornoway/Ullapool ferry is established and the Kyle/Apple-cross ferry service is discontinued, it can hardly be expected that the Dingwall/ Kyle line would pay. Or would it? There are some who say that it could be operated more economically than at present, but I should like to know what is the factor of the capital cost taken into account in calculating the profit or loss on the operations: has not the capital cost been completely written off by now? I do not expect the noble Lord to be able to answer that question off the cuff, but a closure of this kind would obviously be a savage blow to a whole countryside, Highland and Island. Further, I make bold to say that the Ministry of Defence must allow some element of importance to this railway link. In other words, my Lords, the public in Scotland, and possibly the railway management itself, would like some assurance that the future of the Dingwall/Kyle line will be considered not only from the widest angle but also without delay. The uncertainties about it all in the North, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is aware, are already proving damaging and confusing to the people and to the district authorities alike.
In general terms, what is required, I feel, is an assurance, which can be given only by more information, on cost/ effectiveness in relation to capital outlay, operation and grants, or at least a publication of the financial considerations which lead to decisions. There is too little publicity of the railway management's thinking. Could the railway administration, Scotland, contemplate issuing a regular, say quarterly, news letter to major customers, consignors, consignees, travel agents and the Press? I feel that such a publication would be of immense advantage in building up something in which the administration at present falls far below the desideratum, namely, proper public relations, so that the people feel that the railway system is part of them and that they are part of the railway system.
To conclude, my Lords, may I say a word about existing conditions for travellers. The sleeper services (which I understand are profitable) deserve careful nursing in the face of air competition. In the present state of Scottish air-
824
fields, they are sometimes almost a lifeline. High speed is not of great significance—possibly the reverse—but convenient timings are. Some of next month's new timings will take some getting used to, and to some they are a great inconvenience. For the considerable number of passengers who wish to travel by sleeper to and from intermediate stations suitable stops are essential, and I believe that this should be borne firmly in mind. One of my noble friends who is unable to be here today has asked me to seek an assurance that the East Coast (Dundee, Cupar, Kirkcaldy, Edinburgh and Dunbar) sleeper services will not be curtailed, as some people fear may be the result flowing from the electrification of the West Coast trunk route.
Is the marketing policy for passenger services adequate? Indeed, could not the existing sleeper service be expanded? To many people, booking a sleeper is infinitely more difficult than buying an air ticket, because in most cases the passenger has to put down the cash at the time of booking at the station. Would a greater encouragement of travel agencies help here? Inadequate facilities for luggage is another problem. Some local trains have no guard's van, and some vans are unmanned. Congestion in passenger accommodation due to luggage in compartments is a consequence. Would a luggage registration system for specific trains be possible?
This brings me to my final point, the maintenance or reconstruction of stations, especially intermediate ones. I forbear to mention the horrors of the new Euston. Could not some money be spent on smartening up old stations? Talking of the old stations, take for instance Carstairs. Under the electrification proposals Carstairs will be of increased importance as a junction and a changing station in handling the traffic between Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham via the trunk route. I know that the station has been improved, but let us hope that there is to be some radical reconstruction of its narrow island platform, open to all the winds which blow off the Southern uplands—not only for the comfort and the convenience of passengers, but for the devoted staff whose conditions of work in winter are deplorable; and also for the Post Office

825
staff who, particularly in the winter season because of the Christmas traffic, have to handle large quantities of mail up and down awkward flights of stairs. I believe that much could be done not only at stations like Carstairs, but up and down lines where stations which have been closed look so shabby as to be really rather a disgrace.
My Lords, as I have no right of reply I thank in advance those noble Lords who propose to take part in this debate. In referring to the list of speakers, I see that there is a blank space before the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. Though that is an encouragement to other speakers to take part before he replies, I need not remind your Lordships that it is quite within the Rules for a noble Lord, having heard both sides of the case, to take part in the debate after the Minister has sat down. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question.
8.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I have no intention of waiting until the Minister has replied before making my speech, although I quite realise that I might have done so. One of the difficult problems facing railway management is, I fear, maintaining communications with, and regaining the goodwill of, the travelling public. The public come into contact with details, which usually are not given sufficient attention in major strategic plans. They cannot be. This is a matter upon which I fear that the railways, in Scotland anyway, are falling down. The overall planning and service provided is in many respects excellent. I think it is such a pity that, through lack of public relations, personal touch, attention to detail—call it what you like—the railways are getting, and have got, a bad name with the travelling public.
In a few moments I shall make one or two criticisms in this connection. First of all, however, I should like to say that the East Coast sleeper service between Scotland and London is the best that I have encountered anywhere in the world. I do not think that there is any railway service to beat it. If you are lucky enough to get into one of the intercity sleeping coaches (of which I think there are two) it really is an experience of what comfortable travelling can be like. I should like to record my appreciation
826
of the friendly and courteous service one receives—at least, I do—from British Railways staff on all the stations and trains that I have to use.
Two other notable services which I think should be mentioned are provided by British Railways. I do not see why one should not produce their plums and give them a bit of publicity, even if we cannot get any ourselves. I should like to refer in particular to the PerthStirling car sleeper. There is a simple procedure of loading, the timing is good, and in these days it is a pretty good bargain. If I may illustrate by personal experience, last year I made a return trip to London on that service. I took my wife, our cookhousekeeper and the car, and the return fare was less than the firstclass return fare for two people from Aberdeen. I think that is a bargain, and it should be noted as such. The other "first" for the railways is their freightliner service. After a rather "rocky" start, this is growing in use from Aberdeen, and it deserves much more support than it gets.
I hope that I have said enough to the noble Lord who is to reply to convince him that I am sincere and that I am not trying to "knock" the railways. But I am now going to be a little critical. For instance, referring now to details that annoy travellers, why cannot the batteries on sleeping cars be properly serviced and kept charged up? This is most annoying and has happened twice recently on trains on which I have been travelling. I would hasten to add that if it has happened to me in a sleeping car it will also have happened to 11 other people in that car; so I am not speaking only for myself. It is most annoying to crawl into bed when you cannot see to read a book, or even to see your return ticket. I think that this sort of thing is stupid, silly and unnecessary.
Another question that passengers ask is why cannot the railways install more loud hailers along their platforms? When you have only one loud hailer, or very few, in a station, and that has to compete with the digestive noises of a diesel engine, unless you happen to be near the loud hailer you cannot decipher the Donald Duck noises which issue from it.
On April 1 the Press and Journal reported that the Dee and Don Rivers Purification Board were again complaining that the measures taken by British

827
Rail while refuelling their engines at Ferryhill were not good enough, and diesel fuel was still getting into, and polluting, the Dee. I wonder whether they have done anything about this. I should think it is unlikely, but there we are; it is another detail annoyance. A silly thing which annoys is that British Rail have an excellent griddle car service but one side of the coach has a fixed bench and fixed tables. The table is so designed that you cannot sit opposite your plate, and in order to feed you have to become a contortionist. If the tables were moved six inches into the alleyway, which is 30 inches wide (unnecessarily wide), everybody would be comfortable and it would not cost more than about £ 30 a car to do it. British Rail themselves have admitted that these things are hopeless; then why do they not do something about them? They are admitted, recognised and agreed, and nothing is done.
With your Lordships' permission I should like to read part of a letter in Industry Week of March 24, from Mr. D. V. Ellison, whose title is Chief Passenger Manager, Marketing. He appears to live at British Railways Board, 222, Marylebone Road, London, N.W.I. He writes under the heading "Saving Time on B.R." The relevant part of what he says is:
"Your Report of a recent survey showing that a major proportion of executives prefer rail for inland travel is in line with our own recent research, which suggests that our share of the market is still increasing. Our policy on Inter-City routes has been for some years now to offer fast services geared to the business day."
Now this is the relevant part:
"We have not forgotten—as Mr. A. J. Lucking's letter (March 6) implies—that many travellers live outside the city centre. A number of our business trains call at key stations outside cities."
Then there is a whole list, among which is Motherwell, which of course is in Scotland. That is all I want to read there.
Now may I go on with a short extract from an article in the same publication, which is not from British Rail but is about them. The heading is:
"British Rail is short of investment capital, modern equipment and good labour relations— but not short of dissatisfied customers, whose losses run into many millions."
828
It reads:
"The sagas from industrial companies about late delivery—or even non-delivery of goods— are innumerable. Mr. Dickson D. Russell, company director, Singer Sewing Machines of Clydebank says: 'Some good things are happening in British Rail that will benefit industry, but one is always inclined to take notice of what goes wrong rather than what is being done to the good. The problems with rail transport that we have come up against have mainly been that goods have been despatched into a limbo. If they fail to reach their destination, there has been no way of tracing them. Now we use road transport, rather than rail, simply because rail doesn't suit our particular needs within the U.K. But we are getting tremendous benefit from B.R.'s container system when we're shipping goods to the U.S. It is, in fact, one of the best developments by the railways within recent years.'"
I heard in your Lordships' House 10 or 15 years ago this complaint of loss of goods despatched on British Rail, but nobody has done anything about it.
We in the North-East of Scotland are very dependent on British Rail's connections in our endeavours to attract industry to our part of the world, which is difficult; and "as British Rail, we have been told, are subsidised to provide a service, they should not hinder our efforts to attract industry. I want to make it clear to the noble Lord that I am speaking not only for myself, but for the elected representatives of Kincardineshire County Council, with a small population of 25,000; Stonehaven Borough Council, a population that goes down to 5,000—
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Viscount cannot do that. He can speak only on behalf of himself.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I am speaking on behalf of myself, but I am urged on by these various people. Anyway, I want to make it clear that it is not only myself, because I was told last time that it was. The Deeside line has now been closed down and scrapped, and that affects people living in the catchment area for Stonehaven Station, which is the most handy station for going to Dundee, Edinburgh and places further South. The fact is that whether the train stops in Stonehaven, or does not, it makes a difference of three minutes to the trip time. I think that the difference caused by stopping and starting and accelerating is very small, and if British Rail were to stop putting the diesel oil into the Dee and

829
put it into their engines they would counterbalance the amount of extra fuel they need to start up again.
There is really no case for running through Stonehaven. If you want to go to Edinburgh in the early morning you have to catch the Glasgow train, get out of that and wait in an uncomfortable waiting room at Montrose for 20 minutes for the following Edinburgh train, which runs through Stonehaven but does not stop. On January 10 I had to do that, and the following train, the Edinburgh train, owing to a brake failure was 25 minutes late in leaving Aberdeen. Nevertheless—and this is the point—we arrived in Edinburgh only three minutes late. Therefore, when British Rail tell me that that timing is critical, I just will not believe it. It is just pigheadedness on their part. Why cannot we give it a try? Why not for a trial period stop all trains at Stonehaven as they used to do? It would cost British Rail nothing, and it would build up goodwill. Quite a number of passengers could be built up, although nothing like a whole trainload. The train runs through the station which is fully staffed, and everybody is there. If British Rail do not stop it they cannot sell a ticket to somebody who wants to travel on it. When this is called commercial judgment, it seems to me it is pretty poor commercial judgment. That is all I want to say, and I hope that those remarks will filter down to British Rail.
8.30 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will need to be a Sherlock Holmes to know what I am going to talk about in this debate. But I should like to say one or two words, because we in the Borders have now had a whole year without a railway. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, here and, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, know, we tried very hard to prevent the railway from being closed; but we failed. I can only tell your Lordships that the hardship which that closure has entailed to a great many people is very considerable. There are still a considerable number of people who have no cars and who depend on the buses. But recently there was a bus strike which lasted for three weeks, and the Borders, which is quite a large industrial area, as well as an agricultural area,
830
had neither buses nor rail, and unless people had a motor car they could not get about at all.
LORD BOWLES: That was because of Lord Beeching.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I know, my Lords. I fully agree that the closure was instigated by Lord Beeching, but I do not think he was necessarily all-powerful and all-right. I was prepared to fight Lord Beeching's proposals very strongly—indeed, I did fight them. We were promised that the bus services would be speeded up, and that we should have new types of buses which would make up for the fact that there were no railways. But the buses have not been speeded up; they still take two and a half hours to do sixty miles, which is a very long time; and they have not been made more comfortable.
To add insult to injury, the other day I was sent a poster by British Rail (I think by Scottish Region), with instructions to put it up in some place in the village where everybody would be able to see it. That poster told us how to negotiate new types of level crossings. But as there is no railway and no level crossing within sixty miles, I think that the public relations officer of British Rail might have spent his money on something else.
Negotiations have been going on between a group of private enterprise people and British Rail in order to buy the single line track of the Waverley line that still remains. But when I made some inquiries recently I was told that the Railways Board were asking such an enormous price—over £ 1 million— for the single-line track that the group could not raise the money. I wondered why so large a sum was being asked for what is going to become a derelict railway, and it seemed very unfortunate that some sort of adjustment or loan could not be made to these people who want to see whether they can operate that single line.
I should now like to come to the future of the Borders. There is a rumour, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to refute, that the East Coast line from Berwick to Edinburgh is to be closed. That is, I believe, one of those "grey" lines which Lord Beeching included in his Report,

831
and which resulted in the closure of the Waverley line. It would be absolutely disastrous if that East Coast line were closed, because at the moment Berwick is the nearest station at which people in the Borders area can catch a train. It is still fifty miles away, but it is nearer than Edinburgh and Carlisle. It is very difficult for people to get to Carlisle. The road is extremely unsuitable and twisty, and not nearly so good as the road that takes one to Berwick or down to Newcastle.
I want to ask the Minister whether he knows what is going to happen about transport for the Forestry Commission. We have the largest forest area in the United Kingdom and the trees are now beginning to be cut. I would ask whether all those millions of cubic feet of timber are going to be carried by road—because the roads are quite inadequate, and it is very difficult, if one is in a motorcar, to negotiate timber which is being carried by road. What is going to happen to the transport of that enormous amount of timber which should have gone by rail, and which will now be forced to go on the roads?
Also, as the noble Lord knows, we are expecting a big expansion of industry in the Borders. There is likely to be a big development in Hawick, and I hope that there will be a big development in Galashiels and Melrose. What transport is going to be provided for the incoming industry? At the moment there are inadequate roads and no railways, and I do not see how a big industrial company will be encouraged to come down into the Borders when the transport situation is so very difficult. We are quite as isolated as the Highlands and Islands: the only difference is that there is no sea, and we do not have to travel by boat. But we are between 50 and 60 miles from any railway.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, knows, I am a very strong supporter of the railways, and I prefer them to any other kind of transport. The other day I travelled down to your Lordships' House by air, but I spent three-quarters of an hour circling London Airport and by the time I arrived I had wasted an enormous amount of time. The railway services in this country are extremely good, so long as they come close. But one is in an
832
extremely difficult position when everything is taken away and one then wants to develop an area. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to give us some encouragement about transport in the Borders.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her whether the buses, either existing or planned, have adequate accommodation for heavy luggage?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: None at all, my Lords. The buses are exactly the same as those that we have been travelling in for the past 20 years, and they are quite inadequate. A great many people use their own motor cars because it is so much quicker to do so; but the people who do not have motor cars are of course entirely dependent on the buses.
8.38 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to intervene very briefly, with particular reference to the last point that the noble Baroness has raised; that is, how are we going to attract, and what is going to happen if we do succeed in attracting, some new industry into an area where the railway line has been pulled up? The noble Baroness does not have to go very far South to find what happens. First, there is very great reluctance on the part of any industry to go there; and, secondly, if pressure is put on a large company for public reasons it will strike a very hard bargain about road improvements. It can very easily be penny wise and pound foolish to pull up a local line, especially if it connects with an area where we all hope to see industrial development.
The bulk of this debate seems to have centred on first-class travel, transport with motor cars, sleepers and the rest. I should like to put in a plea for those who travel second-class, as I always do when I have to pay my own fare—and I do not suppose I am the only one in the Chamber this evening who is in that position. In this age of "Inter-City" mentality, with people like ourselves and businessmen who do not pay their own fares and travel first-class, the railways pay too little attention to those who travel second-class on business or on their holidays with their families. The new

833
second-class coaches may look very bright and sparkling from the outside, but inside the railways have crammed so many poor people, and put them behind the horrid little tables, that the discomfort is really appalling. I should like to think that a little more attention was given to comfort here. The bulk of the travelling public travel second-class, and pay for their own fares, and they deserve more consideration than they often get.
I should like, too, to support the plea that the railways should pay a little more attention to public relations—relations with the local authorities in their areas, and with the editors of newspapers—and should try to get a bit more news across as to what they are doing.
My last point, my Lords, is this. I have never been to Stonehaven, but I have been to Crewe. Nine days ago, on the way to your Lordships' House, I was an hour late when I arrived at Crewe. I had a Question down on the Order Paper, and I had visions of the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, coming down to answer it, and wondering what had happened to my manners. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was going to make a statement about the Committee stage of a Bill in which he was going to refer to me. I found a foreman on the platform at Crewe; I scribbled a draft telegram on a piece of paper, and I asked him whether he would take it to the station master's office and explain the difficulties I was in, and, in the interests of the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, and of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, would send it off in time to get to them. He did, and they got it; and I should like now to say, "Thank you very much."
8.42 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I hesitate to jump into what might be regarded as a Scottish debate, but I think we have travelled a little wider than what might be called the railways of Scotland. I have been extremely interested to hear this debate; and I can only wish that Members on the other side in the other House had made speeches of this sort during the time when the noble Viscount. Lord Watkinson (as he now is), and "Ernie" Marples were at the Ministry of Transport—because it was during that period of time, when Lord Beeching be-
834
came their mouthpiece, that all these changes took place. The closing of branch lines is a direct consequence of the policy that was adopted at that particular time. Although when these branch lines were closed it was said that there would be adequate alternative bus services, many of us pointed out the impossibility of this, because many bus services were not remunerative and there was no compulsion on bus proprietors to keep their buses on the road.
I believe that we have to hand it to this Government for keeping so many unproductive branch lines open. I do not quite know the extent to which the Government are now going to involve themselves in the subsidies that have to be paid, but these subsidies are being paid perfectly openly and, in consequence, the railways as a whole have been able to produce a profit in the way that they did last year. This is the first time for many years that they have been able to do that, consequent on the writing down of the capital involved. It has been impossible to go back on the line of policy which was adopted so many years ago by members of the Opposition, and therefore these evils are still with us. If members of the Opposition will persuade their Party as a whole to agree that the Government should increase the amount of subsidy which they are willing to pay for keeping these unproductive lines open, I think it will meet everyone's requirements. I think this is an extremely important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier (I feel that I must correct him on this particular point), referred to the fact that today less information regarding what is happening on the railways is available to railway users than was available to the old private shareholders.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I meant that, today, under the current Companies Act, the ordinary shareholder in a public company gets more information. I did not refer to the old days. I agree with the noble Lord there.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I appreciate the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, because I was going to refer to the tremendous amount of information that is given to the

835
Transport Users' Consultative Committee. Very often that is questioned—
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord suggest that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee are of any use? I thought from debates in this House about a year ago that it was agreed generally they are absolutely and totally useless.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord will control his soul with patience, I am dealing at the moment with the point put forward by Lord Ferrier, concerning the information which is available. This information is given to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. I know that many of us query the value of that information, and query the facts which are given in so far as those things are concerned. Nevertheless, more information is now being given than ever previously, and I think this ought to be placed on record.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, also referred to the question of what was going to happen when the West main line to Scotland from Crewe is electrified, with the colour-light system which is to be introduced. As one of the persons who dealt with the colour-light system when it was first introduced on the railways in prewar days, let me assure the noble Lord that this will certainly speed up the service and that the men displaced will be dealt with generously. They may have to suffer the inconvenience of moving their homes, but they will be dealt with in the most generous way compared with what generally happens when people are made redundant. The unions have some excellent agreements in that connection. Due to advanced railway thought, too, as distinct from union pressure, the Board realise the past value of these extremely good servants and make very good provision for them when these changes take place.
I would agree with a certain amount of the criticism that has been made, particularly about the concentration on city-to-city service, neglecting the in-between stations. Not only that, but there is this question of the delivery of goods which are still carried by the railways. I know of many instances where what are now British Road Services, or the National Carriers, or whatever their
836
correct title is, will give to some of these outlying stations that are not directly connected a service only twice a week, or something like that, and where goods are held in the station offices for this length of time. From an accountancy point of view this looks well on a balance sheet, because, naturally, if a lorry is going to call every day it increases the costs, whereas if a lorry calls only once or twice a week there is a reduction in cost. But this is a great disservice to the people, and does not encourage them to use the railways for the carrying of goods.
All this is part of a pattern. It is part of a pattern which was established by the Party of noble Lords opposite, through Lord Beeching, when he distinctly pressed the service at that time to ignore stations of smallness. Only one thing mattered, and that was the full-load service. This is the consequence, and therefore it is extremely interesting to me today to listen to the observations of noble Lords opposite. It is never nice to say, "I told you so", but in this case there is a certain amount of truth and justification behind that statement.
8.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should like to compliment my noble friend Lord Ferrier and other noble Lords who have spoken on their perseverence in raising this subject. It is one of very great importance to the people and the industry of Scotland and it is a subject which ought to be discussed in Parliament. But, of course, we cannot reasonably expect the Minister to give a comprehensive reply to an Unstarred Question of this nature in this House at ten minutes to nine at night. I gather from what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, that even when the Beeching proposals were discussed in another place there appears not to have been time for all these questions to have proper Parliamentary attention. There was, indeed, a great deal of misunderstanding about them. I remember the question of the Dingwall to Kyle railway which has been mentioned by the noble Lord behind me. The Secretary of State for Scotland at that time categorically stated that this railway would not be closed down until a first-class road had been constructed from Dingwall to Kyle—which was not likely to happen

837
for a long time. Did anybody pay attention? No! Everybody in Scotland declared that this railway was going to be closed down. The matter was never properly explained to them. I think that this is perhaps a very strong argument— we have so little Parliamentary time for discussing these important matters—for more political devolution or Parliamentary devolution of one kind or another.
My noble friends very largely concentrated, as one would expect, on certain local closures. This is a question on which we must take as balanced a view as we can; although it is often very difficult to do so. There is no justification for spending the taxpayer's money in a very inflationary manner on a railway which is losing money and which is not giving a commensurate service to the public. This may sometimes happen in an age when the development of road transport and air transport are superseding rail transport to such a large extent.
I have had experience of many closures. Not long after the war, the North of Fife railway from Dundee to Perth, going by Lindores and Newburgh, was closed down. The Fife County Council brought an injunction against British Rail saying that they had no right to do this; and they won in the first instance. But a year or so later the matter was reversed on appeal and the Fife County Council were badly stung because they had to pay all British Rail's expenses and losses incurred in the meantime. But there is, I think, a clause in all the Transport Acts, certainly in the 1968 Act, which provides that if there are strong reasons of local public interest and convenience, and if there is no other convenient means of transport, the Government may provide money to subsidise uneconomic local lines, some of which we must have and to whose case we must listen. A few years ago, two lines were closed down which happened to run through my own property. One was the line from Stirling via Balquhidder and Killin Junction to Crianlarich. The local population, as always happens, felt this very keenly. I felt it keenly, too. It was not only inconvenient to me but, much more important, there was a small train on this line which took all the secondary school children from the whole of the Glendochart area to Callander. That could be replaced by
838
a bus; but it was of great temporary inconvenience.
When I looked into it, I could not really conscientiously condemn this closure, or support the view which the local Transport User's Consultative Committee were bound to take; because there were so few people travelling on this line; it cost so much and the people who were inconvenienced could be catered for in other ways. Furthermore, there were good roads; and I did not really feel that it was right to condemn British Rail and the Government. On the other hand, I thought that British Rail were equally right, at the same time, in keeping the line from Crianlarich to Fort William for many reasons. One of these was the enormous afforestation development going on which was, rightly, coordinated with the new pulp mills at Fort William which in future the railway from Crianlarich is expected to serve.
Of course, one of the main functions of railways in future will be goods traffic, if their efficiency is improved, as well as passenger traffic. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood was saying last night that she did not want trees to be planted in the Borders; but now she is claiming that as there are so many trees not very far away, it would be a good thing to have this railway. If only she had had 200,000 or 300,000 acres planted in the Borders, by now she might have kept her railway and everybody would be happy.
But the other closure which passed through my own property—although I do not use it any more because of the bridge—was the line from Dundee by Wormit to Newport. I have no personal interest in this because I always go by the bridge; but I am bound to say that I thought that the British Rail case here for closure was thoroughly bad and untenable and that the Transport User's Consultative Committee was right. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee are quite useless; that they do not mean anything. But they are intelligent and capable of drawing up their case. The reason why they are useless is that whether they are right or wrong, they are utterly ignored by British Rail; they are impotent; they might just as well not exist. I listened to the Inquiry. I have never listened to a more drivelling

839
piece of idiocy than the case put up on behalf of British Rail. It was really a contemptible and rather distressing spectacle during the whole of this Inquiry to see a rotten, hopeless argument prevailing—and no means of upsetting it.
However, there it is. It is not for me to suggest a remedy. Whether or not it is possible to have a private company running an electrified line and to make it pay, I do not know. But I am sure that this is the kind of thing which causes resentment when compared with the treatment of commuters in the great conurbations like London which has already been referred to. There are thousands of people who travel to and from London by car. They do not need underground railways any more than I need a local railway when going between Dundee and Fife. But there are millions of others who do need underground railways—and look what a huge sum the Government are losing over them! In towns like Wormit and Newport, which are residential suburbs of Dundee, many people need a local train service; and it causes resentment when they see millions of pounds of public money spent for the convenience of commuters in the London area while not a penny is spent for the convenience of commuters in more provincial places.
My Lords, if this is not an argument for political devolution, I think it is at least an argument for greater administrative devolution in the structure of British Railways themselves; because they are far too topheavy and so centralised that you cannot get a letter answered for several months. I even know of a case in which a railway official, very politely and sweetly, replied that he was afraid he just could not answer. He said, "If only you could see my desk! There are letters there which came three months ago and which I have not yet had time to open." That is what happens when you have a huge top-heavy bureaucratic edifice of this kind, and I think there is a case not only for devolution of Parliamentary affairs, but perhaps equally of the affairs of British Railways. I shall not pursue this question any further now. I wish we had more time to discuss it, and I am quite sure that we shall be sympathetic about the difficulty in which the
840
noble Lord must be in replying at this late hour.
9.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, it does not appear that anyone else wishes to speak. The points made by my noble friend Lord Popplewell about the origins of these closures reminds me of a speech, to which I think I have referred once before in your Lordships' House, and the admirable way in which a Scottish provost summed up the position which led the previous Administration to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beeching—Dr. Beeching as he then was—to look into the situation. The provost put it in this way. He said: "The Government found that the railways were losing money, so they got hold of a lad called Beeching and said to him, 'Will you tell us how to make money out of running a railway?' So this lad, Beeching, got hold of a few pals, and he had a look at it; and he came back and said to the Government, 'I have got an admirable solution for the problem. The only way of making money out of running a railway is not to have a railway'—and the Government acted on it."
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in putting his Question, said that the primary purpose was to get information out to the people in Scotland. I am afraid, my Lords, that any reply which I start to make in your Lordships' House at 9 o'clock at night is as likely to appear in tomorrow's Scottish papers as it is to appear in tomorrow's edition of Pravda. However, I shall reply to some of the points. I say that deliberately, because a good many of the matters which have been raised during the discussion that followed Lord Ferrier's points referred to matters which are not for the Government. They are not things for a Minister to reply to. They fall entirely within the control of British Railways, and I will make certain that a copy of tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT is sent to Sir Henry Johnson so that those matters which are for his attention will be brought directly to his notice. I will now proceed to deal with the matters upon which I can comment on behalf of the Government.

841
First of all, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for giving us this opportunity of questioning some of the problems which face British Rail in Scotland. Before going on to some of the detailed points which have been raised, I should give a general view of the railways in Scotland. Most railway passenger services in Scotland are loss-makers for which the Government have agreed to pay grants under the provisions of Section 39 of the Transport Act 1968. These grants have been paid since January 1, 1969, when the previous grant deficit financing powers ended, in respect of individual unremunerative services where the Minister was satisfied that they met a social or economic need.
I wonder how many, even of your Lordships, apart altogether from the people in Scotland generally, realise that out of a total expenditure on grantaided services in 1970, of £58 million almost £10 million is devoted to meeting the deficits of unremunerative passenger services operated wholly or partly within Scotland; so that when we look, sometimes perhaps with envy, on what is done in London, we should remember that it is not always the case that the dice is loaded against Scotland. Do not let us develop too much of an inferiority complex in these matters.
My Lords, I think this demonstration of the amount of money which the Government are putting into maintaining these socially necessary but wholly uneconomic services is a demonstration of the importance which the Government attach to Scottish railways. The arrangements for the working of the new grant system require the Railways Board, when preparing such grant applications, to take account of all reasonable economies consistent with operating the services; and the Minister of Transport, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scottish cases, decides whether to pay grant for one, two or three years—if a grant is to be paid at all—on the basis of the figures projected in that application.
If during the period of the grant a region is able to operate a service with a smaller deficit than was forecast, it will still receive the sum which the Minister had undertaken to pay. If, on the other hand, the losses are higher than
842
forecast, it will have to bear the difference. Therefore, a region has every incentive to increase earnings and to cut costs. The system has operated well in Scotland and sufficient financial incentives are there to encourage the Railways Board in Scotland in its very commendable determination to create an efficient and modern railway service.
The day-to-day management of the services is a matter for the Board, but the overall performance of regions, as well as individual services, can be assessed by the Area Transport Users' Consultative Committees. I hesitate to mention these after what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. The committees are independent bodies to whom users may make specific representations on all quality of service matters. The Committee for Scotland can make recommendations direct to the Minister of Transport if it is dissatisfied with any aspect of the service and the facilities provided by the Railways Board. Where grantaided passenger services are concerned, the Minister of Transport normally consults the Transport Users' Consultative Committee and the Scottish Economic Planning Council on any substantial proposals involving the reduction or modification of the level of services.
Although the Government have taken these special powers to grantaid unremunerative passenger services, grants are given only when there are good social or economic reasons for continuing to operate services. It has been made clear to the Railways Board that it would be contrary to the will of Parliament to maintain such services where such reasons do not exist. That is the point to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, directed attention in speaking of some services. The Minister of Transport must therefore decide whether any service is of sufficient importance to the community to justify grant aid.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred to the future of one of these services: that between Dingwall and the Kyle of Lochalsh. The position here is; that in terms of grant paid for each passenger travelling a mile, it is one of the most expensive lines in Scotland. The Minister of Transport has undertaken to pay about £175,000 a year for the two years 1970 and 1971, towards the cost of the

843
service between Inverness and Kyle of Lochalsh. But he has taken the view, because the line is so expensive to maintain, that he needs to be positively assured that the economic or social need for the service warrants the amount of money which is being paid for it. I do not think that anyone, in Scotland in particular, could regard that as an unreasonable way of looking at it. The Minister's tentative conclusion that the service may not represent value for money will therefore be examined by the Scottish T.U.C.C. and the Scottish Economic Planning Council as part of the statutory railway closure machinery, and they will report on hardship and economic factors respectively.
In addition, the Minister will consult with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I cannot, of course, prejudge the Minister's decision, but it may well be that when the time comes he will decide that the service is after all necessary. I can give the assurance, however, that he will in any case not consent to the withdrawal of the passenger service between Dingwall and Kyle until the roads are sufficiently improved to permit the introduction of an adequate alternative bus service. And I hope that they do not get the noble Baroness's 20year old buses sent up there.
I should perhaps mention here the suggestion that the sea service to Stornoway should operate from Ullapool instead of Kyle. The Scottish Transport Group, not the Railways Board, are responsible for that service. If they decided that it should be rerouted, they would need the approval of the Secretary of State for the necessary capital investment, including the provision of roll-on, roll-off facilities at Ullapool and Stornoway, and for any operating grant that may be necessary. Even if the proposal proves acceptable—and it is still at a very early stage of consideration—the future of the Stornoway sea service is unlikely to be a significant factor in the Minister of Transport's decision on any closure proposed for Kyle of Lochalsh.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the Kyle service, may I be assured that he has taken my point about the Ministry of Defence?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I did note it. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, mentioned the Waverley line. The present position is that the Border Union Railway Company have been negotiating with the Railways Board to take over the line and operate a passenger service, but, as she said, those negotiations have fallen through. I understand that the company have since approached the Railways Board about buying the formation of the line—that is, the land on which the track is laid—with a view to preserving it for some future transport use. Subject to the Minister of Transport's agreement to the disposal of the formation, its sale is a matter for negotiation between the Railways Board and prospective purchasers and is not a matter upon which the Government can intervene, except for one thing: that the Board are required first of all to offer the line to local authorities.
The Scottish Region of British Rail are not concerned simply with operating unremunerative passenger services, fortunately, and over the next few years they will provide many improvements and expect to see an expansion of their business. The Region have recently instituted a new regional organisational structure, based on 60 senior area and depot managers, backed up by a central headquarters organisation with highly specialised coordinating groups. Under this new organisation, despite the various problems raised by air and road competition and the remote nature of much of the areas which they serve, the Region are steadily improving their position. They estimate that there will be 70 million passenger journeys in 1970, 4 million more than they had in 1965.
The Region have plans to improve their services still further. The Weaver Junction/Glasgow electrification has already been approved by the Minister of Transport and will mean fast electric trains, taking only 5 to 5½ hours from London to Glasgow.
In this connection I am rather interested in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, about cost/effectiveness and what the expected revenue is going to be against this expenditure. It is another interesting thing about the railways that when they propose to close something and give information about the revenue and expenditure, showing

845
how much the loss is, everybody says: "I don't believe it." Now that they are proposing to invest a considerable amount of money, for which pressure was made, in your Lordships' House, among other places, that the investment should be carried out, one then finds people looking the gift horse in the mouth and saying: "Ah, yes, but before you spend all this money should we not be told what you expect to get in revenue and what your expenditure should be to justify this capital expenditure?"
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I interrupt? The problem in my mind is that there is a strong body of opinion in Scotland which says that it is the wrong route, and that the route should go from Dumfries via Kilmarnock. It would be interesting to the public to know why the route was selected. I think I know why —it is because of its connection with Edinburgh—but we should like to know.
LORD HUGHES: The last time that the subject was raised, before the decision was made, I had to point out that it was a very large sum of money that was being invested, and that the Minister had to be satisfied on investigation of all the information before he could possibly take a decision recommending the expenditure. The noble Lord may be right—I am quite certain that he is—in saying that there is a large body of opinion in Scotland which thinks that. It does not matter what the railways do; there will always be a large body of opinion in Scotland which knows that it can run the railways better than Sir Henry Johnson, or anybody else who is chosen to run them. That is a fact of life; but listening to some of those opinions will not necessarily make the railways earn one penny more. We must allow these experts to have these opinions, and, fortunately, rest happy in the knowledge that in most cases they will never be in a position to put them into operation.
The Region also have plans, which the Minister is considering at the moment, to improve the Edinburgh/Glasgow service. Apart from these major schemes, small improvements are continuing being carried out. For example, the motor-rail services are steadily improving, with better facilities being brought into operation at Stirling this year; stations
846
are being improved—the works going on at Waverley Station at the moment will cost a total of £130,000, and the Region hope to follow those works with a major reconstruction costing some £500,000. The Region have also introduced a new fare structure, including a five-day season ticket (with free car parking) aimed at the businessman.
This shows that quite a bit of good modern thinking is going on in the railways and that they are not lying down to competition from air and road. They are not merely seeking to hold what they have but trying to win back what they have lost. I may say that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, I am a supporter of the railways. Because of an alteration in my arrangements I had to fly down on Monday. The railways will be glad to know that this is the first occasion this year on which I have travelled from Scotland to London other than by rail —even though I do not know to whom they sell sleeper No. 2 when I am not travelling; nobody else seems to be able to sleep over the rails.
Similar advances are being made in the freight field. The use of container trains, to which reference has been made, is steadily increasing. For example, two company trains run daily each way between the Rootes plant at Linwood and Coventry. A new rail connection has been built to the big oil refinery development at Grangemouth. This will enable up to 2 million tons a year of oil and other products to be transported by rail. I would interpolate at this point— although I now feel I am rather intervening in a family argument between the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, about the transport of trees from the Borders— that this shows how the railways will come in when there is clear evidence about transport for them—profitable transport, of course, because we cannot expect them to start running new services which are going to be new losers of money. I hope that the steps which are being taken to bring back both population and industry to the Borders will certainly not be allowed to fall down through lack of needed transport facilities.
May I turn to the East Coast main line? I do not understand why there should be this alarm. I hope I can

847
allay the fears of noble Lords by quoting what my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport said in another place, as long ago as March 24, in answer to similar doubts which are raised there. He said:
"The Railways Board have told me that they have no intention at the present time of reducing the East Coast services after the electrification of the West Coast line to Glasgow: indeed, they expect that traffic on the East Coast route will increase as the services are progressively improved".
I wish I knew who it is who keeps on stirring up these rumours again after they are effectively answered. I am quite certain that in another two months somebody will raise exactly the same doubts.
LORD FERRIER: Not after your statement.
LORD HUGHES: Well, nobody will read it, except those who buy Hansard. Noble Lords may not be aware that the main electrification of the West Coast main line does not include the electrification of the Carstairs/Edinburgh spur; the Railways Board are I understand considering, as part of a long-term exercise, whether there is a case for further extensions to the electrified system, and if so where; but I am informed that electrification of the Carstairs spur is unlikely to be coming forward for the Minister's approval in the near future.
A number of noble Lords have expressed some dissatisfaction with the sleeping-car service on the East Coast main line. As I have indicated, I am as regular a user of it as any. I need not remind the House that it is entirely up to the Railways Board to decide how many sleepers they should run, and at what standards of service—or, indeed, whether to run them at all. My right honourable friend cannot tell them how to run the railways. Parliament has placed that task in their hands. But I have made some inquiries on this point, and I have ascertained that the Railways Board are planning to increase their sleeping business and, noble Lords will be pleased to hear, are concentrating on providing extra services, in the hope that it will please the customers and bring more of them.
Some trains now give full bar facilities—a service which I know from personal
848
conversation is appreciated by some of your Lordships. They all now offer refreshments, sandwiches and newspapers; and certainly when we are going North we get them for northing—the newspapers, not the sandwiches. They are provided by the train attendants. Not surprisingly, regular travellers by sleeper appreciate these new facilities. A new sleeper train will run from London to Glasgow every evening from May 6, when the new timetable comes into force. This will mean that there will be two sleeper-only trains, each with full bar facililtes until one a.m., as well as the usual part-sleeper trains, every night.
The sleeper service has its deficiencies, of course, and I am aware that there was a shortage of first-class sleeper accommodation on the East Coast main line last winter. However, demand for first-class sleepers is higher in the winter than in the summer, and the Railways Board already have plans to remedy the situation next winter, by converting 30 second-class sleeping cars to bring them up to first-class standard. In case the noble Lord thinks that this is a case of the second-class passenger being sacrificed for the benefit of the first-class passenger, I may say that the position is that in the winter the great demand is for first-class sleepers, and in the summer for second-class sleepers. So this conversion will help the railways to make the best possible use of its total. This is only an interim measure while the need for a new build of sleeping car is being considered. I think I remember seeing at the railway exhibition in Glasgow a few months ago a new type of sleeper which can be used for either first-class or second-class purposes, depending on the time of year. This is another of the forward-looking ideas for which the railways are making provision.
The Board estimate that the new cars which they will have as a result of these alterations will accommodate normal winter demand, but they quite recognise that they will not perhaps be able to cater for exceptional peak demands, such as those at Christmas and New Year. This is reasonable, because if they were to make provision for doing that they would have expensive stock lying idle for most of the year; and that of course would mean that people would have to pay more for their services.

849
My Lords, this debate, as was inevitable, has provided an opportunity for people to get rid of their criticisms, their grumbles and their grouses against the Railways Board. Incidentally, when I prepared my notes I wrote "this afternoon", thinking that that was when I should be replying. But, of course, the afternoon has now long gone. But even though there have been quite a number of these grumbles expressed, I am quite sure that there are many noble Lords in the House each with his own private 5tock of grumbles. But when we think of our grumbles we might recall what was said by one noble Lord—it may have been the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven: that people are very much inclined to ventilate their grievances against the railways but seldom express their thanks for the things they do for them. I think we are all very guilty of this.
But, my Lords, with this we ought to remember the difficulties with which the Board have to contend, particularly in Scotland where services often run through remote and sparsely populated areas, and where competition from road and air transport is as keen as anywhere. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said that in the Borders people were using their cars. Of course this is happening all over the place. It is part of the experience of the affluent society in which we live that more and more
850
people travel by car. Yet on the odd occasion when they want to use a railway which perhaps their cars have made unprofitable they grumble because it is no longer there. People cannot have the best of all possible worlds at all times.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord does not suggest that there was not extreme difficulty and inconvenience, and in some cases risk, caused for the people who had no cars during the time of the strike.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I would not dispute it. I recognise the fact that those people who are using their cars and do not need the railway, and who may have been responsible for putting that railway out of operation, may have caused considerable inconvenience for the majority—or minority, whatever it may be—who do not have cars and must rely on some form of public transport.
My Lords, I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the House that the railway services in Scotland are steadily improving, even though some people think that the improvement could be going on faster than it is. But I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the Government are satisfied that, given the railways' statutory duty to break even, the Scottish Region are doing their very best to provide a service which meets the needs of the community.

  AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS AND RADAR EQUIPMENT
  AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS AND RADAR EQUIPMENT