Sitting of 11 May 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
    SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Artificial Kidney Machines (Home Installation)
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will withdraw his approval of means tests made by local authorities upon patients requiring the adaptation of their homes to install artificial kidney machines, as given in Circular 2/68.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I do not think it would be justifiable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, all the time the local authority is deciding whether to finance help for a patient, that patient is occupying a bed in hospital while 2,000 kidney patients requiring urgent treatment are awaiting admission? This causes a serious delay in the admission of kidney patients to hospital beds.
    Mr. Crossman: Yes, I appreciate the disadvantages of the division between the social services, paid for by rates, and the National Health Service, paid
    796
    for by taxes. This is one of the things which we hope to deal with in our reform of the Health Service.

    National Health Service (Complaints)
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, what steps he is now taking to establish a health commissioner to investigate complaints of maladministration in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Crossman: The consultations referred to in the Green Paper are now taking place.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend say what will be the effect of the recent unanimous rejection of the proposal for a health commissioner by the Central Committee for Hospital Medical Services, that is, by the hospital doctors?
    Mr. Crossman: I can tell my hon. Friend that others in the Health Service have expressed considerable support for the notion of a health commissioner, and I shall take all the opinions carefully into consideration before making up my mind.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is the Secretary of State considering extending the powers and functions of the Hospital Advisory Service?
    Mr. Crossman: I am not considering that, because the service is working extremely well. We shall need a few more months before we can judge its effect, but within its existing powers it is doing a first-rate job.

    Mental Hospital (Personal Case)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take regarding the case of a boy of 10 years, details of which are known to him, who has been intermittently detained with adult male patients in a mental hospital.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): This boy is presently undergoing spells of hospital care alternating with spells at home. I am advised that the nature of his disturbance is such that he cannot satisfactorily be cared for in a children's hospital unit and that his best hopes for

    797
    improvement lie rather with the emphasis on prolonged social training in a close restricted setting than in specific medical treatment. I understand that there is a possibility that this boy might be found suitable for the first of the homes to be established by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary under Section 64 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1969, which is expected to become available by the end of this year.
    Mr. Blaker: I welcome the last part of the Joint Under-Secretary's reply so far as it goes, but does not he agree that, as this boy has been detained in a mental hospital for the best part of two years, his chances of ever leading a satisfactory life have thereby been reduced?
    Dr. Dunwoody: It is true that he has spent the larger part of the last two years as an in-patient in a psychiatric unit. Of the services available at present those that were provided for him were the most appropriate. I hope that the new facilities will prove to be even more appropriate.

    Seriously Maladjusted Children (Accommodation)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress is being made with the provision of accommodation for seriously maladjusted children.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: There are now 39 special units in hospitals in England, providing 660 beds, and one of 25 beds is under construction. This compares with 17 units with 350 beds in 1964 when guidance on this subject was first issued by my Department.
    Other special provision is made in services for which my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science are responsible.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that Blackpool Corporation tried to get the boy referred to in my previous Question into 17 different homes, but none of them had the capacity to take him? What is happening to the suggestion that regional hospital boards might get together to provide a special children's unit?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I know that considerable efforts were made by a number of people, including my Department, to place this boy in different accommodation. He suffered from a very severe behaviour disorder and it was felt that only hospital type accommodation would be suitable. We are encouraging the development of these facilities, and the answer I have given showing the well-nigh doubling of the number of beds available over the last five years shows the success of our efforts.

    Cigarette Smoking
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, what further proposals he has to reduce cigarette smoking.
    Mr. Crossman: I cannot at present add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on 3rd November.—[Vol. 790, c. 647.]
    Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the progress made in this matter, it is still pitifully slow by comparison with the magnitude of the problem? Therefore, would he not consider introducing proper labelling on the packets themselves, ensuring that a full examination is made of differential taxes between cigarettes and other forms of tobacco, and even completely prohibiting advertising of this substance, which is causing such slaughter?
    Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the seriousness of the situation, and it is precisely because of this that I am anxious to ensure that, when we produce legislation, it is relevant to the major problems and not not deal merely with a side issue.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is it not time that we in this House set a proper example in this connection? Is it not intolerable that hon. Members who are non-smokers should have to occupy desks in rooms with smokers? Is not this field of smoking and non-smoking the only one in which apartheid is justified?
    Mr. Crossman: On that subject, I have nothing to add to my original reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on 3rd November.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Hookyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his most

    799
    up-to-date calculation of the net yield of prescription charges in the financial year 1970–71; and how many officers in the country as a whole will be engaged in administering exemptions.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: For Great Britain, rather over f17 million after allowing for administrative and other costs. The administration of exemptions is often done by staff employed on other duties but it is estimated that the work takes the equivalent of rather less than 400 whole-time staff.
    Mr. Hooley: I recognise the considerable efforts which the Government have made to mitigate the effect of this tax on a wide section of the community, but is it not time to look at this again, particularly in view of the fact that many chronic sick have not gained exemption and that we are wasting these 400 officers, who could be much more usefully employed?
    Dr. Dunwoody: It is true that there are many patients who receive exemption—over 40 per cent. of the population—and half of all prescriptions are exempt. I am pursuing in my Department the possibility of giving further publicity to various methods of either obtaining exemption or reducing the charge by means of a prepayment certificate. There is no reason why anyone should have to pay more than 1s. 3d. a week, even if he requires continuous and heavy medication.

    Hospitals (Old Buildings)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals at present in use in the National Health Service include buildings or parts of buildings constructed in or before the 18th century.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: This information is not available centrally.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that an important hospital in Sheffield, or a section of it, was in danger of collapse because some of its timbers dated back to 1790-odd? Are there standing instructions to hospital management committees or regional hospital boards about the inspection of the physical state of the hospitals under their control?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I know of this episode in Sheffield, involving the Sheffield Royal
    800
    Infirmary. The inspection of buildings and other property of management committees and regional hospital boards is done as part and parcel of the general maintenance programme. I doubt whether there is any need for additional special instructions.
    Mr. Fortescue: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the condition of some of the wards in the Sefton General Hospital in Liverpool? Not only are they old and dilapidated, but, from them, patients have to be taken across an open space 70 yards wide in all weather for such things as X-ray examinations.
    Dr. Dunwoody: There are many old hospitals, and many of them are inadequate, but one should not condemn all old properties. It is possible, by upgrading, to improve many of them immensely. It is because we are conscious of these difficulties that we are spending£100 million—more than twice what was spent by hon. Members opposite when they were in power—on new hospital buildings.

    Hearing and Noise in Industry
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what action he intends to take in consequence of the Report on Hearing and Noise in Industry; and if he will make a statement;
    (2) whether he will now prescribe industrial deafness for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred the research report to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council for appraisal. In the appraisal, which was published in Cmnd. 4145 the Council indicated that it thought the research findings established that the time had come when it could usefully pursue the problem of whether there are degrees of occupational deafness which satisfy the conditions for prescription laid down by Section 56(2) of the Industrial Injuries Act. My right hon. Friend accepted its view and formally referred the question to the Council, in terms set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) on 22nd October last.—[Vol. 788, c. 270–1.]
    Mr. Archer: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's reply to Question No. 9, which will be well received widely, as well as the action which is being taken about prevention. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since putting down the Question, I have received a substantial number of letters from people whose personal experience confirms the tentative findings of the report? May we have some preventive action before more people are in a position to confirm this?
    Mr. Ennals: I am afraid that prevention is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Does not that last reply show what a tragedy it is that, in the new proposals in the Green Paper, the responsibility for industrial health is not taken over from the Department of Employment and Productivity?
    Mr. Ennals: That is, even more so, a further question.

    Supplementary Benefits
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now intends to increase the scale of supplementary benefit payments.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the continuing rise in retail prices, he will now increase supplementary benefits.
    Mr. Crossman: There is nothing I can usefully add to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 16th April in reply to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett).—[Vol. 799, c. 1570–73.]
    Mr. Hamilton: That reply means, does it not, that there will be some increase in the next few months? Has my right hon. Friend had any representations on the continuing inadequacy, following the publication of the Supplementary Benefits Handbook, which, although it has been widely welcomed, does not yet inform people adequately of their rights, nor of the discretionary powers in the hands of local officers?
    Mr. Crossman: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should refer to the handbook, which deals with discretionary payments, whereas we are dealing here with
    802
    the scale rates. The whole situation is perfectly clear. What is normal is that, in the year when we do not raise National Insurance benefits, we raise the scale of supplementary benefits. I have no reason to believe that the normal practice will not prevail in this year.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the rapid and accelerating rise in the Index of Retail Prices, is the right hon. Gentleman really content not even to begin the process of increasing the rates of supplementary benefit?
    Mr. Crossman: There is no process of doing it: one either does it or one does not. What I am saying is that I see no reason to believe that the time when we do it will be altered in this year.
    Mr. Heffer: While praising the fact that this Government have done more for old-age pensioners than any other Government have ever done, nevertheless may I ask my right hon. Friend to appreciate—I am sure that he does—the serious problem facing many old people? Therefore, will he speed up this process of giving these extra supplementary benefits in the near future?
    Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consider that possibility, but, as at present planned, we would assume that the announcement of the increase would come at the normal time and that the increase would be paid at the normal time.
    Mr. Dean: Is not the rise in the cost of living abnormal? Is it not rising at about 4½ per cent. a year? Does not this mean that those who are most in need should receive help more speedily than has been the case in the past?
    Mr. Crossman: Under our new pension plan, we have a biennial uprating at a regular time. Regularity of time has its advantages for the pensioners too.
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the basis on which assessments of entitlement to supplementary benefit for owner-occupiers is made.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): No, Sir. The Supplementary Benefits Commission's powers enable it to provide for any necessary expenditure, other than the

    803
    repayment of mortage capital which an owner-occupier may incur. We have no reason to believe that these powers are being unfairly exercised.
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that many owner-occupiers who apply for supplementary benefits receive much smaller allowances than they would receive if they were paying rent for the same premises? Is it fair that people, particularly the chronic sick, should be forced to forgo the fundamental necessities of life to avoid being made homeless?
    Mr. O'Malley: I should point out that in calculating the amount to be paid to an owner-occupier the Supplementary Benefits Commission is required to take into account his rates and his mortgage interest, but not the mortgage capital repayments. The Commission also makes allowance for ground rent and for the cost of maintenance and repair of the property. It has been the principle under successive Governments that public funds ought not to be provided to enable a person to acquire a capital asset.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Will the hon. Gentleman co-ordinate any action that he takes over this with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, because I have had several cases in which owner-occupiers, because of increases in old-age pensions, have lost their rate rebate?
    Mr. O'Malley: With respect, I hardly think that that arises out of this Question.
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what limits have been placed on the allowance made for rent in the assessment of eligibility for the payment of a supplementary benefit to applicants living in local authority or privately-rented accommodation.
    Mr. Ennals: The Supplementary Benefits Commission, which is required to meet the net rent in full or such part as is, to quote the Act, "reasonable in the circumstances", has not laid down any specific limits. Supervisory staff sometimes however prescribe, for different types of property, limits within which staff must work in making the initial determination as to what is reasonable in the circumstances of each case.
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that many applicants for supplementary benefit who are living in local authority premises or in premises for which rents deemed to be fair have been fixed are now finding that they are not allowed the full mount of their rent in their claim for supplementary benefit? How on earth are these people supposed to pay the additional amount without sacrificing the basic necessities of life?
    Mr. Ennals: I am aware of the problem, and urgent discussions are going on with local authority associations to find a solution to this. My hon. Friend must recognise that this problem, which is of recent duration, springs from substantial increases in rents by local authorities and from the ending of the policy by a number of Tory-controlled authorities of pooling rents. The dispute is also linked with the refusal of many local authorities to pay a rent rebate to supplementary benefit claimants.
    Mr. Dean: Whatever the reason may be, will the hon. Gentleman have another look at this? Is he aware that there are many instances, including some in my constituency, of people suffering as a result of a lack of co-ordination between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and rent policy and the Department of Social Security and assistance to meet the rents of those on supplementary benefit?
    Mr. Ennals: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not a matter of having another look. We are already having an urgent look at this. This difficulty has arisen as a result of the policies of a number of local authorities, and we are determined to find a solution to it. While this problem has just arisen, it represents very much less than 1 per cent. of the very large number of people who have their rents paid or contributed to by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend make sure that his local officers inform tenants in this position that if they are not receiving a full rent allowance from the Department they are usually entitled to a rate rebate?
    Mr. Ennals: This is an important point, and we have drawn it to the attention of our local officers. It is a fact

    805
    that some have estimated that there may be several hundred thousands of people who are entitled to rate rebate but who have not claimed it. Some of the persons concerned might find that their need would be ended were they to make use of their entitlement.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he has in mind for the alleviation of child poverty.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to alleviate the position of children living in poverty in families where the father is in full-time work, following his investigations into this matter.
    Mr. Ennals: It is clear that there remains a problem of child poverty where the father is in full-time work, where our improvements in national insurance and supplementary benefits do not help. We are working on this. But it would be premature to settle future policy before we have the information we are hoping to get shortly about such families from the data collected for the Family Expenditure Survey.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the nature and the size of this problem? Therefore, would he consider publishing a White Paper saying what the problem has been and how it has been dealt with over, say, the last 10 years?
    Mr. Ennals: We have said this, of course, and I think that the country knows many of the measures which have been taken, including the increases in family allowances and the introduction of rate and rent rebates, which all help the people whom my hon. Friend is concerned about. We must now, I think, see the report of this survey; I will then consider with my right hon. Friend whether any sort of general publication will be helpful.
    Mr. Fortescue: Now that discussion of negative income tax is once again respectable, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that, in his consideration of the problem, he will not exclude the possibility of using the negative income tax system
    806
    solely for low-paid men in full-time employment?
    Mr. Ennals: I would not exclude this, because the Government have studied different varieties of negative income tax. On our present examination, all have been found to involve substantial disadvantages which are not compensated for by advantages, and the administrative and staff problems are very heavy. But I am keeping this under review.
    Mr. Dean: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is a very complacent answer? Does he reject the findings of the Child Poverty Action Group which come from Government-produced figures and suggest very strongly that the poorest section of the community, including children in poverty, is getting worse?
    Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not accept those conclusions. I can assure him, as he would have known if he had done his homework, that some of the figures on which the conclusions were based were quite groundless. Comparisons were made with figures which were not comparable, and statistics were used which relate to years past. I do not accept the conclusions of the Child Poverty Action Group.

    Departmental Office, Hope
    Mr. Peter M. Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the representation he has received, he will reconsider his decision to close his Department's part-time local office at Hope.
    Mr. O'Malley: No, Sir. The Hope office has been little used in recent years. Only two people on average called for advice on the one day each week on which it was open. A few others called to hand in documents which could have been sent by post. The proposal to close was considered by the Sheffield Social Security Advisory Committee and was agreed by them subject to a review in six months' time.
    Mr. Jackson: While I do not seek to deny the facts spelt out by my hon. Friend, may I ask whether he recognises that certain of my constituents are put to serious inconvenience and expense in having to travel to Sheffield? The cost

    807
    is no mean sum. It is of the order of 5s. One opening a week is perhaps more than is required, but will he consider the possibility of opening the office, say, every other week?
    Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend will have noticed that it has been agreed to review this in six months' time. But I should point out that officials from the Department would be and are prepared to visit people in their homes if the circumstances make that necessary. However, the majority of such cases are and can be dealt with by correspondence.

    Autistic Children, West Cheshire
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the provision of health facilities for autistic children in West Cheshire, with particular reference to the role of Deva Hospital, Chester.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: According to their needs such children may receive treatment as out-patients or in hospitals for the mentally ill or for the mentally handicapped. The hospitals ordinarily providing such treatment for West Cheshire are the Chester Royal Infirmary, Moston and Newchurch Hospitals. The West Cheshire (Deva) Hospital does not normally take children.
    Mr. Brooks: Does my hon. Friend accept that the incident to which I drew his attention recently sugests that the needs of an autistic child can take second place to the administrative priorities in the hospital service? Does he further agree that decisions which affect the futures of such children should be taken only in the light of expert medical advice?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I have written in some detail twice to my hon. Friend about the case which he mentions. I accept what he says, that the handling of these exceedingly difficult cases and the wide range of problems which they present has to be conducted in the light of medical advice and assistance. We are conscious of the special needs of this group of children, but we must be careful not to assume that their needs are uniform. There may be differing solutions for the different problems of different children.

    Mentally Disordered People (Employment)
    14. Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the estimated number of adult males and females, respectively, who are suffering from such disorders of mind as to make them unlikely to find stable employment; and whether he will make further proposals to devise sheltered employment for such persons on the precedent of the Remploy factories.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: The information is not available on which an estimate of this kind could be based. But hospital and local health authorities provide rehabilitation and training facilities for the mentally disordered, and both work closely with disablement resettlement officers of the Department of Employment and Productivity who arrange placements in sheltered and open employment. Further development of these activities seem to me to promise more than the devising of a new form of employment opportunity.
    Mr. Brooks: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is a very large and growing problem? Will he at least consider the possibility of giving matching aid to voluntary organisations which are prepared to raise funds for such purposes as the provision of sheltered employment following the precedent. say, of the provision of youth centres?
    Dr. Dunwoody: This is a large problem. We are going some way towards solving it, though much remains to be done. It is interesting to note that 15 per cent. of Remploy employees and 25 per cent. of those in local authority and voluntary sheltered workshops are in the disability group of the mentally disordered. My Department will consider sympathetically any work done by voluntary organisations, although I would not want to go on record specifically as endorsing my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is it not regrettable that the statistics asked for are not available? Will the hon. Gentleman consider recommending to his right hon. Friend that the unemployment statistics might be rearranged to include a special category for unemployables of this kind?
    Dr. Dunwoody: As I have said, this is a large problem. We would not get the information that my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) wanted merely from studying the unemployment figures. We not only have the problem of the unemployables. We have the problems of those who may not be registered for employment at all. It is exceedingly difficult to obtain accurate and worthwhile figures on a national basis.

    Retirement Pensions
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total amount paid by the Government in retirement pensions in the period 1965 to 1969; and what was the comparable figure for 1960 to 1964.
    Mr. Ennals: In the five years ending 31st March, 1970, expenditure on retirement pensions was£7,070 million compared with£4,240 million in the previous five years.
    Mr. Price: Do not those figures finally shatter the myth spread by some hon. Members opposite that it is the Tory Party which cares for the elderly?
    Mr. Ennals: That is absolutely right. The figures in my reply show an increase of over 67 per cent. in total expenditure on retirement pensions during the past five years compared with the last five years when the party opposite was in power.
    Mr. Dean: Will the hon. Gentleman now complete the picture and tell us what has happened to prices during that period? Does he accept that, during the past five years, pensions have stood still because pensions have gone up 25 per cent. and prices 24·7 per cent.?
    Mr. Ennals: That is not so. If we compare the situation today with that in October, 1964, when this Government came to office, not only have National Insurance benefits increased by more than price increases; they have more than kept pace with the percentage of earnings increases.

    Nurses' Pay
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much money it is estimated will be spent on nurses' wages during 1970; and what was the comparable figure for 1964.
    Mr. Crossman: The estimated total cost of nurses' remuneration in England and Wales for the financial year beginning 1st April, 1970, is£290 million. The comparable figure for the financial year which began on 1st April, 1964, was£170 million.
    Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of hon. Members opposite are driving cars which display posters saying "Fair Deal for Nurses"? Is it not clear beyond reasonable doubt that it took a Labour Government to give them a fair deal for the first time?
    Mr. Crossman: I take it that the posters now are expressing thanks to us for what we have done.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this increase in pay has been taken back in taxes?
    Mr. Crossman: I could not say that without further notice, because we have to consider the recent Budget which has been so favourable to people on this kind of income level.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does that include money spent on agency nurses? If it does, can the right hon. Gentleman say what priority it has? Will he also say whether he is still having trouble with the sister-tutor level finding comparable jobs outside the Health Service at higher salaries?
    Mr. Crossman: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, there are problems which have to be considered. On his first point, I have no figures available, but I think that they would be round about 1 per cent., if not less.

    Junior Hospital Doctors (Working Conditions)
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further action he will take to improve the working conditions of young hospital doctors.
    Mr. Crossman: Negotiations are conducted between my Department and the Negotiating Sub-Committee of the Central Committee for Hospital Medical Services, which includes representatives of junior doctors. I have not received any formal representations from the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association about pay and working conditions.
    Mr. Cronin: I appreciate that the Government have done much to alleviate the lot of junior hospital doctors. However, is it not still the case that many of them are working excessively long hours, sometimes so long that they could be prejudicial to the safety of patients? Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider increasing the number of posts for junior hospital doctors?
    Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend will appreciate that we have been in lengthy negotiations about the career structure for our doctors, and I am not unhopeful of reaching a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that some junior hospital doctors are working up to 100 hours a week before they qualify for overtime payment?
    Mr. Crossman: I could not go into that matter without having a Question put down about it.

    Battered Babies
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further consideration he has given to measures to reduce the number of battered babies.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: A letter was sent to medical officers of health and children's officers on 9th February with suggestions for action, and a medical memorandum giving more detailed guidance will shortly be issued.
    Mr. Cronin: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is now evidence that several hundred babies a year are battered by their parents, about 10 per cent. being battered to death, and that in many cases these babies appear two, three or four times for treatment before effective action is taken? Will he therefore consider whether it is desirable that such cases be notified immediately to an appropriate child protection organisation?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I agree that there is a real problem here. This is particularly true in cases where there is a recurrence of the battered baby syndrome in the same child or in subsequent children in the same family. I am not sure that notification would help towards finding a solution to this difficult problem. At the same time, the advice that we have given to local authorities that there should be
    812
    co-operation between the different agencies involved—doctors, social workers, children's officers, often the police and the N.S.P.C.C.—is the right way to approach the problem. We are watching the situation very closely.
    Mr. Allason: Is the Minister entirely satisfied that medical authorities are aware of the problem of the battered baby? Surely it needs a great deal more information in order that this syndrome shall be recognised?
    Dr. Dunwoody: There is a general awareness of this problem in the medical profession. We are considering the advisability of particularly drawing the attention of people like casualty officers, who may be the first to come into contact with these difficult cases, to the problem.

    Family Allowances
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for improvements in family allowances.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he now has to increase family allowances.
    Mr. Ennals: I explained in an earlier reply why we cannot yet commit ourselves to one particular possible solution.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a major problem today is the large family of the low earner? Has he any other instrument anything like as effective as the family allowance system for dealing with that real and increasing problem?
    Mr. Ennals: The family allowance system has made a great contribution. It is fascinating to bear in mind that there was no increase when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister between 1956 and 1964 and that family allowances have been more than doubled since this Government came to power.
    Mr. Orme: Is my hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Gentleman reacted rather strongly with a Motion on the Order Paper when his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) suggested that the family allowance be increased? Whilst on this side many hon. Members feel that it could

    813
    be electorally unpopular, nevertheless it it a necessary thing to do and my hon. Friend would have full support for increasing the family allowance.
    Mr. Ennals: I think that I now understand what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) meant, because it was explained by what looked like a well informed article in The Times today in which it was suggested, by the political correspondent, that the policy of the Conservative Party, if returned to power, would be that the family allowance would not be paid to those inside the tax range and that there would, by this means, be a saving of£200 million. So it is an unreal offer, unless we hear something different from the Opposition.
    Mr. Dean: Is the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend was suggesting that if tax reliefs were to be made available, one of the highest priorities should be children in poverty, and that the speediest way of doing it was through the family allowance system with claw-back?
    Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did precisely this. By raising the threshold of taxation he has helped a large number of families with very small incomes. If the intention is to raise the family allowance just for those below the tax threshold and to remove it from those above, it would have shattering effects upon those with small and modest incomes.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. In order to enable the Minister of State to do his homework and to learn what action we would take, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice must be given in the proper form.
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has held with voluntary bodies in regard to the payment of family allowances.
    Mr. Ennals: None, Sir. Family allowances are paid through a well-established machinery, and I am not aware of any problem creating a need for consultations on this subject.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although he may not accept the figures of the Child Poverty Action Group, the public is deeply concerned about child poverty and expects the Government to do something about it? Would the hon. Gentleman make an unequivocal statement that the Government propose to take urgent action?
    Mr. Ennals: May I give the hon. Gentleman some information? If we make a comparison between 1964 and 1969, we find that the low-wage earners have done substantially better than other sections of the population. Taking account of the Budget, a married couple with two children have 11½ per cent. more money in their pockets than in 1964, a couple with three children have 14½ per cent, more, and a family with four children are 16½ per cent. better off. These are genuine increases in spending power after allowing for all price increases. I therefore cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in almost every one of his replies he has referred to what the Tories did in 1964? Is he aware that since January, we have been told nothing about what the Government propose to do in the unlikely event of their winning the election?
    Mr. Ennals: For 26 sittings, the Standing Committee on the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill has been considering the Government's long-term social security proposals for the next 20 or 30 years, yet the hon. Gentleman says that we have not presented our proposals. My ears have been pinned back in the hope of getting one clue about what the Opposition have to put in their place.

    Dental Treatment
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Social Sarvices what steps he takes to inform dental patients that unless a fresh agreement for National Health Service treatment is made at the beginning of each course of treatment, the patient may find himself liable for private fees for that treatment.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: The leaflet issued by my Department on dental treatment

    815
    under the National Health Service already makes it clear that a separate arrangement is necessary for each course of treatment and the revised edition which is now being ordered will add a reference to liability for private fees when such an arrangement is not made.
    Mr. Allason: Will these pamphlets be on public display in dentists' waiting rooms'? Is it not highly unsatisfactory that mere silence on either side can result in heavy bills for National Health Service patients?
    Dr. Dunwoody: We will be making these pamphlets available to both doctors and dentists who are willing to place them in their waiting rooms. I hope that dentists will place them in their waiting rooms so that patients understand their position. If we have any considerable amount of evidence that patients are still in ignorance, we might have to review the question of the distribution of these pamphlets.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Would it not be better to ask dentists and their staff to point out to each patient what the position is? I have just returned from the dentist. I had to have explained to me this morning that it means 30s. for each course of treatment. It is much safer to have it explained personally than to put it into a leaflet.
    Dr. Dunwoody: I agree that it helps to have it explained personally. Nevertheless, I believe that leaflets have a real part to play. We should use both methods—and indeed other methods—to ensure that patients understand the position.

    Nurses' Pay (London Weighting)
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the London weighting extra salary is to continue to be paid under the new salary scales for nurses.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Gurden: If there is an accepted case for this London allowance, is there not also a case for other large cities where there is a high cost of living compared with rural areas?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I cannot accept that. The London weighting is payable to nonresident nursing staff. It reflects the higher
    816
    cost of housing and travelling in London. This matter has been agreed by the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council, which has seen fit to restrict this extra salary to the London area.

    Nurses (North Devon)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to overcome the shortage of nurses in North Devon.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Local shortages call primarily for local action but my right hon. Friend has recently launched a national publicity campaign to stimulate recruitment. The North Devon Hospital Management Committee is making great efforts to recruit more student and pupil nurses by means of visits and talks to schools, careers exhibitions and addresses at local meetings.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that money is probably not the only reason? Will he inquire into the reason there is a shortage in this area? There is not much point in building a new hospital there if there is not an adequate supply of nurses.
    Dr. Dunwoody: I agree that money is not the only reason, although I think that the recent pay award to nurses will help. This is an area where there has been difficulty in recruitment. Our experience elsewhere in the country is that the building of a new hospital will attract nurses. We find that new hospitals often have much less in the way of recruitment problems than some of the older hospitals. I think that the community can look forward to some help when the new hospital is completed.

    North Devon Hospitals (Waiting List)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why the waiting list for North Devon hospitals has increased by 25 per cent. in the past year; and what steps his Department is taking to assist the regional hospital board to reduce this list.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Admissions to the North Devon Infirmary were restricted to urgent cases while wards were being refloored. The wards are now in commission and a new theatre has been

    817
    opened. The position is expected to improve quickly throughout the group.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind, again, that it is not only in Barnstaple but, indeed, in Bideford that there is a 25 per cent. increase in the waiting list? This is a serious problem which is partly due to the fact that there are new indutries there and a vast increase of elderly people coming into the district, so adequate facilities must be provided.
    Dr. Dunwoody: The new industries in the South-West are something which the hon. Gentleman and I welcome. I agree that there is a problem in Bideford, and it is related to the problem in Barnstaple. We hope that the situation will improve quickly throughout the whole group, not only in Barnstaple and Bideford. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that all urgent cases are admitted without delay.

    Homeless Mentally Sick People(London)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will initiate a survey into the number of homeless mentally sick people in the London area.
    Mr. Ennals: It would not be practicable to do precisely what the hon. Member is suggesting. But I have recently asked the Institute of Psychiatry to carry out research into the problems of homeless men passing through the Camberwell Reception Centre. The results should be useful in deciding what more can be done to help homeless mentally sick people.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is estimated that about one-third of patients discharged in the London area have no homes to go to? Many go to reception centres, but at the moment these centres have no psychiatrically trained workers. Is not this, therefore, the first priority?
    Mr. Ennals: We are considering whether there is any wider research that we can do into the question of homeless people, but I think that we shall discover a great deal from the research that is being conducted now. It is being done by a psychiatrist and a social worker. The number passing through the Camberwell Centre is substantial, and I hope
    818
    that a lot of light will be thrown on the problem as a result of this research.

    Mental Hospitals (Schizophrenic Patients)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many schizophrenic patients have been released from mental hospitals since the Mental Health Act, 1959.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Discharges of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia have averaged about 34,000 a year since 1964. Figures for previous years are not available.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these patients have been readmitted.
    Dr. Dunwoody: I could not without notice say how many. I think that it would be a comparatively small proportion of the number. We need not be too concerned. The fact that we can get so many more patients out of hospital means, inevitably, that some relapse and require further treatment. These are patients who, in days gone by, were doomed to spend their days entirely in hospital.

    Abortion Act, 1967 (Section 4)
    Mr. Peter M. Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the difficulties experienced in certain parts of the country in obtaining terminations of pregnancy, he will seek to amend Section 4 of the Abortion Act, 1967, so as to require doctors who decline on grounds of conscience to recommend terminations of pregnancy to refer patients to other doctors who have notified him of their willingness to carry out terminations in all circumstances.
    Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. Such matters are the professional concern of the doctors involved. I understand that doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion would regard it as normal practice to consult colleagues who have no such objections whenever this is necessary in the patient's interest.
    Mr. Jackson: My right hon. Friend says that this is normal practice, but may I, nevertheless, draw his attention to a

    819
    particularly outrageous case in Sheffield of a rubella pregnancy which was not terminated, and where the lady concerned was told by a consultant, a Mr. D. C. A. Bevis, that if she underwent an abortion—she was two months' pregnant—she stood a 50–50 chance of dying? The pregnancy went to term, and the child subsequently died. Would not my right hon. Friend agree that that is an outrageous case? The doctor in this case is hiding behind the Section of the Act, and it needs amending.
    Mr. Crossman: I should not have said that the Sheffield case, which I personally greatly regret, is sufficient proof that the Act needs amending.

    Retirement Pensioners (Home Helps)
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he now proposes to take to assist the recruitment of home helps for pensioners.
    Mr. Crossman: I met representatives of the local authority associations last week to consider the findings of the recent Government Social Survey report which made suggestions on recruitment and other measures for improving the home help service, and I shall be pursuing these matters further with them.
    Mr. Lane: That is encouraging as far as it goes. Is it not the case that the current shortage of home helps is one of the most unfortunate results of the financial restrictions which local authorities have recently been suffering? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government will in future give more help and encouragement to local authorities so that this service can be expanded much more rapidly?
    Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman studies the report he will agree with me that that is an over-simplification. There are areas of the country, as I found from the delegation which came to see me, where they have the money, but they cannot recruit the staff. It is not simply a shortage of money, and what we are looking at now is whether there are other forms of organisations, including voluntary organisations, which can fill this gap. I do not think that we should rely exclusively on the home help.

    National Insurance (Benefits)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services which benefits under National Insurance for which beneficiaries become entitled by the payment of contributions are only payable subject to a test of means.
    Mr. Ennals: None, Sir.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department's proposals for introducing a means test for unemployed men receiving occupational pensions are unpopular and also introduce a highly unacceptable principle? Will he undertake to withdraw his proposals and come forwad with another recommendation which does not conflict with the whole basis of national insurance?
    Mr. Ennals: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give that assurance. He is aware that the matter has been carefully considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee which, with only one dissenting voice, made its recommendations, which have been much modified by my Department. When the hon. Gentleman says that they are unpopular, he should remember that there is also unpopularity in the country with that section of society who have retired and who are receiving substantial occupational pensions while at the same time drawing unemployment benefit.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that the one dissenting member of the National Insurance Advisory Committee was Lord Collison, whose experience in social welfare is unrivalled? Should not his views be respected? The Order has been floating about for weeks, and, although the hon. Gentlemen will not give an assurance, is not that an indication that it will be quietly dropped?
    Mr. Ennals: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that he is wrong. It is true that the one dissenting voice is a very distinguished and very experienced voice. But the experience and weight of the majority are distinguished, too. It is strange to argue that the minority should always have its way. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the matter will come before the House very shortly.

    South Shields General Hospital
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when a new maternity unit will be provided at South Shields General Hospital.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: I understand that the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board, in reviewing its programme, will consider bringing forward this scheme.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great interest in the initiative shown by his Department in bringing forward this special type of unit? We are eager to get it started and into operation.
    Dr. Dunwoody: I realise that the community in South Shields is eager to have the unit functioning. There are, however, many other problems for which the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board is responsible. The question of priorities in its region is best resolved by the board.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action is being taken to overcome the shortage of nurses and other staff at South Shields General Hospital.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: The shortages in recent months have been mainly of nursing staff. The management committee has arranged visits to schools and careers conventions as well as Press advertisement, and following a new intake of student nurses on 1st May the total number of staff in post is now less than five below establishment.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of local publicity, would my hon. Friend give an absolute assurance that no kind of financial restriction is involved?
    Dr. Dunwoody: There is no question of financial restriction. There has been a problem about recruitment, but the hospital management committee has gone quite a long way towards solving its difficulties.

    Child-Proof Pill Container
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now introduce a child-proof pill container, following the analysis of the study by the Medical Care Research Unit.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: The analysis of the field work by the Medical Care Research Unit is not yet complete. The results of this study, when available, will need to be considered together with those of other related inquiries mentioned in my Answer on 14th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck).—[Vol. 799, c. 229.]
    Mr. Allason: But since 10,000 children a year are accidentally poisoned, of whom 40 die, is there not a strong case for urgent action to take advantage of containers which are already available, even if they are not 100 per cent. effective?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I agree that there is a problem, and my Department is urgently considering what additional steps it can take to reduce it. The essential safeguard is to keep all medicines out of the reach of children, preferably under lock and key. I have personally examined so-called childproof containers, and I am not convinced that they are necessarily an enormous step forward. Some of those I have seen could be opened by a considerable number of intelligent three-year-old and fouryear-old children.
    Dr. Winstanley: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to persuading people to keep all medicines and drugs out of children's reach, it would be helpful if he could persuade people not to hoard medicines and pills which they have finished with for some future unspecified occasion but to throw them away?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I agree. The practice of hoarding drugs is a potentially dangerous and foolish one, and I advise patients not to do it. I would urge them strongly to throw medicines and drugs away or, preferably, to return them to the pharmacist from whom they came.

    Hospital Doctors (Extra Duty Allowances)
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the way doctors' overtime is assessed under the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Crossman: A system of extra duty allowances for intermediate and junior

    823
    grades of hospital doctors has been agreed between my Department and the profession's representatives, including representatives of junior doctors. The agreement is not based on the usual overtime principles; additional payments will be made only when there is encroachment into the minimum time off-duty recommended for these grades.
    Mr. Fortescue: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which he was unable to answer earlier? The extra payment does not come into operation until a senior hospital doctor has done 108 hours a week on duty and a junior hospital doctor has done 104 hours a week. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this situation should be changed as soon as possible?
    Mr. Crossman: Although there has been some opposition, I am, on the whole, content with the agreement reached.

    Hospitals (Day-Patient Treatment)
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to enable more patients to be treated without staying in hospitals.
    Mr. Crossman: There is constant expansion in the provision of day-patient treatment in the fields of geriatrics and psychiatry, while an increasing number of minor surgical and diagnostic procedures are being carried out on this basis. I am confident that this development will lead to a reduction in the length of stay in hospital, or even avoid admission altogether in some cases, though the rate of progress will depend to some extent upon the availability of adequate domiciliary services.
    Mr. Macmillan: While welcoming the tendency towards community care rather than institutional case, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any plans for helping financially since most of the cost will fall on the ratepayer rather than on the taxpayer and the Government have reduced the rate of increase in rate support grant and cut back the local authority health and welfare services?
    Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman looks at my answer, he will see that the
    824
    suggestions I made do not bear on the ratepayer, because day-patient treatment in hospital is a Health Service responsibility.

    Doctors' Remuneration
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the present method of remuneration for doctors; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Crossman: Methods of remuneration are kept under review in consultation with the profession and if the hon. Member has particular points in mind I shall be glad to consider them.
    Mr. Macmillan: It is the junior hospital doctors who are mostly in contact with the public and who therefore tend to work very long hours. To what extent is the burden of dealing with the public, particularly in emergencies, apt to fall on tired and overworked men?
    Mr. Crossman: I would say that there was substance in that criticism. It is something which we must bear in mind when assessing remuneration. That explains my reply to the previous Question.

    Old Persons (Residential Homes)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average net marginal cost to public funds of caring for one aged and infirm person in a local authority old persons' home.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: I assume the hon. Member has in mind the cost to public funds of care in a residential home compared with care in the community. This information is not available.

    Stratton Hospital (Clinical Assistant)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the South Western Regional Hospital Board about filling the post of clinical assistant at Stratton Hospital; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: I understand from the South West Regional Board that it hopes soon to fill the post. It is aware that it needs special authority to continue to employ a practitioner over the age of 70 and I understand that it is seeking a younger candidate.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this post has been vacant for at least six months, to my knowledge? The person who was practising in this post up to six months ago is over 70 years of age. Is it not monstrous that the people of Bude should be denied this service simply because somebody is a few months over the statutory age laid down by the Ministry?
    Dr. Dunwoody: I realise that there has been a vacancy for a period, but I do not think that the situation is monstrous. The regional board is seeking a younger candidate. I hope that it will succeed, and that the services to the community will be provided.

BILL PRESENTED

  HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND)BILL
  Mr. Secretary Ross, supported by Mr. Bruce Millan, presented a Bill to provide for the constitution of a Scottish Hospital Trust; to make provision for the transfer of endowments to that Trust and for the distribution of the income of those endowments; to extend the powers of investment of the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read
  826
  a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [Lords]
Referred to a Second Reading Cornmittee.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
Referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]>

NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have risen earlier, but I will allow him to put a point of order.
Mr. McMaster: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry. I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity at the right time. I paused, and he should have raised the matter between the end of Questions and the beginning of public business.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 15th May, do adjourn till Monday 1st June.—[Mr. Peart.]
3.31 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few minutes, but one or two remarks should be made on the Motion to adjourn from 15th May until 1st June. It so happens that on 1st June the South African cricketers will, I think, arrive in this country. It is important that the House should have a full debate on that issue before they arrive, not least to ascertain the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who, I understand, is on record as saying that he welcomes the visit of these ambassadors of apartheid.
The regrettable decision made at the weekend by the Cricket Council, reaffirming previous decisions that the tour is to go on, is peculiarly insensitive to a vast body of public opinion which could be crystallised in the form of a debate in the House before the South African cricketers arrive in early June. I do not think that it is recognised in the country, still less by the M.C.C. and the Cricket Council, what the implications of the tour are for the race relations problem in this country.
Perhaps I might be a little more parochial and put to the Government the great importance of the tour being stopped for the sake of the Commonwealth Games to be held in Edinburgh in July.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate the cancellation of the tour. He can ask for time to debate it.
Mr. Hamilton: I am not attempting to debate it, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping to produce a sufficient enumeration of the problems, without going into them in great detail, to impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio the great importance of having a full debate on the issue before those gentlemen arrive here.
If that is not possible, a statement should be made before we rise that if the M.C.C. does not revoke its decision the Government will declare the South
828
African cricketers prohibited immigrants. If the Government do not do that, the least they can do is to give us another day during the suggested Recess so that those who are interested might have an opportunity to debate the whole problem and its implications for the multi-racial Commonwealth Games, which would be in jeopardy if the tour went on.
My second reason for wanting a shorter Recess is that we hear consistently when at Business Question time on Thursdays requests by hon. Members on both sides for debates on various problems of importance to them and probably to the country. For example, there are reports of Select Committees in which some of us are very interested. Some of them are extremely urgent in the light of recent events. The Report of the Select Committee on Privilege is extremely important. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has continually asked for a debate on it and has repeatedly been put off. The Government have declared that certain recommendations of the report would require legislation, which seems to be all the more reason why we should curtail the Recess to put that legislation on the Statute Book.
In my view, the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure is even more important. It made recommendations on the public control of expediture and various committees that should be set up to deal with that very important problem. The Government promised that they would bring forward their proposals in the early summer. I am not sure whether they regard us as now being in that period, or whether they will bring forward their proposals at all before the General Election. This might be the last week of the present Parliament before the General Election, which is all the more reason why we should have at least a fortnight to debate some of these matters and take decisions on them.
The other important Select Committee on which we have had no debate and no Government proposals is the Select Committee on Members' outside financial interests. I had supposed in my innocence that the last day before we rose for the Whitsun Recess would be devoted to Members Adjournment debates, so I applied to get one of those debates. I had intended to select that Committee's

829
report as my subject because, while making placatory noises, the Government have steadily refused to give us a day for a debate on this extremely important matter, which is particularly urgent in view of recent events. The Government should provide at least one day to make up for the time they have taken away from back bench Members in the form of those Adjournment debates which we normally have on the last day before the Recess.
I say little of the international volcanoes on which we are to sit for a fortnight—the cauldron in Cambodia, the powder keg in the the Middle East and the happenings in Northern Ireland, on which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) was presumably trying to seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
We should look more carefully at our recesses. They are primarily for the convenience of the Executive and not the Legislature. I know that my right hon. Friend will produce precedents. We know the jargon of these occasions. He will make nice, pleasing little noises for me and other hon. Members and we shall pass on to other business without a Division. The Government will get their way and we shall go away for a fortnight. We are probably the only professional people in the country that take a fortnight for Whitsun. It is high time we looked at the whole Parliamentary Session, including the Whitsun Recess, the Summer Recess, the Easter Recess and the Christmas Recess, and revamped it.
This proposal has been before the Select Committee on Procedure from time to time. It has not put any proposals before the House, but the Government should take an initiative and let us have more time to debate subjects of great concern to Members generally and vast numbers of people outside.
3.40 p.m.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I wish to express strongly the view that the House should not rise for the Whitsun Recess without first debating the situation in Northern Ireland—a situation which has been deteriorating rapidly. At the weekend there were disturbances in my constituency which started on Saturday afternoon with an
830
open demonstration in the streets in a predominantly loyalist area—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not go into detail about a subject into which he will be able to go in detail if he destroys the Whitsun holiday and gets his debate.
Mr. McMaster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Without embroidery or emotion, I want simply to state the facts of what happened at the week-end so as to substantiate my submission that the House should not adjourn. A demonstration was held in my constituency at the weekend under republican auspices at which a republican flag was flown. This demonstration purported to be held to protest against the imprisonment in England of a number of members of the I.R.A. who had been convicted of charges of the illegal possession of arms.
At the same time, a bomb was exploded in my constituency, causing substantial damage to a public house. A 4-ft. hole was blown in the wall of that house and a person inside was badly injured by flying glass, while substantial damage was done to the building itself. Also republican mobs attacked the police and units of the Army—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not go into detail. If I allow him to do so, every other hon. Member will be able to do so. We are debating whether we should break up on Friday.
Mr. McMaster: I do not wish to go into detail beyond stating a catalogue of the facts which are known, and which appeared in the Press, to substantiate my claim that this is a serious matter—more serious than any incident which has occurred heretofore.
The attacks and rioting continued throughout the night. Twenty-seven soldiers and 13 civilians were injured. In the end, the Army had to use CS gas to clear the streets—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must argue why this issue is important and why the House should not rise on Friday or should come back some time next week.
Mr. McMaster: I will certainly argue that it is important. Already, there has been one tragedy in Belfast. A child

831
has been killed. The child was playing with a gun in her father's house and was killed. The gun was not discovered by the police, but—
Mr. James A. Dunn: On a point of order. Is not that case being investigated by the police at the moment and might it not be subject to charges?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know, but whether it is sub judice or not the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) must argue why the House should not rise on Friday.
Mr. McMaster: I did not intend to deal with that case beyond stating that the child had died. But I urge the House that these facts about rioting, a bomb explosion and the death of this child are sufficiently serious to warrant a full debate in the House.
The riots have been continuing over a period of eight or nine months. Each weekend they increase in gravity. Before more damage to property occurs, or more injury to people, the House should debate the steps which Her Majesty's Government must take to restore law and order to the streets of Belfast as quickly and effectively as possible.
For these reasons I suggest that the House should not adjourn before this matter has received full attention. I admit that this is the second occasion on which it has been raised and I justify this submission on the ground that the situation is deteriorating rapidly. I feel that we should not adjourn before the subject has been properly ventilated, before the Government have stated what action they are taking, and the House has considered them and has suggested what further action should be taken to bring back law and order to the streets in Northern Ireland.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a heavy load of work on the Order Paper.
3.45 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: Before we can make up our minds how to vote on this Motion we ought to hear from the Government at what time, before we adjourn, they intend to make a state-
832
ment to the House and to the country about any progress made in the international discussions between Governments and airlines on the very urgent question of the safety of international air transport.
On a previous occasion, not very long ago, with hon. and right hon. Members on all sides of the House, I several times urged the Government—once my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and on two other occasions my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—to give periodic reports to the House on the progress of those discussions. The House was told that there would be action at two levels: first, that of the main promoters of air transport, that is, the countries which are particularly concerned with international air transport; and, secondly, that of the airlines. The first level was to be between the airlines and their representatives and the second was to be between Governments.
I am particularly concerned this afternoon with the discussions between Governments. I cannot go into detail this afternoon about the very disturbing cases which have just occurred and I have no intention of doing so. Indeed, there is no need to do so, because they are clearly in everybody's mind. I have given the Minister no notice of this matter, and I therefore do not expect him to make a detailed statement on those cases this afternoon. But before the debate is concluded perhaps he will have consultations with the Leader of the House so that we can be given a definite time and day, before the House adjourns, on which a statement will be made on these matters. There might be demands during the next fortnight for a debate, but they could not be met if the House had adjourned, and the effective decision to give authority to adjourn is to be taken this afternoon. This is, therefore, the appropriate occasion on which to urge the Government to give us a time and day, before we adjourn, when we shall have a statement.
Moreover, it is clear from the reports in the periodicals devoted to international air transport that the discussions between Governments and airlines are meeting certain difficulties. This is not the time to go into detail about them, but in this very serious and urgent matter the Government must give an account of where

833
the discussions have led so far even though, before Friday, they may not be in a position to give us any conclusions about agreements which might be reached.
I add one last point. It is important that the House and the country be taken into the Government's confidence on some of the details of these negotiations. This is not a matter about which the Government can plead that they are engaged in highly secret political and diplomatic negotiations and that it would be harmful to those negotiations if they made a statement too early. These are matters of day-to-day concern to the travelling public—matters on which the public ought to be taken into the Government's confidence in detail at the earliest possible date.
I therefore hope that we shall be told definitely by the Government when a statement will be made, before Friday, which will give the greatest possible amount of detail about how these discussions are proceeding. This is a matter on which action must be taken between Governments and on which Governments must be held responsible for any criminal acts of sabotage against air transport which are prepared on their soil—now, unfortunately, including our Government. Unless there is agreement between Governments, no progress can be made in destroying this deadly menace before it gets any worse.
3.50 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I am opposed to the Motion because I believe that a lot more time should be given to some of the most urgent problems affecting the country. There are many problems still to be discussed before we go on holiday. I believe that the Government have failed, and failed miserably, over the last few months to deal with many of these problems, and that we have not had time to discuss many of them that I regard as extremely urgent. I go so far as to say that the Government are freewheeling on many of these issues.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member can say that the Government have not provided time for discussing those issues; that is what he is asking for. We cannot debate the issues when the hon. Member would dearly like to debate if we came back on Whit Monday.
Mr. Mills: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am saying that time should be allowed to debate some of these important matters.
Agriculture is in a state of turmoil. For the first time, the farmers are withdrawing the use of the markets and selling stock, a most important and serious matter, but as yet we have heard nothing from the Minister of Agriculture. He has not even come to the House and promised to make a statement on this serious problem.
Agriculture generally is in a perilous state. It is vital that before we go into Recess, we should have a full debate on this subject, which is important not only for farmers, but for the future of the country, because if agriculture continues in its present state a serious recession could take place. That would not be in the interests of the country. Agriculture, therefore, is the first subject that we should debate before we go into recess.
I will not delay the House, but there are many other subjects which I could mention. The other one which I take very seriously is education, particularly in the primary schools, especially in the South-West of England, where serious problems are arising because of the number of pupils now attending these schools and the serious shortage of classrooms and facilities.
I consider that a full debate should take place before the recess so that we can discuss these important matters. It is no good delaying this any longer. I believe that children are being affected through lack of facilities. I have brought the point to attention in various ways and by means of Questions, but a full debate is needed so that we can air the real problems in our primary schools and we can hear what the Government intend to do about this matter.
I believe that at stake is the future education of many of our small children. I must declare an interest as my own children go to primary schools, where there are particular problems. The Government have not given enough attention to the whole future of education, particularly as it concerns primary schools.
Those two reasons—agriculture and education—warrant our giving time to debate these important subjects. That is why I am opposed to the Motion.
3.54 p.m.
Mr. Reg Prentice: I delay the House with great regret and hesitation, and I do so only briefly, but I was so impressed by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that I want to raise a couple of points in support of what he said.
It seems to me that there is an urgent case for the House to have an early debate on the proposed cricket tour by the alleged South African team. There is urgency in having it during the next week or two for three reasons. First, if the foolish and unnecessary decision to go ahead with the tour is to be reversed in time, the reversal must be made quickly and the views of the House should be brought to bear on the subject quickly. There is an urgency about it. In that sense, it cannot wait.
Secondly, it is a matter of great national importance which, during the last week or two, has been debated in other important and representative assemblies. It has been debated in the Church Assembly, by the T.U.C. General Council and by the General Council of the United Nations Association, to mention but three important bodies, all of which have come to the conclusion that the tour should not take place. It is somewhat absurd that the House of Commons should not debate a matter of this importance when other bodies are doing so.
Thirdly, the matter is urgent because, during the last week or two, some members of the Cricket Council have become dimly aware of the potential damage that might be done. Some of them, for example, have been meeting High Commissioners from Commonwealth countries who can bring a point of view to bear. I do not think that they have realised as yet—some still do not—the potential danger to international and race relations, the danger to sport, the appalling extra strain on the police, despite their difficulties, and all the other dangers surrounding the tour.
For those reasons, it is a matter of urgency that the House of Commons should discuss this matter. It will be a great pity if we adjourn at the end of the week without having the opportunity to do so.
3.56 p.m.
Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: I, too, oppose the Motion, for the reason that I do not think that the House should adjourn until it has had an opportunity of discussing the many and important reports of Select Committee which remain totally undiscussed.
I echo every word that was said on this subject by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). In my view, it is a farce to set up Select Committees if we do not debate their reports. Secondly—and I speak as a member of a Select Committee—it is an insult to members of Select Committees it time is not afforded to discuss their reports. As the hon. Member for Fife, West has said, the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration), in particular, is helpful to the House.
I am grateful to the Library for giving me a list of 15 major reports of Select Committees outstanding from the 1968–69 Session alone. Among those of the current Session are two Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure, as well as the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration), two Reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and a Report from the Select Committee commenting on one of the Parliamentary Commissioner's Special Reports.
I have an interest to declare in opposing the Motion. In the list of outstanding matters not yet discussed there are at least three on which I would seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. As I am not standing for Parliament again, if Parliament was dissolved, I would look on it as a personal attempt by the Prime Minister to frustrate my attempts to speak. Therefore, for this reason alone I feel that the whole House will join me in thinking that we should sit next week and the week after.
On Thursday of last week, the Leader of the House said:
"Every report which is published cannot possibly be debate. We have to decide priorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 588.]
If that is so, priorities should be established by not setting up Select Committees unless ultimately we debate their reports.
I feel particularly strongly that we have not discussed the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I quote in this

837
context an article in The Times last week by Mr. George Clark, referring to the growing concern at the inability of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to get his activities properly publicised.
I remind the House that we have had no debate on the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner since the Sachsenhausen debate on 5th February, 1968. On 25th June last year, the Parliamentary Commissioner published a Special Report, House of Commons Paper No. 316, which in certain respects criticised the Board of Trade and the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who at that time was President of the Board of Trade. Despite this, a debate was not immediately forthcoming, pending consideration by the Select Committee.
This was extremely unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, who had received much adverse Press comment and who, I am quite certain, wanted a debate: so much so that in another place in July, 1969, the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said:
"I know that my right hon. Friend is anxious to react publicly to the criticism in the Report as soon as possible, although, as the House is doubtless aware, the Report is now before the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 15th July, 1969; Vol. 304, c. 249.]
In this House on 17th October of last year, the hon. Lady till Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said:
"My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) not only wish to come and speak to the House when the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report is debated, but they feel strongly that they would have liked the opportunity to do so before the Summer Recess. They will have a strong case to make when I assure hon. Gentlemen that the matter taken up on the than that felt on this side [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1969; Vol. 788, c. 727.]
The Select Committee reported on 3rd December, 1969, but w have not yet had that debate. No doubt, in the interim, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby has continued to press his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—totally unavailingly, apparently—for a debate. I want to know why the Leader of the House has denied to his right hon. Friend the opportunity
838
to answer these charges. I therefore consider that the House should not adjourn as proposed.
4.2 p.m.
Mr. Russell Kerr: You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that on an Opposition censure Motion a month or so ago we had a vigorous debate on civil aviation. On that occasion the President of the Board of Trade announced that he had had a change of mind and had decided to withhold approval of the B.U.A.-B.O.A.C. merger on the grounds, so he told us, that new facts had come to light. He felt that he had to give an opportunity for the various private operators concerned to complete discussions and negotiations with a view to the establishment of a viable third force.
You will also doubtless be aware, Mr. Speaker, that these negotiations have, so it would seem, been fruitless—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drift, or glide, into a debate on the merger of B.U.A. and B.O.A.C. He may ask for the House not to be adjourned so that that debate may take place. It is not taking place now.
Mr. Kerr: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, you anticipated me by seconds. I had intended to descend to the glide path about two seconds after you intervened.
As I say, those negotiations have apparently been fruitless, and now that it is obvious also that the workers, certainly of B.O.A.C. and overwhelmingly of B.U.A., are desirous that the proposal should go ahead, I ask that the House be not adjourned unless my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade can tell us this week that his approval has been given to the proposed merger.
4.4 p.m.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: My right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) produced, I thought, the most persuasive argument that we should not adjourn, namely, the opportunity of listening to him for a fortnight while he dealt with the various matters he enumerated.
On the whole, I am in favour of this Motion, with one reseservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East

839
(Mr. McMaster) has described the situation in Belfast as serious, and I do not think that it would be in dispute that the political situation in both North and South Ireland is potentially very grave. But I do not think, and here I disagree with my hon. Friend, that the matter would be improved by prolonged debate in this House. What is required—and here, perhaps, the Minister might help—is that before we adjourn for the Whitsun Recess, and before we pass this Motion, there should be a further reiteration by the Government about their policies.
I found this weekend that the events in Dublin and the subsequent events in Belfast meant that a good many people in Northern Ireland had become extremely apprehensive about the extent to which guns are or are not being run into both areas—to put it that way. A reassurance from the Government that the security forces of the Crown will make every effort, human and superhuman, to see that arms, if they be there, be found, and that arms, if they be on their way there, be stopped.
It is absolutely essential that this House should not adjourn without a statement from the Government that the Queen's peace in Northern Ireland will be kept and that it is the Government's determination that it shall be kept. If the Minister will give me that assurance—and, in the light of what the Government have said before, I do not imagine that it would be a difficult assurance to give—I will be in favour of the Motion.
4.6 p.m.
Mr. George Jeger: Only one voice has so far spoken in favour of the Motion: all the other speakers have said that we should not adjourn for a fortnight. I always feel rather drawn to oppressed minorities, so I find myself now in the position of supporting the Government.
The Government obviously need two weeks of quite contemplation. On a number of occasions recently, when we raised matters of great importance, and some have been raised in this debate, the reply from the Treasury Bench has been, "We are giving consideration to the matter". Obviously, the Government need time for consideration. If Ministers
840
are tied down to regular appearances in the House; to the answering of Questions, and, perhaps, to forestalling supplementary questions which may be put unexpectedly, they are at a disadvantage. Therefore, for the sake of the Government's own peace of mind, I suggest that we let them go away for a fortnight; that we let them have the peace and the quiet contemplation they obviously need.
Over and over again, when we on this side have asked for various things to be done we have been told, "The matter is receiving attention". In reply to questions from the other side, the Government's reply is, "We are doing better than you did—and in any case, what would you do?" That is very clever and smart for the first week or so, but we are getting a little tired of that type of reply. I believe that the Government require time to bring forward their own proposals; and to enable the Opposition to bring forward their proposals as a riposte to the Government.
Reference has been made to reports of Select Committees and to White Papers. I have never shared the optimistic view of the setting up of the Select Committees. I think that they were set up to produce reports as a substitute for action and not as a prelude to it. It is, therefore, futile continually to ask that every report that has been prepared—as I think, to keep back benchers quiet and employed for several months—should be the subject to a days debate. A Select Committee has sat, its report has been prepared and produced, the report is filed and the dust piles up on it, and that is the end of it. In any case, by the time a debate is thought of the report is obsolete; conditions have changed.
I recommend the House to accept the Motion arid, much to the surprise of every hon. Member who has already spoken against it, I am quite sure that it will be carried.
4.10 p.m.
Sir Douglas Glover: Despite the very persuasive remarks of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger), I oppose the Motion. I do not see why we should give the Government a fortnight's holiday in which to cogitate when they will shortly have five years in which to do so.

841
I seriously oppose the Motion. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Goole said about Select Committees. Parliament has appointed those Committees, they have produced very weighty reports, and so far Parliament has not debated those reports. Parliament ought to have time to debate them, or time ought to be found to debate, what is perhaps equally important, whether there should be so many Select Committees. Hon. Members who were on Select Committees during 1968 and 1969, and have not had debated the reports they have produced, should be able to tell the Government that unless their reports are debated they will not serve again on a Select Committee.
I also have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I disagree with a lot of what he says, but I agree with what he says about the House of Commons. I do not see why we should work to a timetable which has existed for over 100 years. There is no law of the Medes and Persians which say that we must have a recess at Easter, another at Whitsuntide, and a Long Recess in the summer.
Every other organisation manages to give holidays during the summer without having all those concerned away at the same time. I see no reason why in this House, where there is a very good pairing system, the practice should not be accepted whereby in May and June everyone could have a holiday but the proceedings of the House would go on. Then there would not be the necessity for Sittings going on until say, 2 o'clock in the morning. If every industrial and commercial concern can organise its affairs in the way I have described, I do not see why the House of Commons should not do the same. It could work perfectly well to the benefit of the whole nation.
I object for other reasons to the House's rising for a fortnight. We have not had a debate in this Parliament on the appalling genocide in the Southern Sudan, where thousands are being killed and there are a quarter or a half million refugees. The House should be seized of this problem, but we have not debated it. We are disturbed about the action
842
of Americans in Indo-China. I do not know what the situation will be, but I am certain that if there should be an escalation of the war in that war-torn land, the House would not be doing its duty if it were in recess at that time.
Some of my hon. Friends have spoken about the situation in Ireland. With the parades which inevitably take place in that island at Whitsuntide, there will be a very tricky situation over the period and something might happen necessitating the Government's taking action. I hope that that will not happen. If we were doing our duty such a decision would have to be formalised by Parliament within 24 hours, so Parliament ought to be sitting at that time in case such a situation arose.
It is not as though Parliament has nothing to discuss if the matters I have described do not arise. There are plenty of others which need discussing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said, the agricultural industry is in turmoil. The policy of the Government is by no means clear. The whole question is riddled with lack of decision and firm government.
All these matters should be debated. Parliament will be less than worthy of its responsibilities if, now, when there are so many crises, some of which are close at home, we go away for a fortnight's holiday.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Hector Monro: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland should come here before we adjourn to explain three points which are of vital interest.
The first is the important issue of the dramatic escalation in prices since the Price review. That is increasing week by week. Before the House adjourns the Minister should explain whether or not he intends to bring in a special Review to deal with this exceptional situation. Secondly, after he has discussed it with the Minister of Transport, he should explain the situation regarding drivers' hours with reference to livestock auction marts. This is causing extreme difficulty, and on occasion almost chaos.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is drifting into debating what he wants to debate if we do not have a holiday.
Mr. Monro: I was trying to explain how vitally important it is that the Minister should give the House an explanation. If he went to an auction mart, I think that he would come here next day and explain what he thinks should be done. I hope that he will deal with this matter before we adjourn.
Thirdly, the Minister and the Secretary of State should explain the situation which has arisen over the price of wool. In the Price Review, the Minister said that there would be no change, but in recent weeks the Wool Board has brought the price down 2d. or 3d. a lb. Farmers will begin the wool clip before we return in June and they ought to hear what the price should be. These matters are all of extreme urgency. I hope that before we adjourn we may have an answer on them.
4.17 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I apologise for being absent from the Chamber for a few moments. I had to go to an Estimates Committee meeting. I wanted to hear the whole debate, but I was unable to do so. However, I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and I wish to support their remarks.
I wish to raise one or two matters which I think ought to be debated. I appreciate that I cannot deal with them at length now, but I shall touch upon subjects which I consider ought to be debated before we go into recess.
One is the astounding situation in which a person has been prosecuted for an alleged offence under the Official Secrets Act while the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) not duly admits that he has sent prima facie evidence to the Attorney-General but requests a prosecution and has not been prosecuted. I should like us to have a debate on the whole subject of secrets and the Official Secrets Act, how it appears to be used against some hon. Members and not against others, particularly when the right hon. Gentleman,
844
as he has said, has given prima facie evidence which warrants his prosecution.
Another matter which should be debated is the growing practice of Ministers deliberately evading answering Questions and giving false information to the House. That ought to be dealt with, but we cannot deal with it if the House is in recess. Last Thursday, I put a Question to the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. I asked her to announce the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission for Industry and Manpower. She said that she could not do so, but next day, in a Written Answer, the reply to my Question was given in part. It is dishonest for a Minister to say on a Thursday, that she cannot give the Answer and, on the following day, to give a Written Answer answering that Question in part. I do not mind Ministers being dishonest with me, but I do not like it when they are dishonest with the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drift into the merits of the powerful debate he would have on this topic if we did not go away for the recess.
Mr. Lewis: There is a misapprehension, Sir. I am not suggesting there is any merit. There cannot be any merit in it. The right hon. Lady did not answer my Question fully, although she could have done.
We learned from Press reports that the chairman will receive£18,000 a year—an increase of 20 per cent. over his previous salary. This subject should be debated. The increase for nurses was held up, but before the chairman of the new commission even gets into the job he gets a 20 per cent. increase on a 20 per cent. increase granted a few years ago. We are also told that he is to tour the Eastern countries—Czechoslovakia and Hungary—before taking the job.
The Government can afford money for these high salaries, but not for laudable things such as strengthening tower blocks, which is urgently needed in Newham, for instance; we are told that the Government cannot afford to give more than 50 per cent. towards that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entering into the merits or the

845
demerits of what he wants to talk about if he gets his debate. He has not got it yet.
Mr. Lewis: In this case I merely touched upon the demerits. There are merits in the council in question having an increase in grant, but I did not seek to explain the merits. It appears that some people can get money from the Treasury without any trouble—without even being appointed to a job and without undertaking to work—whereas these people, who have laudable reasons for obtaining money from the Treasury, cannot get it.
Next, there is the question whether we do or do not look after the aged and the sick. Today, I tried to ask a supplementary question. Unfortunately, I was not called, but I make no complaint about that. I want to ask the Secretary of State—unless there is a debate on this subject, I shall not be able to do so—whether he can find out what it would cost the Treasury to give all the various increases in social welfare payments which the Opposition were talking about earlier today and which they have boasted about throughout the country. I want to know how this could be done without increasing taxation and without increasing Government expenditure.
We should debate this important question. The Government should be given the opportunity of paying these large increases to the sick, to the disabled, to those in urgent need, and to do it in such a way that there will be no increase in taxation or in public expenditure. The Minister without Portfolio should consider the question of these people having increases in their limited incomes.
Lastly—this is a point which is even more important—if the Motion is agreed to I believe that during the recess discussions may proceed about our joining the Common Market. If this is so, we shall not be able to put any questions or take any part in the discussions.
I want the Minister without Portfolio to be at those discussions, because he would be an asset there. I have read his interesting speech on this subject. It is one of the best speeches I have heard from the Government on this subject. I should have liked an opportunity to debate the
846
question why the Minister without Portfolio could not be released from his present job for the whole period of the Whitsun Recess so that he could take part in these discussions.
If this could be arranged, and if my right hon. Friend would assure me that he could go on this trip, I would suggest that the House should adjourn not merely for the proposed period, but for a longer one, because he is the man I would like to release from the job he is now doing so that he could get on with the job of negotiating in the E.E.C. on the basis that he and I know that most other people in the country would like to see.
For these three reasons I, too, oppose the Motion.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the attitude of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) towards me is friendly, but it is possibly ambivalent. I cannot make out whether he is a Robespierre or a Scarlet Pimpernel endeavouring to save me from the slow machinations of the Government's tumbrils.
A debate on Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act is obviously overdue. I have written what I have to say on this subject in The Times. Perhaps I had better not add to it. There is a danger that what should be used as an Act of Parliament could be used as a means of Government convenience. In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about Ministers sometimes deceiving the House, this is a very serious point.
I had the pleasure of debating with the Foreign Secretary at the Oxford Union. I went down there bitterly opposed, as many people know, to the Foreign Secretary, but ended shoulder to shoulder with him on the issue of free speech. I posed one question to him at the end of my speech, which was just audible, suggesting that the time had come when we should have a report of relief operations in the East Central Nigerian State.
Whatever the rights or the wrongs, about£3 million of taxpayers' money has—quite rightly—been put to relief. I am sure that the whole House would like to know how the money has been spent and how effectively. At the conclusion of the speech I made at the Oxford

847
Union, I suggested to the Foreign Secretary that there should be a statement in the House and, also, that General Gowon should now agree that the international Press should have a chance of seeing what went on where so much of the British taxpayers' money has been spent and where, as we all know, such tragic circumstances occurred.
4.27 p.m.
Mr. Richard Body: My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) has given a compelling reason why the House should not adjourn for such a long recess. I want to advance a more domestic reason.
Beginning this week and for the whole of this week farmers will boycott the markets. This is clearly a matter of some public interest. It is the farmers' purpose to highlight the plight agriculture is in. This was a matter of some acrimonious debate at Torquay by the meat traders, who said that if the farmers were to persist in this attitude the public would abandon the kind of meat they had been traditionally eating and resort instead to other kinds and would be permanently weaned off the kind of meat they are eating now.
It was not made clear at that conference what those speakers were getting a—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate what happened at the meat traders' conference in Torquay. The hon. Gentleman can do so, if he persuades the House to vote against the Motion and get time for such a debate. He must ask for time.
Mr. Body: My purpose is to explain why either next week, or, at the latest, the week after, we should be debating this matter, while it is fresh in the minds of the public. We should not wait until some time in June or thereafter. Indeed, as matters now stand, a grave state of affairs having been reached, the Government may be unwilling to give any more time during the summer for further debate about agriculture.
The campaign by the National Farmers' Union this week is a matter of concern not only to farmers and butchers, but to the public as a whole. Both the facts and the case which ought to be before the House this week or next can
848
be stated shortly. For 10 years, farm gate prices have been stagnant, whereas in that same period incomes for the rest of the community have risen by about 60 per cent.
Everyone knows that this week each housewife is having to pay a good deal more for her food than she did 10 years ago—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. On this Motion the hon. Gentleman is not permitted to debate the merits of what he would wish to discuss if the House were to meet sooner.
Mr. Body: What the House should debate next week or the week after, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is how agriculture is to survive in these conditions. No other industry would tolerate this situation, and none has ever been called upon to do so. This country alone of all industrial Powers allows a free market in surplus food—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must pay heed to what is said by the Chair. I have already ruled that one must not discuss the merits of the case in detail.
Mr. Body: My point can be concluded in this way. It is urgently necessary that political and parliamentary action be taken about the present situation in agriculture. It is an impossible burden upon farmers to have to face the present state of affairs for much longer, and it is right that in the next week or two, while the campaign is being conducted by the N.F.U., the House should turn its attention to it.
The other reason why I oppose an Adjournment for such a long period was touched on by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). Some of us may think that the Common Market issue is a bore. Indeed, for more and more people it is becoming boring, but this week—
Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) does not think so.
Mr. Body:—officials from all the Ministries of Foreign Affairs are to gather in Brussels to plan future ideas for a political union within the E.E.C. We know also that, later this week, the

849
Foreign Ministers themselves will gather to consider not only that problem but their relationship to the Commonwealth and the common attitude which they should adopt towards the Commonwealth in the negotiations which are to take place.
It would be helpful to those taking part, and essential for our own interests, if the House were to debate those few subjects before the Foreign Ministers of the Six concluded their talks, as they will conclude them before the House reassembles.
For those two reasons, I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about the Recess and enable the House to reassemble after just one week instead of two.
4.34 p.m.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: It is not unknown for attention to be drawn to matters of outstanding business when a Motion such as this is before the House, but one aspect of the matter has barely been touched on, if at all, in all the admirable speeches so far against the Motion and in the one admirable speech in favour of it.
We have today, perhaps, the biggest list of outstanding business and unanswered Questions which the House has ever managed to compile at a time when it was due to adjourn for a recess. There are more really serious Questions unanswered, to which there seems no prospect of answer, than on any similar occasion that I can remember.
Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has a bad memory.
Dr. Bennett: But there is one important element which is unique to this occasion, namely, that there seems to be every indication that, after the House adjourns at the end of this week, this Parliament will disappear and there will never be any answers, at least from the present incumbents, to any of these outstanding Questions. It is most improper for a Government just to evaporate and disappear without attempting to give answer on the problems which they have left to the country. In all decency, even those Ministers who may wish to answer Questions instead of evading them should be glad of an opportunity in the next
850
fortnight to give an account of their stewardship before dissolving themselves and Parliament as they seem likely to do.
I plead with right hon. and hon. Members opposite to take note of this point and use the next fortnight to give the account of themselves which they would, surely, find necessary if they were seeking to test the opinion of the nation about their term of office. The House should, therefore, continue to sit during the next fortnight, if at no other time, so that we may reach conclusions on these important matters.
4.36 p.m.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I apologise for missing a minute or two at the beginning of the debate, as did another hon. Member. No discourtesy was intended, and I hope that it will be understood that I was engaged upon other parliamentary business.
I oppose the Motion on the same grounds as were put by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan). It seems that I am turning into an ecumenical movement the campaign for proper debate on reports of Select Committees.
I shall refer to two Select Committees in particular, first, the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration). It has become manifest as a result of various events that it is essential that a way be found urgently, before we go into recess, for making clear to the public what the financial interests of hon. Members are. We on this bench have already done this by preparing a register of all the financial interests of Members, and we have asked members of other parties to do likewise.
I understand that some are willing to do so on a voluntary basis. Nevertheless, we should have an early opportunity, and before the House rises, if at all possible, to debate this important subject. It is a subject not wholly unconnected with the question of recesses, for the question has been raised of how Members spend their recesses, which countries they go to, who supports them on such visits, and so on. A debate on the matter before the House adjourns would, therefore, be valuable.

851
Second, there is the question of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. His very title is becoming something of a misnomer if his activities are never to be debated in the House. There was once a limited and, if I may say so, rather premature discussion of one of his reports, that to do with the Sachsenhausen case, two years ago, but apart from that there has been no parliamentary debate on the workings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, although he has been at work for upwards of three years.
It has been made clear that the Commissioner's work suffers from a certain lack of publicity. It is clear from the nature of his reports that he himself feels that he cannot give full publicity to certain of the matters upon which he reports. A debate in the House would afford a solution to that problem because it would be a method of publicising the work which he does and the kind of maladministration which he has been able to discover, in addition to enlightening the public about what the Parliamentary Commissioner can or cannot do.
It would be a way of providing information about his activities. I am aware that we all work very hard and need a rest. Many of us would spend the recess on important constituency work. It is right to say that if we delayed the Recess to discuss certain matters of this kind such as the reports of the Select Committees on Members' Interests (Declaration), or on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, debates of this nature would not necessarily require the attendance of all hon. Members of the House. Such debates could be of great value, to those who participate and to the public, because they would receive information from them.
The debates would not interfere with important constituency work and for these reasons I join those who have suggested that the recess should be cut short, either at the beginning or the end, to enable these two important outstanding matters to be dealt with.
4.42 p.m.
Mr. Rafton Pounder: I rise to underscore the remarks made a few moments ago by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South
852
(Captain Orr), who requested a statement before we rise for the Whitsun Recess. His argument was that there should he a further reiteration of the adequacy of security arrangements in Northern Ireland.
It will be within the memory of hon. Members that certain events have occurred north and south of the border recently which have tended to increase suspicion and fear. The easiest, simplest way of eradicating those twin diseases would be by a statement in the House, either before we rise, or, alternatively, to sit an extra day so that the statement could be made, making a clear reiteration of the adequacy of security arrangements in Northern Ireland—a statement backed not only by the Minister making it, but by the whole weight and strength of the British Government. This would be most helpful at this difficult time in Northern Ireland.
4.44 p.m.
Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Before the Whitsun Recess it is right that as a Member for North-East Essex I should raise the problems which my constituents are having to face because of the increase, not only in rail fares, but also in bus fares. I quite understand that the railways have to raise a considerable amount of capital because of the lack of maintenance, but if this has to be met by an increase in fares, over and above the heavy increase in the cost of living, it is something which concerns me very much, particularly with the summer season approaching.
Bus fares are also affected and the increase in these particularly affects the older retirement pensioners in the rural parts of my constituency. This, again, has occurred because the companies want to raise capital to buy better equipment. It is of great concern to me that the Government are not able to do more to help with capital rather than force people to raise it in this way which bears so hard on old-age pensioners.
4.45 p.m.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Shore): By leave of the House, I will reply briefly to the points which have been raised in the debate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) anticipated, I will attempt to put the proposed

853
Whitsun Recess in context and remind the House that there is nothing unusual about the length of time for which we are seeking to adjourn. The length of the proposed break is 16 clear days, including three weekends and a public holiday. I am informed that there have been four previous Whitsun Adjournments of this length since the war, 10 when the break was longer—17 or 18 days—and nine when there have been shorter periods. The Motion covers what can be described as a normal length of break at this time.
Much as I recognise the importance that hon. Members attach to the issues they have raised, I find some difficulty in accepting the view that the proposed break is too long. In considering the matters raised I begin with a comment on the issue which has excited most comment during the debate, and that is whether sufficient time has been allowed, or whether we should curtail our recess, to debate more of the reports of the various Select Committees which have been published during this and previous Sessions and for which so far we have not been able to find time.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made clear on a number of occasions, the difficulty is that there are many important demands on the time available in the Chamber and that a judgment has to be made about priorities. It is true to say that the number of reports from Select Committees has considerably increased in recent years while there has not been and cannot be any corresponding increase in the time available to the House, if we are to have Recesses of a reasonable length. I noted what the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said in his interesting suggestion that we should remain in permanent session. I felt that this might be an individual, even a maverick view, rather than one that commanded wide support.
I also noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) said, that in his judgment it was possible that Ministers occasionally needed sometime to refresh themselves. I have no doubt they do, but I can assure him that we need it no more than any other Government have needed it. He must not assume that when the House recesses Ministers also recess. That is not always so.
854
To return to the question of Select Committee reports, this is a problem to which neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can find any immediate solution. I would like to assure the House that the fact that a report is not debated does not mean that it has no effect. These reports have been of great interest and have been given close consideration by the Government and individual Members. As hon. Members who have helped in framing the reports would agree, they need the close consideration of the Government. All of us are grateful for the time and consideration which hon. Members give to these reports. The absence of a debate on a report by no means indicates that it has not been useful.
To turn briefly to the important question of Northern Ireland and the recent disturbances there—
Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point about Select Committees, will he not agree that there is a difference when a report criticises Ministers?
Mr. Shore: These are matters that have to be weighed up. It is difficult to give priority to particular reports. When that report came forward, I have no doubt that the question whether time could he made available was considered and that the then President of the Board of Trade was anxious for a debate to take place, but, obviously, it proved not possible at that time.
If I may return to Northern Ireland, I fully understand the worries and anxieties expressed by the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) and Down, South (Captain Orr), who asked for a statement by the Government. The Home Secretary recently had an opportunity to give a lengthy and considered reply to a Question and to answer supplementary questions on Northern Ireland, and he dealt specifically with the illegal movement of arms.
I believe that my right hon. Friend will also have an opportunity to answer questions later this week. I repeat the assurance which we have given on so many occasions, that it is our intention to do all that is possible to maintain peace end order in Northern Ireland, and that we believe that we have the capacity and the forces to maintain order there.

855
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West expressed the view that the South African cricket tour should be debated and, if need be, that we should curb the proposed Recess in order to do so. I have considerable sympathy with them in their wish to debate this matter. I understand their concern and their great displeasure at the prospect of the visit by the South African cricket team. My feeling is that this, again, is a subject on which there have been many exchanges, both in this House and across the whole nation. If we were to have a further discussion on this, not much additional information would be forthcoming about peoples' positions and what the consequences are likely to be.
Most people have declared themselves in their attitudes towards the South African cricket tour. The Government have made clear that they take the view that the sports bodies in this country should decide for themselves which teams from overseas they invite to play matches here. That is not the end of the matter. A number of Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have made clear their own personal view that the Cricket Council is acting unwisely in pressing ahead with its invitation to the South African team, when obviously large bodies of opinion in this country oppose it and wish that the tour would not take place.
But we have not moved beyond the position of making clear our view, as have other bodies, and I certainly hope that the Cricket Council has not completely closed its mind to the weight and quality of opinion which has been expressed, and that it will still think again about the wisdom of the tour.
Several hon. Members, mainly from the other side of the House, spoke on agriculture. The hon. Members for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) spoke, rather extravagantly, I thought, about what they were pleased to call a crisis in the agricultural industry. My information does not suggest that it is sensible to talk of a crisis. We are talking of an important industry which certainly has had problems in the last year or two, some of which were brought
856
about by the bad weather of the previous year, but I do not think that, after the admirable Price Review which was presented earlier this year, the industry can fail to look ahead with substantially greater confidence about the coming year and the future than it could have felt for some time past.
Mr. Peter Mills: The right hon. Gentleman says that we are exaggerating, but I remind him that, for the first time in the history of agriculture, the farmers are virtually on strike for a week, and that about 200 or 300 farmers a month are going out of business. Is this exaggerating?
Mr. Shore>: I think that hon. Members will realise that this is a period in which there is rather more unrest in industry, including agriculture, than there has been in the past. This is not confined simply to industry. People nowadays tend to demonstrate and forcefully present their problems and complaints to their fellow citizens. We should not necessarily conclude that the volume of demonstration and complaint is in direct relationship with the magnitude of the problems which are experienced. There have been during the last few weeks substantial occasions for discussion of matters affecting the industry.
Even now the Agriculture Bill is going through the other place—
Mr. Gordon Campbell: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) raised the point of the much more recent crisis concerning the new regulations about road transport and their effect on the carriage of livestock, which it was not possible to raise on the Agriculture Bill.
Mr. Shore: Detailed questions of that sort can be put down and addressed to my right hon. Friend, who will certainly give them a full reply—
Mr. Peter Mills: We have had no satisfaction.
Mr. Shore: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that. The normal ways and processes are open to Members of Parliament to pursue these matters.
I would like a brief word on the remarks of my East London neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram). He said one

857
thing which did not please me. He was being a little ungenerous when he said about my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend does not yet know what I am going to say.
Mr. Lewis: I do. I want to correct the Minister. He surely would not want to attribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) what he is now going to say to me, the hon. Member for West Ham, North—otherwise, I am quite willing to hear what he has to say.
Mr. Shore: I apologise to my hon. Friend for this slight confusion. I meant my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).
I do not think that my hon. Friend is being fair to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. Notice is needed of these matters in order to be quite clear, but I think that he will probably find that my right hon. Friend was not able to give a firm reply at the time my hon. Friend put down his Question. This happens on many occasions. A Minister may be unable to give a definite reply at one moment, but will be able to do so a little later. I ask my hon. Friend to suspend judgment. If he presses his inquiries, I think that he will get an answer which will satisfy him.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: If my right hon. Friend is right, perhaps he can explain why, after my Question was down for the Thursday, the Department sponsored a Question on the same day. My Answer was in the negative and the Answer on the following day was in the affirmative. If the Minister did not know, the Minister could have asked me to sponsor the Question. That was a bit of sharp practice, in my opinion.
Mr. Shore: There may be a much more innocent and straightforward explanation than the one which my hon. Friend is attributing. I ask him only to suspend judgment until the facts are looked at.
As for his personal suggestion that I should play some part in the negotiations for membership of the Common Market, I appreciate his confidence in me, but
858
there is no connection between the Common Market negotiations and the question before us, whether we should adjourn for a fortnight or less. No timetable which I have seen suggests that negotiations are likely to begin until well after the period for which we are seeking to adjourn.
I fully appreciate the interest and concern of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) in the course of events in Eastern Nigeria since the end of hostilities. Further information on this can be elicited from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but, on the more general question of relief operations in Nigeria, these are the responsibility of the Federal Government and are not and cannot be a direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: About£3 million of taxpayers' money was generously given to these operations. It is only proper that the taxpayers should be told how it is being spent.
Mr. Shore: I will see that this point is communicated to my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Shore: I am taking up a good deal of time—
Mr. Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend comment on the Official Secrets Acts?
Mr. Shore: No, that is something which my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone must put to the Attorney-General and not to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) asked about the important question of safety in aeroplanes. There is to be a meeting of the I.C.A.O. in mid-June and I understand that the Government will take a leading part. The meeting is primarily about the acts of violence against Israelis and Israeli aircraft, but it will also deal with this widespread and regrettable outbreak of hijacking which has affected many other airlines. Her Majesty's Government are putting in a paper which will propose an international convention to deal with acts of violence much like the convention now being discussed to deal with hijacking. I cannot add much more to

859
that, but I will, of course, draw my hon. Friend's interest in this matter to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend will have seen the expressions of opinion in newspapers, since the most recent very regrettable incidents, which could have led to a great deal of loss of life, that the delay is not acceptable to many people in this country. Therefore, I press my point—that the House and the country should have a statement from a member of the Government before we adjourn on Friday.
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend will agree that the important thing is to get agreement to effective action at the international level—
Mr. John Mendelson: Without delay.
Mr. Shore: I cannot agree that we are delaying this: we are moving ahead with all speed. The meeting of the I.C.A.O. is to be held in June, but this does not mean that measures cannot be and are not being taken at airport level to do all that is possible to preserve the safety of the aircraft and the security of those who use them.
On the B.O.A.C.-B.U.A. proposed merger and the possibility of mergers between B.U.A. and other airlines, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) would have liked an early statement on the outcome of present negotiations between the independent airlines and B.U.A., but I cannot tell him yet when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be able to make a statement. I must ask him to be patient.
I have tried, not to answer all the points that would be an enormous task—but at least to cover most of the matters which hon. Members have raised. In commending the Motion to the House, I would wish all hon. Members a well-deserved and enjoyable Whitsun break.
5.8 p.m.
Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Waver-tree): I apologise to the House for intervening at this very late stage in the debate, but I have only just heard about what the Post Office has done. It is in the recollection of the House that I had the honour to be the chairman of a committee to raise money for the Winston Churchill statue appeal. The Government have ordered a site in Parliament Square. I have only just heard that, of cheques from 14 sponsors, no fewer than four have been lost by the Post Office, which seems to me to be an unduly high percentage.
The cheques have had to be stopped. The appeal is going very well, but if this happened to that proportion of 14 sponsors, I wonder what is happening to the other people throughout the country who have given money to this appeal. There should be a debate on the inefficiency of the Post Office before we adjourn.
Mr. Shore: I obviously cannot reply in detail to a point suddenly presented to me, but the hon. Gentleman is casting a general aspersion on the efficiency of the Post Office Corporation—
Mr. Joseph Slater: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) knows full well that there is a way of dealing with this issue—by getting in contact with the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation and bringing this to his notice?
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend, who has great experience in these matters, is absolutely right. I am always very reluctant to make instant judgments on instant pieces of information which we have had no time to assess critically. But I will see that this point is brought to the attention of those responsible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 15th May, do adjourn to Monday 1st June.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FISHING VESSELS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  5.10 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: On a point of order. The Notice Paper which I have is headed, "Consideration of Lords Amendments", whereas the Amendments which it lists are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker). Would not it be right for this House to adjourn until our affairs are put in order—in other words, at least until after the Whitsun Recess?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): No. There is a misprint on the Notice Paper. That does not mean that the debate cannot proceed.

  FISHING VESSELS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL
    Clause 1

      FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION RULES
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1. line 29, after 'master', insert 'or skipper'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
      Mr. Baker: Yes, they are substantially the same, except for Amendment No. 2. They are perfectly simple and straightforward.
      I was encouraged by the reply made by the Minister of State in Committee to the debate on the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, when he said:
      "As regards the word 'skipper', certainly we shall consider whether that is necessary and appropriate for insertion."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 28th April, 1970; c. 5.]
      Since then, however, no Government Amendment has appeared giving effect to my suggestion and, for that reason, I have felt obliged to table these Amendments.
      They seek to do the obvious, which is to take cognisance of the long-standing use of the word "skipper" in our inshore fishing fleet. The expression "master" is totally unknown in the fleet, certainly
      862
      in that of North-East Scotland, the reason being that one finds three classes of skipper—the share fisherman skipper, the owner skipper, and the self-employed skipper. In no case of which I am aware is the skipper of an inshore boat referred to or known as "the master".
      I call in aid a leaflet numbered N.I. 47, issued by the old Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, paragraph 1 of which says:
      "For National Insurance purposes a share fisherman is someone who is or has been employed in the fishing industry as the skipper or a member of the crew of a fishing vessel.…"
      It goes on to describe that person in more detail.
      Then, in paragraph 16, which is headed,
      "What is the third additional rule?",
      it says:
      "If you are the skipper or a member of the crew of a fishing vessel of which either the skipper or any of the crew is owner or part-owner, you must also prove that there was good reason for not having fished…"
      I agree that that information has no legislative backing. It is not a Statutory Instrument. Nevertheless, it takes cognisance of the fact that the word "skipper" is commonly used by the inshore fleet.
      I hope that the Minister will not say that the situation is reasonable or that the word "skipper" is adequately covered by the use of the word "master"—or, indeed, that in other legislation the skipper is referred to as "the master". In my view, legislation should be clear and readily understandable. It should employ traditional words which are commonly used, understood and recognised by any branch of industry. Traditionally, the skipper is the effective man in charge of the vessel.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirk-dale): When this matter was raised in Committee, I had a good deal of sympathy with the point put forward by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker). I still have, since the inclusion of these Amendments in the Bill will make no difference to its intentions.
      However, the arguments which have just been adduced by the hon. Gentleman to support his Amendments put me in some difficulty, and my sympathy is diminished. On our merchant ships, the

      863
      word "skipper" is used frequently. On the majority of vessels operating from the Port of Liverpool, the word is more commonly used than "master". There are other ports in which the term is always "the captain". But everyone appreciates that the person concerned is the master of the vessel in law, and even those who refuse to use the word "master" in normal circumstances will do so when pushed if they are defending a right or liberty or making a complaint, in which case they make the word sound a condemnation of the attitude of the person holding authority.
      I do not think that these Amendments would serve any useful purpose. Neither would they make the legislation more clear. The Merchant Shipping Act contains no such provision, and Clause 11 of this Bill should do much to remove any doubt from the hon. Gentleman's mind.
      Having said that, I return to my original comment. The Amendments make not an ounce of difference. If it pleases anyone to add the words "or skipper", why not include them?
      The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): While the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) is right when he says that it is customary to refer to "the skipper" of a fishing vessel rather than to "the master", and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) says, it is widespread in the merchant shipping fleet, I am advised that the Amendments are not only unnecessary but inadvisable, for reasons of drafting.
      When the hon. Gentleman raised the point in Committee, I was glad to say that I would look at it. I have done so, and find that, quite apart from the fact that the Amendments are unnecessary, we may get into some difficulty if we adopt them.
      The term "master" has been used in this Bill, as in the Merchant Shipping Bill now before Parliament, for the legal reason that that term is defined in Section 742 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as including every person, except a pilot, having command or charge of any ship. That definition obviously covers the skipper of a fishing vessel. For that reason the term "skipper" was dropped from the Merchant Shipping Bill.
      864
      Since this Bill, like the Merchant Shipping Bill, is to be read as one with the Merchant Shipping Acts, it is unnecessary to add the word "skipper", as proposed, since it is already included in the term "master".
      Moreover, I am advised that if it were to be included in the Bill, the result would be to throw possible doubt on the meaning of the word "master" as used in the Merchant Shipping Bill, because if in two statutes which are to be read as one, as we note from Clause 11(3), one expressly refers to "master or skipper", as the hon. Gentleman wishes, while the other uses "master" only, intending none the less to include a skipper, uncertainty whether such was, in fact, the intention might arise. Having looked at the matter and having ascertained the position carefully, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
      Before I sit down, I should point out that the effect of the proposed Amendment to Clause 3 would be to change the provision in the Bill, which reflects similar provisions in the Merchant Shipping Acts, whereby application for a certficate is made by the owner. This seems to be the appropriate procedure. The hon. Gentleman did not make a point on this, but I thought I would mention it. I do not see any reason to provide alternatively for the owner or skipper to apply for the certificate. The present procedure for other types of vessel has caused no trouble in the past. In any case, as a matter of drafting I think that excluding the word "master" would be inconsistent with the other Amendments proposed.
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman said that I did not refer to Amendment No. 2. I did, in that I tried to classify the various types of skipper—the owner skipper, the shore fishing skipper and the employed fisherman skipper. I think that that has a bearing.
      Mr. Roberts:I stand corrected. The hon. Gentleman did in that passage bring this point out.
      In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard his exercise this afternoon, which I understand and sympathise with, as having clarified beyond doubt what is intended. Indeed, it is not simply an

      865
      assurance from this Box that he is getting, but a fact that the two Bills—Acts as we expect them to be—are to be taken as one. I hope that that will suffice for him to inform his constituents that the term "skipper" may continue to be used widely and, may I say, specifically, on occasions, but that the legal term "master" is convenient and effective.
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making the position abundantly clear. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment,
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      5.25 p.m.
      Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill before us went through its Committee stage with great dispatch. However, as the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) point out, it should not be thought, therefore, that it is for that reason an unimportant Bill. Far from it. The reason for the speed with which it was taken was that hon. Members on both sides wholly agreed with the purpose and importance of the Bill.
      The Bill is important because it seeks to fill a gap in our merchant shipping legislation. The Bill will enable rules for the safety of fishing vessels to be made where none could be made before. However, the Bill and the rules to be made under it should be put in their proper context. This is one of the measures necessary to implement the recommendations of the Holland-Martin Committee of Inquiry into Trawler Safety. I should not like to give the impression that the passing of the Bill, or the making of rules under it, will be the complete answer. We all know that this will not be so. We shall have to return to the question of trawler safety and, indeed, of safety at sea from time to time.
      Much responsibility also lies on both sides of the industry to implement other recommendations in the Holland-Martin Report, and I have been particularly gratified to note the responsible attitude shown by both sides of the industry and the undoubted progress which has already been made. Indeed, some owners have
      866
      anticipated matters that will later become mandatory under the Bill.
      The Government and both sides of industry are working together to cut to the minimum the risks facing fishermen in their dangerous calling. It is impossible to eliminate these risks altogether, except of course by keeping the vessel in port. But we intend to do everything possible to require that the trawlermen have a safe vessel, modern safety equipment, and safe working conditions on board. I know that there is no dispute about that in any part of the House.
      I should like now to turn to one or two points which were made in Committee and then to cover very briefly some additional points concerning the safety of trawlers which I know to be in some Members' minds.
      Many Members are interested to know what rules will be made under the Bill, and when they will come into effect. As regards the scope of the rules, I distributed a memorandum prepared by my Department to the Committee which showed very broadly what subjects would be covered under the Fishing Vessel Construction Rules in Clause 1 and the Fishing Vessel Survey Rules relating to construction, safety equipment and radio equipment under Clause 2.
      The Fishing Vessel Construction Rules, which will initially apply to fishing vessels of 80 feet or more in length, will cover a range of subjects including structural strength, stability, weathertight integrity, means of protection for the crew, structural fire protection and other important subjects. The drafting of these rules is under consideration and the industry will be fully consulted. Initially, the rules will probably not apply to inshore vessels, but rules will need to be drafted for them in due course.
      In the important area of stability, the Board of Trade has now completed its selective investigation of the stability characteristics of the distant water fleet, and work is continuing with the examination of stability data voluntarily submitted by owners of other distant water trawlers and of near and middle water vessels.
      I have been asked whether the rules that we propose to make on construction will apply to existing as well as to new

      867
      vessels. It is difficult to give an exact reply to that question at this stage, but in general the full force of the rules will apply to new vessels and, as far as reasonably practicable, to existing vessels.
      For example, it has been found that a number of vessels do not come up to the stability standards recommended by the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, but so far it has been found possible to remedy the defects without major structural modifications. In some cases, however, it may be necessary to restrict a vessel's area of operations where it cannot meet the I.M.C.O. criteria for severe icing conditions. On the other hand, there are some matters, such as structural fire protection, where it would be prohibitively expensive to bring some of the older vessels up to the required standard, and that is not our intention. In such cases exemption from full compliance with the rules will need to be granted, but with conditions designed to achieve appropriate compensating safety standards.
      Rules for the survey and certification of vessels to ensure that they comply with the rules applicable to them will be made under Clause 2. In this connection I should like to clear up one possible misconception which may have arisen in Committee from the fact that in our memorandum to the Committee we said that the annual survey shall, subject to consultation with the industry, initially apply in respect of the radio rules to fishing vessels above 60 ft. First, our powers extend to vessels of any size.
      Second, I was asked why we proposed stopping at 60 ft. and not going below that figure. I should emphasise that this limit was a suggestion on the part of the Board of Trade based on practicability and will be subject to consultation with the industry, and we hope very shortly to have a meeting with the industry on this matter. I understand that below about 60 ft. it becomes increasingly difficult to find appropriate space for extensive radio equipment. Moreover, the smaller vessels often tend to fish close inshore. Nevertheless, this is a matter which we shall be considering further and very seriously with the industry.
      I was also asked when the rules under the Bill were likely to be made. In reply I said that they would be done with due
      868
      speed and expedition, but I had to say that there was a great deal of work to be done, both within the Board of Trade and in consultation with the industry, and it would be wrong of me to lead hon. Members to expect that the rules will be ready within 12 months of the Bill receiving the Royal Assent. It is clear that we must get the rules right rather than rush them.
      I can understand the concern of hon. Members that the rules will not be ready before the next winter. I should, however, point out that a number of other measures are being taken by the Government and the industry to improve safety standards in the meantime. For example, the Government have been providing a support vessel off Iceland during the winter months, and I have been gratified to note the progress which has been made by the industry itself in giving effect to a number of Holland-Martin recommendations. I have in mind those relating to reporting procedures, which are extremely important the implementation of Code 1 of the Fishermans Safety Code concerned with the equipment and construction of trawlers; safety equipment and survival clothing; and the restriction of working hours on board. All this is in progress, and the progress is most gratifying. Thus, while it will be difficult to prepare rules within 12 months from the passage of the Bill into law, that should not be taken as meaning that no progress is being made on safety. Indeed, the contrary is true.
      There was some discussion in Committee on the reference in Clauses 1, 4 and 5 to the word "master", and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) has since moved his Amendments. I have replied to the hon. Gentleman's observations, and I am most grateful for his response to my explanation.
      Some hon. Members have asked about our long-term intentions with regard to support vessels. The Holland-Martin Report said that complete coverage of all the main fishing grounds could be achieved only by providing three or more support ships. The report went on, however, to say that it would be realistic to gain experience initially with the operation of one vessel only; after two or three years the position should be reviewed with the industry in the light of the experience gained, with a view to

      869
      deciding whether the support services should be extended.
      The Board of Trade accepts that one support ship should be stationed off Iceland each winter, although there is now no commitment to provide more. As the report recommends, we propose to evaluate the experience of the support vessel before reaching a decision whether more should be provided. Hon. Members will have noted my announcement in the House recently about the purchase of a Swedish vessel which, after conversion, will be stationed off Iceland this coming winter and provide the same facilities as those which were successfully provided by the "Orsino".
      Some hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of engaging Royal Naval fishery protection vessels in fishery support work. In any long-term appraisal of the role of a support vessel the position of protection vessels will obviously have to be borne in mind. There is never any difficulty about co-operation between the Service and the civil Departments, particularly in a matter of this kind, and I give those who brought this matter to my attention a complete assurance that this constant readiness to co-operate will continue.
      There is, however, a distinction between the functions of fishery protection vessels and those of fishery support vessels. It is not thought that fishery support is a proper task for the Royal Navy—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister would assist the Chair. His remarks appear to be somewhat wide of the Third Reading of the Bill.
      Mr. Roberts: It is most likely that your are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that I have been venturing from in-shore into deep waters. However, with your consent, I shall conclude this part of my speech by saying that the purpose of the support vessels will be to render assistance—technical, medical and otherwise—to our fishing fleet in areas of hazard, but that from time to time it may be found appropriate to ask Service Departments, in this case the Royal Navy, to assist, although that is not a normal use of fishery protection vessels.
      Finally, I propose to say something about the Amendments made in Committee. Most of these were of a technical
      870
      nature, which do not alter the substance of the Bill materially, but the House may like to note the inclusion of Clause 7(2), which lays upon the Board of Trade a statutory obligation to consult organisations representative of persons who will be affected by these rules before any such rules are made. This subsection was included in deference to the wishes of the House on Second Reading—I believe that it was the hon. and learned Member for Darwen who raised the matter very forcefully, and he was supported by hon. Members on both sides—and I hope that it commends itself to the House today.
      We have not found it practical or necessary to proceed by affirmative Resolution since, by providing statutorily for the fullest consultation, bearing in mind the very technical nature of the rules to be drafted, there is a consensus on both sides of the House that we can safely proceed by negative resolution.
      Other Amendments made in Committee provided that the references to the radio rules in Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 were extended to apply also to rules for direction finders and rules for radio navigational aids. Another Amendment to Clause 5 clarified the requirements for notifying alterations to vessels or equipment in respect of which a certificate had been issued.
      With these fairly minor Amendments, I am confident that the Bill as it stands, together with certain additional powers in the Merchant Shipping Bill now before Parliament, will enable the Board of Trade to put into effect those recommendations in the Holland-Martin Report which require statutory power. I have stated that the Board of Trade intends to give priority to making rules under the Bill. I am glad to say that preparations to that end have already started. It is a question not of paper priority but of actual priority. I am pleased that the excellent advice available in the Department has been applied to the necessary and very important task of framing the rules. I have been able to give the House a brief indication of the likely scope of the rules to be made.
      I began by attempting to put the Bill in the context of the implementation of the Holland-Martin recommendations as a whole. I referred to the dangers of the fisherman's calling and to the responsibility of all those concerned to minimise

      871
      those dangers as far as possible. It is clear that all those concerned are taking those responsibilities seriously, not least the Department with which I have the honour to be associated. The loss of the three Hull trawlers came as a great shock, not only to the people of Hull but to the nation as a whole. Many Members have since paid tribute to our fishermen, their bravery and fortitude, and to their families. I believe that, through the Bill, the House will be proud to discharge its responsibility in helping to minimise the dangers which this intrepid band of men and their families face.
      5.43 p.m.
      Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: It would be fair to say that we have given the Bill a very fair wind at every stage and that we have been as brief and co-operative as any Opposition which I can remember have been about any Bill. The reason is that the Holland-Martin Report commanded the respect of both sides of the House and all sides of the industry. Therefore, we shall be happy to see the Bill on the Statue Book before anything awful happens to stop it.
      In those circumstances, it may be wondered why we have tabled a Motion to enable a debate to take place on Third Reading. The reason is that we were invited, quite properly, by the Minister of State to table a Motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) suggested that we should know a little more about the application of the construction rules to existing vessels. The Minister of State said that he welcomed my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Government might fill in the detail a little more and he thought that we could do it at a later stage, if not on Report, then certainly on Third Reading, subject to the usual Motion that there should be a Third Reading debate. That is why we are having a debate.
      The Minister of State has always been as good as his word. Although what he has told us is not very detailed, he has said something about the principles on which the rules will be drafted. He said that initially the rules will not apply to in-shore vessels. I suppose that that is right. After all, it was the deep-sea vessels and the disaster to the three Hull trawlers which provoked the Holland-
      872
      Martin Report. But, as my hon. Friends who represent ports with inshore fleets contend, and as the Holland-Martin Report suggested, the dangers of inshore fishing are just as grave as, although rather different from, those in the more distant waters.
      Secondly, the Minister said that the rules will, so far as reasonably practicable, extend to existing vessels. There may have to be some limitation on the areas in which existing vessels fish if they cannot be adapted to comply with the new rules. The new rules will have to be modified in some cases, particularly in connection with fire precautions, as the Minister mentioned. That information will help the industry in making its plans.
      I still hope that the rules will be drafted more quickly. I made that point in Committee, and I was somewhat rebuked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) on the ground that consultation in these matters was very laborious and detailed, as it is. But we should have the rules quicker than under the timetable adumbrated by the Minister because we are dealing with the lives and limbs of very brave men, and it might be that every day counted. I hope that speedy and concentrated progress will be made in the rule-making procedure.
      We have been interested in the information which has been circulated about the experiments in de-icing equipment and the experiments on the "Boston Phantom"—the fitting of sleeves and overshoes, impulsing and all the new suggestions by which the de-icing procedures which have become common form for aircraft might be adapted for fishing vessels. I suppose that that process will continue.
      But, as the Holland-Martin Report said, and as the Government accept, although the problem of de-icing can no doubt be lessened and mitigated by such procedures, the dangers of the ghastly black ice of the Arctic can be combated only by turning round and leaving the area. That was the conclusion in the Holland-Martin Report. In spite of the ingenuity of our inventors and developers, when this terrible peril threatens the master must take an instant decision to leave what may be a very profitable fishing ground and run for it. That is not

      873
      the course of a coward but a course of bravery in those circumstances. That has to be emphasised, because there must be a temptation in those circumstances to have one more go before turning round.
      I was interested to hear what the Minister had to say about support ships and collaboration with the Royal Navy. I hope that there will be collaboration with the support ships of other European countries, something mentioned in our previous proceedings. The other countries have some very good ships, and I see no reason why there should not he an international code of conduct by which we all support one another.
      Finally, may I do what we have all been asked to do and that is, in a matter which concerns the safety of these brave men, call attention to the great work of the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen. I know that there is nothing about this in the Bill and, therefore, it is technically out of order on Third Reading, but I have said it now and I hope that little boost or "commercial" will mean that when people are thinking of these men they will also dig a little into their pockets and contribute to that worthy charity.
      5.52 p.m.
      Mr. James Johnson: This is a good Bill. However, it is more than that; it is a humane Bill. It means much in the saving of life and limb for many of our constituents and much in terms of suffering saved to their womenfolk. Since the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) rightly gave himself the credit for being so helpful, I must add that for a humane Bill of this kind we could not have had a more humane Minister.
      There was perhaps a slightly controversial note in Committee when I objected to one of the hon. Members opposite using the term "shop stewards on board vessels", which I thought was emotive and tended to give a false picture about an innovation that we all hope will come about soon. The Minister courteously sent me a letter about this matter quoting Clause 19 of the Merchant Shipping Bill saying that this was sufficient to give him
      874
      "power for regulations to be made for the appointment of safety representatives on trawlers from among the crew."
      This is most important.
      On the fish dock in Hull I have allowed Transport and General Workers Union officials to see this letter, and I read it to my constituency party meeting on Sunday morning. It received 100 per cent. support. We should go ahead with this innovation, although I know that the skippers are a little chary about it. They have objections because they think that it is dangerous to begin too soon on what they deem to be a sweeping change. They fear that perhaps an incompetent delegate or union official may sometimes inflame the situation and undermine discipline. I do not expect this, and I believe that we should begin on an experimental basis.
      There are dangers in adopting this holus-bolus, and it must clearly be understood that here is no challenge of any kind to the skipper's ultimate decision. He is the master of the vessel and must make all decisions. Whatever the weather and working conditions, the skipper is in charge. On the other hand, as the Minister knows, there is anxiety among my constituents and elsewhere about this subject, regarding fishing in high gales and other matters of safety.
      We talk now about ships being floating factories, and they are certainly becoming more technical in design and gear. Our "deep freezer" trawlers go away for seven or eight weeks, and are literally factories at sea. It is important that we have this experiment of a union representative on board to look after safety conditions. I hope that these men will be carefully picked, will take courses at the local nautical college and will be equipped like their colleagues—
      Mr. Dunn: I know that my hon. Friend does not mean it but be said "picked". No doubt he means "appointed" or "elected".
      Mr. Johnson: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I am indebted to him. They can be elected by the crew or in any other way on shore. What we want are first-class men to take part in this important step forward. If these men succeed in this job as we hope, it will make the womenfolk on shore feel safer when their men are at sea. Once this

      875
      scheme gets under way, I would assume that any complaints lodged on board the vessels will come back to the port safety committees for discussion on shore in a calm atmosphere. I accept that the vast majority of skippers do discuss matters with their mates and are fully aware of what is in the minds of their crew, but there are some skippers who are not quite so safety conscious.
      I want to make a short comment about the Government vessel "Orsino" and the Swedish vessel costing about£90,000, which will succeed it. We welcome this acquisition. If we find from experience that we need another vessel, I hope that the Government will not be parsimonious about giving our fishermen such a support vessel. I support the suggestion from the Front Opposition Bench that they should work with other similar vesselsPortugese, West Germans, Soviet and Polish.
      Lastly, my King Charles' head, the stability and design of vessels. On 3rd March we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that 80 per cent. of the fleet had been completely examined and only a quarter did not come up to the I.M.C.O. standard. Only six or seven of those could not, by adjusting their deadweight, reach the safety standard. What will happen to those few vessels which we do not believe should have any further working life? That is a matter for the Minister and the Government in consultation with the industry.
      It only remains for me to thank very sincerely the Minister for what he has done and hope that the regulations will soon be on the Statute Book.
      5.58 p.m.
      Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I will not follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on the question of safety officers on ships because it is not a matter upon which I am particularly knowledgeable, coming from an area of the country where by and large boats are very much smaller and where it is not unknown for a father to serve under a son acting as the skipper of a boat, and where the fishing is done on a co-operative basis. These issues do not arise there, although I appreciate that great importance is attached to them in certain quarters elsewhere.
      876
      I congratulate the Minister on the Bill and welcome it. I would make one further observation to what has been said in its praise. The British are not always very keen for anybody to tell them how to look after themselves better. They are extremely slow in adopting measures of any kind in many critical situations. But it will be agreed that the time has come for the introduction of this Bill. There is a wide body of opinion throughout the industry and the country which feels that the time has come for a much more stringent look at safety at sea and that all should co-operate towards that end. For that reason the Bill will have a warm welcome in the House and in the country.
      6.1 p.m.
      Mr. George Jeger: I, too, add my welcome to the Bill and congratulate the Minister on its passage. I was very pleased to hear him say that in his mind and that of the Department its operation would have priority, for that will bring much comfort to those who have spoken worked and agitated, perhaps over two generations or more, to introduce better safety precautions in our fishing fleet.
      May I utter a slight note of apprehension about the Minister's statement that it will take 12 months at least after the Royal Assent before the rules are put into operation. His Department has so much documentation and there has been so much discussion with all sides of industry during the last two years that it should have somewhere in draft form the sort of regulation which will be required. Clearly much work has been done. We have heard that a preliminary survey has already been carried out. That should give the Department a basis on which to draft the rules.
      I hope that when the survey was made those vessels which were thought to be unsatisfactory for distant-water fishing from the point of view of safety were noted and that a warning was given, however politely, that when the rules were formulated those vessels might fail to fulfil the necessary requirements. I hope that the scrap-and-build programme will be enforced vigorously and that when the rules are made that they will not be amended in individual cases in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke).

      877
      Once they are made, they should be rigidly enforced because, as he rightly said, the lives and limbs of the fishermen and the happiness of their families are involved, and the rules should not be bent in favour of the owners of the vessels.
      Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It was not I who suggested that; it was the Minister who suggested that in respect of certain new fire precaution rules it might not be possible to exact the full rigour of the law on all existing vessels because they were so built that it would not be possible to install the necessary apparatus. I was merely echoing what he said. It was not my suggestion.
      Mr. Jeger: Whoever made the suggestion, I oppose it. There are far too many old vessels still in operation which could constitute a menace to life and limb. We should seek to modernise our fishing fleet, whatever it costs.
      Mr. Goronwy Roberts: When it is found necessary, for quite practical reasons, to make an exception, and when that affects safety, we shall have to insist on comparable or similar provisions. If it is found impossible to insist upon the requirements of the new Act and exceptions must, therefore, be made, before they are made and before use is continued we shall have to insist on a standard of safety the same as that in the Bill.
      Mr. Jeger: I am very glad to have that reassurance.
      My hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) referred to the crew's representative who would be the spokesman and secretary of the men, as it were, to whom they could go with their problems, and who would be their spokesman when they were back on shore. He suggested, as is suggested in the Holland-Martin Report, that a trial should be made with certain vessels and owners. But I disagree with paragraph 250 of the Holland-Martin Report, which expresses a
      "wish to encourage progressive firms to negotiate directly with the Union on introducing the system"
      on specially selected ships. In my opinion, this is a need not in respect of the most progressive owners but in respect
      878
      of those who are not progressive. Progressive owners, who take a pride in their ships and an interest in their crews, would naturally not need spurring in this way, but those who are not progressive would need to be encouraged to introduce more progressive measures into the running of their vessels.
      Mr. Dunn: May I remind my hon. Friend that under the regulations there will be no differentiation between good owners and bad owners. The Bill gives the Board of Trade authority to make regulations to provide for any of these matters.
      Mr. Jeger: I am aware of that, but I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of it. I was replying to a point which had been made suggesting that this should be tried as an experiment on certain ships. My objection is to the suggestion of an experiment where it is bound to be successful instead of an experiment where it is much more necessary—with the owners who are not so progressive.
      As the Holland-Martin Report points out in paragraph 224,
      "…in recent years—and particularly since the trawler disasters early in 1968—there has been a general increase in safety-consciousness throughout the industry."
      I concur in that statement. I trust that the speedy operation of the rules, when they are formulated, will keep up the good morale which has been engendered in the industry by the inquiries which have been held and by the speedy action of the Government in introducing safety Bills of this kind, and that the fishing industry will benefit thereby to a great extent.
      6.8 p.m.
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I, too, warmly welcome the Bill, particularly as it will eventually affect the inshore fishing fleet, a subject to which I shall return in a moment.
      I pay my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State to the Board of Trade, who has been extremely courteous and helpful about the representations which I have made to him personally and during the passage of the Bill. He and other hon. Members rightly referred to the bravery of the fishermen of our nation. Several hon. Members rightly emphasised the stress under which the families of our fishermen are placed while their menfolk are at sea, and we

      879
      should be churlish if we did not welcome the Bill, which will help them indirectly.
      It was brought home to me very forcibly at the week-end what our fishermen have to face, because on Thursday of last week skipper John Cowie of the motor fishing vessel "Flower" of Buchie was washed overboard and lost. I was reminded of the Bill as I read of this tragedy, for it brings to a total of 13 the number of men who have been lost from my constituency since the beginning of December of last year—that is, a little over 1 per cent. of the fishermen employed in the industry. It is a terrible tragedy—the type of tragedy that the people on the north-east coast of Scotland have had to face for generations. Therefore, anything that we can do by the Bill to help to prevent loss of life must be warmly and thoroughly welcome on all sides of the House and in the country at large.
      In his Third Reading speech, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, as has been mentioned before, that the construction rules will apply in the first instance only to vessels of 80 ft. and over. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) mentioned this fact, too. I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman again, as I have done in the past, that consultation, which will rightly take place, should go on with the inshore side of the industry concurrently with other interests in the fishing industry generally.
      I do not see why, for instance, the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers Association or the North of Scotland Light Trawlers Association should not be brought in from the word "go". Perhaps even then it may not be possible to make the rules apply immediately and initially, but, nevertheless, let us have consultation right down the line, if for no other reason than that the inshore men will have an idea of what they will have to face when the rules for the inshore—that is, the under 80 ft.—vessels are brought into effect. I hope that the Government will bear this in mind.
      Secondly, I wish to refer to the wireless rules. The Minister of State said again that he had considered the question of vessels under 60 ft. in relation to the wireless rules. He said that vessels of
      880
      under 60 ft. normally fish, as the nomenclature is, inshore. That, however, is not altogether true. Many vessels from, say, 45 ft. to 60 ft. go considerable distances from the shore. Indeed, from my constituency they go round the Pentland Firth into the Minch, and, as we all know, the weather in both those places can be extremely treacherous. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will have yet another look at this question and see whether he cannot bring the rules down to 45 ft. at the most.
      I should like to refer also to stability. The right hon. Gentleman again said that stability was being considered and studied for the deep-water fleet, and, indeed, for the middle-water fleet as well. It is equally important that stability be looked at for the inshore vessels. I have in mind the "Coral Isle", which foundered with all hands in December last year. We do not know what was the cause of that tragic disaster, but it is conceivable that the boat turned turtle. We simply do not know what happened. Therefore, I would press again that the stability factor for the smaller class of vessel be looked at in detail with the other classes as well.
      The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members referred to the support services and the ships stationed in northern waters. It is quite out of order for a Member of this House to appeal to the gallery, and I would be called to task if I did, but I would mention the support that is rendered by the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen, as did my hon. and learned Friend. It is what I might call the land support for our fishermen. It does a wonderful job, and I commend its work to the House and to the country at large.
      I finish where I commenced. I give a warm welcome to the Bill, and I hope very much that it will be implemented as soon as is humanly possible.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Dunn: I, too, welcome the Bill, and I join in the citations of congratulation offered to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he would wish me to include in those congratulations the Opposition Front Bench, too, who proved so helpful in the discussion about the Bill prior to the Standing Committee, probably

      881
      making contributions to thought in the preliminary drafting, and also the Holland-Martin Report. We should look back to that report as probably the moment in time when the impact for the industry was really felt and there was the urge to get safety into its right context for the men who sail these vessels in such hazardous conditions and who, from time to time, are responsible for such heroic acts of individual bravery.
      Most of the crew members belong to the Transport and General Workers' Union. I know that they would wish me to say to the House that they are grateful for the co-operation which has been shown and for the dispatch and speed which has been adduced to the Bill. They hope that in another place it will enjoy the same fair wind to bring it back to this House for the Sovereign's consent.
      I should like to sound one note about the Bill. I hope that when it is finally enacted and all the regulations are made, there will be continual attempts to improve the regulations and that there will be no complacency, although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend would never suffer from that human frailty. I hope that there will be continuous review and that, perhaps, the Bill gives the opportunity, which has been sadly lacking for some time, for an international agreement with I.M.C.O. to provide some of the other support that these fishermen require.
      There is much yet still to be done, and there is not all that much time to keep on doing it, because the parliamentary timetable is very crowded every day. If, however, my right hon. Friend keeps this matter continuously under review for ever and a day, his name will be remembered by fishermen and seamen.
      6.17 p.m.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite in welcoming the Bill, which is very properly welcomed in Hull and all fishing ports, because it is a Bill for which fishermen and their families have been asking for many years and something about which the union, in particular, has played a large part in making proposals and producing suggestions for improving conditions at sea. It is extremely important that the union, with the owners and the Board of Trade, should have been in considerable discussion about how the Bill and the Merchant
      882
      Shipping Bill should be implemented and how best the three parties can tackle the tremendous problems in the industry.
      The whole House and the nation were shocked by the tremendous tragedies which occurred at the Port of Hull a little while ago, and we have had fresh and sad illumination of this tremendous problem when the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) spoke about the tragedy which happened in his constituency within the past week. I know that the sympathy of all the House, particularly of hon. Members representing sea and fishing ports and their families, will go out to the family of the hon. Member's constituent, because it is a most tragic and abrupt thing to happen.
      When we think in terms of accidents at sea, however, we too often think in terms only of the fatalities that occur. One of the reasons why the Bill is particularly to be welcomed is not only because it very properly deals with questions of construction and stability, but because it deals also with equipment and machinery.
      Paragraph 123 of the Holland-Martin Report states:
      "Unlike most merchant ships, a trawler (even an old fashioned side trawler) may be regarded as a small floating factory on which men are employed to process fish; on large modern freezers, where the handling and processing of the catch is relatively complex, the analogy is even more appropriate. It is somewhat illogical that employees in factories should be protected at work by legal regulations on the design and operation of machinery when no similar requirements exist for the protection of trawlermen at sea."
      That criticism has been most admirably met by the Bill. Although our minds are shocked by fatalities at sea, in many ways the most serious tragedies concern men who are maimed in heavy weather by falling against machinery or slipping on the decks, or getting their hands chapped, or limbs mutilated or badly scarred, or suffering other serious injury. In some ways we find the parallel in the coal mining industry. There, one thinks also of the terrible disasters, but one also remembers the tragedy of the man who is badly injured by a fall of stone in the pit or by being caught in machinery. The parallel is apt.
      The Bill deals with the myriad accidents which can happen at sea. It treats

      883
      the trawler, for the first time, as a factory, and regulations will be introduced which will be as stringent and important as those existing for shore-based factories. The Clause providing for this is especially to be welcomed.
      In that context one looks at Clause 7(2). It is obvious that all the interests in the industry will have to be consulted when regulations are to be brought into use. Not only the owners but the men who work the machinery and handle the tackle must be considered when the rules are being drawn up. The men actually doing the job know the particular hazards and difficulties that face men at sea when using this sort of machinery in heavy weather in a situation that changes not only climatically but in terms of what is happening on deck. These are the men who will have to be consulted, so that it is very right and proper that this subsection should be included.
      Whilst we are at times naturally jealous of our right to have positive regulations, there are occasions, as some of us who have sat on the Committee on Statutory Instruments know, when we are glad to have, as in this case, regulations subject to negative Resolution. The degree of technical knowledge and complexity involved needs a man skilled in marine engineering, in fishing engineering and in nearly every other art and science associated with the sea to appreciate what is needed. It is enough to know that in this case a person feeling aggrieved will be able to make representations to his Member to invoke the negative procedure to get the point debated.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) and for Kingston up Hull (Mr. James Johnson) spoke of the important rôle to be played by the safety representatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole was right when he said that in this respect we should not be looking at the progressive firms so much as at those that are prepared to take risks. I agree that it is important that those firms should be subjected to the new procedures. After all, if everyone was perfect there would be no need for safety representatives. In addition, the knowledge that there are safety representatives will give a degree of confidence to the men and their families.
      884
      On the other hand, I could not help feeling that my hon. Friend was a little unkind in his reference to the arguments advanced by the Holland-Martin Committee. Paragraphs 247–250 of the report looked at the representations made by the unions, and tried to fit them into the context of an industry in which the owners were completely hostile to the whole idea of having any sort of shipboard representation. It will be remembered that earlier this year we had one shipowner making a statement to that effect, although since our Committee proceedings the secretary of the vessel owners' organisation has said that the owners will abide by anything for which there is legislation.
      The Holland-Martin Committee was looking at the difficulties existing in the industry and at the uniqueness of this experiment, and asking itself where was the best point at which to try to implement these procedures. I am sure that the union would much have preferred to have this matter agreed industrially but, as it was not so agreed, it had to look to this House further to elucidate the situation.
      I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, West and Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) were correct in suggesting caution. It is important that this scheme should not go off at half cock but should be seen to work and to be worked by responsible individuals, and that the unions and the owners should come together in trying to work out a sensible system. It is much better to proceed in that way than to seek to rush it too much. One sudden bad example of a man going "bolshie" or a skipper being awkward could ruin what I believe to be one of the most promising developments in the whole range of industrial relations in this industry. In the same way, one would like the safety representatives to go cautiously rather than rush in.
      My right hon. Friend spoke of rules and regulations being introduced in 12 months' time, but I hope that he did not mean that they will then all come out in one lump. Would it not be possible for some of the rules and regulations to be introduced over a period, keeping 12 months in mind as the period in which they would all be published rather than when they would first start to appear?

      885
      Various rules and regulations based on experience and service could be made quite quickly. That method might be a little untidy, but it would add greatly to the confidence of those in the industry.
      We know from experience that the Board of Trade will be working very hard on this aspect. We have already had the splendid heading notes of regulations that will be introduced. This has been a most welcome innovation, as it was in connection with the Merchant Shipping Bill, and my right hon. Friend is heartily to be congratulated. There is nothing worse than to be a member of a Standing Committee and have to discuss a Clause stating "regulations will be made" when one has only the vaguest idea what the regulations will be. Provision of headings indicating the nature, though not, of course, the detail of the rules was of great assistance to us.
      In both Western and Eastern Europe we have a great number of nations all with fishing fleets and a number of support vessels. This is an excellent opportunity for a degree of international co-operation and for getting all the countries together to work out some sort of timetable and agree on fixed locations where all the fishing ships of all the nations will know there will be a support vessel. This could be a most positive form of international co-operation which would go across all ideological boundaries.
      No matter what we put into legislation, into a merchant shipping or a trawling safety Bill, this will be a dangerous industry. From the nature of the element with which fishermen deal it is bound to be dangerous, but wherever possible it is our duty as a legislature to ensure that fishermen, and workers in all callings, should work in the safest and most modern conditions.
      The Bill goes as far as possible to implement that, it is very welcome, and my right hon. Friend and the Department and all concerned deserve to be congratulated.
      6.31 p.m.
      Mr. Goronwy Roberts: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like briefly to make two or three points, first, on the important question of de-icing. Further experiments have been conducted last winter in the
      886
      "Orsino". These have not yet been evaluated. I imagine that they will be looked at by a number of Departments and possibly by outside institutions. The correlation and interpretation of data, I should imagine, will be important in this connection.
      I agree, of course, with what the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, that the only possible course for safety at present is for the master to make a decision. This must be understood to be a technical decision and not in any way an aspersion on his morale. As the hon. and learned Member said, it might well prove his courage and a certain amount of sacrifice in a financial sense.
      The second group of points on which I give reassurance concerns the pace at which we shall work on these rules. They are mostly rules although there is one set of regulations. I cannot promise that the pace will be greater than I have indicated. However, on the question of looking both at having concurrent consultations about different territorial types of vessel and possibly size of vessel, certainly I can give the undertaking that so far as possible that will be done. There will be examination on the widest possible front.
      Priority will emerge when various types of regulation come out. This deals with safety. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the danger of accident which probably is higher concerning inshore fishermen than those in the middle water and deep sea fleets. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) reminded us of the role of I.M.C.O. which is now preparing a code of safety for fishermen with the I.L.O. and the F.A.O. I understand that what they are putting together comes very close to what we in this country have already done.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) made a very timely point about the safety representative. I entirely agree with the tone and spirit of what he said. It is a very important reform that we are launching. It is being done by consultation and regulation. It is well to avoid certain emotive and disturbing phrases and words in this connection. I welcome very much what my hon. Friend

      887
      said and I should like to repeat it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale spoke of a continuous review. The necessity for this is accepted. We must constantly look at these rules and regulations.
      I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their very kind references, some of which were made to me personally. I remind them that it was my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he occupied my position four years ago, who poignantly experienced for himself the hazards and dangers which beset the fishermen and came back to the Department to set his hand to the preparation of these reforms. Other Ministers, of course, have been concerned, not only those in this Government.
      I was very glad to hear the tribute paid to the hon. and learned Member for Darwen and those who worked with him in Committee on this Bill and on the far bigger, but in this respect perhaps not more important, Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill. We were fortunate to have the help of the Government and of the Opposition.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CONVEYANCING AND FEUDAL REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the debate, may I announce that I have varied my selection slightly on Clause 1. I have added to the debate that we are to have on Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, Amendment No. 2. I understand that the Opposition, if they are not satisfied with what is said during the debate, might wish to divide the House on Amendment No. 2.

New Clause

  PROVISIONS FOR CONTRACTING OUT OF SECTIONS 1 TO 6 VOID
  Any agreement or other provision, however constituted, shall be void in so far as it purports to exclude or limit the operation of any enactment contained in sections 1 to 6 of this Act.—[Mr. Buchan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6.37 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The purpose of this Clause is to prevent people from contracting out of the feudal reform provisions of the Bill. In other words, the Clause would render of no effect any contract in which, for example, a vassal bound himself not to apply to the Lands Tribunal for variation or for discharge of a feudal condition or, say, not to seek allocation of an unallocated feuduty.
  This arises from a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). He questioned whether it might prove possible—in the absence of provision to the contrary—for parties to contract out of the statutory code in this way.
  The same point was raised by the Writers to the Signet. We had previously formed the view that the provision embodied in the Clause was not strictly necessary against the background of the existing legal position concerning the contracting out of statutes. There is much discussion and controversy about this at present. There has been an increasing

  889
  tendency by Parliament to block this loophole, and I have come to the conclusion that it is useful to have such a provision.
  Mr. N. R. Wylie: What the Under-Secretary said is right. It is safer in a situation like this to put in such a provision and I advise my hon. Friends to accept it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  Clause 1

    VARIATION AND DISCHARGE OF LAND OBLIGATIONS
    Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 32, leave out '(if any)'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 2, in line 32, leave out from award' to end of line 41 and insert:
    'having regard to all the circumstances of the case'.
    and Amendment No. 3, in line 34, leave out 'substantial'.
    Mr. Wylie: Amendments Nos 1 and 3 go together in the sense that they seek to excise from the Clause references which, if they mean anything, tend to slant the emphasis against compensation.
    Although they are small Amendments, Amendment No. 3 certainly is not insignificant. Amendment No. 1 I do not press very hard, but it would be tidier if the Minister took out these words. He has taken them out of Clause 2. I cannot see any reason why the words "(if any)" should be in this part of Clause 1. If no loss is established, the Lands Tribunal will not, of course, make an award of compensation.
    Slightly more substantial than that are the words "substantial loss" in subsection (4)(i), which provides that the Lands Tribunal may make an award of
    "a sum to compensate for any substantial loss".
    We had a short discussion on this question in Committee. I suggested that "substantial" would be better deleted, because it could be established that a loss had been sustained which would not
    890
    fall within the definition of "substantial loss". It always imposes another obligation on the Tribunal to define and decide what constitutes "substantial loss".
    As some hon. Members will know, there is a fair amount of case law on the meaning of "substantial". In Falser v. Grinling, reported in 1948 Appeal cases, page 291, Viscount Simon used language which is worth quoting just to illustrate the significance of "substantial" in a statutory context of this kind. The learned Law Lord was dealing in that case with the words "substantial portion of the whole rent". It was a case arising out of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act. Viscount Simon's reference to "substantial portion" is to be found at page 316:
    "It is plain that the phrase requires a comparison with the whole rent and the whole rent means the entire contractual rent payable by the tenant in return for the occupation of the premises together with all other covenants of the landlord. 'Substantial' in this connection is not the same as 'not unsubstantial'—that is, just enough to avoid the deminitnis principle. One of the primary meanings is equivalent to considerable, solid or big."
    Although that language was used in connection with another Section in another Act, in the context of this provision the same observations apply. An applicant, to be entitled to compensation for "substantial" loss under the provisions of this paragraph, would have to establish loss which was far in excess of minimal. He would have to establish a loss which was considerable or big. On the equities of the situation, there is no justification for confining compensation to a loss which can be quantified on that scale. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and decide that "substantial" would be better out of the Clause.
    My main criticism of subsection (4), with which Amendment No. 2—which is perhaps one of the more important Amendments—is concerned—is the extent to which it can be operated, or is likely to be operated, in practice. I fully understand what the Government are getting at or are trying to achieve. They are laying down guidelines. They are saying that compensation must be related to conditions which applied at the time the condition was imposed.
    The compensation that arises under this Clause is compensation to the superior where a restrictive condition is varied or

    891
    extinguished by the Lands Tribunal on an application by the feuar. It will impose an almost impossible task on a tribunal to try to assess compensation, particularly along the lines of the criteria laid down in subsection (4)(ii).
    In Committee, we had a discussion on this matter. There were no Amendments down, because we were anxious to know exactly what the Minister had in mind. The hon. Gentleman was very frank in the views he expressed about the effect of those statutory obligations. On a number of occasions he made it clear that it would be very difficult for a superior to establish any loss at all in accordance with those criteria. He said:
    "…I am only frank in saying that I should not expect his case to be an easy one to make successfully…I have made clear that I do not think it will be easy to establish a case for compensation under Clause 1(4)(ii)".[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee; 12th March, 1970. c. 76–9.]
    6.45 p.m.
    Recognising the approach that the Government wish to make, and have made, to the question of compensation, I suggest that this goes too far. The Government are imposing guidelines which, in practice, are likely to result in the absence of any compensation at all—not because it would be inequitable to award compensation, but because the problem of discharging the onus of proof on the superior would be almost impossible of fulfilment.
    I will illustrate this with a simple example. Let us suppose a feu contract was entered into in 1850 and that one of the conditions of the feu was that the property would be used only for residential purposes. A purchase price and a feu duty were fixed on that basis. One hundred and twenty years later the successor in title to the proprietor of the feu says, "I want to use this property for commercial use". Provided that the circumstances are appropriate and the criteria laid down in Clause 1(3) are satisfied, the tribunal will grant a waiver of the condition.
    Then the question of compensation arises. It would be impossible in practice for the superior's successor in title to establish the difference in the purchase price which the absence of that condition would have resulted in in 1850 or 1870
    892
    or 1920, let alone the difference in the annual feu duty which would have been charged. The Lands Tribunal, in exercising its jurisdiction under this provision will be in a very difficult, if not in certain circumstances an altogether impossible, position.
    The effect of the Amendment would be to give the tribunal a wide jurisdiction to take all the circumstances into account and to award a sum which it considered appropriate. In other words, instead of the criteria laid down in subsection (4)(i) and (ii), it would provide that the applicant would pay such sum as
    "…the Lands Tribunal may think it just to award having regard to all the circumstances of the case".
    I do not suggest that that is necessarily the complete answer. It may be too wide.
    Mr. George Willis: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Wylie: I should have thought that it is certainly more practical from the point of view of the Lands Tribunal to have a remit of that kind than to try to assess
    "a sum to make up for any effect which the obligation produced, at the time when it was imposed, in reducing the consideration then paid or made payable for the interest in land affected by it".
    These are conditions which will be virtually impossible of fulfilment.
    If the Minister thinks that if our Amendment were effected the provision would then be too wide, I hope that he will undertake to look at the guidelines again and consider whether it is not possible to revise these provisions so as to write something into the Bill which the Lands Tribunal will be able to operate and something, above all, which interested parties will be able to establish. It is no use talking about compensation if we lay down conditions which, in effect, make it impossible for the interested party to establish loss in circumstances where some compensation ought to be awarded.
    Mr. Willis: I have been in the House a long time, but I never cease to wonder at the facility with which hon. Members opposite come to the aid and assistance of landowners, feu superiors and the rest. The Bill as it stands is plain enough, making clear that the feu superior will

    893
    receive compensation only if he suffers "substantial loss or disadvantage". That is reasonable. If the Amendments were accepted, subsection (4), so far as material, would read:
    "An order varying or discharging a land obligation under this section may direct the applicant to pay, to any person who in relation to that obligation is a benefited proprietor, such sum as the Lands Tribunal may think it just to award.…"
    I never pretend to be a lawyer, but my interpretation of those words is that almost any feu superior would be entitled to compensation, no matter how small the loss, or even if there were no loss at all.
    The words which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) proposes to insert in subsection (4) would mean that a feu superior was automatically entitled to compensation, that he would have by reason of the burdens which may be removed under the Clause a cashable asset which, if he cared to give up the burdens, he could turn into ready money at any time.
    I do not look upon the matter from that point of view. To be honest, I think that feu superiors have done very well over several centuries, never mind anything else. I do not see any of them studying the Department of Health and Social Security handbook to see what benefits they are entitled to, or going about suffering great hardship. They have enjoyed a comfortable income for a long time, and for no service whatever. Indeed, far from giving service, they have restricted the freedom of the people who occupy the land. We should have looked into this matter long ago. The idea that men should receive payment for restricting other people's liberties in respect of the land which they occupy should have been taken seriously long ago and brought to an end. As a first stage, the Bill is designed to make a start on that. I want to see the relief of these burdens carried through without all sorts of compensation to people who have enjoyed the right to draw moneys for no service at all for far too long.
    In ordinary circumstances, I should have regard the words "(if any)" as superfluous. I like to cut out unnecessary words in a Clause. But in this case they are needed—this is the importance of the words "if any"—because they make
    894
    clear that there is no automatic right to compensation. This is a good warning note to strike right at the beginning. We say to anyone interested that there may be compensation but it is not automatic. Therefore, the words "if any" should be left in.
    Amendment No. 2 would wipe out the conditions governing whether compensation is payable. For the reasons which I have already given, these words should be left in. They give guidance to the Lands Tribunal that compensation is to be awarded only in the circumstances set forth in subsection (4)(i) and (ii). The first is,
    "a sum to compensate for any substantial loss or disadvantage suffered by the proprietor".
    That is reasonable and fair enough, and one would agree; but it makes clear that that is the reason for which he may receive compensation. I find the second condition rather more difficult to understand, but I read it as simply an extension of the first.
    It seems to me, therefore, that we are here giving guidance to the Lands Tribunal, and also to the feu superior that he should not waste his own money or the time of the tribunal in bringing forward a case which does not fall within those two paragraphs. We are helping the feu superior to save his own money. I have no doubt that some feu superiors will try to obtain all they can—I have never known them not to, and I am sure that they will in this case—but least we are warning them, "It is no good wasting your money on legal fees, advocates and the rest of the boys unless the case you are fighting falls within these two conditions". We are acting fairly towards the Lands Tribunal. I have no doubt that these matters will soon be clarified and there will be some sort of codification, with decisions emerging which make fairly clear what the feu superior is entitled to and where he is entitled to it.
    Amendment No. 3 would remove the word "substantial" from paragraph (i),
    "a sum to compensate for any substantial loss or disadvantage".
    It is a reasonable word to put in. If we say just "loss or disadvantage", that means that a feu superior can be compensated for quite trifling matters. I believe in the principle of compensation, but in this case, given the circumstances, many

    895
    people having suffered hardship because of the burdens imposed by feu superiors, I do not consider that the occupiers of land should be called upon to pay trifling sums to get rid of these burdens.
    On the whole, I regard the retention of the word "substantial" as wise. I have no doubt, as I say, that the Lands Tribunal will interpret these matters and make a number of decisions to clarify how they should be dealt with, but I am satisfied to see these words remain in the Bill so that it is understood that the feu superior will be compensated only for substantial loss or disadvantage, and he will not be compensated for all sorts of fiddling things which do not matter much. I regard that as good and reasonable, and I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposes it.
    I have every confidence in the Government—in this respect at least—that they will reject these Amendments. I should be greatly disappointed if they did not. The Amendments seem to me to be a clever piece of legal chicanery to try to safeguard the feu superior to the last penny. They seemed to go further and make it almost automatic that he should receive some kind of award.
    In Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman never made it very clear whether he regarded these as cashable assets. It would have been interesting if he had told us tonight. I do not take that view. They are simply burdens that have been imposed on someone and are certainly not cashable assets. I hope that the Government will reject these Amendments and leave the Bill as it is.
    The language is very clear. It gives guidance to the Lands Tribunal about the way in which the House thinks it should deal with the problem of compensation in respect of the discharge of land obligations. That seems to be a reasonable sort of thing, to give guidance. It will also assist in saving the time of the tribunal. If the feu superiors read it carefully and in accordance with the guidance, it should help them to save money.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in inviting my hon. Friend to resist these Amendments which are
    896
    characteristic of the opposition wt have seen throughout the stages of the Bill—characteristic of a willingness to resist all radicalism in the reform of the feudal law of Scotland.
    It will be recalled that at an earlier stage it was suggested by some hon. Members opposite that the Bill did not go far enough in reforming the law. There has, nevertheless, been a consistent attempt to water down the provisions of the Bill in so far as they seek to remove the burdens of feudal obligations from Scottish land owners. If the Government were to accept the proposed Amendment to drop the words "(if any)" the clear implication would be that it would be incumbent upon the Lands Tribunal to award compensation in all cases. This would be undesirable, apart from the technical difficulties in certain cases of evaluating what sum would be equitable.
    Mr. Wylie: Surely the hon. Gentleman must know as a lawyer that what he has said is not correct. Anything which falls within the de minimis rule would not constitute an award. All that I am asking is that the ordinary rule of law applies.
    Mr. Maclennan: The ordinary rule of law may be as the hon. and learned Gentleman describes, but to a tribunal of this kind it should be made plain that no exceptional interpretation of the law is capable of being invoked. The words "(if any)" are a valuable protection which must be retained. They are not redundant. If the words were merely otiose there would be no need to excise them from the Bill.
    The third Amendment, to leave out the word "substantial", can only lead to complication for the tribunal in administering the law. It would plainly be undesirable that it should be incumbent upon the tribunal to seek to evaluate minimal losses. The requirement that it should attempt to quantify any loss is one that would be incapable of execution in certain circumstances and for that reason I oppose the Amendment.
    A more general point of principle arises from the consideration of these three Amendments. They all represent a bias towards the feudal superior which has been notable in the Opposition's handling of the Bill from the start. It

    897
    is an attitude which does not strike any note of sympathy either in this House or in Scotland, where we are delighted to see that this anachronistic law is being eroded and that there are prospects in the very near future, that it will be amended—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into a discussion of the Bill. We are discussing three Amendments.
    Mr. Maclennan: These three Amendments typify the attitude which has been prevalent throughout the whole of the first part of the Bill.
    Mr. Buchan: This has been an interesting debate. In a curious way it has dealt with subject matter which, for one reason or another, was not fully explored in Committee. For that reason I welcome your acceptance, Mr. Speaker, of the Amendment. I am in agreement with what has been said by my hon. and right hon. Friends because the point with which we are concerned is not just the tactical aspects of "(if any)" or the word "substantial", but the basic insertion of the words:
    "having regard to all the circumstances of the case."
    This, it is suggested, should be inserted in place of the two heads which we have laid down as guidelines on subsection (4).
    We did this with care, because basically we have a different approach and operate on different principles from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie). I was glad that this was raised, because it ties in with one or two points which arose on Second Reading, when I was curious about one or two phrases used in an earlier document. Clearly, by removing the guidelines here we would leave the way open, and maybe the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to do this, to the feudal obligation being seen as a cashable asset. We reject this concept.
    We say that it is possible that damage or loss may occur and that if substantial loss or damage occurs then compensation is reasonable. We have made it clear that we do not see compensation being paid merely because an opportunity for profit was lost. That is the difference between us. We do not intend to give
    898
    compensation because of the loss of potential profit. We are prepared to pay compensation where loss or damage has been incurred and this is the basic cleavage between us. I am glad that this point has been made sharply, because I tried to raise it in Committee but was unable to do so. I cannot accept Amendment No. 2, the basic Amendment. It would cut across all that we are trying to do in this important Clause.
    I want to turn to the rather more technical Amendments. I discussed this fully in Committee, where I said that it would not be sufficient to damage a rhododendron bush for it to be regarded as damage. We mean "substantial" in the sense of having substance, that is to say, that there would be an effect of some kind.
    I take the technical point made by my hon. Friends about the inclusion of the words "(if any)" and "substantial", both of which alter the tone and bias of the Clause. "Substantial" has significance. It applies to more than any cheese-paring minimal loss that might occur and therefore, despite the authority of Lord Simon on this matter, I think that the word "substantial" should be retained.
    We are perhaps being hard on the hon. and learned Gentleman in resisting the removal of the words " (if any) ". I am prepared to be generous in this respect and to accept the Amendment. I do not think that it has a great deal of significance. It would have such significance if it were associated with Amendment No. 3 concerning " substantial but by itself I am prepared to accept it.
    I therefore suggest acceptance of Amendment No. 1 and rejection of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: We are grateful that the hon. Gentleman has seen the light and is prepared to accept Amendment No. 1, despite the advice proferred to him by his right hon. and hon. Friends. They were distorting the situation and trying to over-simplify it, as they did in Committee. They are pretending that we appear to be one-sided in this matter, whereas we are seeking fair compensation for all concerned.
    There is no issue about compensation. The right hon. Gentleman was speaking

    899
    as if there should not be any compensation for variation and discharge because the feu superiors had been burdening the proprietors for many years and did not deserve any compensation. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is not that.
    The Government have accepted compensation. It is simply a matter of provisions in the Bill to give the Lands Tribunal guidelines to enable it to be as fair as possible to both sides in a transaction of this kind. We agree to leave this to the Lands Tribunal. Our concern is that the tribunal should be enabled to be as fair as possible to all concerned, and we think that the wording of the Bill could be improved to this end.
    The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke scathingly of feu superiors. I do not like the term and I hope that it will be changed. We thought that it would be changed in the Bill, but that has not been done and we have to use the ancient word " superior " for the time being. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the Church of Scotland is the owner of a great many superiorities in Scotland; in fact, I believe it is the largest owner of superiorities in Scotland. I must declare an interest as a member of that Church and a contributor to its funds so I am indirectly concerned with the financial aspects of compensation.
    There are other feu superiors who are institutions and the repositories of savings, including the small savings of many people throughout Scotland. It is therefore of concern to us that there should be fairness to both sides in these transactions. That is why we believe that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would also improve the Bill, as well as Amendment No. 1 which the Government have accepted.
    7.15 p.m.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite tried to make out that my hon. and learned Friend and I were biased in favour of feu superiors. As we both pay feuduty to superiors, we
    are in the other category. We are feuars and pay feu duty, and I have done so for many years. There is no reason why either of us should be branded by hon. Gentlemen opposite as if we were in league with the superiors when we are ourselves in the other category.
    Amendment No. 2 suggests the insertion of
    " having regard to all the circumstances of the case "
    My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that subsection (4)(ii) refers to the obligation—
    " at the time when it was imposed."
    He said that the original land obligation could have arisen in 1850. If the Lands Tribunal has to concentrate on compensation in terms of 1850 when many of the items which may have to be taken into account, such as motor-cars and petrol stations, did not at that time exist, it will be extremely hard for the tribunal to relate the compensation to modern terms. In fact, subsection (4)(ii) appears to prevent it from doing that.
    We think it much better that the Lands Tribunal should be left free to consider compensation in much wider terms. As my hon. and learned Friend said, if the Government thought the words in Amendment No. 2 were too wide, or if they thought they could improve on them, we should be happy if they introduced alternative words in another place.
    The reply which the Minister has given, although it is satisfactory in accepting Amendment No. 1, is not satisfactory in relation to the other two Amendments, and I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide on Amendment No. 2.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 2, line 32. leave out from ' award ' to end of line 41 and insert—
    'having regard to all the circumstances of the case '.—[Mr. Wylie.]
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 143.

    Division No. 119.]

    AYES

    [7.19 p. m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Botsford, Brian

    Braine, Bernard

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Astor, John

    Biffen, John

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

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

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Baker, W. IC K. (Banff)

    Body, Richard

    Carlisle, Mark

    Chichester-Clark, B.

    Hunt, John

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Clegg, Walter

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Corfield, F. V.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Royle, Anthony

    Costain, A. P.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Sharpies, Richard

    Dean, Paul

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Silvester, Frederick

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

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Eden, Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Speed, Keith

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

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Stainton, Keith

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Maginnis, John E.

    Temple, John M.

    Fry, Peter

    Marten, Neil

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

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

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Cilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Waddington, David

    Gower, Raymond

    Monro, Hector

    Walters, Dennis

    Grant, Anthony

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

    Gurden, Harold

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Neave, Airey

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hay, John

    Onslow, Cranley

    Wylie, N. R.

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pounder, Rafton

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Holland, Philip

    Pym, Francis

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Alldritt, Walter

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Murray, Albert

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Ogden, Eric

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Hamling, William

    Orme, Stanley

    Beaney, Alan

    Harper, Joseph

    Oswald, Thomas

    Bence, Cyril

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Bishop, E. S.

    Haseldine, Norman

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hooley, Frank

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Booth, Albert

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Pentland, Norman

    Boston, Terence

    Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Hynd, John

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

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

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

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

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Buchan, Norman

    Janner, sir Barnett

    Probert, Arthur

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

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Randall, Harry

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Rankin, John

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Richard, Ivor

    Coleman, Donald

    Kelley, Richard

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Sillars, J.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Silverman, Julius

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Slater, Joseph

    Dell, Edmund

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dickens, James

    McBride, Neil

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Dobson, Ray

    MacColl, James

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Driberg, Tom

    MacDermot, Niall

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Dunn, James A.

    McElhone, Frank

    Tinn, James

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McGuire, Michael

    Wallace, George

    Ellis, John

    Mackie, John

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    English, Michael

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

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

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch)

    Finch, Harold

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Ford, Ben

    Mapp, Charles

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Forrester, John

    Marks, Kenneth

    Woof, Robert

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Gardner, Tony

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Garrett, W. E.

    Millan, Bruce

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

    Golding, John

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Mr. James Hamilton.

Clause 2

  PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 1
  Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 21, leave out " (if any) ".
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take, at the same time, Government Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 and Opposition Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 32, leave out ' may allow ', which are linked.
  I am prepared to allow a Division on Amendment No. 9, if, at the end of the debate, the Opposition claim one.
  Mr. Buchan: The quickest way for me to proceed is to let the House hear how this Section would read if the Government Amendments were accepted:
  "(1) On an application under section 1 of this Act, the Lands Tribunal shall give such notice thereof, whether by way of advertisement or otherwise, as may be prescribed, to the persons who, in relation to the obligation which is the subject of the application, appear to them to be either benefited or burdened proprietors and to such other persons as the Tribunal may think fit.
  " (2) In an application to the Lands Tribunal under Section 1 of this Act, any person who, in relation to the obligation which is the subject of the application, is either a burdened or a benefited proprietor, shall be entitled, within such time as may be prescribed, to oppose or make representations in relation to the application, and the Tribunal shall allow any such person, and may allow any other person who appears to them to be affected by the obligation or by its proposed variation for discharge to be heard in relation to the application."
  The purpose of the Amendment is to meet the criticisms made in Committee about our procedural provisions in the Clause. These criticisms were embodied in a number of Amendments and related essentially to the discretion which had been given in the original draft to the Lands Tribunal—first, in matters of notification under subsection (1) and second, in the matter of those who were to be heard.
  We have made the following alterations. First, the kind of notice which will be given under subsection (1) will now be prescribed in rules made by the Secretary of State. This will give the necessary flexibility—for instance, written notice, where this is practicable, and advertisement in cases where it is not.
  904
  Second, the very wide discretion given to the Lands Tribunal under subsection (1) is curtailed by the omission of the words " if any" in lines 21 and 25. Third, under subsection (2), the tribunal must now give a hearing to burdened and benefited proprietors, but we are still leaving it with a discretion in regard to other people.
  I expect that it is on that final point that the main disagreement may take place. Having gone 95 per cent. of the way, if not more, to meet the points made on both sides of the Committee about how far it should be made known and about the people who should be heard, I cannot accept the Opposition Amendment which would make the same kind of compulsory hearing for those who were affected rather than burdened or other proprietors.
  The Amendment would remove the tribunal's discretion in relation to those who were other than directly concerned and would give a compulsory hearing to those people. The tribunal would have to estimate who were those affected by the obligation, and this would be a very ill-defined and wide class. In other words, the retention of this discretion seems to be essential. It might make matters difficult if the tribunal had to decide too closely who were those affected.
  This, again, is, I think, as far as any hon. Member in Committee expected us to go. It makes it completely cast-iron as regards those who are properly affected and gives discretion to the tribunal to hear those who may remotely be affected. This seems to be right.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Wylie: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has gone a good long way towards meeting our point, thought I do not think that he has gone 95 per cent. of the way. But there is no doubt that the Clause is improved as a result.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the only difference between us is whether the right to be heard in connection with this application should be confined to those who are most affected—the burdened or the benefited proprietor—or whether anyone who appears to the tribunal to have an interest equally should have the right to be heard. I take the hon. Gentleman's

  905
  point about where to draw the line between who has and who has not a right to be heard. However, there is a safeguard in the provisions. Even under our Amendment, not everyone in the world is entitled to be heard, but only anyone who appears to the tribunal to be affected.
  The Minister dealt with this matter neatly by reading the Clause incorporating the Government's Amendments. With Government Amendment No. 8, the effect of Amendment No. 9 would be to make subsection (2) read:
  "…within such time as may be prescribed, to oppose or make representations in relation to the application, and the Tribunal shall allow any such person and any other person who appears to them to be affected by the obligation … to be heard…."
  The hon. Gentleman said a lot in Committee about informality, about this being a social matter and a public relations exercise, and so on. In a way, it might be said to be closely analogous to town and country planning in that there may be many cases in which both authorities have to approve of the change being invoked. Not only will the Lands Tribunal have to give its authority to the extinction of an existing obligation, but town and country planning consent may be involved, too. This is analogous to planning considerations in many ways. In planning matters, anyone who has an interest has a right to be heard.
  Even incorporating Amendment No. 9, the Clause would still leave it within the discretion of the Lands Tribunal to decide who was to appear. The interested
  party would have to satisfy the criterion of appearing to the tribunal to be affected. If anyone can establish that he is affected by the obligation or its proposed variation or discharge, it seems logical that he should have the right to be heard and that the tribunal should be obliged to afford him the same right as the burdened or benefited proprietor who, the Minister now recognises, should have a statutory right to be heard.
  That is the only difference between us. It seems to be material, since it would improve the operation of this whole procedure if interested parties were given a statutory right to be heard. It should not be entirely at the discretion of the Lands Tribunal.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 5, in line 22, leave out to such of ' and insert:
  `as may be prescribed, to '.
  No. 6, in line 25, leave out ' (if any) '.
  No. 8, in line 32, after Tribunal ', insert:
  'shall allow any such person, and '.—[Mr. Buchan.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 9, in line line 32, leave out may allow '.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 145.

  Division No. 120.]

  AYES

  [7.36 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

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

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Astor, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

  Grant, Anthony

  Monro, Hector

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Batsford, Brian

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Bitten, John

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Neave, Airey

  Body, Richard

  Hay, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Braine, Bernard

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray A Nairn)

  Holland, Philip

  Pounder, Rafton

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pym, Francis

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hunt, John

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Clegg, Waiter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Corfield, F. V.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dean, Paul

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sharpies, Richard

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

  Kitson, Timothy

  Silvester, Frederick

  Eden, Sir John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

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

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Speed, Keith

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stainton, Keith

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maddan, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Fry, Peter

  Maginnis, John E.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Gillmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Waddington, David

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Walters, Dennis

  Worsley, Marcus

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  NOES

  Alidritt, Waiter

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Murray, Albert

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetiaw)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Ogden, Eric

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Hamilton, William(Fife, W.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Hamling, William

  Oswald, Thomas

  Barnett, Joel

  Harper, Joseph

  Palmer, Arthur

  Beaney, Alan

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Bence, Cyril

  Haseldine, Norman

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hooley, Frank

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Bishop, E. S.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Blackburn, F.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Booth, Albert

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Boston, Terence

  Hynd, John

  Pries, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Brooks, Edwin

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

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Beiper)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Jeger, Ceorge (Goole)

  Randall, Harry

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rankin, John

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Richard, Ivor

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Roebuck, Roy

  Coe, Denis

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Coleman, Donald

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sillars, J.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silverman, Julius

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Delargy, H. J.

  McBride, Neil

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dell, Edmund

  MacColl, James

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dickens, James

  MacDermot, Niall

  Tinn, James

  Dobson, Ray

  McElhone, Frank

  Wallace, George

  Driberg, Tom

  McGuire, Michael

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Dunn, James A.

  Mackie, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ellis, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Marion, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Finch, Harold

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mapp, Charles

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Ford, Ben

  Marks, Kenneth

  Woof, Robert

  Forrester, John

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gardner, Tony

  Millan, Bruce

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

  Garrett, W. E.

  Morgan, Eiystan (Cardiganshire)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Golding, John

  Morris, Alfred (Wytrtenshawe)

  Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 38, leave out ' which has taken effect '.
  This is a short drafting Amendment. The matter was raised in Committee, and the Minister said that he would look into it.
  It seems that the recording is the governing factor and that these words are not strictly necessary. Where a personal obligation has been constituted it is binding on the parties. The Clause seeks to make a provision whereby it is binding on all persons having an interest, and that can arise only where it is duly recorded.
  It is not a matter on which we would go to the barricades. It is merely a question whether the words are necessary.
  Mr. Buchan: I am glad to hear that we shall not be going to the barricades on the Amendment. We made heavy weather of this point in Committee, so I will try to be succinct.
  There is a difference between " duly recorded " and " which has taken effect ". The position is that there may be some kind of obligation imposed by the tribunal as a result of the making of the order. For example, the order of the tribunal might require the successful applicant to pay a sum as compensation —the point that we have already been discussing. The intention is that the order should not take effect until the compensation has been paid. But it could have been recorded. So we have the position

  909
  of a recording having taken place but the order not having been carried out and not taking effect.
  I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman sees the point. In order to get the run of the thing properly, we require the words,
  " Where an order made under Section 1… which has taken effect is duly recorded ".
  That is as succinct as I can put the explanation. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept it.
  Mr. Wylie: That is not an explanation which I should have thought up. However, it is interesting and entirely satisfactory to me. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 26, leave out subsection (7).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment it is suggested that we take Government Amendments Nos. 12, 25, 61, 63, 64 and 75.
  Mr. Wylie: This is a drafting Amendment. The statutory provision referred to is being superseded by the provisions of the Bill. It figures appropriately in the repeal Schedule. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to have subsection (7). It is somewhat analogous to Clause 7(4), which the Government, in Amendment No. 25, seek to delete. On this occasion they are determined not only to keep subsection (7) in, but to amend it as well. As it is not necessary, I should think that subsection (7) could leave the Bill altogether.
  Mr. Buchan: We are asking the House to reject the Amendment. It is true that on this occasion we are also amending the subsection.
  I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with the other Amendments that we have put down, which are grouped together. We are both after the same thing. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was seeking the same point when he asked to delete subsection (7).
  910
  The argument that arose in Committee —I accepted some of the criticisms made —was that it was not necessary to repeal enactments in the body of the Bill, and also in the repeal Schedule. But I believe that there is still a case for doing this for the sheer convenience of people using the Bill. I have accepted the point, but also simplified it.
  There is a special point to be made about subsection (7). The provisions of Section 189 of the Housing (Scotland) Act are not conterminous with the provisions of this Clause, because the Clause refers to the relationship between a landowner and a feuar, a proprietor and a superior. But a third element enters into this section of the Act, the local authorities. It is therefore not an inevitable consequence of the Bill that that section should be repealed. This is the difference from the other repeals in the Bill but we are including this because the provision has proved un-necessary. Even the local authority aspect is never used and therefore we are deleting it.
  However, as this is a special case, we thought that it would be useful to say something about it. We are saying that it is a form of repeal, declaring that it shall no longer have effect, and putting the substance back into the body of the Bill. I think that this will be convenient, because it is in a different category from the other repeals.
  I hope that with that explanation the hon. and learned Gentleman will not only withdraw his Amendment, but accept ours.
  Mr. Wylie: I accept the Government Amendment, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman, but I am not repentant about putting down my Amendment. I still do not see the need for the subsection, but, as the hon. Gentleman assures me that people like to see these things in the body of the Bill—and as the hon. Gentleman says this is not directly related to the Bill, but to an oblique effect of the beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 12 in page 4, line 28, leave out ' is hereby repealed and insert
  ' shall cease to have effect '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  Clause 3

    ALLOCATION OF FEUDUTIES
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 32, leave out ' a ' and insert ' any '.
    This is a minor drafting Amendment, the purpose of which is to bring subsection (1) into line with Clause 1(1). In Committee we accepted an Opposition Amendment to change the reference from " a land obligation " to " any land obligation ". That is what we are doing here. This has the additional advantage that it makes it clear that if allocation is effected of one portion of the cumulo feuduty, what is left becomes a cumulo feuduty, and the portions of this " rump " can he the subject of further notices of allocation. This is, therefore, consistent with the Bill, and valuable in itself.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 5, line 4, after ' superior ', insert
    ' or upon any other person to whom the cumulo feuduty is paid on his behalf '.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 4, after ' superior ', insert ' or his agent '.
    Mr. Buchan: The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that a notice of allocation need not be served on the superior personally, and that it will be lawful to serve it on a person acting on his behalf, for example, a factor or other agent, such as a solicitor. I understand that that is also the purpose of the Opposition Amendment.
    The Amendment arises from a discussion in Committee. We have not followed the Opposition Amendment because we think that " agent " might be misunderstood. There could be a situation with a cumulo feuduty in which the individual feuar paid to the person whom we called upstairs the unpaid debt collector. He might think that he had paid the agent of the superior. We have chosen these words to make it clear to all concerned that the alternative to the superior as the person to be approached is the person to whom the whole cumulo feuduty is paid on the superior's behalf; namely, a solicitor or a factor.
    912
    I think that both sides of the House are trying to obtain the same thing. For the reasons which I have given I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that our Amendment is probably more appropriate.
    Mr. Wylie: I think that Amendment No. 15 was put down without taking notice of Amendment No. 14. It was really a probing Amendment. I am not sure that it is technically necessary to put in a provision like this, but if someone pays over a debt to someone else, for instance a body corporate, the only way it can be done is by paying it to an officer of the company. I think that an obligation to serve upon a superior could be fulfilled by serving on anyone acting with the superior's authority as his agent, and it sometimes makes it clearer. I think that Amendment No. 14 does that, and it should commend itself to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 8, after shall ' insert
    ' be in, or as nearly as may be in, such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, and shall '.
    I gave notice to the Committee of my intention to do this. What we are doing is prescribing by Statutory Instrument a form of notice of allocation to be served by the vassal on his superior. In Committee I stressed that I had been working to achieve informality to make it as easy as possible for the unpaid debt collector to escape from his unpleasant duty. It may be thought that introducing a form will of itself reduce this informality, but I do not think this will be the case.
    The Amendment will make it easier for the individual vassal, the co-feuar, to fill in a form, which will be a simple one, rather than write a letter of the kind that is necessary. We want this form to be as widely available to the public as possible. We hope that a second benefit will he to encourage all vassals, and not merely the unpaid debt collector, to exercise their rights to seek allocation.
    I am following up an undertaking which I gave in Committee to make it as easy as possible for other vassals to have it made known to them that this is being done. The form will contain a statement urging the person filling it in to tell his

    913
    co-vassals what he is doing. This will deal with a real problem which was raised in Committee, and I hope that the Amendment will prove acceptable to the House.
    Mr. Wylie: In Committee we had a long debate on the problems arising under these provisions. There is no doubt that to meet the infinite variety of circumstances which may arise it is better to deal with the matter with a degree of flexibility rather than try to write this into the Bill, which is what my hon. Friends and I were seeking to do.
    I am sure that everyone with an interest in the matter knows what is going on and it is desirable that there should be some standardisation in the process. The Amendment is calculated to achieve that, and I think that it should commend itself to the House.
    Mr. Willis: I thank the Government for bringing forward the Amendment. I am not as happy with it as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie) is, but it is an endeavour by the Government to meet a point raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. Insofar as it does that, it is an improvement.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 4

    APPLICATIONS TO LANDS TRIBUNAL REGARDING ALLOCATIONS OF FEUDUTIES
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 38, leave out ' to such of ' and insert:
    ' as may be prescribed, to '.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20, and 21.
    Mr. Buchan: It might be useful if I were to adopt the same technique as was adopted before and read out subsection (2) of Clause 4 as it would read if the Amendments were accepted:
    " On any application to the Lands Tribunal under this section, the Tribunal shall give such notice thereof, whether by way of advertisement or otherwise, as may be prescribed, to the persons who appear to them to be
    914
    proprietors of parts of the feu in respect: of which the cumulo feuduty is exigible, and to such other persons as the Tribunal may think fit; and the Tribunal shall allow the superior of the feu and any such proprietor, and may allow any other person who appears to them to have an interest in the application, to be heard in relation thereto."
    The purpose of the Amendments is to deal with the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), and, more generally, to bring subsection (2) of Clause 4 into line with subsection (2) of Clause 2. We have come 95 per cent. of the way towards meeting the needs of both sides of the Committee. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. Wylie: The Minister has come a. very long way to meeting us. The Amendments improve the subsection considerably. The only difference between us is about whether any person with an interest in the application should be entitled to be heard. If our Amendment No. 21 were accepted, the provision would read.
    " and the Tribunal shall allow the superior, any such proprietor, and any other person who appears to them to have an interest in the application, to be heard ".
    It would bring in the third party with a statutory right to be heard.
    I would not advise my hon. Friends to press our Amendment to a division if the Government were not prepared to accept it, but in a sense it is stronger than the Government's proposals. When one is dealing with cumulo feudities, the position of a heritable creditor is important because his security is affected. I do not think that there was an Amendment in Committee which dealt with the heritable creditor's position, but he was referred to in Committee. In view of the general argument, I should have thought that in his interest there was a strong case for altering the wording of the subsection along the lines proposed in our Amendment No. 21.
    Mr. Buchan: The proprietors of the feu are basically the people with whom we are concerned. The main body of people with which we were concerned in Committee are to be included. I agree that the heritable creditor is left on one side, although the tribunal will no doubt pay attention to his position. The main body of people affected have been

    915
    brought in mandatorily, which is precisely what the Committee and I sought to do.
    Mr. Wylie: As I say, the hon. Gentleman has gone a long way towards meeting us, for which I am grateful. We should, however, have liked him to go a bit further.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 18, page 5, line 39, leave out to be proprietors ' and insert:
    'to them to he proprietors of parts '.
    No. 19, page 5, line 40, leave out ' (if any) '.
    No. 20, page 5, line 41, leave out may allow any such person, and ' and insert:
    shall allow the superior of the feu and any such proprietor, and may allow '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  Clause 5

    PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 3 AND 4
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 21, leave out
    ' section 4 of this Act and of '.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can also discuss Amendment No. 23.
    Mr. Buchan: This is an attempt to simplify the drafting of Clause 5. We have re-examined the Clause since the Committee stage and have come to the conclusion that the words which by Amendment No. 22 we seek to leave out are not necessary.
    We think that lines 38 and 39 can also be deleted because the cumulo feuduty is, in any event, defined in Clause 3(2). My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) urged us to put English in the Bill and to make it as uncomplicated as possible. I hope that the Amendment goes some way towards meeting his request.
    Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting a little bit of advice and for deciding to leave out lines 38 and 39. The Government have approached a number of points in a very objective manner, and I hope that the Opposition note that. It shows that we are not bound by dogma, which is to the Government's credit.
    Mr. Wylie: I assure the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that we have observed the Government's attitude. I hope that he will agree that we have been very responsible about this Bill and other Bills. I trust that the Under-Secretary of State will remember our conduct when he is shortly in opposition.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 23, page 6, leave out lines 38 and 39.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  Clause 7

    REDUCTION OF PERIOD OF POSSESSION NECESSARY FOR PRESCRIPTION FOL LOWING ON TITLE AND POSSESSION FROM 20 YEARS TO 10 YEARS
    Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
    (2) The provisions of this section shall apply only to actions commenced after the expiry of two years from the commencement of this Act.
    This Amendment seeks to simplify subsection (2), which seemed to be very elaborate. The point was raised in Committee, and the Minister said that he would consider it. Perhaps he will tell us why he must insist on his version and what is wrong with our two-line alternative.
    Mr. Buchan: I have considered this point very seriously, and I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) will not think that I am deserting objectivity when I say that we adhere to the view that the negative provision, clumsy as it is, is right.
    The Clause reduces the period of prescription to 10 years, and the purpose of subsection (2) is to give persons against whom prescription is running an opportunity to assert their rights under the old law before the new reduced period becomes operative, otherwise they might find themselves deprived of legal redress overnight.
    The point about subsection (7)(1) is that it reduces the period of positive prescription for all purposes. The Amendment would, in terms, have the effect of weakening or restricting the subsection by

    917
    making it apply only to actions taken after the specified date. We are concerned not only that these provisions should be stated to apply at the stage of litigation, but should become part of the general law of the land. They are to apply in every respect as from the commencement of the Act apart from the specific exemption in Clause 7(2). This is why we feel it is necessary to couch that aspect in this negative form.
    Accordingly, we have drafted a specific exclusion, which is precedented. Not only that it seems to be right that to subsume within general legislation that the exclusion should be expressed in this negative form. It should also be said that the Amendment would make difficulties because it does not fit in with subsection (3).
    Mr. Wylie: The provisions of subsection (1) are in statutory form. They lay down provisions of general application, presumably. I do not quite follow why Amendment No. 24 impinges on the essential statutory provision. However this is not a matter on which we want to have a long discussion. I have no doubt the Minister has taken expert advice and accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 25, in page 7, line 29, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Buchan.]

  Clause 8

    THE STANDARD SECURITY
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 8, line 12, after ' used ', insert
    ', or if used as is required by this Act'.
    The effect of this Amendment is to make it clear that a standard security used as required by the Bill is a " heritable security " for the purpose of any enactment affecting heritable securities.
    The need for this provision is due to the fact that in a number of Acts there are incidental references to " heritable securities ". The obvious example is the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 where it says that there is provision in certain circumstances for the payment by a local
    918
    planning authority of compensation to a creditor in a heritable security. The Act provides that " heritable security " has the same meaning as in the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924.
    A standard security is not, any longer under the Bill, a heritable security as defined under the 1924 Act so that heritable creditors under a standard security would not be covered by the provisions of the Countryside Act. This is the reason why we have laid it out in this way.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in line 40, leave out first ' to' and insert ' which will or may '.
    This is a drafting Amendment made in consultation with the Law Society to clarify the point that the definition of " debt " in Clause 8(8)(c) means
    " any obligation due or which will or may become due to repay or pay money."
    The new formula deals with the type of situation where a heritable security is granted to secure a contingent obligation, the kind of case where, in the event of the non-performance of a contract, a financial penalty is prescribed and the amount of that penalty is secured by a standard security.
    The trouble is that it may be that the debt, that is, the amount of the penalty, will never become due because the contract may be performed. In other words, we have to cover this kind of case explicitly. The Amendment originates from a comment by the Law Society of Scotland and has been endorsed by Professor Halliday.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 10

    EFFECT OF RECORDED STANDARD SECURITY, AND INCORPORATION OF STANDARD CONDITIONS.
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 10, line 37, after any,', insert ' purported '.
    This is a drafting Amendment. As at present worded, Clause 10(4)(b) refers to any variation of a standard condition, but strictly speaking, we cannot have any

    919
    alteration of a non-variable condition because it would not be a true variation. It can only be a purported variation.
    The Amendment spells this out. Again, this was a point brought forward by the Scottish Law Commission.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 12

    RANKING OF STANDARD SECURITIES
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 11, line 21, leave out ` so recorded '.
    It would also be convenient if we took, with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 30, 32, 38 and 39.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well.
    Mr. Buchan: The purpose of these Amendments is to extend the provisions of Clause 12 to cover the preference in ranking of a creditor in a standard security, not only where a second security over the same property is notified to him, but also where the property is subsequently assigned or conveyed to a third party.
    At present, it provides that where a creditor receives notification of the grant of a second security his preference in ranking is restricted, broadly speaking, first, to security for his present advances and, secondly, to any interest either at present or in the future payable on these, and thirdly to any expenses and outlays. If we were to limit this Clause it would be far too restrictive. It should be exactly the same preference where the property is assigned or conveyed to a third party.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 30, in page 11, line 22, after ' thereof,', insert
    ' or of the subsequent assignation or conveyance of that interest in whole or in part, being a security, assignation or conveyance so recorded.'.—[Mr. Buchan.]
    Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 11, line 22, leave out ' that and insert ' the prior '.
    This is purely a drafting Amendment. Clause 12(1) has become very complicated as a result of the Amendments we have been considering. They were necessary, but it is rather difficult to follow now. It begins with the words:
    920
    " Where the creditor in a standard security duly recorded has received notice of the creation of a subsequent security…"
    Then we go on to deal with the Amendments which cover a few lines and come to
    " the preference in ranking of the security of that creditor ".
    That is clearly a reference to the creditor to whom reference is made in the opening line, but it seems that it would read more easily if there were a reference to the prior creditor in relation to the subsequent creditor. Everyone would know exactly what we were talking about. I do not suggest that it is essential and it may be a matter of opinion whether it is an improvement.
    Mr. Buchan: I would like to help the hon. and learned Gentleman. I recognise that these Amendments have made this awkward. More difficult, however, is the fact that they probably make this Amendment inappropriate. The whole purpose of the previous Amendment was to broaden Clause 12 to apply to the notification not only of the second security, but to the subsequent assignation or conveyance of the security.
    In the latter type of case there would be no second creditor. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to refer to a prior creditor. I understand the point which the hon. and learned Member makes, but the Amendment has become inappropriate—although I recognise his reasons for having put it on the Notice Paper. I hope that he will withdraw it.
    Mr. Wylie: I think that what the Minister said is right. The effect of one Government Amendment is to involve assignations and that introduces complication. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 32, in page 11, line 23, leave out from beginning of line to ' shall '.—[Mr. Buchan.]
    Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 11, line 24, leave out ' his present '.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment we shall consider Amendment No. 34, in page 11, line 24, after first ' advances ', insert:
    ' already made when the notice was received, or up to the limit of such advances when

    921
    the security is in respect of a fluctuating loan and repayments with consequent advances are made after receipt of the notice '.
    Mr. Wylie: These two Amendments taken together seek to specify in more precise terms what is intended. The use of the words " his present advances " has evoked some criticism in certain quarters, although I do not know whether the W.S. Society was involved in them. Observations were made on the use of that rather loose language. To some extent the Amendments attempt to make clear what is intended by using the words
    " advances already made when the notice was received … "
    An Amendment along those lines was considered in Committee.
    Amendment No. 34 deals with another matter which has since been drawn to my attention. It is self-explanatory. It relates to a situation in which the security is in respect of a loan when a repayment of that loan is made subsequent to the later notification. In that situation the security would cover only the balance of the loan outstanding. If any further advance on loan were made following the repayment, that would not be covered by a prior security.
    The terms of Amendment No. 34 spell out the point, but we are not expert draftsmen and the Amendment may have technical weaknesses. That is the situation which the second part of Amendment No. 34 seeks to meet on a point which has been brought to my attention since the Committee stage.
    Mr. Buchan: This is a difficult point. The principle of the Clause is correct—that a first creditor's preference should be restricted to his present advances. That is necessary for the protection, for example, of a second creditor and thereby to ensure that alternative credit facilities are available to all borrowers. The only case in which an exception could possibly be considered is that of continuing accounts run mainly, if not exclusively, by banks.
    The Amendment is too wide for this limited exception because it would cover not only the operation of a current account but also a genuine second loan by the first creditor where the initial debt has been reduced by repayment. It would be a very difficult Amendment to draft narrowly unless we made a special excep-
    922
    tion in favour of banks, which would be unacceptable for other reasons. After all, it is undesirable to distinguish between creditors in this field.
    In any case, we do not think that a special exception for continuing bank accounts is justified. Under the Bill it will be necessary for the first lender—in this case the bank—to obtain the agreement of the second lender to the continued operation of a current account, but we think that that is right. It would not be right for the bank alone to dictate what should happen to the current account. The customer's wishes and the rights of the second lender must also he considered. That is why we feel that the Amendment should be resisted.
    Clause 12(3)(b) provides for the parties to regulate these matters themselves. It states that nothing in the Clause shall affect
    " any powers of the creditor and debtor in any heritable security to regulate the preference to be enjoyed by creditors in such manner as they may think fit."
    If the banks, the borrower and the second lender are agreeable, there is nothing to prevent the continued operation of the account, but we do not think that the account should continue to be operable as a matter of course.
    I hope that following that explanation, the hon. and learned Member will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Wylie: I do not see how the second creditor is being prejudiced. In the situation envisaged in the Amendment there is a present or an outstanding advance in existence at the date of the reception of the notice of the subsequent security. That means that apart from the special case with which the Clause later deals—future advances which he may be required to make under the contract—the preferable position of the first creditor is limited to the amount which is outstanding or which he has advanced at the date on which he receives notice of the subsequent security.
    The Amendment seeks to deal with the situation in which there is a fluctuating account when the borrower may repay part of the indebtedness. The debt is therefore reduced by that amount and the extent of the prior security is limited to that amount. To that extent the subsequent creditor is deriving an advantage. But the Amendment seeks to make

    923
    it possible in those circumstances for the prior creditor to lend back up to the limit of the loan which was outstanding the day he received the notice of the subsequent security—but no further. I do not think that the second creditor would be prejudiced. It would mean merely that his position would not be improved to the extent of the repayment subsequent to the creation of the subsequent security.
    I admit that this matter has not been pressed by the societies who have given advice and assistance on the Bill, but I wonder whether the Minister would like to consider it when the Bill reaches another place. It has been raised with me and it seems that there is argument in favour of it.
    Mr. Buchan: I will look at the matter again, but there is the difficulty about the amount which has been reduced from the initial permissible borrowing level. The argument is: why should the second creditor be put in an anxious position because the loan is not frozen at that level? For example, the loan may have been up to £1,000 and then reduced to £500, at which point a second creditor emerges. The argument is: why not continue to borrow on the first security up to £1,000?
    Mr. Wylie: Back up to £1,000.
    Mr. Buchan: It affects the second creditor. The loan was given at a time when the debt had been reduced to £500.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Wylie: No. I cannot have made myself clear. I envisage a situation in which an advance has been made by a creditor and he has security over that advance. Along comes a second loan and a second creditor and a notice is made intimating the existence of a second security. The Clause says, " Right. In that situation, the first creditor's prior security will be limited not to the extent of the loan which he might have made, but only to the extent of the loan he has in fact made." He has made an advance of, say, £1,000 although the obligation was up to £1,500, but at the time of the second security he had advanced only £1,000.
    There is a special situation, with which the Clause goes on to deal, where there
    924
    is an obligation under the contract to make further advances, and those further advances are covered by the provisions of subsection (1). In the ordinary situation which I envisage, however, the actual loan—his present advance—was limited to £1,000 and the prior security is restricted to that amount.
    What, then, about the situation where the lender repays £500 of that? The prior security then is effective only over £500, and to that extent the second creditor is deriving an advantage. What is suggested in the Amendment is that in that situation it should be possible for the lender, on a fluctuating account, to re-advance or make a further advance following the repayment in certain circumstances, where appropriate, up to but no further than the £1,000 which was the actual amount secured by the prior security at the date the second security was intimated.
    That is the point, although probably I have not expressed it clearly.
    Mr. Buchan: I understood the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and I do not think that we are talking about different things. I still think that I was right in what I said in my second intervention. Nothing that the hon. and learned Gentleman has added has altered that view.
    However, I was about to say that I will look at it. We may exchange letters on this. Clearly, this is not a matter which we can sort out backwards and forwards across the Dispatch Box in a full and crowded House. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks leave to withdraw his Amendment, we will see whether there is merit in it as it stands or whether further consideration should be given to it before the Bill goes to another place.
    Mr. Wylie: I am obliged. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 11, line 28, after outlays ', insert ' (including interest thereon) '.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take also Amendment

    925
    No. 36, in page 11, line 28, after ` outlays ', insert:
    ' including interest on such expenses and outlays '.
    Mr. Buchan: Once or twice earlier when we were not engaged in political knockabout, we became technically objective. We have come to the same kind of Amendment.
    I think that the Government Amendment No. 35 is rather neater. It uses three words, whereas the Opposition Amendment, No. 36, uses six. Otherwise, there is not very much to choose between them, as I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept. Secondly, our Amendment is more consistent with other elements in the Bill. For example, the hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee drew attention to a similar reference in standard condition 7(3):
    " All expenses and charges (including any interest thereon)".
    Our Amendment is more consistently in line with that.
    Mr. Wylie: I think that the Minister is right. We discussed this question in Committee. The only reason why I put down the words
    " including interest in such expenses and outlays"
    was that I wondered whether the Government Amendment would include interest on expenses. It would make the clause read:
    " and for any expenses for outlays (including interest thereon)".
    On what? There is a disjunctive between " expenses " and " outlays ".
    I assume that what the hon. Gentleman intends to do is to provide interest on expenses as well as on outlays. When I was drafting my Amendment I assumed that it would probably be desirable specifically to cover interest on both expenses and outlays in this way in view of the effect of the disjunctive.
    Standard condition 7(3) is rather different:
    " All expenses and charges (including any interest thereon)".
    It is rather different where one has the conjunctive. " Interest " clearly governs both, but I wonder whether " interest thereon " would be construed as confined to outlays and not expenses or outlays.
    926
    That is the only difference between the two Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 11, line 30, leave out first ' the ' and insert ' any '.
    Again, this is simply a drafting Amendment. The purpose is to make it clear that the expression
    " the deed expressing the security"
    means any deed for that purpose. Both the Society of Writers to the Signet and the Building Societies Association drew attention to the fact that the provisions about the exercise of a creditor's powers might be included in a building society's rules. We therefore drafted the Bill with that in mind, but I think that the substitution of " any " makes it a little clearer.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman moved a similar Amendment in Committee, but withdrew it following discussion. In the event, as we believed that this formula was the most satisfactory way to deal with the point, we used it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 38, in page 11, line 33, leave out from ` have ' to ' in ' in line 36 and insert:
    ' had any notice referred to in that subsection, by reason only of the subsequent recording of the relevant deed '.
    No. 39, in page 11, line 37, leave out from ' any ' to ' shall ' in line 39 and insert:
    'assignation, conveyance or vesting in favour of or in any other person of the interest of the debtor in the security subjects or in any part thereof resulting from any judicial decree, or otherwise by operation of law,'.—[Mr. Buchan.],

  Clause 15

    VARIATION OF STANDARD SECURITY
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 13, line 13, after ' by ', insert ' a variation contained in '.
    I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that with this Amendment we might also take Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if the House agrees.
    Mr. Buchan: These Amendments tighten the drafting. The Clause deals with variations in the provisions of a standard security after it has been recorded. Changes in the terms of a recorded security may be made either by deed which is recorded in the register or in a deed which need not be recorded. As the Clause is at present drafted, our worry was that it suggested that we were looking for a distinction in the terminology between the two methods of effecting change, but that is not so.
    The point arises because the word " variation " appears to be used as meaning a change made by deed which goes in the record, while " operation " is used to mean a change made by deed which is not required to go on the record. We did not mean any such thing, so we are amending the Clause accordingly to make the matter absolutely clear.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 41, in page 13, line 14, leave out ' an alteration ' and insert ' a variation '.
    No. 42, in line 15, leave out ' as a variation '.
    No. 43, in line 25, leave out ' alteration ' and insert ' variation '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  Clause 18

    CALLING-UP OF STANDARD SECURITY
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 15, line 30, after ' adjustment ', insert ' in amount '.
    I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the House would also take Amendments Nos. 45, 72 and 73.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if the House agrees.
    Mr. Buchan: The purpose of these Amendments is to clarify the degree of flexibility allowed to a creditor when he serves a calling-up notice under the provisions of the Bill. Subsection (9) allows him to serve on the basis of the amount due from the debtor is subject to adjustment.
    Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 amend the terms of subsection (9) itself to clarify the fact that interest is to be included
    928
    in the statement of the amount finally determined as being due. As the subsection is at present drafted, the word " sum " in line 32 might by some be thought to apply only to the principal sum. We have tabled the Amendments on advice coming from expert bodies which have been considering the Bill, and I think that they are right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 45, in page 15, line 32, leave out ' that sum ' and insert ' the amount '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  Clause 19

    EXERCISE OF RIGHTS OF CREDITOR ON DEFAULT OF DEBTOR IN COMPLYING WITH A CALLING-UP NOTICE
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 16, line 41, leave out from ' the ' to ' reasonably ' and insert
    'effecting of any reconstruction, alteration or improvement '.
    Perhaps it would be convenient, with this Amendment, to take Amendment No. 47.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if the House agrees.
    Mr. Buchan: Amendment No. 46, is, again, a drafting Amendment aimed to bring the Clause in line, in this case, with standard condition 10(6). It deletes the words
    " … making of any alterations or improvements …".
    This is a point that was first raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman and he, too, has put down an Amendment to deal with it. The same point was picked up by the Society of Writers to the Signet. The trouble is that in Committee it was found that the word " reconstruction " had been put in the wrong place. We therefore agreed to table an Amendment. The wording is also quite consistent with standard condition 10(6).
    Mr. Wylie: I do not think there is much to choose between Amendment No. 46 and Amendment No. 47. There are fewer words in the Amendment in my name, but perhaps a little explanation is not a bad thing.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 26

    APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS OF SALE
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 19, line 8, leave out from subjects ' to shall ' in line 12.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss the following Amendments: Nos. 49, 50, and 52.
    Mr. Buchan: These are drafting Amendments to clarify the position of prior security holders in relation to the application of the proceeds of a sale which has taken place as a result of enforcement proceedings by a creditor in a standard security.
    The principle of this Clause remains unaltered, namely, that the sale of the property may or may not be made subject to the prior security. In other words, if the parties prefer, the purchaser can take the property subject to the prior security. Where the prior security is, however, to be discharged in connection with the sale, the new drafting makes clearer the arrangements which are to apply. This Amendment deletes the rather too generalised references to prior securities in lines 8 to 12 and Amendment No. 49 substitutes a new head (b) in the order of priority in applying the proceeds of the sale.
    This is a drafting Amendment and has other merits. I hope that it will receive support.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 49, in page 19, line 16, at end insert:
    (b) secondly, in payment of the whole amount due under any prior security to which the sale is not made subject;.
    No. 50, in line 17, leave out ' (b) secondly ' and insert ' (c) thirdly '.—[Mr. Buchan.]
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 19, line 19, leave out first any ' and insert the whole '.
    This is a drafting Amendment. In view of the reference to the " whole amount due " in line 17 in relation to the main standard security—the creditor in which has instituted enforcement proceedings leading to sale—it is appropriate to refer similarly when dealing with pari passu
    930
    security holders to " the whole amount due ".
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 52, in line 22, leave out (c) thirdly ' and insert (d) fourthly '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  Clause 27

    FORECLOSURE
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 21, line 16, leave out granting ' and insert:
    ' due recording of an extract '.
    This is a drafting Amendment. It was the subject of a point which was picked up by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) in Committee. Unfortunately, his Amendment was not quite technically right. It is an extract of a decree which would be recorded, and the Amendment takes account of this technical point.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 28

    PROCEDURE
    Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 21, line 36, leave out ' counter-application or appeal ' and insert or counter-application '.
    This is drafting and consequential on an Amendment proposed in Committee and accepted.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 30

    SAVING
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 22, line 37, leave out ' is in existence at ' and insert:
    " has been duly recorded before."
    This Amendment seeks to clarify that the heritable securities whose validity is preserved by the Clause are those which have been duly recorded before the beginning of the operation of the Bill when enacted. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to the vagueness of

    931
    the expression "in existence" and proposed that the difficulty should be resolved by providing, in effect, that "in existence" meant executed by the debtor. We have considered this matter. On the whole, we prefer our method to the formula proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman; because a deed is not a true heritable security until it is recorded.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 34

    POWER OF CREDITOR IN BOND AND DIS POSITION IN SECURITY TOSELL TO INCLUDE POWER TO SELL BY PRIVATE BARGAIN
    Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 23, line 24, after ' security ', insert:
    ' a bond and assignation in security, or bond of cash credit and disposition in security and a bond of cash credit and assignation in security '.
    The Amendment is self-explanatory. When this matter was raised in Committee the Under-Secretary said that he would consider it. It is a question whether the power to sell land by private bargain should be extended to the holders of the forms of security specified in the Amendment and not be confined to the creditor in a bond and disposition in security. There may be an explanation for this, but it was thought right to raise the matter again.
    Mr. Buchan: Bonds and assignations in security are already covered. Clause 42(2) provides that Clause 29(2) is to apply for the purpose of construing Part III in this way.
    The question of cash credits and dispositions is more difficult. We have consulted a good deal on this. We accept, in principle, that power of private sale should be given to creditors under bonds of cash credit and dispositions. One view is that these are already covered by the Clause. We are certain that the Clause should apply to such bonds. We would like to do a little more work on this and look at the matter again in another place.
    Mr. Wylie: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 35

    ALTERATION OF PERIODS DURING WHICH SALE OF LAND HELD IN SECURITY IS TO BE ADVERTISED
    Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 24, line 17, leave out ' twenty-eight ' and insert ' forty-two '.
    This point was raised in Committee. It is the question of the period within which an enforceable contract of sale shall be concluded. The period of 28 days was represented to me as too short. In Committee, a period of 56 days was suggested. The Under-Secretary said that it was a matter of judgment and that he would consider it. I thought that 56 days was rather long.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to raise the matter again to see what further views the Minister has had. It may be that 42 days is a suitable compromise between the two periods concerned.
    Mr. Buchan: We have considered this matter seriously since it was raised in Committee. Then. I said that this was a matter of judgment, based on advice. We have consulted fully on this matter. We have consulted the Counties of Cities Association, the Convention of Royal Burghs, the Law Society of Scotland, the Building Societies Association, Professor Halliday, the Committee of Scottish Bank General Managers and the Society of Writers to the Signet. There was no unanimous view. If anything, there was sometimes a variation of view within the different bodies. I said that it was a matter of judgment, based on advice, and I have had to make my own judgment. The majority of the important bodies consulted accepted the 28-day period. I think that that is right. There may be one or two cases in which difficulty is created, but, broadly, we think it right that the average debtor should not be kept hanging on for too long.
    My view, therefore, based on the advice which has come to me, is to stick to the 28 days, in the hope of bringing matters to as speedy a conclusion as possible. In the vast majority of cases, this can be done well within the period, and we think it best to keep to the period in the Bill rather than extend it.
    Mr. Wylie: The Minister has had extensive consultations, and it would not be

    933
    proper for me to press for a change in the light of the advice which he has received. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 41

    EXTENSION OF S. 12 TO EXISTING FORMS OF HERITABLE SECURITIES
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 27, line 22, leave out ' to any subsequent security '.
    I should be grateful if the House could consider, at the same time, Amendment No. 59.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that meets the convenience of the House, yes.
    Mr. Buchan: I am much obliged.
    The effect of these Amendments is to broaden the effect of Clause 41 in the light of the Amendments to Clause 12. Clause 41 picks up the purport of Clause 12 and extends it. We are applying this to the effect on the preference in ranking of any heritable security constituted by ex facie absolute disposition or assignation. At present, the Clause relates the preference to " any subsequent security ". Clause 12 has, however, been broadened to deal with the effect on the ranking preference of a security as a result not only of the creation of a subsequent security but also of any subsequent assignation or conveyance of the security subjects. We have, therefore, altered the concomitant Clause 41 to bring this in.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 59, in line 23, after ' to ', insert ' the preference in ranking of '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  Clause 44

    STATUS OF SASINE EXTRACTS
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 28, line 16, after ' extract ', insert:
    ' whether issued before or after the commencement of this Act,'.
    The purpose is to make clear that the provisions of the Clause will apply to
    934
    extracts already in existence as well as to those issued after the Bill becomes law.
    Mr. Wylie: I do not wish to raise a question on this Amendment. I wish merely to say that I have considered this and the Amendments which are to follow, and, so far as I am concerned, the Minister need not explain them at length. It is obvious that there is no tremendous interest being shown in the Bill at this late stage in its proceeding.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 61, in page 28, line 21, leave out subsection (2). —[Mr. Buchan.]

  Clause 45

    EFFECT OF CONDITIONS AS TO PRE-EMPTION
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 28, line 33, at end insert:
    (2) In the said subsection, for the reference to forty days there shall be substituted a reference to twenty-one days.
    I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has just said. Some of the points which we have made across the Floor both tonight and in Committee have been not only for our own benefit, but also for the use which they might be to interested persons outside who would read our debates. However, in view of his seductive promise, I do no more now than move this Amendment formally.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 48
    ABOLITION OF HERITOR'S RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION OF GLEBE
    Amendment made: No. 63, in page 29, line 14. leave out from ' abolished' to end of line 16.—[Mr. Buchan.]
  Clause 49
    AMENDMENT OF LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949
    Amendment made: No. 64, in page 30, line 33, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Buchan.]
  Schedule 3

    THE STANDARD CONDITIONS
    Amendments made: No. 65, in page 39, line 14, leave out ' proper '.
    No. 66, in page 39, line 47, leave out ' in favour of the debtor '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  Schedule 4

    FORMS OF DEEDS OF ASSIGNATION, RESTRICTION, &C.
    Amendments made: No. 67, in Page 40, line 20, leave out from,' to end of line.
    No. 68, in page 40, line 21, after ' thereunder ', insert:
    '; in other cases described as indicated in Note 2 to this Schedule'.
    No. 69, in page 40, line 31, leave out from ' for ' to ', add' in line 32 and insert:
    'a fluctuating amount whether subject to a maximum or not'.
    No. 70, in page 42, line 16, leave out from ' of ' to ' adding ' in line 17 and insert:
    ' an uncertain amount may be described by specifying shortly the nature of the debt or obligation (e.g., all sums due or to become due) for which the security was granted '.— [Mr. Buchan.]

  Schedule 5

    PROCEDURES AS TO REDEMPTION
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 43, line 19, at end insert:
    (To be signed by the creditor, or by his agent, who will add his designation and the words ' Agent of the said AB ').
    Perhaps it would be convenient to take with it Government Amendment No. 74. Both are a fulfilment of a promise I gave in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 6

    PROCEDURES AS TO CALLING-UP AND DEFAULT
    Amendments made: No. 72, in Page 44, line 23, leave out from '£' to ' with ' in line 25.
    No. 73, in page 44, line 26, at end insert:
    '(adding if necessary, subject to such adjustment of the principal sum and the amount of interest as may subsequently be determined)'.
    No. 74, in page 45, line 23, at end add:
    '(To be signed by the person on whom notice is served, or by his agent, who will add his designation and the words " agent of the said AB ")'.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  Schedule 11

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED
    Amendment made: No. 75, in page 50, line 11, at end insert:

    1857c.26
    The Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act 1857.
    In section 15, the words from "and extracts of all such writs" to the end of the section.—

    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent (in respect of the Principality and Stewartry of Scotland) signified]
    8.56 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Bill represents the first stage of the far-reaching reform of land tenure in Scotland which was foreshadowed in the White Paper published in July, 1969. I believe that the White Paper created a new, forward-looking climate of opinion in Scotland in respect of land tenure, and that abolition of the feudal system and its replacement by a totally new system has now come to be widely accepted as an aim which is both desirable and attainable.
    It is certainly significant in this connection that during the debates on the Bill no one has called in question the need for fundamental reform of land tenure in Scotland; indeed, there has been a good deal of pressure for speedier advance towards the major legislation which will bring that about. Since the White Paper was published last summer we have lost no time in bringing forward the first-step legislation which was promised in it.
    That legislation, in the form of the Bill, is, however, important in its own

    937
    right. It contains the first significant reforms for nearly half a century in this important area of the law of Scotland; and following on the White Paper, it has helped to create the new climate of thought about which I have spoken.
    The Bill has two major themes running through it: remedies for certain of the worst abuses of the feudal system; and long-overdue reform of the law relating to the conveyancing of property. Part I contains two important measures of social reform. In the first place, people burdened by unreasonable land conditions will be able to seek relief from these conditions by applying to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. Second, vassals are enabled to obtain an apportionment of unallocated feuduties, thus freeing themselves from the reality or the threat of having to act as unpaid debt collectors for superiors.
    The law of conveyancing is simplified in a number of useful ways: by the reduction in the period of positive prescription from 20 years to 10 years; by the creation of a new simplified form of heritable security and the reform of the law regarding present types of securities —anyone who has followed the debates and the Amendments suggested and accepted both in Committee and on Report will realise just how complex this is—and by the changes to conveyancing law set out in Part IV. These provisions will, for example, simplify the legal work associated with house purchase.
    I have been greatly encouraged by the general welcome given to the Bill during its earlier stages. The criticisms that have been made of its provisions and the Amendments which were put forward in Committee related in the main to points of procedure and practice rather than to matters of fundamental principle. The criticisms, however, were useful; and, as the House will have seen during the Report stage, we have given effect to a number of the suggestions which were made.
    Our debates on the Bill in Committee and on Report have underlined a number of important points which are relevant not only to the Bill itself, but to the work of major reform that lies ahead. Perhaps I may mention three that seem to me to be of special importance.
    938
    First, the complexity of the problems and the technical difficulty of reforming the law in this field have been strongly underlined. I am sure that everyone who has heard of or has read the debates on the Bill will accept that there is no scope in land tenure reform for facile and sloganised answers to problems.
    Issues of the highest importance to the individual and to the community are at stake; and the most painstaking preparation is necessary if these issues are to be dealt with properly in legislation. Given the difficulty even of the present Bill, hon. Members who served on the Committee are to be congratulated on dealing with it so quickly and so thoroughly. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has revelled in unravelling the entanglements and the complications of Scottish feudal law, certainly merits my congratulations, and those of members of the Committee.
    My second point is that the value of wide consultation has been made apparent. We have been fortunate in having available to us, both before and since the introduction of the Bill, the comments of a wide cross-section of those engaged in the practical day-to-day work associated with land transactions; and the Bill is better for their advice.
    We are most grateful to all the organisations and individuals who have taken the trouble to put forward comments on the Bill. I must single out for special thanks Professor J. M. Halliday, who has continued to act as consultant to my Department.
    Thirdly, we have rightly had our attention drawn to the need to consider the wider implications of feudal reforms. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), for example, among others, underlined that in seeking to make rapid progress with feudal reform we must not concern ourselves only with the rights and obligations of an individual superior or vassal.
    We must look closely at the effects of any reform on the rights of third parties —for example, co-vassals and owners of neighbouring property—and, indeed, on the community at large. This was a very important theme running through the earlier stage debates; it has been kept in

    939
    mind in relation to this Bill and will similarly be in our minds in the preparation of future legislation.
    So we pass to the final stage in this House of an important Bill. It is a milestone on the road to the fundamental reforms proposed in our White Paper. With the help of hon. Members and of those concerned with land transactions in Scotland, I look forward to the abolition of the feudal system and to its replacement by a new system more suited to the needs of Scotland and of the Scottish people.
    9.3 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: We recognise that this conveyancing Bill puts into effect many of the proposals of the Halliday Committee, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) when he was Secretary of State in 1964. In general, it will, when enacted, bring about improvements in the law of conveyancing in Scotland. It does not deal with all the Halliday recommendations, but with some of them. It also, in the first few Clauses, makes some changes in the feuing system.
    The Secretary of State has reminded us of the White Paper which the Government issued a few months ago, in which they foresaw the abolition of the whole feuing system, but they have not yet informed us or anyone else how that is to be carried out. The changes in the Bill, which include the allocation of feu-duty amongst proprietors, underline the fact that the feuing system is to continue; that it must continue until radical changes are proposed. The variation and discharge of land obligations is the other main point dealt with in the changes in the feuing system as it exists.
    These changes are not contentious in principle, and we have aimed in Committee and on Report to make improvements in the Bill. There are two or three other changes which we would like to have made to which the Government have not agreed, but the large number of Amendments on the Notice Paper today, to many of which the Government have agreed, is a reflection of the extent to which we were able to suggest changes in the Bill.
    On Second Reading, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edin-
    940
    burgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) suggested that it would be better to use the sheriff courts instead of the Lands Tribunal for the variation and discharge of land obligations, but he is satisfied that the Government have largely met his arguments, in as much as the tribunal is to work part-time. We feel that there will not be enough work for a full-time tribunal.
    It is clear that the Government will put forward other Amendments, as a result of our suggestions, in the other place, but there is very little in the Bill about the feuing system. The Secretary of State has announced the intention of radical changes, but the Bill contains only changes in the existing system, with no hint of how its abolition is to be carried out. We have made it clear that we favour a major reform in the system of land tenure in Scotland. The Government also favour a major change, as their White Paper made clear. The main question remains: how is this to be done? On this, there appears to be no decision by the Government yet, and certainly no announcement—the key point being the terms of redemption of feu duties.
    It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite trying to characterise superiors or feuars, because numbered among them are the Church and other reputable institutions which we would all wish to help and not penalise. Therefore, any solution must be thought out so as to be completely fair to all parties. That is our interest, as I hope it is the Government's in changing an outmoded system which needs to be reformed and which, in the application of high feu duties, has become unpopular in Scotland in recent years.
    I pay a tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands. The whole House has been grateful for his knowledge and application in these technical matters. Many of his suggestions have been accepted or converted into Government Amendments. We are frequently reminded how fortunate we are to have one practising Scottish advocate in the House. But not only has he helped us in that regard: he has also made a close examination of all these conveyancing matters and has contributed largely to the Bill's improvement.
    I would also, with respect, congratulate the Under-Secretary on having coped

    941
    with a highly technical Bill without my hon. and learned Friend's legal background. He had a very heavy burden to bear.
    In the reform of the feuing system, this is not a milestone, as the Secretary of State claimed. It is more of a yard-stone. It has simply scratched the surface of reform. That task remains for a future Government.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  New Clause 1

    AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES
    (1) In exercising their functions under this Act local authorities shall have due regard to the need to make the premises in which these functions are exercised readily accessible to the public.
    (2) In pursuance of subsection (1) above local authorities shall where it is in their opinion appropriate divide their area into districts for the purpose of exercising their functions under this Act.—[Mr. Worsley.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. Marcus Worsley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This is an attempt to write into the Bill a little more of the new approach which the Seebohm Committee recommended and which we endorse. The Bill is still as dry as dust and very much a machinery Measure. We feel that it would be better if it contained more of the new spirit which we are seeking to infuse into local authorities.
    For the citizen, it is not the machinery that we set up which counts. It is a building and a person in it whom that citizen sees. Paragraph 83 of the Seebohm Report draws attention to the fact that the social work facilities of local authorities very often are inaccessible. People are confused and do not know where to find the services that they want. The Report also points out that this ignorance of what is available and where to find it is not limited to the ordinary citizen, who is the potential client. It extends to the professionals for instance, to some doctors.
    The purpose of this Clause is not to encourage everyone to run to a social services department whenever he gets into difficulty. We feel that such a department should be as accessible as a doctor's surgery. It should be known to everyone where he can get help. The parallel with disease is an exact one because, if this is done, many troubles can be dealt with early, and they can be put

    943
    right with less expense of time and money. The purpose of pressing an Amendment about accessibility is to make sure that, where trouble arises, it can be dealt with quickly and everyone knows where to go.
    In paragraphs 583 to 594, the Seebohm Committee discussed in great detail how this should be done. If the Bill is to be implemented successfully, it cannot be simply a putting together under an administrative umbrella of the existing services. It must also be a true fusion of the services into a new department, under a new chief officer, and that fusion is little reflected in the provisions of the Bill.
    In the arrangements to which we seek to refer by the Clause, the first characteristic should be flexibility. The pattern in different local authorities and sometimes even in the same local authority should vary. There is nothing in the Clause which seeks in any way to establish a regular pattern. I hope that that is clear.
    Secondly, the committee suggested that there was a great need for experimentation, especially in the arrangements whereby, for example, health services might be contained in an adjacent or the same building. The committee might have added that we should also look at the cash services of the other departments in this category. So, first, flexibility and, second, experimentation.
    The third characteristic, to which we have referred in the second subsection, is likely very often to be a division of local authority areas into smaller areas for the purpose of exercising their functions under the Act, as it will be. We have been careful not to place an obligation on local authorities to do this unless they think it right to do so. Equally, we thought it worth putting into the new Clause because, in the majority of cases, some form of subdivision into areas will be necessary. We, therefore, believe that the Bill should put this clearly before local authorities in its actual wording.
    This is the purpose of the Clause. I put it forward as a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and to bring into it something more of the recommendations of the Seebohm Report in reference to organisation on the local level.
    9.15 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Shirley Williams): The substance of what the new Clause is trying to do is something with which the Government have every sympathy, but the way that the Opposition are trying to do it they regard as very much beside the point.
    The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) suggested that it was his intention—I fully sympathise with that intention—to make the Bill more than a machinery Bill and to reflect in it some of the spirit of Seebohm.
    The Bill, is, and we have always presented it as being, fundamentally a machinery Bill. Just as a marriage certificate does not fully reflect the romance which went into the making of the marriage, so the hon. Gentleman must not expect the Bill to reflect the full spirit and intention of those responsible for the Seebohm Report and those who will be responsible for carrying it out.
    I should like to respond to what the hon. Gentleman said, but the Government must advise the House not to accept the Clause. The proposal is, first, that social service departments should locate the offices from which they undertake their functions in accessible places. The Government have full sympathy with this proposal. The second suggestion is that there should be a division into districts. I take it that I should be right in assuming that this is partly with a view to creating teams working in those districts so that there can be the greatest possible integration of the social services.
    Both these proposals have the backing of the Government. They will be supported in the advice that we offer to local authorities. We fully share the Opposition's feeling that much of the spirit of the Seebohm Report will depend upon these two proposals being carried out. However, we must object that in the end it would make bad law to put them into the Bill.
    I have two reasons for saying that. First, that, as the Opposition recognise and as the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say, the Clause would not impose a mandatory duty on local authorities. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman recognises that it could not do so because these

    945
    functions are very much matters for local authority judgment.
    Secondly, in so far as they give powers to local authorities to do so, these powers already exist. So the Opposition are attempting to give local authorities an intention to use the powers that they have when the opinion of the Government is that the great bulk of local authorities have that intention.
    I repeat, it is very much in the Government's mind to advise and guide local authorities in this direction. In view of that, and as we fully accept that the functions will be crucially determined by the access of the public to them and that the area groups will determine the extent to which these services will be integrated, as the Seebohm Report suggests in paragraphs 586 to 594, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the Clause, because its spirit will be carried out in the advice and guidance offered by the Government.
    As an earnest of this, the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government in England indicates that the Government would support the establishing of district committees, which would be in line with what is proposed in the new Clause, under unitary authorities.
    In view of that and on the assurance that it is our intention to guide and to suggest to local authorities along those lines, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel obliged to press the Clause.
    Mr. Martin Maddan: Before we leave the Clause I think that we should compliment my hon. Friend on bringing it forward. It has elicited from the Minister a clear statement which is extremely important and welcome. As the hon. Lady hinted in her closing remarks, her guidance, or that of her successors, will have to be well thought out and clear to bridge this difficult stage before local government reform comes in, whatever form it takes. A great deal of the implementation of Seebohm will be frustrated unless somebody in need of social help can get it effectively wherever he goes. That is the importance of this proposal, and the justification for my hon. Friend raising the matter.
    Mr. Worsley: When the hon. Lady argues she is always a formidable opponent, and when she produces charming arguments about matrimony she is
    946
    even more difficult as an opponent. I am willing to respond to what the hon. Lady said, particularly because she has fully met the spirit of what I was trying to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Clause 2

    SOCIAL WELFARE SERVICES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCOPE)
    (1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to promote social welfare my making available advice, guidance, assistance to persons in need and the provision of facilities appropriate to their area for the prevention, treatment and relief of social problems.
    (2) Nothing in this section shall be taken as conferring any new power on a local authority.—[Mr. Maurice Macmillan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The intention of the Clause is fundamentally not dissimilar from that of new Clause 1. The wording of it, which might seem a little contradictory, is dictated at least partially by the necessity to keep in order; and by the fact that there is no Financial Memorandum. I think it will be seen on reflection that the wording of the Clause expresses our intention with some precision, because it deals with the manner rather than the matter of local authority activities. The use of the word " scope " refers to the development of their policies, rather than to the total range of them, or to an increase in those activities.
    The hon. Lady referred to matrimony. I do not think that the Clause tries to introduce the romance or the courtship into the marriage contract, but it does at least imply that there is an obligation on the couple to live together as man and wife, and not merely to share the same house. We feel that local authorities can effectively discharge their duties only by bringing together in reality as well as in structure and organisation that which is now separated. In other words, the powers of local authorities cannot be discharged effectively without a true marriage. It is only by accepting what we propose that the changes proposed in

    947
    the Bill will benefit the users of the social welfare system in the way the Bill intends.
    As far as I can see, there is no obligation on local authorities to act in the way intended. The existence of one committee and one director of welfare may mean that there will be a comprehensive policy, and that they will look at the problems as a whole rather than separate them between two committees, but in acting rather than in thinking and planning there is nothing to stop local authorities operating through sections so far separated, from the point of view of the user or customer, as the present committees are.
    In considering this argument one might imagine that the Health Service and Public Health Act, 1968, will to some extent remedy this situation, because wide powers and certain duties are imposed on local authorities. But it also imposes limitations on the way in which local authorities approach these powers. They will have to categorise the users of the social services they provide according to the powers which, in the Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968, are related to categories as defined in previous legislation. It is that previous legislation which gives local authorities the power to act and, in some cases, places on them an obligation to do so.
    I fear that there will be a tendency to deal with the problems under the Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968, in a manner which is contradictory to the purposes of the Bill. This would be counteracted to some extent by a general Clause of the nature which we propose, which would at least show that, despite any limitation such as that which I described, there would and could be no statutory reason for local authorities to restrict the scope of their activities but that if there were restrictions or failures to live up to Seebohm standards or the spirit rather than the letter of the Bill it would be the fault, policy or intention of the local authorities concerned and would in no sense follow from anything imposed on them by Statute.
    Apart from clarifying the position for local authorities, our proposal would have the effect of putting a little pressure on the Government by making it plain that they must will the means as well as the end,
    948
    and in the event of problems of payment, remedy them through the rate support grant.
    Even when both the Health Services and the Public Health Act and the Bill are in force, which presumably will not be very long, there will still be some gaps. Some people are not fully covered, and they could be dealt with by a general Clause such as that which we propose. I list three examples. First, there are families with difficult relationships which are emotionally damaging to children, which do not come into the category of creating or being likely to create a need to take a child to court or put a child in care and so fall outside Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. In dealing with this sort of problem, I do not think we should try to find too many specific remedies. We do not wish to take away the responsibilities of parents. We wish to try to help them to discharge those responsibilities. Where the provisions of Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act are too precise, there is a need, instead of taking a child to court or into care, to help the family to cope with the problem.
    A second problem which is not covered concerns people when they cease to be young persons. We can help children up to the age of 21—or is it 18 now? As soon as they reach whatever age it is, they are outside this legislation, with certain exceptions in respect of apprenticeship and further education. In many cases this is an age when they are most needing guidance and help and are, perhaps, facing problems of their own marriage. Under the present situation there is, as far as I can see, no method of continuing after the end age, ac it were, the same sort of help as they have had before.
    9.30 p.m.
    Thirdly, there are certain conditions which, perhaps, need help although they might not yet have reached the size or seriousness where they come under the law or other places where people can be guided into help after getting into serious trouble, nor where children are involved. I refer to problems such as alcoholism, drug addiction, vagrancy and the difficulties frequently in bereavement when a widow living on her own may be suffering far more than a widow with children. In that case, too, the existing provisions in many cases, effective though they are,

    949
    tend to require almost too deep an interference in people's personal problems because it comes at a stage when nothing more general or less precise can be effective.
    If we are to put the emphasis, which the hon. Lady and hon. Members, on both sides, have put during the passage of the Bill, on helping people to help themselves rather than seek to usurp their own personalities, authorities and responsibilities, it is important to be able to give that help at a time and in a way which does not impinge too sharply and which does not do too much for people as opposed to guiding and helping them to do it themselves. In this type of situation we need to think not only of individuals or families but also, perhaps, other groups—the problems of streets, areas and tenants of a tall block, for example, where a general approach could be more effective.
    For these reasons as well as, as the hon. Lady said in our earlier debate, to try to get some of the general spirit of Seebohm into what is admittedly primarily a machinery Bill, I move the new Clause.
    Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston): I support the new Clause with some diffidence, not having been a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill so carefully. I do so with great pleasure, however, in being able to give to the House some of the conclusions recently reached by an investigation made in Liverpool by the Merseyside branch of the Child Poverty Action Group. I know that the views of that ground are not particularly popular with the Government just now on many points, but this piece of market research investigation in Liverpool is so exactly relevant to the new Clause and is so recent —it was published this month—that I feel that the House would be interested in it.
    In this piece of research, the group took two smallish districts in Liverpool, one, as it was described, predominantly working class and one predominantly middle class. The group asked a sample of people in those districts whether they had heard of four separate welfare rights, the four rights being rate rebates, school maintenance grants, essential school clothing grants and family allowances. The first three are administered by the local
    950
    authority and the fourth by the central Government.
    The results were quite remarkable. In the working class district only 51 per cent. of people had ever heard of a rate rebate, whereas in the middle class district 89 per cent. had, exactly the opposite of what is really necessary. In the working class district 31 per cent. had heard of school maintenance grants and in the middle class district 44 per cent. Of the essential school clothing grants, 32 per cent. of people in the working class district had heard of them, and in the middle class district the figure was exactly the same—32 per cent.—showing that this benefit is hardly known at all.
    The next category was family allowances—the one class of allowance administered by the central Government. In the working class district 97 per cent. had heard of them and in the middle-class district 100 per cent. had heard of them.
    This is clear evidence that the benefits administered by local authorities are not as well known or as well publicised as they should be, and for that reason I find the new Clause exactly to fit the needs of social services in local authority districts, and I hope that the Government will give it sympathetic consideration.
    Much other valuable information is contained in the report, although I will not weary the House with it now. It concludes with the recommendation of the need of a clear policy:
    " to reinforce these developments, local councils should pass resolutions making full ' take-up' of benefits they administer a prime and stated objective of council policy, and departments responsible for the administration of benefits should have to report on their progress with this objective at regular intervals ".
    It would throw a new light on local authority social services if the local authorities concerned were encouraged to state as part of their policy that full take-up of benefits is their objective. There is a suspicion in some districts—I do not say this about Liverpool, where the social services are excellently administered—that local authorities do not press far a full take-up because failing to do so can save them money. If the new Clause were accepted, we could go forward on a new line of march with the social services in local authority areas

    951
    and the Bill would be greatly strengthened thereby.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I would first respond to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) before moving to the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). I wanted to say " Amen " throughout almost all the remarks of the hon. Member for Garston because everything he said is absolutely true. The greatest single barrier to people getting their full rights under legislation which Parliament has passed is a failure to know what is available to them.
    I do not think that the whole answer lies in what we can do in the House. A great deal lies in the spirit of new Clause 1—that is, that people should have easily accessible to them a social services office which makes no fine distinction whether people fall under one Act or another.
    If the Bill is passed and administered in the spirit in which we all intend, there is no doubt that it should go a long way to meeting the perplexities to which the hon. Member for Garston referred and to reducing the very disturbing figures of ignorance which he quoted. He gave them for Liverpool, and yet we all know that Liverpool is an outstandingly good council in respect of social services, from which we can only conclude that there are other areas in which the figures would be even more disturbing.
    I recall two occasions—I hope that the hon. Member will not mind my remembering them—which made the point. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was Minister of Pensions, she made a great effort on television to advertise the existence of supplementary benefits, and within a matter of weeks she was almost overwhelmed and with new applications. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) was Secretary of State for Education, he sent a letter to the primary and secondary schools and as a result was overwhelmed with applications for free school dinners. Both are examples of effective publicity, but they also both revealed that there must be areas in which the publicity is still not effective.
    As I promised, I went to considerable effort, as did my right hon. Friend the
    952
    Secretary of State for Social Services and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to see whether it were possible to accept this new Clause, which I wanted, as did the hon. Members for Farnham and Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). I therefore owe it to the Committee to explain why we have not been able to accept it, although we made a great effort to see whether it was possible to do so. First and foremost, we have been advised that the new Clause is outside the scope of the Bill. That does not mean that it cannot be put down—
    Mr. Worsley: It has been selected by the Chair, and it cannot be outside the scope of the Bill in that context.
    Mrs. Williams: I was going on to say that it is outside the scope of the Bill if it means that there are to be any additional functions given to local authorities, or if any of those functions were to involve a money Clause which is not in the Bill. It is in that sense that the Amendment can refer only to what is embodied in the Bill, and fundamentally those functions are set out in the Schedules.
    First, the Clause makes it clear that it will be the general duty of any local authority to promote social welfare, and describes this duty. I explained in Committee that there is a problem about this because in some respects, broad though those powers are, the phrase " social welfare " limits the powers of the personal social services committee of the local authority to a greater extent than they are limited under existing legislation. There would therefore be an overlap between the Clause, if it were accepted, and the powers in existing legislation.
    I promised the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) that I would indicate the scope of that legislation when I replied to the debate. I have also indicated the considerable problems that would arise from the Clause if we were not to go on to recast a great deal of existing law.
    Under the Children Act, 1948, and the Children and Young Persons Acts, 1933–1969, and specifically the 1963 Act, there is a duty to promote the welfare of children. I understand that that is interpreted to cover the welfare of a family in which children are involved. For example, not so long ago a local authority bought a

    953
    bicycle for the father of a house to enable him to go to work and keep his family together, which is a fairly extended concept of the welfare of the child.
    Under the National Assistance Act, 1948, the duty to provide accommodation for elderly, infirm, disabled or homeless people carries with it permissive powers to provide accommodation in other circumstances. This goes as wide as, and possibly wider than, the duty suggested in the Clause, because that would not normally be interpreted as covering accommodation. It does not normally come under the heading of social welfare.
    Under the National Assistance Act and the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1958, and a Bill being discussed in another place, there is power to promote the welfare of the chronic sick and disabled, expressed in the widest terms and not limited even by the addition of the word " social " to " welfare ".
    Under the Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968, which is only coming into operation in the autumn, there is a general power to promote the welfare of the elderly. This can be converted into a mandatory requirement by the Secretary of State, and because it is potentially mandatory it is stronger than the Clause. Under Section 13 of that Act there can be mandatory provision of home help. Section 12 governs the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness, and the after-care of persons who have suffered from illness, and it includes the power to provide accommodation for those who are and have been ill. That is wider than the Clause. It has already been converted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services into a duty in the case of mentally-disordered persons. That is a mandatory provision going further than the Clause.
    The same is true of guardianship, adoption and the provision of homes. Virtually all the powers I have described carry with them ancillary powers to acquire land, undertake research and purchase buildings. Therefore, in almost every case they go wider than the Clause.
    9.45 p.m.
    The difficulty, therefore, is that this Clause either overlaps existing legislation in a way that I am advised might be interpreted as restricting the powers un-
    954
    der existing legislation, or it carries with it an obligation for a major recasting of the law, which has happened in the case of the Scottish social work Bill, in order to make quite clear what the powers are and what they are not.
    I stress that a number of the powers I have described, some of them mandatory, are already agreed by Parliament but are not yet in force. These substantial powers with regard to the promotion of the welfare of the elderly and the mentally disordered, and of children, in certain circumstances, up to the age of 17, all become law, as Parliament has decided, this autumn, and, broadly speaking, they greatly extend the powers that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham is attempting to cover by the new Clause.
    Our problem, therefore, is quite directly one in which I am advised that to accept the new Clause without the recasting of existing law would involve an uncertainty about the legal interpretation of the powers that Parliament has given under previous Acts; or, to avoid that, we would be obliged to make the law absolutely clear, which is an obligation upon Parliament, by undertaking major amendment of some existing laws.
    As I mentioned in Committee, and as I must now repeat, the Maud Report suggests, as the House knows, a general power to spend money for the benefit of an area and of its inhabitants. The Government indicated when that report was submitted to the House that this power would be discussed with local authorities. It is a subject which comes very close to what the new Clause seeks. It would be to some extent in breach of our obligation to discuss the matter with the local authorities before submitting the legislation to Parliament if we were now to accept the Clause.
    That, however, is a minor point, if I may say so, because obviously what Parliament wills must be so. On the major point, I must ask the House to accept the fact that I have looked at this question as carefully as possible, but, sharing the intention of trying to get this provision in if we could, I have had to come to the conclusion that it is, quite simply, too difficult in law at this time to try to tack such a clause on to a Bill which fundamentally deals with the machinery of the social services.
    Mr. Frederick Silvester: I accept the hon. Lady's good intentions, but I am a little confused by what she has said. If various powers already exist under the law as it currently stands—and the Minister of State mentioned quite wide powers, such as the acquisition of land—unless the Bill specifically repeals those powers they will continue to exist. They would not continue to exist only if what we propose was in conflict with them, but nothing that the hon. Lady says indicates such a conflict.
    We have experience of other laws, such as the 1944 Education Act, in which a declaratory section has been of immense importance in stimulating the discussion of the way in which local authorities operate in that sphere. The purpose of the new Clause is clearly to provide for the bringing together of all these many existing powers which the local authorities can hang on to and operate.
    All the hon. Lady's arguments seem to be immensely technical. I do not criticise her for that—I appreciate the work she has done—but I am still somewhat unconvinced. Unless she can say that our proposal would remove those existing powers, I do not see what is lost by introducing such a declaratory Clause.
    The hon. Lady made great play, as she did in Committee, with the question of the inclusion of the word " social " in " social welfare " and said that this might weaken the powers in relation to old people. There will be an opportunity in another place, if it cannot be done now, to draft a Clause to achieve the same objectives as this Clause and to meet that objection. The hon. Lady sought to show that this Clause is so way out and not possible to amend by the Government's draftsmen that they cannot introduce a declaratory Clause with this scope to meet our requirements. I do not understand how the proposal would remove existing powers. It would merely bring them together and provide them with an objective which the Bill currently lacks. That point the hon. Lady has not tackled.
    Mr. Maddan: I am perplexed because I know of the hon. Lady's good intentions. She told us in Committee that she would press hard for this reform and I am certain that she meant it.
    956
    Subsection (2) of the new Clause says:
    "Nothing in this section shall be taken as conferring any new power on a local authority."
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said, that is necessary because the Bill does not operate under a Money Resolution. Nevertheless, there are many welfare powers which local authorities have and which are only permissive. They have no duty nor obligation to use them. In varying services the quality of the service is like a patchwork quilt; some are good and some are bad. Even with no Money Resolution this Clause would make a positive improvement.
    The hon. Lady said that in some respects subsection (1) overlaps other powers and in other respects it goes further. In so far as it overlaps powers, she suggested that it may constrain those powers. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) was right, but even if he was not, how often have we seen the phrase " without prejudice " used with reference to this, that and the other in a Bill? I am still convinced of the desirability of such a Clause and I am unconvinced of the difficulties to which the hon. Lady referred.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: There is great force in the argument used by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan). As he said, quite a lot of the legislation referred to in the Bill is of a permissive character. I should like a Home Office investigation into the various ways in which the Children Act has been operated by different local authorities. That information should be available from the Home Office Inspectorate.
    Various local authorities have interpreted the legislation concerning what they should do in different ways and largely according to how much money they wish to spend at a particular time. The hon. Lady spoke about a bicycle being purchased to enable a man to go to work. That would not happen in many local authorities I know of although it might be justified. I do not see any argument which would preclude a declaratory Clause of this kind. I do not see the conflict in the argument. Perhaps it was my fault that I was net able to follow the argument.
    Mr. Worsley: I confess to disappointment in the contribution made by the hon. Lady. Like us, she wishes to make the Bill effective, but she rested her case on technicalities and produced all sorts of legalistic difficulties which have not convinced hon. Members who have contributed to the debate from either side of the House. Indeed, although I accept that the hon. Lady has done her homework carefully, she gave us no hope that there would ever be such a Clause, certainly not in this Bill. All she could offer is future legislation on the Maud Report. Goodness knows when that will be. We have been discussing local government reform since the 1940s, to my knowledge.
    Even if, when we reform local government, we put in the sort of general power that the Maud Commission suggested, this will not be what we are suggesting in the Clause. What Maud suggests is a permissive general power on local authorities to do things not covered by Statute. We seek to include a general Clause which includes the word " duty ". As various hon. Members have said, there is an enormous variation in what local authorities do. We want to write into the Bill a duty upon local authorities to look at the whole field. That is the first and absolutely critical point.
    The second is that I do not think that the hon. Lady answered all the detailed points that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) made about gaps, problems of adolescents and drug addiction, and so on. It may be that the gaps do not exist, but the hon. Lady has not convinced us, or even sought to argue, that they do not. The Standing Conference of Social Workers and the children's officers feel that there are gaps that need to be filled.
    The hon. Lady quoted some of the general powers. I realise that the powers of local authorities are enormously wide. However, this is not our central point. It was thought necessary to put a general power into the Scottish Act, which I accept went wider than the Bill goes.
    However, this Bill and last year's Children and Young Persons Act cover just about everything that the Scottish Act included.
    If it was necessary in Scotland, we have never had an answer as to why it is not necessary in England and why in some curious way it is out of order and technically difficult in England where it was possible in Scotland. It cannot be that the lawyers at the Home Office are so much inferior to those in Scotland. It was thought necessary to put such a general power into the Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968 and the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963: the whole breadth of the working of each of those Acts was summarised in one Section in each Act.
    Even if there were no gaps, and even if it were true that every need that might arise is covered by this legislation, there is still a need for a general Clause to bring firmly to the attention of local authorities their general duty. We hold this view strongly. We wish to give the House a chance to write a general Clause into the Bill. We do not say that this is the best general Clause that could be devised, but, in that case, it is up to the House to pass it and cause the Government to write a better one into the Bill in another place.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

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

  LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES BILL
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 146.

  Division No. 121.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Batsford, Brian

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Brains, Bernard

  Astor, John

  Biften, John

  Bulius, Sir Eric

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

  Body, Richard

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Iremongcr, T. L.

  Royle, Anthony

  Chiehester-Clark, R.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Clegg, Walter

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Sharples, Richard

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Silvester, Frederick

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Smith, John (London & W 'minster)

  Crouch, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Speed, Keith

  Dean, Paul

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stainton, Keith

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

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Eden, Sir John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Elliott, R. W. (N 'c't1e-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  MacArthur, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Fortescue, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fry, Peter

  Maddan, Martin

  Vickers Dame Joan

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Waddington, David

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife E.)

  Marten, Neil

  Walters, Dennis

  Glover, Sir Douglas

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

  Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

  Cower, Raymond

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Grant, Anthony

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gurden, Harold

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Neave, Airey

  Worsley, Marcus

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wylie, N. R.

  Hay, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Younger, Hn. George

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pounder, Rafton

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Francis

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  NOES

  Alldritt, Walter

  Garrett, W. E.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

  Golding, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Murray, Albert

  Ashton, Joe (Baseetlaw)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn. Philip

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Ogden, Eric

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Barnett, Joel

  Harper, Joseph

  Orbach, Maurice

  Beaney, Alan

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orme, Stanley

  Bence, Cyril

  Haseldine, Norman

  Oswald, Thomas

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hooley, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bishop, E. S.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Blackburn, F.

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Booth, Albert

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Pentland, Norman

  Boston, Terence

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Hynd, John

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

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

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Buchan, Norman

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rankin, John

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Leadhitter, Ted

  Richard, Ivor

  Coe, Denis

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Coleman, David

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Lee John (Reading)

  Roebuck, Roy

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Dalyell, Tom

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sillars, J.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silverman, Julius

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Slater, Joseph

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  MacColl, James

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Delargy, H. J.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonchip, W.)

  Dell, Edmund

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dickens, James

  McElhone, Frank

  Taverne, Dick

  Dobson, Ray

  McGuire, Michael

  Tinn James

  Driberg, Tom

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Wallace, George

  Dunn, James A.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Wellbeloved, James

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Marion, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ellis, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

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

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mapp, Charles

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Finch, Harold

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Woof, Robert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mendelson, John

  Ford, Ben

  Millan, Bruce

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Forrester, John

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

  Mr. Neil McBride and

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Mr. William Hamling.

  Gardner, Tony

  Clause 2

    LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
    10.11 p.m.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out ' social ' and insert ' community '.
    Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest we take Amendments Nos. 1, 2 to 11, 47, 13 to 29, 33, 35, 36 and 39, which seek to replace the word " social " by " community " wherever it occurs in the Bill.
    Dame Joan Vickers: We are very pleased to see the Home Secretary here. I do not know whether this is a take-over bid as there does not seem to be anybody here from the other Department. The Welsh Office is represented, but what has happened to the other Ministry? Perhaps we shall later get our wish and have one Minister, which will be a great advantage.
    I refer to paragraph 2 of Chapter I of the Seebohm Report which reads:
    " We recommend a new local authority department, providing a community based and family oriented service, which will be available to all. This new department will, we believe, reach far beyond the discovery and rescue of social casualties; it will enable the greatest possible number of individuals to act reciprocally, giving and receiving service for the wellbeing of the whole community."
    That is one reason why I suggest that the name of the committee should be the Community Service Committee.
    I am also fortified by the charming words of the Minister of State, who said in Committee:
    " I am prepared now to listen to the Committee's views on the titles proposed, but I urge the Committee to choose a title wide enough to take in all of the functions we have now and which we envisage for the future and also not to burke the work of finding another name for the rose."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th March 1970; c. 38.]
    The Minister had previously shown us how wide the service will be. She also said that she was not at all dogmatic on this and was prepared to listen to argument, and I am sorry that an Amendment on these lines has not been put down by the Government.
    On 16th June, 1969, the Home Secretary announced to Parliament that three local authorities, Coventry, Liverpool and Southwark, had agreed to take part
    962
    in the Community Development Project, which I think is an extremely good idea, and I understand its work well. This is a neighbourhood-based experiment aimed at finding new ways of meeting the needs of people living in areas of high social deprivation, and bringing together the work of all the social services under the leadership of a special project team, and also of tapping resources of self-help and mutual help which may exist among the people in the neighbourhood. This is surely what we want this committee to do, and I therefore think that the name I suggest is much more appropriate than the one contemplated.
    When the United Nations set up the Temporary Social Committee of the United Nations immediately after the war it set the standard to be attained in social work programmes as the well-being of the community so as to enable each to develop his personality and at the same time to enjoy from youth to old age as full a life as may be possible. This is what we are trying to do, as outlined in the Seebohm Report. We wish to see a society which truly seeks the welfare of its members and is concerned that they shall not just live but have opportunities for abundant life.
    So the name " community service " seems to cover our intentions. As far back as 1873, Canon Barnett, in White-chapel, recognised the need, and community services were started. Community centres have been able to do what we hope the Bill will do—bring people of all kinds together to work not only in the usual way, but, as advocated in the Seebohm Report, helping each other.
    The name " Social Security " has not brought in the people we wanted to help. Many proud, poor people still do not seek help there. If it could have an all-embracing name, this might help. Also, those in the new department should come from different backgrounds and training. Many of them will not be social science students: indeed, in the beginning they will be in the minority. The suggestion that they will be working in a community committee for the community appeals to me and, I hope, will also appeal to the hon. Lady.
    As the Government still have not made up their mind which Minister will be responsible for this—
    Mr. Maddan: The Home Secretary.
    10.15 p.m.
    Dame Joan Vickers: We do not know. Perhaps we will be told tonight. We do not even know the duties of the different Departments. When I asked the hon. Lady to answer questions, we found that there would be a division of responsibility among at least three Departments. Perhaps we will learn more tonight.
    It is not just a community of people involved: there will be a community of Ministers to deal with this problem. This makes the suggested title of the committee more sensible. It will also be all-embracing and will get away from the connotations of " social work ", " social welfare " or " social services " and will widen the idea from that of simply a children's department.
    With these few suggestions, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted. This covers such a large number of services and is a real community service, as the hon. Lady said, so it should be called by its right name.
    Mrs. Jill Knight: We are obsessed with the notion that the bigger the umbrella the more efficient its covering power. This is a fallacy. The diminution of the status of health to a mere corner in the vast and impersonal Department of Health and Social Security has not benefited the Health Service. I could give many examples of this, but that would not be in order. I do not want this name, this vast, complex, complicated octopus of a name, to extend its tentacles even into the town hall.
    What does the term " social service " mean to the ordinary people in the street? It means pensions, maternity benefits, unemployment pay, stamps on the card and national assistance. It would baffle the ordinary poor person if it also meant a local authority committee with many other interests and concerns as well. If the name is to mean anything, it cannot mean everything. We have to decide which we want.
    I have done some consumer research on the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend. Last week, I attended a session of the Conference of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, where I spoke to health officers, doctors, nurses and many others who are concerned with health and with many of the matters
    964
    which this proposed local authority committee will concern itself. I put it to them whether they felt that it should be called the social services committee. I explained many of its tasks. I asked them whether they would prefer it to be known as the community services committee. All of them felt strongly, like my hon. Friend, that " community services " was the better name for the work that the Committee will do.
    This may seem a small point, but it is an important one. I repeat, if we want it to mean anything, we cannot have it meaning everything. " Community services " is a wide term, but it is one which covers exactly what the committees will mean to the man in the street.
    For those reasons, I support my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): Those of us who had the privilege to serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department admitted that there were arguments in favour of various possible names. We had a very interesting discussion, and the Committee was by no means united. Various suggestions were made, but the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) confessed that he had no firm views and put forward no positive proposal. My hon. Friend said that she was open to suggestions if the Committee could get any consensus. However, I am afraid that we have had no convincing representations that any change in the name proposed in the Bill is desirable.
    The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) have suggested that we should change the name to " community services ". We have this very long list of Amendments, one or two of which would present technical difficulties if they were adopted. I will not stress that point, although it would be a little odd if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services was confined to community services when his responsibilities are very much wider. I do not rest the case on rather narrow technical points. We have given a great deal of thought to this matter since the first sitting of the Committee when it was

    965
    originally discussed. We cannot feel convinced that a change is desirable.
    There are certain objections to " social services ". Equally, there are strong objections to the hon. Lady's suggestion. In the opening paragraphs of its report, the Seebohm Committee said that we should be providing a community-based and family-orientated service, but it had no hesitation in saying that the services which it described should be called " social services " and that the committee of the local authority should be called the " social services " committee.
    In Committee my hon. Friend pointed out some of the difficulties about using the word " community ". It has other connotations. In various parts of the country, we have organisations or committees concerned with race relations which are commonly referred to as " community relations committees ". In other areas we have rural community councils or simply community councils working under the general aegis of the National Council of Social Service.
    We came across this difficulty when considering local government reform in Wales. In parts of Wales we are proposing a tiered system of local government where the grass roots organisation might be called a community council. So all kinds of problems would arise if we adopted the suggestion put forward by the hon. Members for Plymouth, Devonport and Birmingham, Edgbaston.
    I think that two of the most convincing facts in this situation are that the local authorities appear fully to accept the name proposed in the Bill, because a number are already, prior to our concluding the legislative process, advertising for directors of social service. It would be confusing if, halfway through, we altered that. It is more particularly an indication that the local authorities are content with the name.
    Furthermore, as I said, we had this discussion in Committee on the first sitting. Therefore, there has been some time since 19th March, when we deliberated on this matter, for the voluntary organisations or for local authority organisations to make representations, if they wished. Considerable attention was paid by representatives of many leading voluntary organisations to the first sitting in Committee. I have made inquiries to
    966
    ascertain whether we have received any representations from those who, after all, will be working the Bill. We find that, by and large, they seem perfectly content with the nomenclature in the Bill.
    As my hon. Friend said in Committee, we did not wish to be dogmatic. We have thought about this point. We fully appreciate that there are arguments for and against various names. But, after really careful consideration, we think it better to leave the name as it is in the Seebohm Report and in the Bill which gives effect to it.
    Mr. Fortescue: If I may presume to intervene in something which, in my colonial service days, I would have known, without disrespect, as mammy palaver, I should like to point out that the Minister first said that she had heard no convincing representations in favour of a change of name and then, a few moments later, out of her own mouth, gave a good reason why it should be changed.
    In groping for the official title of her right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who, we are sorry to see, is not present this evening, the hon. Lady finally described him as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services. That is not his title. He is the Secretary of State for Social Services, which embraces the Department of Health and Social Security.
    As the local authority social services committee will not embrace health at all, surely if we call it the social services committee, when the Secretary of State of State for Social Services covers, health, confusion is bound to arise—[An HON. MEMBER: " Why? "] Because the Secretary of State for Social Services deals with health and—I emphasise " and "social security and the proposed local authority social service committee will not embrace health matters. So " social services " means two entirely different things in two entirely different contexts.
    Mrs. White: If the Amendment were accepted my right hon. Friend would lose his health functions entirely.
    Mr. Fortescue: I do not see that. If the Amendment were accepted the local authority social services committee would be called the community services committee and would not be confused with the functions of the Secretary of State for

    967
    Social Services, which includes health functions. Although I was not convinced when the debate started, in view of this undoubted anomaly I support the Amendment.
    Mr. Silvester: Hon. Members may think it odd that I should even bother to intervene, but I think that there is a very important point to be considered which I made in Committee. The Minister of State spoke of the local authorities, the Seebohm Report, the social welfare workers and the Secretary of State. The only person to whom the right hon. Lady has not spoken is the consumer.
    I come from a background which, if it is labelling a product, or a company, or anything, seeks to find out what the consumer thinks of the name. I may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but there is a meaning to community. I do not know what it is, and I suspect that
    968
    the right hon. Lady does not know what it is. There is a meaning to social services. Why not conduct a small piece of research to find out what the people likely to use these services feel about these names and the one which is most likely to accord with the things they most want from that service? It is an ordinary standard procedure, one which the Government could easily conduct between now and the time when the Bill comes back from another place.
    The right hon. Lady has conducted her own poll. She is the nearest that we have got to finding out a piece of concrete information. I am not the slighest bit interested in what the Minister thinks. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) is having a good go at what she thinks is right. There is only one person who knows what to call this service, and that is the consumer. For goodness sake ask him.
    Amendment negatived.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 3, line 35, after ' committee ' insert:
    ' on which there shall be at least one representative of the housing committee and one from the education committee '.
    The object of the Amendment is to ensure that there is liaison with the other committees. We discussed this fairly fully in Committee, and I shall not go over the details again. Seebohm was very interested in this question of housing, and since the Committee stage it has been represented to me that it is a great pity that we have not been able to get this kind of provision into the Bill.
    I have here a letter which says:
    " The position about school welfare also remains unsatisfactory. It should not be beyond the wit of man to disentangle routine school inquiry work from family service activities. As things are, there is a serious risk of overlap with Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act. 1963, and indeed with various parts of the 1969 Act."
    I am worried about council tenants being evicted. Paragraph 406 of the report deals with measures to avoid homelessness. Far too many people lose their accommodation. This is particularly true of council tenants, because it is easier to evict them than it is to evict private tenants because they are in arrears with their rent. I am convinced that most people are honest and wish to pay their rent. Generally, non-payment is due to financial difficulties. They fall behind with their rent because of illness, unemployment, or some other reason which means that they cannot pay their rent.
    I should like to see an arrangement whereby when a person is two weeks in arrears with his rent somebody calls on him to find out why, and then reports the facts to the committee. Far too often a family is evicted, and at the last moment the children's department of the local authority has to take over the family. In some areas the family is divided. Accommodation is found for the wife and the children, but the man has to find his own accommodation. This is a deplorable state of affairs. The whole object of Seebohm was to try to keep the families together.
    There is also the problem of the private tenants. Paragraph 407 of the report suggests means whereby these people can
    970
    be helped. Only recently I had a case of a man in difficulty, and I mentioned it in Committee. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will be sorry to hear that the man concerned, who at that time had lost one leg, has now lost his other leg, and he had a debt of more than £200. I have been able, through trusts, to get this money. I am sure that it will be possible for him to be rehoused by the local authority, but in the meantime there has been this rent debt. There should be ways and means of dealing with such cases earlier.
    So many things are being made obligatory on local authorities that it is reasonable to ask that a representative of the housing committee and a representative of the education committee should be on the social services committee to strengthen the essential liaison. I am in no way criticising the officials, who, of course, do their best, but it is important that local representatives should take far more interest in these problems. If these representatives were members of that committee, it might avoid some of these difficulties in future.
    Mrs. White: The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) realises, I am sure, that her Amendment refers only to joint social services committees; but that is a technical defect in the Amendment which I do not wish to stress.
    We are entirely in sympathy with the hon. Lady's view that there should be the closest co-operation between housing committees and education committees, on the one hand, and the new social services committee, on the other. There is no difference between us about that. We followed with sympathy the cases she mentioned in Committee and tonight, in which a housing problem had a social service aspect, and vice versa.
    But the hon. Lady is asking us to make it mandatory on local authorities to include certain of their members on one of their committees. It is true that from time to time in legislation it is suggested to local authorities that if they are cooperating for various purposes they should have regard to certain qualifications in co-opted members of particular committees, but we have never attempted to dictate to local authorities which on their own members should be elected to

    971
    various committees, and it is not desirable to carry further by legislation such mandatory provisions on local authorities.
    This is a machinery Bill and we are trying to confine it to the basic essentials to carry out the purpose of the Seebohm Report. We hope that local authorities will bear in mind what the hon. Lady said and the general feeling of the House, for we join her in hoping for the closest co-operation among these committees. It would be wise for them to do as she suggested in most cases, but it is not for the Government to dictate to local authorities which of their own members should sit on which committees.
    Cross-representation might well be a suitable way in which local authorities should act, but it would not be right for us to legislate in a mandatory sense.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 9

    PROTECTION OF INTERESTS, ETC, OF LOCAL AUTHORITY STAFFS
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 7, line 17, leave out ' 3 '.
    This is purely a technical Amendment due to the fact that the reference made to Clause 3 should not be in the Bill because the Clause does not make any changes of organisation that might involve a change of staffing and consequently the effects of Clause 9, which is the safeguarding Clause, are not such as to be affected by Clause 3 and the staff members are already protected by the references to Clauses 2 and 6, the two crucial Clauses in the Bill involving reorganisation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 31, in page 7, line 27 [Clause 9], leave out 3 '.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]
    Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 7, line 28, leave out from `means' to end of line 32 and insert:

    (a) persons who both immediately before and immediately after the coming into force in the area of a local authority of section 2 or 6 of this Act are employed by the authority in connection with the discharge by the authority of any function which immediately
    972
    after the coming into force in that area of the said section 2 or 6, as the case may be, is a social services function of the authority; and

    (b) persons who both immediately before and immediately after the coming into force in the area of a local authority of—

    (i) an order under section 2(2) of this Act, or

    (ii) a direction under section 2(4) thereof, not being a direction which comes into force in that area on the same date as that on which that section comes into force therein,

    are employed by the authority in connection with the discharge by the authority of any function to which the order or direction, as the case may be, relates.

    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Are we to take it that this Amendment is consequential, and at least as technical as the others?
    Mrs. Williams: It is strictly consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 11

    AMENDMENT OF HEALTH VISITING AND SOCIAL WORK (TRAINING) ACT 1962
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
    (1) The two Councils constituted under the Health Visiting and Social Work (Training) Act 1962 shall be re-named respectively the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and, accordingly, for the words Council for the Training of Health Visitors ' and 'Council for Training in Social Work ', wherever they occur in that Act, there shall be substituted respectively the words ' Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors' and ' Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work '.
    The effect of this Amendment is to add the words " Education and " to the titles of the respective councils for training, namely the Council for the Training of Health Visitors and the Council for Training in Social Work. Originally, the Bill referred specifically to training. We would like to recommend that the House might agree with this Amendment. The reason for it is simply because we would not wish to limit the powers and functions of the training councils in any specified way. It might be assumed that they were limited to powers under the Industrial Training Acts.

    973
    Secondly, it has been represented to us by university and college reports that the words " Education and " would more appropriately describe some of the courses they intend to mount. Since I am sure that the House will agree that it would want the understanding of the social services to be as deep as possible and to encompass all ancillary subjects, I suggest that this is acceptable. It might also ease the situation in which, as I told the Committee, it is intended that these councils should deal with the training of voluntary workers as well as statutory workers, so that this would give us still greater flexibility in encompassing all possible groups.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I do not think that anyone on this side of the House would wish to quarrel with the intentions of the Clause or the advantages of the word " Education ", especially in the light of what the hon. Lady has said. What consultations, if any, were made with the reports of the social workers and health visitors? As she knows, we raised this in Committee and expressed some of the slight misgivings that had been put to us by various members of the professions concerned as to the degree of consultation, particularly over the constitution of the training councils.
    We pointed out, and this is relevant to the Amendment, that under the new Local Authority Social Services Bill generally, and changes proposed in health care, community care, as opposed to institutional care, demanded a great deal more from domicilary care, from nursing and other forms of welfare in the home. This required a considerable recasting of the training and education ideas in this area.
    When we reached this point in the argument the hon. Lady referred to the difficulties of defining constitutions of any central council, saying that the discussions were continuing with those concerned. I noted that one of the arguments she put forward was that the scope of this provision went beyond the scope of the rest of the Bill—an argument used against a new Clause earlier. She said that this was wider than the normal scope of the Bill and she was having consultations and would therefore find it difficult to be precise about the constitution of a central council. Could the hon. Lady say
    974
    what is happening to these consultations and why they did not include the professions concerned with this change?
    10.45 p.m.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I assure the hon. Member that they did and that one or two of the professional groups concerned themselves suggested that we should include these words after reference was made by me in Committee. There has, therefore, been consultation. Indeed, this has been directly suggested subsequent to that reference in Committee by several of the groups of social workers concerned. This is, of course, a change in the title. I do not think that anybody believed that it would be limited under the previous arrangements, but this simply clears up the possibility of any misunderstanding about the breadth of the training council's functions.
    The hon. Member asked how the consultations about the training council were going. I understand that they are still continuing. As the hon. Member will realise from the Bill, a good deal was left to the professions in respect of the membership and arrangement of the ways in which the powers would be carried out. I cannot, therefore, yet report to the House the outcome of those negotiations.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Worsley: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 8, line 45, at end insert—
    (3) For the purposes of the said Act of 1962 the term health visitor " shall include any person concerned in nursing in the community.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the training council for health visitors—now the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors—to be expanded to include district nurses. I do not intend an obligation to be laid instantly on that training council to start courses for district nurses. I am advised that the wording, which might be thought to have that effect, would not do so and that it would be possible for the council to include district nurses as and when it wanted to do so.
    I am not trying to anticipate a decision in this respect. I am rather trying to write into the Bill the possibility, at a future date, for district nurses to be included, as health visitors are, under the training council. It may ease the Minister

    975
    of State's mind to know that my Amendment No. 37 makes my intentions much clearer. That Amendment, however, has not been selected. Because of the difficulty about the wording, of which the hon. Lady is obviously aware, I do not intend to press the Amendment. I ask the Government to consider it, however, with a view to themselves putting down an Amendment in another place to meet this important point.
    It is worth having on the Statute Book machinery which could be used to make a change which people involved in this work in general terms want. As the hon. Lady will know, the Royal College of Nursing has come out quite firmly in favour of the change which I am suggesting, and I understand that the district nurses want to make this change. It is, therefore, a great pity, when legislating in this subject, not to enable the change to be made after the consultations which the Government are having have been completed.
    It may be necessary, although I hope not, to wait until the conclusion of the Briggs Report. Even if that is so, surely it is only sensible, when we are discussing these matters and making change on the social workers' side of this legislation, to provide for a change on the health visitors' side in case we want to make it. My case is as narrow as that; but because it is narrow, it is not unimportant.
    In all our discussions on the Bill, we have been talking about more treatment in the community. This is just as important on the health side as on the social service side, which we have specifically discussed. So that it is critically important to see that the health visitor and the district nurse are encouraged and well trained.
    With all this work going on to consolidate the social work side, there is a real danger that we may leave out the community nurse, and there is without doubt a feeling among the dedicated people in this sphere that they are not at present receiving the attention they feel they need. I suggest that this relatively modest change would enable the 1962 Act, which we are to amend subsequently, to do what it cannot do now, which is to train all the nurses in the community whether they be health
    976
    visitors or district nurses. We are likely to want to have this power in due course, so why not take this present opportunity to enable that change to be made when we want to make it?
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman has, as he often does, mobilised the arguments I had intended to use, and has carefully knocked them down one by one, which puts me in a slightly weak position. But he has had the fairness to recognise that there are some difficulties in doing what he proposes, and I can tell him now that we propose to meet him halfway. We cannot meet him the whole way because of the very recent establishment of a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Asa Briggs specifically to look into the question of nurses.
    The terms of reference specifically include nurses in the community, and it would be most improper to prejudge the conclusions of a report which cannot be expected forthwith as the committee has only been set up in the last few months. The committee will consider education as well as training.
    At the moment, as the House knows, the training of district nurses is under a panel of assessors, which reports to my right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services and which, I think, laid down new training examination requirements only as recently as 1967. But we fully recognise that there is a great deal of sense in what the hon. Gentleman says. It would be our intention during the next few years to bring the panel of assessors and the training coming under it as closely as possible in touch with the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work with a view to seeing what steps should be taken in the light of the Report of the Briggs Committee.
    I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that while we feel that this Amendment would be inappropriate before the Briggs Committee has had a chance of considering what is in its terms of reference, we also feel that it is essential for the two bodies to be brought as closely together as they can in the intervening period, and for us then to consider what steps should be taken. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not feel

    977
    obliged to press his Amendment, which with the greatest regret, I do not think I could accept without disrespect to a committee which has been so recently set up by one of my colleagues.
    Mr. Worsley: With respect, the hon. Lady has not met me halfway but rather a quarter of the way. As I have said, I do not wish to press the Amendment, but I believe that to take this power now would not be to prejudge the recommendations of the Briggs Committee in any way. It would merely enable us to act as necessary if fusion is recommended, which is generally expected. Rather similar provisions were written into the 1962 legislation with regard to social workers, and we now find that the broadening of the work that was there provided for can take place.
    Would it not be sense, and I leave this thought with the Government, now that we are passing this legislation, just to take the precaution so that if, as many of us expect, the Briggs Committee so reports we can, without new legislation, which in this work is often extremely difficult to get without long delay, bring the recommendations into effect? Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 15

    CITATION, INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Mr. Worsley: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 38, at end insert—
    (8) In this Act `Secretary of State' shall mean ' Secretary of State for Social Services '.
    We come to the last main Amendment, one which is of the greatest importance on a subject which occupied a great deal of time on Second Reading and a long and closely argued debate in Committee, followed by a vote which was close enough to require the attention of the Chairman of the Committee. So we make no apology, even at this late hour, for again bringing up the question of responsibility of the Government in this matter.
    We have chosen a slightly different peg on which to hang our hat this time. Ministers will appreciate our difficulties. I do not suggest that this peg is in any way arguably better than the one we
    978
    chose before. If I may anticipate what Ministers may say, I recognise that this proposal would create great difficulties for Wales. I do not intend, even for a moment, to step over Offa's Dyke. I appreciate that in Wales a different provision would be required. I have therefore simply left that out.
    Mrs. White: I do not think it very flattering of the hon. Gentleman simply to leave us out.
    Mr. Worsley: This shows a healthy respect for the hon. Lady and her compatriots. I am sure that they would not allow themselves to be left out if this Amendment were carried.
    We realise that this is unconventional. We had a history lesson from the hon. Lady in Committee which I shall not attempt to repeat, nor to specify which Secretary of State is to take over responsibility. Nevertheless, this is the only way we have to argue on what we regard as a critically important matter. We are talking about the principle, and if the Government accept the principle, I shall withdraw the Amendment.
    On Second Reading, we had from the Government benches speech after speech supporting the proposal we are putting forward. I think I am right in saying that every Government back bencher who spoke was in favour of a single department in local authorities. This unanimity in the House is reflected by opinion outside. The Government are in the unconvincing situation of trying to convince us that everyone else is out of step.
    The nub of the matter is that every argument adduced by the Government, by the Seebohm Report and everyone else for a single social services department at local level has a mirror image and argument for a single social services department at national level. The same issues on getting priorities right and deciding where to put resources, and the same arguments about planning a family-orientated service and a community-based service, if true at local level are also true at national level.
    Since this is so, the Government have been reduced to setting up a structure for co-ordinating Government activity of the most extraordinary complexity and cumbrousness. It reminds me of one of those drawings by the late, lamented Heath Robinson in which with almost

    979
    perverse ingenuity a result is obtained which could have been produced by a most simple method. We have coordination of civil servants and consultants with inspectorates in the same service and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) said, the most extraordinary distinctions about who should answer Questions in this House.
    The reason for this cumbrous, complicated and clearly inefficient system is the simple fact that we have two right hon. Gentlemen—only one is in the House at the moment—growling like a couple of sheep-dogs over their respective dinners each determined that the other should not get something that they value. This is the crux of the matter. It is a power fight between two powerful Ministers, and they have decided on partition at the end of the day.
    11 p.m.
    Mr. Maddan: My hon. Friend's simile is perhaps more apt than he realises, because sheep-dogs always like to eat the other dog's dinner.
    Mr. Worsley: I will leave the animal side of the argument to my hon. Friend.
    I cannot help noting and regretting the extraordinary contrast between the degree of control the Government have thought it necessary to exercise over local authorities here—this is the only area where we have criticised the Government in any scale—and what they are applying to themselves. The Government are not practising what they are preaching to local authorities.
    Various excuses have been put forward. They can be summed up under two headings. The first is that central Government is already overburdened by various administrative changes that have been or that will be made. Local authorities are also overburdened by changes that have been or that will be made. They are having to digest and re-digest the Children and Young Persons Act, 1969. They have hanging over their heads the enormous reorganisations of Maud and of the Green Paper on the National Health Service. The argument that there is a great deal of reorganisation going on, if it were sound, could equally be applied to local government.
    980
    The second group of arguments is that these functions, and particularly those in the Home Office, have links with other Government functions, such as the probation service and after-care community relations, which should not be broken. Of course, there are such links—links, incidentally, which are also reflected at local levels. None of these things is half as strong as the links that we are creating by the Bill—within what are now the children's and the welfare departments of local authorities, links so close that they are causing Parliament to create a single department at local level. These are the strongest links of all.
    It is because we believe that these links must, if they are to be effectively carried out at local level, be reflected in a similar change at national level that we move the Amendment.
    Mr. Maddan: I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) has said. I want to quote three passages from the Seebohm Report, because it is as well that the House should be reminded of these passages. In the section on the organisation of the central Government, paragraph 637 contains these words:
    "…it would be no use altering the organisation of the local authority services unless the organisation of central government was changed to correspond with it."
    That is emphatic.
    Second, paragraph 638 contains these words:
    "…it would in our opinion be a fatal handicap to the new and developing organisation we have in mind if it were not to have the support of a single Government Department."
    This is one case where I believe that more means worse—in other words, with Government Departments more means worse.
    The third phrase comes from paragraph 639:
    " … differences in policy and practice between government departments hindered the development of the services at local level "
    and there should be
    " some more visibly effective machinery ".
    My first reason for supporting the Amendment, therefore, is that Seebohm made unequivocally clear that it is not only desirable but essential to have one Government Department. We are told that this is a machinery Bill. All right.

    981
    Let us tackle it in those terms. Whatever machinery is imposed by the Bill at local level will be frustrated by the measures, or lack of them, which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite propose in respect of themselves. We could talk about removing the motes from local authorities' eyes but not the beam in their own. Many such phrases come to mind in this situation.
    Second, it is a fundamental tenet of organisational policy that, if there is to be a merger, it must be real. It is no good having mergers in name only. This tripartite committee, at all sorts of levels, with Secretaries of State, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries, civil servants, advisers, inspectorates and the rest is not a merger. It is not an organisational change. It is just dodging the issue.
    Hon. Members opposite sometimes criticise mergers under which no real change of organisation follows, with swollen overheads, enormous staffs, and so on. Anything true said on those occasions is more than ever true on this. The Government are dodging the issue. We are making this point—there is nothing party-political in it—because we want the Seebohm reforms to succeed, and we believe that they will not succeed unless this change at the top is made.
    Our Amendment says that the Secretary of State shall be the Secretary of State for Social Services. On Second Reading and in other debates, it has been said that the Secretary of State for Social Services would be in the chair, or his representative would be in the chair, at the tripartite committee. I can think of two good reasons why the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should himself be in the chair. One is—I have said this before—that his Department has much more experience of dealing with local authorities than has the Department of the Secretary of State for Social Services. The latter has far less experience, and what authority it has in this respect is diminishing in many ways, with the transfer of health functions to area boards, the ending of the medical officer of health in local government, and so on.
    The Home Office, on the other hand, with its children's work and the rest, has good experience which is not to be gainsaid. It is not merely a matter of transferring one body of specialist civil
    982
    servants from one roof to another. It is a matter of understanding at the top in the Department of the right way to deal with local authorities.
    Another reason why I should be happy to settle for the Home Secretary is that he has at least had the courtesy to be here all evening, but not one Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security—
    Mrs. White: It is only fair to point out that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is abroad on official business at this time.
    Mr. Maddan: All right; that is one. I do not have my Vacher with me at the moment, but perhaps the Minister will remind us how many House of Commons Ministers there are in that Department. We might well have had one of them here during the debate. I compliment the Home Secretary on the interest he is showing. I think that he is making by his presence a very serious bid to gain the chairmanship of this tripartite body. I wish him well in that for the reasons I have stated.
    I shall support the Amendment, which mentions the Secretary of State for Social Services, but it will be in the spirit of wanting there to be one Secretary of State only and not of particularly putting my money on the absent horse.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Despite the frowns of the Opposition Chief Whip I should be grateful if I might be allowed to say a few words. I had not intended to speak, because my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Wales was proposing to reply, but having heard the speeches I asked whether she would permit me to say something about the Amendment.
    My hon. Friend was obviously going to point out what was pointed out to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), that " Secretary of State " comprises all the Secretaries of State. It is six in one—or certainly much more than three in one. On agricultural matters, I find myself signing documents as Secretary of State in common with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, all of whom

    983
    apparently have functions in these matters. So what we are discussing is not unique in the field we are talking about; there is nothing exceptional or unique in having a situation in which more than one Minister is responsible for a group of services. Agriculture is a clear example.
    But I accept what the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) says, that he is concerned that the Seebohm recommendations should be successful. So am I. I think that all of us are. I think that the hon. Member for Worsley—I should say the hon. Member for the Flower Show—for whom I have a very considerable liking, reduced the level of the debate a bit when he said that it was nothing but a power struggle between two shaggy sheep dogs, or words to that effect. There is more to it than that. It is not the personal position of Ministers that is in issue. It is a very difficult question of how the machinery of government should best be organised.
    Although it is believed on the benches opposite that the Government can know nothing about anything in particular, I hope at least that it would be conceded that those of us who have had a little experience of seeing Government Departments at work over the past six years have some views about the machinery of government. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hove really answered his own case when he spoke about the experience which the Home Office has with local authorities, which perhaps was not so fully shared by the Department of Health and Social Security. He was pointing out some of the difficulties that would arise if we were at the moment to take a final decision on the proper organisation.
    The whole argument of the hon. Member for Chelsea rested on the proposition that if something is good enough for the local authorities it is good enough for the central Government. If that argument is not correct the whole of his case falls to the ground. He has not really thought it through clearly enough. The functions of local authorities in this matter are quite different from those of the central Government. Local authorities' functions are fully executive. Of course, they decide for themselves what resources within their own areas should be applied as between, for example, three
    984
    very differing types of service—what resources they should apply to residential care for the elderly, to the boarding out of children and to providing a workshop for the physically-handicapped. They must decide these at the operational level, on the ground.
    The job of the central Government is to give guidance in these matters, because they have thought it right, and the House has thought it right, that local authorities should organise their services on this basis. It does not necessarily follow that it is automatically right that a Government with several Departments of State should themselves have to have one combined service for this need. We are dealing at the central level with very different problems from those dealt with by local authorities. With respect, this has little to do with the personal position of Ministers, although no Minister likes to lose an interesting service.
    The hon. Gentleman should not believe all the terrible passages he reads in the Press written by commentators who must find a story every week of a quarrel between some Ministers somewhere. There is here a genuine machinery of government problem. If hon. Members opposite were ever to take over the Government, they would have the same problem.
    Let me give the House one example. On the Children and Young Persons Act we considered the whole question of the care and control of children. We said, and there was general agreement between us, that the care of a child and the control of a child were opposite sides of the same coin; we did not quite know where they merged when the coin was flipped. This proposal suggests that, without experience, we should tear that fabric asunder, that care should be teased out from the Home Office and put under the Department of Health and Social Security, irrespective of the consequences and the shadings in between care and control.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite are allowing a passion for tidiness and uniformity, which I did not think was the principal characteristic of the Conservative Party, to outweigh the pragmatic commonsense that always distinguishes my party. This reversal of roles which has been overtaking the parties during the last few years —if I may interpose a party point—is the reason why we shall win the next

    985
    election and the Conservative Party will lose it. Instead of approaching these problems with some ideological knowledge, the Opposition are saying that we must reach an agreed solution, irrespective of whether or not the facts fit it. The Government are saying, " Let us stand back and look at this problem carefully. Nobody yet knows the final answer on where the separation should fall. Give us time to see whether it works out."
    I assure hon. Gentlemen and all those who wish the Bill well—and I know they do—that there is nothing unusual in Ministers having meetings. Ministers even talk to each other on occasions. Their officials discuss questions with each other. Since this arrangement was announced last February, there has been no difficulty in officials of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Welsh Office and the Home Office meeting each other whenever necessary to decide what guidance should be given to local authorities on these matters. My right hon. Friends and I meet and talk about these issues whenever it is necessary to do so.
    After two and a half years in the Home Office I do not know where the solution should finally fall, and if the hon. Member were in office he might have second thoughts about where the dividing line should be. It is not as easy as he thinks. Once the Bill is through and the social
    services committee has been set up by local authorities, let us see how it works out.
    11.15 p.m.
    We need more time to consider this matter. There need be no final decision taken, and I am not announcing one tonight. Let us see where it falls, and we can then reach a conclusion that will be in the best interests of what the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) would call " the consumer ". I am not yet satisfied that to transfer control would be in the best interests of " the consumer ". Let us wait until we have had experience to see where it should be.
    Although there was a dead heat in Committee, I have no hesitation in saying to my hon. Friends that good sense requires us to vote against the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman really wants to make a protest; he does not push the Amendment because he knows it would make a nonsense of the situation. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will go into the Lobby on my side of the House with good heart, knowing that they have taken the right decision.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:
    The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 139.

    Division No. 122.]

    AYES

    [11.20 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Cower, Raymond

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Astor, John

    Grant, Anthony

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Gurden, Harold

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Batsford, Brian

    Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Bitten, John

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Body, Richard

    Hay, John

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pounder, Rafton

    Braine, Bernard

    Holland, Philip

    Pym, Francis

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hunt, John

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Sharpies, Richard

    Chichester-Clark, R

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Silvester, Frederick

    Clegg, Walter

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Corfield, P. V.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Speed, Keith

    Crouch, David

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Dean, Paul

    Kitson, Timothy

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

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

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Eden, Sir John

    Lancaster, Col. C. C.

    Temple, John M.

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

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    MacArthur, Ian

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Eyre, Reginald

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Fortescue, Tim

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Waddington, David

    Fry, Peter

    Maddan, Martin

    Walters, Dennis

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Marten, Neil

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hit. William

    Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Mr. Anthony Royle and

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Wylie, N. R.

    Mr. Hector Monro.

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Younger, Hn. George

    NOES

    Alldritt, Walter

    Gardner, Tony

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

    Carrett, W. E.

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Golding, John

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Murray, Albert

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Hamling, William

    Ogden, Eric

    Barnett, Joel

    Harper, Joseph

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Beaney, Alan

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Bence, Cyril

    Haseldine, Norman

    Orme, Stanley

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hooley, Frank

    Oswald, Thomas

    Bishop, E. S.

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Palmer, Arthur

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Booth, Albert

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Boston, Terence

    Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

    Pentland, Norman

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)

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

    Hynd, John

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

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

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

    Buchan, Norman

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

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

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

    Probert, Arthur

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rankin, John

    Coe, Denis

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

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Coleman, Donald

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Richard, Ivor

    Concannon, J. D.

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Dalyeil, Tam

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Sheldon, Robert

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Sillars, J.

    Davies, Ifor (Cower)

    MacColl, James

    Silverman, Julius

    Delargy, H. J.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Slater, Joseph

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dickens, James

    McElhone, Frank

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Dobson, Ray

    McGuire, Michael

    Taverne, Dick

    Driberg, Tom

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Tinn, James

    Dunn, James A.

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Wallace, George

    Dunnett, Jack

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Ellis, John

    Mahon Simon (Bootle)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

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

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

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Faulds, Andrew

    Mapp, Charles

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Marks, Kenneth

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Finch, Harold

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Woof, Robert

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mendelson, John

    Ford, Ben

    Millan, Bruce

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Forrester, John

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

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mr. Neil McBride.

  Schedule 1

    ENACTMENTS CONFERRING FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED TO SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 12, line 6. column 2, leave out ' assistance in certain cases ' and insert ' certain services '.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it will be convenient, with this Amendment, to take Nos. 44, 45 and 46.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): If the House agrees, so be it.
    Mrs. Williams: I wish to thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who pointed out in
    988
    Committee that the wording of the Bill is not very precise. We have endeavoured to meet the point. These are purely drafting Amendments to make the Bill as precise as possible.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 44, in line 10, column 2, leave out council accommodation ' and insert
    ' accommodation provided under Part III of the Act, etc.'.
    No. 45, in line 15, column 2, leave out ' council accommodation ' and insert
    ' accommodation provided under the said Part III '.
    No. 46, in page 17, line 10, leave out 3'.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]
    11.30 p.m.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I do not want to detain the House more than two minutes, but I should like to thank all those who have contributed to the work which has been done on the Bill both in Committee and outside the House; in particular, the organisations of social workers, the local authority associations, and the representatives of the medical profession.
    The Bill essentially creates a structure of co-ordination on the different aspects of personal social services. It integrates three crucial social services: children, welfare, and certain aspects of health. It has been suggested that the Bill does not provide the means to make the structure effective, but it provides those means under other enactments.
    The Bill brings to an end 10 years of uncertainty which started with the Ingleby Report in 1960, which suggested that a family service be established. We can say that we have now created the structure, but that structure will depend very much, as all buildings do, on the spirit of those who live and work within it. I think that we will be able to say, looking back, that we have given the means, and that it is up to the local authorities to achieve the ends that we all wish to see.
    11.32 p.m.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I do not wish to detain the House long.
    First, I should make plain, if it is not already, that the Opposition welcome the main purpose of the Bill, which is implementing the Seebohm Report in broad terms. However, we have some reservations on the secondary purpose of the Bill; that is, putting into action
    990
    what has been described as the white parts of the Green Paper on the reorganisation of the Health Service. We have these reservations largely on a matter of timing.
    It is clear to all who have taken part in the proceedings on the Bill that any difficulties over demarcation, as it were, between health and welfare are likely to be at their greatest during the interim period while the social services and the welfare side is being reformed and we are still awaiting the changes on the Health Service side.
    This particularly applies to those relatively few local authorities which have had part of the welfare function delegated to them and which, therefore, in the interim period retain a truncated health function as local authorities, while the bit that is cut off has gone not to their welfare side, which they will lose, but to a separate authority.
    Despite the good intentions of the Bill, we feel that there is one weakness: that it is difficult to see how the health and the welfare will work closely together, because it is difficult to see how the Health Service will work at all as described in the Green Paper. To the extent, therefore, that support of the Bill depends on the implementation of the Green Paper, and, indeed, of the Maud Report, we are a little concerned.
    I should make clear to the House that our support for the Bill, which is wholehearted in every other respect, should not be taken to imply, as it has been, support for the provisions of the Green Paper, or the proposals on local government reform in their totality.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  FILMS BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Clause 6

    EXTENSION OF OBJECTS OF BRITISH FILM FUND AGENCY
    Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 3, line 40, leave out from beginning to " with " in line 41.—[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.]
    11.34 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    It may be convenient if, with permission, we took Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.

    "A. Section 9 of the Films Act 1960 shall be amended by adding at the end the words:—

    '(8) The applicant for the registration of a film shall at the same time as he makes an application under this section furnish to the Board of Trade a statutory undertaking to the effect that he has either given or offered or offered to sell at cost price to the National Film Archive of the British Film Institute a positive print of the film.' "

    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): There are three Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendment, one in the name of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), in line 8, leave out ' a positive print of the film ' and insert:
    'such copy or copies of the said film in such form and condition as may be specified by the National Film Archive';
    One in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), in line 8, at end insert:
    ' but this section shall not come into effect except upon such terms and conditions as the President of the Board of Trade shall provide by statutory instrument';
    and one in the name of the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), in line 8, after Institute ', insert:
    ' or, in the case of films relating to war or the study of war, to the Film Archive of the Imperial War Museum '.
    992
    These Amendments were moved by the Government in another place in pursuance of an undertaking I gave to the House on Third Reading. The effect will be to place a statutory obligation on the Board of Trade to consult the Cinematograph Films Council before approving any grants from the British Film Fund towards the running costs of the National Film School and to the British Film Institute towards the cost of making films.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  New Clause " A "

    APPLICANT FOR REGISTRATION OF FILM TO GIVE CERTAIN STATUTORY UNDER TAKING
    Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 7, line 3, at end insert new Clause " A ":
    Mr. Speaker has not selected these for separate discussion, but they may be referred to in debating the Minister's Motion.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the House will bear with me if I now repeat some of the things which have been said at earlier stages of the Bill.
    There is very wide sympathy for the principles which motivated the noble Lord who moved the inclusion of this Clause in another place, and those who both supported him there and Members of this House who may feel inclined to lend their support now.
    I shall deal, first, with principles. The preservation of copies of films made is the responsibility of the British Film Institute, of which the National Film Archive is a part, and Ministerial responsibility rests with the right hon. Lady the Minister of State for the Arts. In those circumstances alone, therefore, the Bill now before us is not a correct place for legislation of this kind.

    993
    But, quite apart from that, the House may like to be reminded that just about one year ago a Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) which had as its object the provision of legislation the effect of which, if enacted, would have been very much the same as the present Clause is designed to achieve.
    That Bill was not given a Second Reading, and it was said during the debate that the British Film Institute—and, therefore, the National Film Archive—is financed mainly by a grant from Government sources. The grant to the British Film Institute has been increased from £100,000 in 1963–64 to £625,000 in the current financial year, and the archive itself has benefited substantially from this.
    The Government have for example, provided £64,000 for new vaults opened in 1968, and this year the Institute's grant includes £29,000 for further vaults, and £37,000 for the duplication of nitrate film. The right hon. Lady the Minister of State further said that in a more favourable economic climate this was one Measure which the Government would like to see on the Statute Book. She went on to say that she would like to consult the British Film Institute, the commercial industry and everyone concerned about how best it should be carried out.
    I know that there are many pressures on money available for the arts, and, as the right hon. Lady indicated a year ago, this is a question of priorities. It has already been made clear on several occasions that the Government are sympathetic to the general principle involved. But to implement a provision which envisages purchase by the archive of films which are offered to it would involve extra demands on public funds which the Government cannot contemplate at present.
    I recognise that the new Clause intends that the existing procedure whereby films are offered to the archive will continue. These offers are made voluntarily, and the archive receives many copies of films without cost to itself. This arrangement, which can and should continue, is of great value to the archive.
    I know that there is a feeling within the House that the difficulty of introducing a Measure of this kind now, because the Government cannot at present provide
    994
    funds, could be avoided by including in the Bill a further provision whereby this Clause would have no effect until brought into force by Statutory Instrument. I cannot accept this proposition. As I have already explained, responsibility for the National Film Archive does not rest with the Board of Trade, and it would be totally wrong for the Board of Trade to be given responsibility through this Bill for bringing into force a legislative provision which is the responsibility of another Department.
    This device also has the objection that if it were used in relation to the new Clause the Board of Trade would be asked at some time in the future to bring into force a Clause which is in a form which is, in any event, quite unacceptable, a matter to which I shall refer in a moment.
    In view of the fact that the matter was obviously to be brought before this House on the present occasion I have taken the opportunity of again discussing this matter with my right hon. Friend, and I can say she is entering into consultations with the various interests involved to explore further the practical issues with particular reference to the possibility which she mentioned last year that the costs should be shared by the film industry, the television industry and the British Film Institute. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept that positive action is being taken.
    So much for the grounds of principle on which I am bound to ask the House to remove this Clause from the Bill. There are very strong objections to a legislative measure as presented to us by the new Clause. Since the Bill was published with this Clause in it I have received representations from both the Film Production Association of Great Britain and from the Kinematograph Renters' Society that the Clause should be removed from the Bill. These organisations—and I share their views on this point—like most of us here are not opposed in principle to the deposit of films in an archive, and are at this moment exploring ways and means of improving the existing co-operation between it and the commercial side of the film industry.
    The compulsion which the Clause seeks to place on the distributors of films, however, has a number of strong objections

    995
    to it. The Clause would require the applicant for the registration of a film, before he applies for registration, to give or offer or offer to sell a copy of the film to the Archive. Without such a gift or offer being made the film could not be registered and it would then be illegal to show it. I think that this is an unreasonable sanction, because the applicant for registration—usually the distributor—will often not have the right to make copies of films for offer to third parties, yet it is the applicant for registration who would have to comply with such a provision.
    The logical outcome would be that cinema exhibitors in this country, who remain in business under considerable difficulties, would have those difficulties greatly increased by a serious reduction in the number of films available to them. The Clause makes no transitional provision for existing contracts. This would be particularly difficult where the copyright owner is a foreigner.
    There is the further important point that the application of this Measure to foreign films would be likely to lead to the introduction of similar compulsion in many foreign countries, which would be unlikely to include a provision that their archive must pay for the print demanded. Moreover, the archives of some foreign countries may not be so meticulous as our own archives in respecting copyright. I know of a number of cases where archives abroad have made use of copies for public showings, and this can be seriously prejudicial to the commercial exploitation of the film concerned. It would be difficult for us to object if we have already applied conditions of this sort to foreign films entering this country.
    I hope that the House will accept my assurance that the Department primarily concerned in this matter is actively pursuing it. However much we may recognise the principle behind this provision, and however greatly we regret the necessity for opposing it, for the reasons I have given I must ask the House to support the Motion.
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I think that the Lords' Amendment may be defective in some small technical ways. The Amendment
    996
    which has not been selected would have been a contribution to putting that right, but I do not think that this is the time or place to go into details of the Amendment, because it is the principle that we want to debate.
    The Amendment was accepted in another place by a majority of 59 to 20 in Committee, and on Report their Lordships voted 62 to 55 in favour. Together with the contents were a large number of noble Lords who normally support the Government. I find it impossible to discover in the House anybody who is opposed to the Amendment. Not even the Government are opposed to it. The right hon. Lady the Minister of State and the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary have declared themselves in favour of it. We seem to be in the curious position that everybody is in favour of the principle, and yet the entire might of the Government is whipped to defeat the principles of which they are apparently in favour.
    To keep the argument short, there appear to be two reasons why the Government wish to defeat the Amendment. The first reason was given by the noble Lady, Lady Phillips, in the other place, and by the hon. Lady tonight. It is that this is not the appropriate Bill in which to legislate about records because the costs of such legislation should fall upon the Department of Science and Education. That is broadly the argument. I should like to remind the hon. Lady that legislation about nationalised industries has caused them to deposit their records in certain public repositories, the cost of which fall upon the Lord Chancellor's Department.
    The Minister of State may remember certain discussions about transport records or transport relics which were dealt with in the Transport Act by the Ministry of Transport. The cost of storing these records and housing these relics will fall on her Department. But this strange bureaucratic demarcation argument has never been used before. It is commonplace for one Department to legislate on a subject which falls naturally within that Department, but to make another Department responsible for carrying out the legislation. That argument of the hon. Lady, therefore, does not stand. If the Government made the finance available

    997
    there would be no difficulty about accepting the Amendment.
    11.45 p.m.
    The hon. Lady's second objection is that there is a shortage of finance and that it would be impossible to house and to store a satisfactory number of films in the film archives. This parsimony is very unlike the right hon. Lady responsible for the arts, who has become the public lady bountiful, always telling us by how much her Vote has been increased. It is surprising that the sum of £100,000 or £150.000 will not be made available for what seems to be the most important of all her functions—that of making sure that whatever we do about the present, the records of the past are not neglected, destroyed and denied to future generations.
    The British Film Institute spends £90,000 a year on its film archives and it would be a question of increasing that sum by as much as public funds would allow. But the point is that it does not matter how much is made available—whether it is a lot or none; for to give the Institute power to require the statutory deposition of films does not of itself cost a penny. If the Institute is kept on a tight rein, it cannot afford to buy as many films as it would like to buy. The difficulty about the present situation is that it has to rely on the generosity of the film producers to a large extent and it gets films which are given free and not films which it might prefer to have but which are not given free and which it cannot afford to buy.
    Passing the Amendment would cost the State not one penny. The State can make such provision as it thinks right for the Institute and for the film archives in the future. No more money is involved in passing the Amendment, which is an enabling Amendment giving the Institute the statutory right to buy any film it wishes to buy.
    It is only right to acknowledge the generosity of the film industry which has been giving about £20,000 worth of films a year to the Institute, but in my view it is wrong that a great national archive should have to rely upon gifts. It should have its own money to buy what it thinks it right to buy. The successful, or it may he unsuccessful, producer of a film should not be under a moral obligation
    998
    to spend up to £1,000 on providing prints —especially if the film has been unsuccessful, for he may not have recouped his costs.
    It would be better to give the Film Institute enough money to buy what it needs and to leave it to decide what to take. The main priority is to ensure that the past is satisfactorily recorded. That should have first call on the Minister's funds. I am horrified that she seems to say that among all her functions this important function is one which she is not prepared to carry out.
    I suspect that the true reason for the Government's attitude is that there is a lack of agreement between the two Departments. They have not made up their minds how to deal with the problem. Neither the Ministry of Education nor the Baord of Trade have been able to find a solution. They wonder whether there should be two archives or one. They have a working party which is wandering its slow, bureauratic way through this difficult problem and they were caught napping when another place put down a reasonable and sensible Amendment which could have been accepted by the House tonight, enabling us to go to bed and to spend no more time on the problem.
    I know that some hon. Gentlemen have received letters from the Imperial War Museum, which is the alternative to the archive, because it houses the films of interest to the student of war and has a very fine collection. I am happy to tell the House that the Museum and the British Film Institute last week signed an agreement, on statutory deposit, as to the way that they would administer the Amendment if it became law, so that both would be satisfied, both would be able to get the films they want, and there is no question of disputed claim to films. The two repositories are now absolutely agreed on how this should be done.
    I have in my hand a copy of the signed and deposited agreement between the two bodies. So there is no problem any more. There is neither a problem as to whether it should be the British Film Institute or the Imperial War Museum, nor is there a problem with regard to money, nor is there any substance in the hon. Lady's case that this is the wrong Bill in which to do this.

    999
    The real truth is that in some curious way the Government are blind and obdurate to the will of Parliament. This is a small point, late at night. All that they have to do is to accept the Amendment. Where it has been democratically demonstrated that it is the will of Parliament that the Amendment should be accepted it is time that the Government recognised this and withdrew their objection to the Lords Amendment. If they do not we will certainly vote against this.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The House and Parliament owes a debt to Lord Willis, who introduced this Amendment in the Lords. The object of the exercise is one which as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has said, is universally desired. It is desirable that there should be a National Film Archive and that this institution should be enabled to do a more complete job than it is currently able to do, with its present limited funds.
    The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord leaves something to be desired and our difficulty is that at this stage we are limited in our powers to correct the technical difficulties in the Amendment. This is a problem. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given us an assurance which I would like to explore a little, and which I hope will enable us not to press the Lords Amendment. I had an Amendment, which has not been called, which was intended to provide my hon. Friend with a solution to the problem. I am sorry that she did not feel able to accept it. It would have given her the opportunity to say that she accepted the idea in principle, but would introduce a statutory order as and when she was able to.
    I understand that this is a matter which in some respects at any rate is more one for her right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, whose presence I welcome. Provided that that assurance is as firm as I understand it to be, and I presume that the presence of her right hon. Friend is an indication of the firmness of the assurance, I believe that we can accept the position as it stands. The apparent difference which existed between the Imperial War Museum and the National Film Archive has been resolved. This
    1000
    morning I received a letter from the Curator of the National Film Archive in which he said that:
    " Yesterday we concluded a formal agreement with the Museum in which we undertook to use any statutory powers accorded to us to apply for films on their behalf. The Museum has accordingly agreed to withdraw its objection to the Amendment."
    There is, therefore, no difficulty. As soon as the Government's discussions have been completed and the necessary money is available, we can proceed to accumulate a more satisfactory archive.
    In these circumstances, I hope that before the debate is concluded, my hon. Friend will clear up a point about the negotiations which are taking place. I understand that it is hoped that as a result of those negotiations, new legislation will be introduced, but am I right in thinking that that legislation would be introduced by my right hon. Friend and would be—
    Mr. Ridley: It will be introduced by this side.
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member says that it will be introduced by hon. Members opposite. He is wrong and I am afraid they will not have the opportunity to explore his curiously " archayic " method of pronouncing archives which he maintained throughout Committee, but could not sustain at the box.
    I ask my hon. Friend to say whether I am right in my understanding and that her right hon. Friend will be introducing legislation, that is to say, by the Department of Education and Science. If that is what my hon. Friend says, I should not press my Amendment to the Lords Amendment, even if I had the opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I should like briefly to add my support to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and I shall confine my few remarks to the Imperial War Museum. It seems odd that in the Amendment which has come from the other place the reference is only to the National Film Archive. It seems even more odd that the Minister tonight spoke about the archive, not once, but many times, and

    1001
    referred only to the archive in the singular. In fact, there are two archives.
    The Imperial War Museum was founded in 1920 and is the oldest archive in the world. It has 30 million feet as as against the 38 million feet of the National Film Archive. It has conditions in which it is storing film as good as any in the world, and it has testing and preservation arrangements which are unequalled. One other thing that is worthy of mention is the way in which the Imperial War Museum has its indexing organised on as advanced a computer film index as is to be found anywhere. In these circumstances, to have discussions about keeping films without reference to the Imperial War Museum seems to me to be entirely wrong. That was why I put down the Amendment which has not been selected.
    Any suggestion that there is disagreement between the Imperial War Museum and the National Film Archive must be entirely erroneous, because at least twice in every month there is a discussion between the curator of the National Film Archive and the deputy-director of the Imperial War Museum and the two organisations work very happily together. With these few words concerning the Imperial War Museum, I support my hon. Friend's observations.
    Dr. David Kerr: As one who must claim some responsibility or blame for starting this off a year or more ago, I feel that I owe it to myself to say something about the statutory deposit, and to be as brief as possible in saying it.
    I am in some difficulty. I am reluctant to seek for allies on the Opposition Front Bench, for I am sorry to say that some of the things which they have said I would want to reject out of hand.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was less than fair. He was positively hostile to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who has granted to the British Film Institute a considerably increased sum of money precisely for archival improvements to which he has referred. The British Film Institute was so surprised that it has since scratched its head wondering whether and how it can spend the money which my right hon. Friend has granted. I will defend her to
    1002
    the last breath that remains with me when I sit down against any charge of lack of generosity in this respect.
    The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The problem which the British Film Institute and the National Film Archive face is not so much that of the archiving of the past, but of the archiving of the present. It is the acquisition of current firms which remains a very grave problem for a system which ought to be depositing and accumulating a growing footage of most valuable social, historical and scientific documents, which is today not, perhaps, appearing so much in the nation's cinemas as on television and in specialised film showings. That is the problem.
    12 midnight.
    When I introduced my Private Member's Bill last year, the support which was expressed on both sides gave wide recognition—admittedly in a circle of cognoscenti—to the importance of preserving material which, if it is not preserved within a short time is in grave danger of being lost for ever. A great deal of film has already been lost for ever, and more is falling by the wayside. It is not a matter of just saying that if we wait a few more years we shall have the money to rescue the situation and go back over the ground again. Once film is lost, once video tape fades, and material is lost to future generations, there is no way of re-creating it. That is why it is so important that some measure of encouragement should be given to the British Film Institute.
    We have been told about the generosity of the film production industry. I have tried the generosity of the film production industry, and I must tell the House that it falls short of what the nation requires. I might add that I am a little sick of the crocodile tears that are being shed for the poor film producers. If any poor film producer had to face a tax of £1,000, which might be the cost of a deposit copy of a very expensive colour film in 70 mm. CinemaScope, it would be very small—in some cases almost trivial—in comparison with the high cost of the production of such films.
    In any case, it is not that kind of film that presents the gravest problem to the archive. The gravest problem is that presented by the good quality film which

    1003
    comes from overseas, and which is not easily charged against the producer of the film but must be charged against the distributor, whose margin is very much less.
    The curious thing is that in many cases the distributors of foreign films have been very generous whereas, by contrast, the producers of some of the more expensive films have been less than generous, and some of the most important films produced in this country by British or American producers have failed to find their way into the National Film Archive. This is the problem that must be dealt with.
    My right hon. Friend was very sympathetic when my Bill was rejected last year. I hope that the discussions which I understand are now going on will be fruitful. The trouble with the content of the Lords Amendment is twofold. My hon. Friend claims that it is inappropriate for her Department. I said on Second Reading that it was an inappropriate Bill to contain any reference to statutory deposit. I still take that view. I still think that a Films Bill dealing with the economics and finance of the industry is an inappropriate Measure because it looks as though the Bill labels statutory deposit as a way of taxing the industry.
    I am losing heart. If a Measure came before the House which involved taxing the industry to require a statutory deposit I would now find myself looking at it in a very friendly way. That was not the way in which I tabled my Bill because I hoped that 1 should have sufficient support from the Government and the industry not to make that necessary. I do not think it right to impose a tax of this sort on the industry.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member will be aware that the industry is asked to donate the copy, so it is not a tax on the film industry.
    Dr. Kerr: The question about whether the industry should be paid for this is at the root of the problem which besets the Government. Sums of money of about £150,000 a year have been mentioned. I do not know whether this is accurate, but I think it a reasonably good working figure. If we are not to have at this stage a kind of voluntary deposit which
    1004
    the industry ought to be offering, the Government would be well advised not to be so generous in their approach to the industry as I was prepared to be generous on the Government's behalf when I tabled my Bill and as is implied in the Lords Amendment.
    This is a confused and confusing situation, but I have tried the generosity of the industry and found it wanting. I hope very much that we shall be able to find a way which is fair both to the Government with their museum responsibilities and problems and to the industry which numbers among its members some who have been very generous indeed to the archive and to whom we and the nation as a whole should express gratitude, but this is not true throughout the industry.
    My second reason for suggesting that this is not as watertight and perfect as it should be rests on the fact that what is asked in the Lords Amendment of the industry is that it should supply, or offer to sell or give a positive print. For re-showing that is fair enough, but for archiving, that is to say depositing for future reference, a positive print is useless, particularly if it is a worn print. This is why the Lords Amendment is not sufficient to carry us along the road to an adequate deposit programme to satisfy the requirements of the National Archive.
    I cannot support the Lords Amendment as it stands. I should like to see it drawn up with more technical advice from those concerned, but it has been encouraging that their Lordships have given support to this principle, just as last year it was encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend say how much she valued the wider deposit of film and to hear hon. Members opposite support it in unequivocal terms. This is not quite the moment, but I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends with Government responsibility will have taken note of the widespread support for extending the resources of our national film archive and will act with urgency to stop up a gap which is allowing so much valuable material to be lost to us and those who come after us.
    Mr. James Allason: Of the 80 films a year which it wishes to acquire the archive manages to acquire about 20, of which some are donated by the industry. The archive

    1005
    receives a grant from the Independent Television Authority which we are glad to hear is to be supplemented from other sources. Even so, this sum is obviously nothing like enough if the archive can acquire only one-quarter of the films it wishes to acquire.
    Therefore, something must be done. Taking the two extremes, one solution would be to compel those who apply for licences to donate a copy of their film to the archive. The other extreme would be to give something to ensure that the archive could buy a copy of any film it wanted. There must be an intermediate solution; because not only would the extreme solution of requiring all applicants to donate one copy of their film be unsatisfactory from the point of the view of the foreign film which is to be shown to only a few people, but it would be unfair that the very small film maker making a documentary in this country which might be of great value but which will not be commercially very successful should have to hear the cost of putting one copy of his film into the archive.
    As to the second extreme, it might be unreasonable to give the archive sufficient money to enable it to buy a copy of any film it wanted, because many films cost an enormous sum to produce and, if successful, gross an enormous amount. It must he remembered, though, that the producers of such films can well afford to donate a copy of their film to the archive.
    Guidelines are necessary so that the industry may know what is required. It should be possible to produce such guidelines so that the very small man can say, " Given my costs, this is an unreasonable sum for me to be expected to contribute to the archive. I cannot afford it ". However, it should be clear that the licensee of the purely commercial film which will make a great deal of money should donate a good copy—not a worn-out copy—to the archive.
    The hon. Lady said that importers of foreign films might not have the right to produce a copy of such film to go into the archive. Such a licensee must make the necessary arrangements. It may be that as a consequence there would be some foreign films which we should miss, which would be a pity. The licensee could ask the archive whether it wanted a copy of the film. If a copy was re-
    1006
    quired, the licensee would have to decide whether it was worth going to the trouble of getting the producer to agree to this contribution to the archive. Perhaps in consequence the film would not be shown. I suggest that it would operate in exactly the same way abroad: British producers would have to consider whether they would be prepared for copies of their films to disappear into the national film archive of Ruritania. A British film producer who was unwilling for this to happen might prefer that his films were not shown in Ruritania.
    That is feasible. The Lords Amendment would give a framework on which the industry and the National Film Archive could work, and I hope that the Government will change their mind about it.
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. John Hay Mr. John Hay (Henley) rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Hay: Before my hon. Friends cheer too loudly, I must warn them that I propose to tell the House that I shall not support them if they go into the Lobby on this Lords Amendment.
    I agree with the Minister on the attitude which she has taken. This is, after all, the final stage of the Bill. The main reason why I oppose the new Clause which was inserted in the other place is that it is completely unworkable. It does not tell us, for instance, what is to be the position regarding matters like copyright. It does not make failure to comply with the requirement for a statutory declaration an absolute bar to registration of a film. It does not indicate what the National Film Archive is to do with the copy of the film deposited, or what protection there is for distributor or exhibitor against showing of the film in competition with the commercial cinema.
    In short, the Lords Amendment does not do all those things which the Bill presented a year ago by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) sought to do. I spoke in support of the hon. Gentleman's Bill and voted for it, though in my speech then I expressed doubts about some of its drafting. It was a pity that the right hon. Lady at that time was not able to advise the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. If it had succeeded at that point, and if we

    1007
    had had a chance to debate it in Committee, we should not have had the sort of half-baked proposal now before the House in the form of this Lords Amendment.
    I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friends. They take a view on this which I do not share. But this is the last opportunity we have of looking at a piece of legislation, and it is no good our putting into the Bill, even after all the pressure in the other place, a provision which, frankly, is unworkable and which, I am certain, would cause far more trouble in future than what is now proposed, that is, sensible discussions with the industry as a whole to try to find a workable solution for the whole problem—which is what everyone wants.
    For those reasons, I support the Minister. This is the first time I have supported her on anything to do with the Bill, I believe. I hope that my hon. Friends will think again before pressing the House to a Division on what I regard as a completely unworkable Amendment.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: May I have the leave of the House to speak again?
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has stated the position correctly. The Amendment is not a workable one. It would not in the long run assist either the industry or the archive. We are in process of having talks about this problem. It is far more sensible to reach agreement with the people involved than at the last moment to make an Amendment such as this in a piece of legislation mainly concerned with something totally different. I ask the House, therefore, to disagree with the Lords in the Amendment.
    Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). It is all very well for the Government to say that they are in discussion with the various bodies concerned about this matter. The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) produced his Bill over a year ago. Why have there not been discussions at least in the past 15 months? Nothing hap
    pened until this Amendment was made in the other place, and even tonight we have no clear indication from the Government of how far the negotiations have gone, when they are likely to be concluded, or what is likely to happen. We have had an example of complete Ministerial inaction in the matter.
    The right hon. Lady gave us a speech in favour of the principle last year, but, after voting against it, has done nothing since. We can be sure of that; otherwise, we should have been told in the other place. There was no mention of negotiations there. I suspect that they have been going on for about the past 48 hours. We heard nothing about this during any of the debates in another place. We would have had a far clearer discussion of the matter if the Government had accepted the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
    This is not the moment to argue the details. We are asked to vote for or against the system of having a statutory undertaking whereby people would be paid for the films. Nobody is being asked to give the films free. The Amendment does not cost a penny. It gets the principle on to the Statute Book, and the amount of money it costs will depend on how much the Government offer.
    The British Film Institute is in favour of the Amendment, as is the Imperial War Museum. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not. I am sorry that the Government are reduced to saying that this is not quite the moment to legislate on the matter. It was not the moment a year ago, but it is now. The hon. Members for Wandsworth, Central and Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) are here. They voted for this on the last occasion, and I am sorry that they will not be with us in the Lobby tonight. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) voted with us a year ago, and I hope that he will have the courage of his convictions and vote the same way again.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 83.

    Division No. 123.]

    AYES

    [12.21 a.m.

    Alldritt, Waiter

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Bessell, Peter

    Archer, Peter

    Barnett, Joel

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Bence, Cyril

    Bishop, E. S.

    Booth, Albert

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Boston, Terence

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

    Pentland, Norman

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

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Buchan, Norman

    Hynd, John

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

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

    Johnson, James (K'stonon-Hull, W.)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Coe, Denis

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

    Probert, Arthur

    Coleman, David

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Rankin, John

    Concannon, J. D.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Richard, Ivor

    Dalkteith, Earl of

    Loughlin, Charles

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)

    McBride, Neil

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    MacColl, James

    Roebuck, Roy

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Ross Rt. Hn. William

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Ryan, John

    Dell, Edmund

    McElhone, Frank

    Sheldon, Robert

    Driberg, Tom

    McGuire, Michael

    Sillars, J.

    Dunn, James A.

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Silverman, Julius

    Dunnett, Jack

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Slater, Joseph

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Ellis, John

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

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

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

    Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Faulds, Andrew

    Mapp, Charles

    Taverne, Dick

    Femyhough, E.

    Marks, Kenneth

    Tinn, James

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Wallace, George

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Ford, Ben

    Mendelson, John

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Forrester, John

    Millan, Bruce

    Witkins, W. A.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

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

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Gardner, Tony

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Golding, John

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Woof, Robert

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Murray, Albert

    Hamling, William

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Harper, Joseph

    Ogden, Eric

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Haseldine, Norman

    Orme, Stanley

    Mr. Ray Dobson.

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Oswald, Thomas

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Pym, Francis

    Astor, John

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

    Hiley, Joseph

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Batsford, Brian

    Holland, Philip

    Royle, Anthony

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Biffen, John

    Hunt, John

    Sharpies, Richard

    Body, Richard

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Silvester, Frederick

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Speed, Keith

    Braine, Bernard

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Temple, John M.

    Carlisle, Mark

    Kitson, Timothy

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Waddington, David

    Clegg, Waiter

    Mac Arthur, Ian

    Walters, Dennis

    Corfleid, F. V.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Ward Christopher (Swindon)

    Crouch, David

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Dean, Paul

    Maddan, Martin

    Whitelaw, Rt. HA. William

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

    Maginnis, John E.

    Williams Donald (Dudley)

    Eden, Sir John

    Marten, Neil

    Willson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Wolrige-Gordon Patrick

    Fortescue, Tim

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Fry, Peter

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Wylie, N. R.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Munro-Lucas.Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Younger, Hn. George

    Gitmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Onslow, Cranley

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gower, Raymond

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and

    Grant, Anthony

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Mr, Hector Monro.

    Gurden, Harold

    Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Channon, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Haseldene, Miss Jennie
    1010
    Lee, and Mr. Ridley; Three to be the quorum.—[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  TONGA BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.30 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is not an independence Bill. Tonga is, of course, already an independent State, although the British Government have recently been responsible for the conduct of its foreign affairs and defence. The Bill makes the necessary changes consequent on the change decided by Tonga itself to take over responsibility for her own foreign affairs and defence.
  During the mid-19th century, when the South Pacific was virtually divided among European colonial powers, Tonga retained a large measure of independence. To safeguard his people against the possibility of annexation by some other power, the King of Tonga voluntarily concluded a treaty of friendship with Britain in 1879, but it was not until the treaty of 1900 that Tonga was put under British protection.
  Every since then, the two kingdoms have been linked by ties of affection and goodwill. Evidence that these ties have always been on the firmest basis was given by Tonga's contribution to the Allied cause during the last war, when the Tonga defence force served with distinction in the Solomon Islands campaign.
  The treaty of friendship of 1900 was amended in 1905, 1928 and 1952 and was finally replaced by new treaties of friendship in 1958 and 1968. Under this last treaty, in 1968, Tonga assumed complete responsibility for her internal affairs, except in connection with certain legislation required for defence purposes and a greater degree of responsibility for external affairs. That treaty, however, provided that the articles under which British protection is still exercised should cease to have effect when Her Majesty's Government no longer had responsibility for Tonga's external relations.
  In accordance with this treaty, at a special session on 30th April, 1970, the Tonga Legislative Assembly unanimously passed resolutions that the treaty of
  1012
  friendship be modified with effect from 4th June, in such a way that responsibility for external affairs and defence revert to Tonga. It was also resolved that Tonga should seek full membership of the Commonwealth.
  The termination of Britain's responsibility for external affairs and defence will be effected by an exchange of letters and thereafter the treaty will simply provide for perpetual peace and friendship between our two countries.
  With regard to Commonwealth membership, the Commonwealth Secretary-General is now seeking the concurrence of all Commonwealth members to such membership. Tonga's application was sponsored by the British Government and, at the request of the Government of Tonga, by the Australian and New Zealand Governments, Tonga's nearest neighbours, who have confirmed that they also support and sponsor the application. I see no reason to think that there will be any difficulty over Tonga's application.
  British assistance to Tonga's first five-year plan, from 1965 to 1970, amounted to just under £1 million in grants. An Exchequer loan of £200,000 was also made available towards the cost of a new wharf. Under technical assistance arrangements, Her Majesty's Government have provided training facilities for Tongans, the services of advisers, and assistance with the recruitment and payment of specialist officers required by Tonga. Over the past five years, this form of assistance has amounted to about £250,000. Tonga's new development plan from 1970 to 1975 is now being prepared and, when we receive it, we hope to make arrangements for future assistance.
  As I have said, the Bill is merely to make certain consequential provisions on the change in the responsibility for Tonga's foreign affairs and defence. Tonga has had a locally enacted constitution since 1875, with a Parliament, Privy Council and a Cabinet. There is thus no need for this Bill to contain any provision empowering Her Majesty to grant a constitution for Tonga.
  It is not necessary for me to speak in detail on the Clauses, but I will say a few words about Clause 2, which is concerned with citizenship. Tonga already has a citizenship law, and those who possess

  1013
  Tongan citizenship are British protected persons. Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill will withdraw that status from them on Independence Day and, on the understanding that Tonga is admitted to the Commonwealth, they will then become Commonwealth citizens by virtue of Clause 2(1)(a).
  In contrast to independence Bills, this Bill does not make provision to withdraw citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from persons with connections with Tonga. This is because the vast majority of the inhabitants of Tonga are British protected persons. The few citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies that there are in Tonga have attained such status by virtue of birth, registration or naturalisation outside Tonga, or by descent. It has never been the policy of Her Majesty's Government to deprive such persons of their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies because they are living in a country which has become independent, even though they may also have become citizens of that country.
  I want to make special mention of His Majesty the King of Tonga and his mother, the late Queen Salote, who endeared herself to the British people when she visited London in 1953 for the Coronation of Her Majesty The Queen. Under the wise guidance of the Tongan royal family, Tonga has enjoyed and continues to enjoy peace and prosperity. I trust that His Majesty and his people will be blessed with many more years of peace and prosperity.
  Nearly 200 years ago, Captain Cook described the Kingdom of Tonga as " the Friendly Islands ". Certainly everyone who visits Tonga today is impressed with the charm and sincerity of its people. I know that the House will join me in wishing His Majesty the King and the Tongan people all happiness and good fortune in the years ahead.
  12.38 a.m.
  Mr. Bernard Braise: I want first to thank the hon. Gentleman for explaining the Bill in his customary lucid fashion, and to say that we on this side give it an unqualified welcome. I wish that all the Bills brought before us were as simple and straightforward as this one appears to be, reflecting as it does a long and happy association between our country and the
  1014
  people of Tonga in the past and promising an equally happy association in the future.
  I have never been to Tonga, though I have met Tongan leaders. I have been to Fiji, which is their nearest neighbour to the west, and I know how entrancing is the region in which they and all the Polynesian peoples live. Indeed, Captain Cook showed remarkable prescience when he called the 150 islands which form the Kingdom of Tonga, " the Friendly Isles ".
  I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid a tribute to her late Majesty Queen Salote. No one who witnessed the Coronation ceremonies in 1953 will ever forget her smiling face as she drove through the London rain. She endeared herself very firmly to the hearts of the British people at that time, and I recall that quite a number of June babies in 1953 were christened after her.
  It has also given great pleasure to both sides of the House that Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip had a very warm welcome when they visited Tonga in March.
  We are delighted that Tonga has applied for membership of the Commonwealth. I suppose that means that in due course the Prime Minister of Tonga will be able to attend Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conferences, if he so wishes.
  As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is an unusual Bill in the sense that it is not an independence Measure, since Tonga has never been a British colonial dependency as such, but is an independent kingdom under British protection—a status that she has enjoyed for 70 years. But, since the Bill will terminate that protected status and Britain will no longer be responsible for Tonga's defence and external affairs, I believe that there are a number of questions which it would be proper to ask before we give the Bill our formal approval.
  First, in regard to defence. I understand that the Government spokesman in another place has said that there will be no residual commitment for defence by Britain. Is this so? There are only about 80,000 people in Tonga. Is it seriously believed that they could defend themselves? We still await the outcome of the Fiji constitutional talks, though I believe that they have now concluded.

  1015
  These must have covered the question of defence. Presumably it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to leave a complete vacuum in this part of the Pacific lying to the north-east of Australasia. Is there any understanding with the Australians and the New Zealanders on the subject? I think that we should be told.
  Secondly, I understand that in the past five years Tonga has had just under £1 million in British aid and, in addition, a substantial loan has been made available for the development of port facilities. I was glad to hear from the Under-Secretary that help of this kind is likely to be continued. A fillip to development is essential if Tonga's new status is to mean anything to her people. Although they number only 80,000, according to my reckoning that represents a density of more than 300 people to the square mile, and they are increasing at the exceptionally high rate of 3·8 per cent. per annum. That must be among the highest rates of population increase in the world. For an agricultural community, a threatened population explosion of this magnitude, combined with a shortage of cultivable land, must pose serious problems for the none too distant future. What progress, therefore, is being made in economic development? Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that our contribution to that development is being wisely used and is being co-ordinated effectively with the aid which I understand is also coming from Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Nations' agencies?
  Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman said something about citizenship. What he said sounded satisfactory. But I must ask specifically whether he is satisfied that there will be no residual problem in relation to United Kingdom citizens? The hon. Gentleman did not say, for example, how many United Kingdom citizens there would remain when the Bill becomes law.
  Perhaps we could have the answers to these questions and others which my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who I believe has visited Tonga, may wish to ask.
  Therefore, all that remains for me is to express the hope that with her new status this attractive little country, Tonga, will enjoy a safe and prosperous future
  1016
  and that her long association with us will continue along happy and fruitful lines. With those few words, I commend the Bill to the House, and wish it a speedy passage.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: There are two things I wish to ask the Minister. First, I hope he will take seriously the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) about citizenship. A misunderstanding that has arisen in similar circumstances is that there are people who do not seem to realise what has been promulgated as a result of our deliberations in this House. So I hope he will ensure that these new arrangements are given every opportunity of reaching the people affected.
  Secondly, would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say a word or two about paragraph 10 of the Schedule? We in this House understand what is meant there, but it is in language which is perhaps more suitable for us than for general consumption. A word or two about that would be helpful.
  Unfortunately, I have not had the privilege of visiting Tonga. I got to the Lau group of Fiji, which is about as near as one can get to Tonga, and I have only recently had the privilege of seeing in this country the Governor of the Island of Vau Vau in Tonga, and if the story he tells me about how beautiful his island is compared with the other parts of Tonga, I think we ought all to start almost at once to pay him a visit.
  I add my good wishes to the people of Tonga. We cannot forget the visit of Queen Salote. We feel a great deal of affection for the people of Tonga. We have the privilege now that the Crown Prince of Tonga is studying in this country. There are many people in this House and in the country who will wish Tonga the very best in the way of happiness, peace and prosperity as a result of the step she is taking today.
  12.47 a.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: Having had the privilege, with the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), of visiting Tonga and having been greatly privileged by being allowed to stay in the house of a Tongan family, which was very generous of them, I

  1017
  should like to add my good wishes for the future prosperity and happiness of the people of Tonga.
  It is interesting that they go in for all-night sittings, but in a rather different manner from ours. If one is a guest in the house of a Tongan family, on the night one is about to leave all the neighbours move in, sit around on the floor and sing the entire night. They are sustained by a beverage called kava, which is made by the women. The men arc the only persons who do the singing, and the women sustain them with this drink. The effect of the drink is soporific but not very intoxicating, but it does not seem to interfere with their singing. I asked how I could be expected to stay up all night and was told, " You have plenty of practice in the House of Commons."
  I should like to mention the question of tourism. I understand that there is now a hotel in Tonga which will be opened up for tourism. What success has been achieved so far? I think there was a little difficulty in bringing boats into the new wharf.
  There is also the matter of small industries. There is an excellent little coconut factory there. Is that being enlarged, as has been suggested? What other industries are likely to come to this island?
  When His Majesty the King was here fairly recently he brought some samples of oil with him. Some form of exploration has been made since then, and I should be grateful if the Minister would give me some information about any progress that has been made, and whether the oil is worth exploring further.
  I hope that considerable help will continue to be given to the island in respect of farming. There is a difficulty over the partition of the land under the laws in Tonga, and when I was there they were trying to develop some of the farms by more co-operative action. It is essential that this should be continued.
  I have taken an interest in the hospital there. I gather that this is well on the way to being rebuilt. When I was there it was extremely primitive. Men and women were in the same wards, and there were not enough bandages. I do not know how the excellent matron from Australia was able to carry on. I was able to give some help by contracting the
  1018
  Red Cross of Great Britain and of New Zealand. There is still the worrying factor that there are a number of mental patients in the prison, and I hope that some of the money that we are donating will be used to deal with this problem.
  Are these to be soft loans, or what interest will they have to pay? These are friendly people, but they are not very rich. I do not know how they will be able to afford to meet their extra expenses in the near future, especially if they have to keep a defence force of their own. Here I add my tribute to what the Minister said about the excellence of the Tonga Defence Force and the part that it played in the last war. Will they be able to send a member to the United Nations? Will they be required to do this? When a country becomes independent all these things add to the expenses, and I should like to know what the position is about those matters.
  We are all delighted that they want to join the Commonwealth. I am certain that nobody will ever think of taking any action to prevent that happening, but one has to realise that if they are to send the Prime Minister to conferences, and so on, this will all add greatly to their expenses. Will they be able to afford this, or will they be able to use some of the money that we are to allot them for the purposes which I have mentioned?
  I am thrilled to have had the opportunity of going to Tonga. I should like to put on record my appreciation of their generosity, their hospitality, and the feast in which I was privileged to take part. We wish the King, his charming wife, and his son who is at Sandhurst, prosperity, but they cannot live on friendliness and kindness alone. They must come down to practical matters, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that they will be able to continue the way of life which they have enjoyed up to now.
  12.54 a.m.
  Mr. Luard Mr. Luard: I am happy—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must have the leave of the House to speak again.
  Mr. Luard: With the leave of the House, I should like to express my happiness that the Bill has had a warm welcome from hon. Members on both sides

  1019
  of the House. This reflects the general good will in the House and in the country as a whole towards Tonga, and the feeling that we have of wishing that country the best of good fortune in the years to come.
  I should like to try to reply to some of the points which have been raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) raised a number. He first asked about the provisions for the defence of Tonga in the future. I confirm the point made in another place—that after the Bill has been passed and the change made in the arrangements for foreign affairs and defence, there will be no residual commitment to the defence of Tonga by this country. As I pointed out, one of the purposes of the Bill and of the changes in Tonga is that Tonga will take over responsibility for her own defence.
  I was asked whether there was any understanding with Australia and New Zealand on this question. There is no commitment or understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. It would be entirely understandable if, in the new situation, Tonga herself were to turn to her close neighbours, such as Australia and New Zealand, when she begins to think about possible arrangements for her future defence. It cannot be said that there is any immediate threat to Tonga of an external nature, but it may well be that she will begin to think about new defence arrangements and it is possible that she will turn towards Australia and New Zealand for that purpose.
  The hon. Member asked about the arrangements for economic development, and perhaps I should elaborate a little on what I said earlier. I described the first five-year plan which should have been completed in March this year. Priority has been given during the plan to long-term projects for education and health, communications and agriculture. Capital aid did not commence in any sizeable form before 1965 and was then made by means of allocation from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. I will deal later with a point made by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine). The annual allocations from
  1020
  1965 to 1970 totalled £990,000—nearly £1 million during the period; and schemes for which the money was allocated included a new hospital, coconut rehabilitation, a police training school, road improvements, an airfield and airstrip facilities, schooling and other schemes. In addition, there was a loan from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund towards the cost of a new wharf. For the period 1970–71 an allocation of £250,000 has been made.
  Technical assistance takes the form of training courses for Tongans and the provision of experts and advisers. In 1968–69, 35 Tongan students and trainees attended courses of various lengths in the United Kingdom and ten experts were assigned to Tonga.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about oil. We recently provided oil consultants to help Tonga negotiate exploration rights with oil companies and to provide specialist legal advice. The modification of the current Treaty of Friendship will not affect the O.S.A.S. agreement with Tonga, which will continue until March 1971. We are willing to negotiate new agreements where that is desired. Where there is a need to cover the period to March 1976 we intend to make an approach to the Tongan Government.
  I hope that that answers a number of points which I was asked about economic assistance. A new development plan is being drafted with the help of advisers sent from the United Kingdom. Although we have made no firm commitments to continue financial assistance beyond the present financial year, we are prepared, after examination of the development plan, to see how far we can contribute towards it, and I can give an undertaking that we intend to be as sympathetic as we can on the question. Possible items for this new assistance would be the continuation of coconut replanting schemes, the improvement of agricultural services, airfield communications equipment—that meets the point made by the hon. Lady about tourism—and electric power supply equipment. I hope that that gives some idea of our future plans about economic development.
  Dame Joan Vickers: What rate of interest is proposed for the loans?
  Mr. Luard: I can assure the hon. Lady that it is our hope to be able to give soft loans for some of these purposes.
  The hon. Member for Rye raised questions of citizenship, as did the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I must make it clear that there is no great problem with U.K. citizens in the area. As I said in my opening speech, for the most part the inhabitants of Tonga are British-protected persons and the only people who are U.K. citizens are a small number of people, mainly expatriates from this country. I cannot give the exact figure, but it is literally only a handful. There is therefore no great problem about their access to this country and some other territories.
  The hon. Member for Rye asked about the meaning of paragraph 10 of the Schedule. I give an assurance on this point. Tonga will continue to be eligible for assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Funds after the passage of this legislation. It is our hope that most of these loans will be soft loans, which answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devon-port. This is what the paragraph is intended to mean.
  The hon. Lady raised the question of tourism. It is certainly our belief that there is great scope for tourism in Tonga and the Tongans are hoping to develop this. Development will depend on the improvement of internal transport and the construction of hotels, as at present there is only one tourist hotel in Tonga. It may be that the Government of Tonga will decide that there is scope for development here and that we may be able to give assistance.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned the question of oil. I have said something about that and perhaps I can make it clear that there are some indications that there may be oil present but we do not yet have sufficient evidence to say whether it is available in commercial quantities. This is really a question for the Government of Tonga and I understand that there have been inquiries and explorations made. I mentioned some of the assistance we have given. It is too early to say how much oil may be available and how much scope there may be for the development of this as a future source of revenue. The hon. Lady asked about various expenses which Tonga may have
  1022
  in future, arising from membership of international organisations, conferences and matters of that kind where big travel and other expenses are involved. This is really a question for the Government of Tonga. I have described generally what we hope to be able to do to give assistance to Tonga. It will be for the Government of Tonga to decide how it allocates these funds. As to membership of the U.N. it is not certain that Tonga will wish to apply for membership and the hon. Lady will know that questions are arising in the U.N. as to how far small territories such as Tonga may become eligible for membership. There is now the question of imposing certain limits of size on members of the U.N.
  This does not affect the general question of possible expenses in connection with representation of different kinds, including representation in the Commonwealth, in which Tonga's application for membership is likely to be accepted. Here again it is a matter for the Tonga Government to decide how it allocates the funds and what kind of responsibilities it chooses to undertake.
  I hope that I have answered all the points raised. The debate has shown how much goodwill exists towards Tonga in the House. I would like to stress again that under the Treaty of Friendship Tonga is already an independent and sovereign state, except in so far as she has already chosen voluntarily to assign certain responsibilities to the British Government with regard to external affairs and defence. These responsibilities will now revert to Tonga and the Treaty will now in its modified form simply provide for perpetual peace and friendship between our two countries.
  Unlike some other hon. Members I have not had the good fortune to visit Tonga, a country which has retained its natural dignity despite being exposed to external influences and demands for well over a century. This is the only remaining kingdom which exists in Polynesia, with a much-loved and respected Royal Family and a warm-hearted and friendly people. The ties of friendship between Britain and Tonga will, I am sure, continue unabated. As has been mentioned, the recent visit to Tonga of Her Majesty the Queen, Prince Philip and Princess Anne and the cordial welcome which they received there provide, I think, fitting

  1023
  evidence of these continued bonds of friendship. That friendship will be enriched still further in the future by the new relationship with Commonwealth countries into which Tonga will enter as, we hope, a full member of the Commonwealth.
  I know that the House as a whole will join me in expressing to the King and people of Tonga our best and warmest wishes for their future peace, happiness and prosperity.
  1.6 a.m.
  Sir Douglas Glover: About 10 years ago I went to Fiji. I have not been to Tonga, but I have enormous admiration for the view and the attitude of the people in those countries, and I should like to say to the Joint Under-Secretary that we in this country have, I think, done an extraordinarily good job in knitting them into our society.
  I hope that they will accept the situation that we are trying to produce for them as an independent nation. I hope that they will accept our advice in the United Nations, because when they become independent they will have very little money, very little resources and they are remote from an enormous part of the world.
  I hope that when they have their independence the people of Tonga—and perhaps next year of Fiji or somewhere else —will be prepared to accept that the United Kingdom, with no idea of being the colonial Power, has a lot more experience and knowledge of dealing with a lot of the problems with which they will be confronted. I hope that the people of Tonga will not be so proud that, having got their independence, they will not be prepared to accept that we, in the United Nations or other international organisations, can give them some very good advice on what they ought to do about this, that or the other problem.
  What I find in looking at the problems of the United Nations when we give independence to an enormous number of countries is that they are rather like a ship at sea without a rudder. They get their independence, they are big enough to go to the United Nations, but they have no idea in their own minds as a nation what the problems are that are
  1024
  discussed in the international firmament of the world.
  I hope that the people of Tonga and the Pacific will realise that however much criticism they may give to us of the United Kingdom, our only thought and desire was to give them their independence and to give them guidance in leading them into their position as an independent nation in the firmament of the United Nations and to make certain that they do not make a mistake in the two or three years when they first become members. If we succeed in this, we in this House will have done a very good job.
  I therefore hope that the people of Tonga will have a very successful and prosperous future as a result of our guidance and the efforts that we have made to put them on the right road before they got their independence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hamling.]
  Committee this day.

  MILVERTON (TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hamling.]
  1.10 a.m.
  Mr. Edward du Cann: I do not ordinarily pronounce myself publicly or privately as being in favour of lotteries, Mr. Speaker, but there is everything to be said for the happy chance that allows me now to raise the subject of traffic conditions in the village of Milverton, in Somerset—a long way from Tonga. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his kindness and courtesy in being here at this late hour to answer the debate, as I am also grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise the subject.
  I am fortunate to have many delightful villages in my constituency, but Milverton is very lovely and, indeed, one of the loveliest. I should like to tell the House something about it. They say that it was founded by the Lady Edith, daughter of Edward the Confessor and fiancée of

  1025
  King Harold. It is certainly mentioned in Domesday. Her Majesty the Queen is lord of the manor and, by a curious coincidence, her daughter, Princess Anne, will be visiting Taunton, though not Milverton, within the next ten hours, and I am looking forward to greeting her there.
  As one might expect with such a romantic background, it is described in the Somerset County development plan as having
  " … more than average amenity value."
  That is a piece of English understatement, for the village possesses the astonishing number of 30 listed houses, a most beautiful church, and a vicarage said to have been built by Wolsey, though there is no real authority for that statement. It has an important group of fine Georgian buildings in North Street and other remarkable buildings in other streets.
  In sum, it is a very beautiful place. It has unique charm and character. It is one of the loveliest villages in Somerset and in the West Country, if not in the whole of England. My constituents well understand their duty to keep and to cherish such a heritage, and I shall do my best in this regard, as, I hope, will the Minister.
  Through the village runs the main trunk road, the A.361, better known as the Taunton-Barnstaple road. I will describe it, or at least that part of it that is the cause of my anxiety and the reason for this debate.
  There is a two mile stretch beginning at the village of Preston Bowyer, with a double S-bend at King's Corner and Farley's, and in one part of the village, at any rate, there are no footpaths of any sort. The road passes on to a steep hill and a narrow gorge, then a long slow descent of about 400 yards to the village of Milverton. Then there is a sharp right-angle turn left over a narrow rail-way bridge. One proceeds further west through 20 ft. high stone walls to England's Corner, a crossroads also used by local traffic. Then there is a sharp right-angle turn up through North Street, to which I have already referred, past the Georgian houses and the cobbled footway. The road narrows to 15 ft. 6 in. opposite Dr. Watson's house. There is a minor S-bend in the middle in the uphill stretch, and at least two blind spots in the road. One proceeds perhaps another 300 yds.
  1026
  or 400 yds. before leaving the curtilage of the village, but before that there is another right-angle bend, if not a Z bend, at the Mount, and the road for another 400 yds. or so is not up to the full standard. It is a bad bit of road for what is a trunk road.
  Perhaps I might now give some specific examples of the problems we face. There are eight places where two lorries of average size cannot pass each other—eight places in just a few hundred yards. At England's Corner vision is obscured in whatever direction one comes from or wishes to go to. It is a frequent occurrence for lorries to have to back and turn. That might perhaps be expected on a country lane, but surely not on a main trunk road. I myself went through that main road with care last Sunday afternoon in the pouring rain. I found 20 places where there were scars on the walls from collisions. Rocklyne, a seventeenth century house, if not built of the solid red Somerset stone would have been demolished. As it is, the occupants have had a crane in one of their rooms. This is not an isolated or exaggerated example. Mount Farm, on the Wiveliscombe side of the village, has five times had to have the lean-to roof of the kitchen replaced. Four times a wall which borders the road has been knocked down. It was down again last Sunday. In North Street there is a house with a porch light which has been ripped off five times in the past 18 months by passing traffic. In Wood Street a canopy over a door has been similarly broken away. In Preston Bowyer downpipes have been so frequently broken that they have not been replaced.
  There are constant maintenance difficulties. The main sewer, laid only two years ago, is fractured and the manhole covers are having to be replaced. One can imagine the number of potholes in the road. The situation is very unsatisfactory. Lorries carrying 40 ft. long trailers cannot get through a place like Milverton without problems. The size of lorries is increasing and we are told that new car transporters with trailers are to try to get through the village.
  The need for a by-pass has long been recognised, sought for and admitted. I have always accepted this as incontrovertible in the 14 years that I have been Member of Parliament for Taunton. A

  1027
  by-pass was first planned in the early twenties, 50 years ago. In the Somerset County Review of 1934 it was confirmed that a route had been surveyed and was recommended. I quote what was said at the time:
  " It is a practicable scheme which if carried out would preserve the amenities of Milverton and avoid expensive demolition at danger points."
  Note the words " danger points ". There was a clear inference as far back as 1934, 36 years ago, that the road was dangerous. Road use then was a fraction of the volume of what it is now. Then also alternatives were available—our railway was closed in October, 1966. Traffic speeds were slower then. If there was danger then, there is much more now.
  I give two further examples of the endorsement of this project in time past. In 1956, the year I was elected to this House, the Minister made an Order entitled
  "The Taunton. Barnstaple, Bude, Fraddon Trunk Road (Milverton and Preston Bowyer Bypass) Order, 1956."
  I have had correspondence and discussion with every Minister of Transport —since I was elected there have been six —and with innumerable Parliamentary Secretaries. In 1963 the then Minister wrote to me
  " We certainly recognise the need "
  for a by-pass.
  This proposal is supported by the whole village, by Milverton Parish Council, Wellington Rural District Council and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, to call it by its old name. Everyone in the village is grateful for the interest shown by those excellent men the Somerset county surveyors and the local D.R.E., but we need more than interest. We need action by the Government.
  I move from polemics to statistics and the accident record. In the last six years fortunately there have been no fatal accidents, but accidents resulting in injury on this stretch of road have numbered 19 and there have been double that number of accidents which did not result in injury. If there is no by-pass there will certainly be more accidents and one day, alas, one at least will be fatal.
  1028
  I now give statistics of traffic flow. The combined two-way flow of vehicles was last measured in August 1965. The figures in vehicles per 16-hour day are as follows. For a peak August Saturday in 1965, 14,200. The forecast for 1970 is 19,000. For an average August day, the 1965 figure was 5,700. The forecast for 1970 is 7,600. An annual average day in 1965 was 3,100. The forecast for 1970 is 4,100.
  There are some who suggest that our problems in the West Country are only a seasonal matter. That is not so in this case. This is a year-round problem. The village and its buildings are threatened by a constant traffic flow—what is more, it is a constantly increasing traffic flow—which its roads were never intended to carry. Apart from the inconvenience that one can imagine, there is the potential danger through vibration, pollution, and so on.
  Unfortunately, it is certain that the pressure of traffic will increase. Apart from the normal increase—8 per cent. compound per annum, or whatever the figure may be—this is a holiday route and—this is something which will make a special appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, with his special experience and knowledge of the North-East-it is the shortest route to Barnstaple and a development area. There are transport depots en route and, as the Parliamentary Secretary's researchers will have already told him, there has been the development of the Reserve Supply Depot at Norton Fitzwarren into an industrial storage space, which we all welcome but which must add to the pressure.
  It is right that I should attempt to answer the question: is any other solution than a by-pass feasible? One answer is, " Yes "; we could knock down some of the wonderful buildings of which I have spoken. The real answer in common sense is, " No ". There is only one answer, and that is to build a by-pass and build it quickly.
  The present Minister of Transport said to me in a letter in January, following upon the publication of the Green Paper, that he has under consideration, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows full well, the future status of A361 as a trunk road. I understand that his decision on whether a by-pass will proceed as a trunk road scheme must await his decision on

  1029
  the status of A361. Writing to me on 4th May the Minister said this:
  " I am sorry that I am still not in a position to announce my final decision on this matter ".
  I understand that. But the hard-pressed residents, long-distance motorists and commercial users should not have to wait for a decision on the relative merits of a trunk road via Milverton or Tiverton to know precisely where they stand.
  Therefore, my first question to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. When does he think it will be possible for the Minister to make a decision in this regard? The present position is plainly insupportable. On the other hand, I recognise the difficulties. The Ministry has an immense number of schemes competing for limited, if generally speaking expanding, funds. I believe that we should finance our road programmes differently, but I will not develop that point at this time.
  What I want to do is to put a proposal to the Parliamentary Secretary. The probable route of any by-pass would be along the abandoned railway line. I mentioned earlier that the railway line was abandoned in October, 1966. For most of the length of that by-pass, that would be the case. It would go south of Preston Bowyer and north of Milverton for a length of about two miles. My estimate of cost would be about £½ million. The Minister would, under the present procedural rules, consider it in relation to trunk road schemes on a national basis. Although conditions in Milverton are, as I hope I have illustrated, extremely difficult, I recognise that, justified as Milverton's claim unquestionably is, the Milverton by-pass could not show a particularly high priority rating in that regard. In a sense it is a despairing prospect. I feel that we are rather in the position of Sisyphus: as soon as we manage to get somewhere near the top of the hill, the rules alter and down we come again.
  The route of that by-pass would cross the A361 at the old Milverton Station. It is logical, therefore, to consider the by-pass in two sections—first, the section to by-pass Preston Bowyer and, second, the section to by-pass Milverton. I suggest that this is what we should do. A single carriageway by-pass to trunk road standards, or at least to tolerably high stan-
  1030
  dards, would cost, I estimate, less than £¼. million.
  If the Minister were able—I suggest that this, too, would be reasonable—to confine his priority computations to schemes in the South-West rather than nationally, I have no doubt that the Milverton by-pass would qualify. Indeed, I think it reasonable to call it a relief road.
  Since the debate was announced, I was pleased to have persuaded the Minister to write to me, as he did, on 4th May. I shall quote him again:
  " I am going to ask the County Council to investigate the possibilities and justification for carrying out a less ambitious relief road scheme. These investigations will be likely to take some time to complete"—
  one understands that—
  " and I must make clear that I cannot enter into any commitments at this stage."
  I understand that, too.
  My second question to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been good enough to follow me so far, is this: Does he think that it will be possible to consider a scheme in two sections as I suggest, and will he be good enough to examine the possibility of using the old railway line for at least a relief road for Milverton?
  That is not an unreasonable request to make. Our people are anxious, and with considerable justification. It is in no way an unfair request. There has been some suggestion in the village that there should be demonstrations and the like. I can understand that people are bound to feel impatient; this matter has gone on for a very long time. They feel that their life is threatened. But I hope that it may be possible to put forward a legitimate point of view in this way, and I hope that people will not be forced to misbehave as a result of their frustration. In a word, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accede to my request, so that this debate may be yet a further stage, and an important stage, in bringing much needed relief.
  Last weekend, I drove in a motor car over the length of the railway line as far as I could get, and I am convinced that it is a practicable scheme.
  Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for listening, and I hope that he has something helpful to say.
  1.27 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): The unsatisfactory nature of the Taunton to Fraddon trunk road where, as the A361, it passes through Milverton is fully appreciated. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has pointed out, the road is narrow, with a sharp right-angle bend between North Street and Station Road, known as England's Corner. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, this has not been denied in the considerable correspondence he has had with Ministers. Indeed, I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for so actively taking the part of his constituents over about the past fifteen years on this issue. He has never let his interest lapse.
  It has been accepted for many years that a significant improvement in the situation could be achieved only by building a by-pass, since comprehensive improvement of the road on its existing alignment through Milverton is completely impracticable. As the right hon. Gentleman recognises, it has been consistently pointed out in correspondence that the problem is not one of whether a by-pass should be built but of when it could be justified in competition with all the other calls on the funds available, whether nationally or locally, bearing in mind that funds are still very limited in relation to the growing needs all over the country. It is, therefore, on the question of priority that I shall concentrate tonight.
  Setting priorities is essentially a matter of comparing need and likely economic returns on the money invested. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that when last measured in 1965 the average daily flow of vehicles in both directions on the A361 through Milverton in August was of the order of 5,700, the proportion of heavy goods vehicles being comparatively low at 6½ per cent. Allowing for growth in traffic since then it is reasonable to estimate the present flow to be of the order of 7,600 vehicles on an average August day. I accept that the figures for a peak August Saturday are very much higher, but for an average day over the year as a whole they are considerably lower.
  1032
  However, to get this in perspective I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the equivalent figures for an average August day at some other places on the same trunk road further west. At South Molton the flow figures are slightly less at around 5,200 vehicles in 1965 and an estimated 7,000 now. But near Barnstaple they are around 11,350 for August 1965 and now estimated to be 15,200, and at Instow 8,800 in 1965 and an estimated 11,800 now. At Wellington, on the A38, where the proposal to provide a relief road was mentioned by the Milverton Parish Council in a recent letter to the Minister forwarded by the right hon. Gentleman, the flow figures are around 12,900 for 1965 and an estimated 17,300 now.
  Of course, traffic flows by themselves are not necessarily an accurate indication of the degree of need. Much depends also on the width and layout of the existing road at a given place or over particular lengths, since this affects its ability to accept the flows at desirable speeds and at an acceptably low accident rate. To provide better information on the extent to which various parts of the trunk road system are congested, and hence to help to identify the lengths upon which the need for relief is greatest, we employ calculations incorporating travel and accident loss, which I shall refer to as TAL. The travel and accident loss for a length of road is an estimate of the difference between the operating costs, that is vehicle operating costs plus time costs plus accident costs, on the existing road and the corresponding costs as they would be on a road of identical length carrying the same volume of traffic but constructed to modern dual—carriageway standards. Comparative annual travel and accident losses per mile expressed in thousands of pounds and projected to 1974 in the vicinity of the following places are: Milverton 13·2. near Barnstaple 76·4, and Wellington 88·2.
  TAL figures give a general indication of need but on their own they do not necessarily give a true indication of where improvements are most justified when the cost of carrying them out is taken into consideration. For this purpose, at a later stage in the preparation of schemes, it is necessary to compare the economic return to be gained by investing in competing schemes. This is done

  1033
  by setting the likely benefits in terms of savings in operating and accident costs against the cost of construction. But the TAL figures I have quoted do show that, compared with other parts of the trunk road system in the same area—let alone over the country as a whole—the degree of need for relief at Milverton is very low. They also show why we have consistently said that we cannot see our way to giving priority to a by-pass there and, incidentally, why we have been able to authorise the preparation of a scheme to by-pass Barnstaple and to offer grant towards the cost of a comparatively inexpensive improvement to relieve the A38 through Wellington.
  One of the factors contributing to the low TAL figure for the A361 at Milverton is the comparatively small number of accidents involving personal injury—13 in the six years 1964–1969. It is reasonable to suppose that some of these—and perhaps a greater proportion of the 26 non-injury accidents reported over the five years 1964–1968—took place at England's Corner. Consequently, faced with the fact that the early construction of a by-pass could not be justified in competition with other schemes elsewhere, the Divisional Road Engineer prepared outline plans for a comparatively inexpensive improvement at England's Corner which would have made it much easier for traffic, particularly heavy vehicles, to negotiate the sharp bend at this point. This would have provided permanent improvement of conditions at what will always be a difficult corner even after it is by-passed. The divisional road engineer recently met the parish council to discuss this proposal but, despite his personal assurance that the improvement I have referred to would not delay the eventual construction of a bypass, the council overwhelmingly rejected it, principally on amenity grounds. In the face of this local opposition, we do do not intend to proceed with the idea, and I am sorry about this.
  Following publication of the Green Paper " Roads for the Future " the South West Economic Planning Council asked that consideration should be given to the construction of an improved strategic link between the M5 and the north Devon
  1034
  development area. The Minister hopes soon to announce his decision on the many representations he has received concerning his proposed strategic network, but meanwhile it is clear that, if a major route betwen the M5 and north Devon were to be constructed, it would have the effect of reducing the volume of traffic on the A361 through Milverton and Preston Bowyer and of reducing the economic justification for a by-pass. For this reason it has already been explained to the right hon. Gentleman that decisions on the priority for a full by-pass, which it is estimated would cost about £½ million for a single 2-lane carriageway, cannot be taken until decisions can be reached on whether and when the construction of a new north Devon route might be justified.
  In the interests of quick action, the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the possibility of considering separate schemes for Milverton and Preston Bowyer. Of these two, we would prefer to put the higher priority on a scheme for Milverton, where conditions are worse. We are in fact prepared to agree to a recent request from the county surveyor that a smaller interim by-pass of Milverton only should be investigated. Such a scheme would make use of the abandoned railway line nearby and, it is thought, might cost around £220,000. It seems at first sight to be a practicable proposition, but whether the early construction of even a less expensive scheme of this sort would offer an adequate return of the money invested will largely depend on a more detailed estimate of cost, and an assessment of the likely benefits, and I am sorry that I can give no assurance that funds could be made available for it in the near future.
  Subject to information being received from the county council, it should be possible, however, to decide in about six months' time whether a by-pass of Milverton only would justify acceptance into the divisional road engineer's future programme.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Two o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service (Unpaid Bills)
  National Health Service (Unpaid Bills)
  Abortion Act
  Abortion Act
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Child Poverty and Family Services
  Child Poverty and Family Services
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Drugs (Over-prescribing)
  Drugs (Over-prescribing)
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  Dental Services
  Dental Services
  Mental Patients
  Mental Patients
  Food Hygiene
  Food Hygiene
  Gynaecological Treatment, Weston-super-Mare
  Gynaecological Treatment, Weston-super-Mare
  Pensioners, Bristol (Supplementary Benefits)
  Pensioners, Bristol (Supplementary Benefits)
  Fines, Scotland
  Fines, Scotland
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Salaries)
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Salaries)
  Drug Problem (Research)
  Drug Problem (Research)
  Hospital Commissioner
  Hospital Commissioner
  Hospital Doctors
  Hospital Doctors
  Prescription Charges (Children)
  Prescription Charges (Children)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Mass X-ray Service
  Mass X-ray Service
  Accidents to Parents (Assistance to Families)
  Accidents to Parents (Assistance to Families)
  National Health Service (White Paper)
  National Health Service (White Paper)
  Local Authority Members (Social Security Benefits)
  Local Authority Members (Social Security Benefits)
  Tobacco and Tobacco Substitutes
  Tobacco and Tobacco Substitutes
  Medical and Pharmaceutical Facilities, Bradford
  Medical and Pharmaceutical Facilities, Bradford
  Mastectomy (Brassieres)
  Mastectomy (Brassieres)
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Disabled Drivers (Grants)
  Disabled Drivers (Grants)
  Infant Mortality, Gateshead
  Infant Mortality, Gateshead
  Life Insurance (Non-Smokers)
  Life Insurance (Non-Smokers)
  Bideford Hospital
  Bideford Hospital
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
  Stratton Hospital
  Stratton Hospital
  National Superannuation Bill
  National Superannuation Bill
WALES
  River Usk (Reservoir)
  River Usk (Reservoir)
  Tenby (Harbour Dues)
  Tenby (Harbour Dues)
  A40 Bridge (Wolfscastle)
  A40 Bridge (Wolfscastle)
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Local Government Reorganisation (Cwmbran)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Cwmbran)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Llysyfan Reservoir and Milford Haven Bridge
  Llysyfan Reservoir and Milford Haven Bridge
TECHNOLOGY
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Smokeless Fuel Supplies (North-East Region)
  Smokeless Fuel Supplies (North-East Region)
  Industrial Costs
  Industrial Costs
  Northern Ireland (Contracts)
  Northern Ireland (Contracts)
  Factory Space, Scotland (U.S. Industrialists)
  Factory Space, Scotland (U.S. Industrialists)
  West Midlands (Industrial Development Certificates)
  West Midlands (Industrial Development Certificates)
  Bedford (Industrial Development Certificates)
  Bedford (Industrial Development Certificates)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Passports
  Passports
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Diplomatic Corps (Parking Infringements)
  Diplomatic Corps (Parking Infringements)
  British Information Service Office, New York
  British Information Service Office, New York
  Commonwealth European Market
  Commonwealth European Market
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Sub-normal Children (Accommodation)
  Sub-normal Children (Accommodation)
  Youth and Community Workers
  Youth and Community Workers
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
  Maintained Boarding Schools (Pupils)
  Maintained Boarding Schools (Pupils)
  Physically Disabled Children (Swindon)
  Physically Disabled Children (Swindon)
DEFENCE
  Industrial Civil Servants
  Industrial Civil Servants
  R.A.F. Maintenance Units (Dilutees)
  R.A.F. Maintenance Units (Dilutees)
  Service Personnel (Shortfall)
  Service Personnel (Shortfall)
  Royal Fleet Auxiliaries (Ensigns)
  Royal Fleet Auxiliaries (Ensigns)
  Aldershot Messes (Swill Contracts)
  Aldershot Messes (Swill Contracts)
  Ordnance Factory, Radway Green (Rifle Ammunition)
  Ordnance Factory, Radway Green (Rifle Ammunition)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Northern Ireland Border Traffic (Cement)
  Northern Ireland Border Traffic (Cement)
  Merchandise Trade Figures (Diamonds and Gold Bullion)
  Merchandise Trade Figures (Diamonds and Gold Bullion)
  Aircraft (Experimental Equipment)
  Aircraft (Experimental Equipment)
  Business and Industry (Statistics)
  Business and Industry (Statistics)
  Business Promotions Publishing Company
  Business Promotions Publishing Company
  Gold Bullion Exports (Trucial States)
  Gold Bullion Exports (Trucial States)
  New National Airport, Severnside
  New National Airport, Severnside
  Champagne (Trade Descriptions Act)
  Champagne (Trade Descriptions Act)
TRANSPORT
  Road Noise
  Road Noise
  A616 and A62 Accidents (Colne Valley)
  A616 and A62 Accidents (Colne Valley)
  Parked Vehicles (Accidents)
  Parked Vehicles (Accidents)
  M3 Road Works (Camberley)
  M3 Road Works (Camberley)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rate Rebate Allowances
  Rate Rebate Allowances
  Tower Blocks, Newham (Strengthening)
  Tower Blocks, Newham (Strengthening)
  House Builders (Building Society Advances)
  House Builders (Building Society Advances)
  Land, St. Albans (Development)
  Land, St. Albans (Development)
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Planning (Third Party Objections)
  Planning (Third Party Objections)
  Bedford (Office Development Permits)
  Bedford (Office Development Permits)
  PORTUGAL (VISIT)
  PORTUGAL (VISIT)
  OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AND SURVEYS
  OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AND SURVEYS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Land (Losses)
  Agricultural Land (Losses)
  Milk Price
  Milk Price
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Brighton (Employment)
  Brighton (Employment)
  Building Workers (Scotland)
  Building Workers (Scotland)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Aliens
  Aliens
  South African Cricket Tour
  South African Cricket Tour
  Suspended Prison Sentences
  Suspended Prison Sentences
  Fines (Refusal to Pay)
  Fines (Refusal to Pay)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Postal Charges
  Postal Charges
  Rhodesian Mail (Surcharge)
  Rhodesian Mail (Surcharge)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Post Office Accommodation (Chelmsley Wood)
  Post Office Accommodation (Chelmsley Wood)
SCOTLAND
  Sheriff Court Buildings, Airdrie
  Sheriff Court Buildings, Airdrie
  Police Headquarters, Coatbridge
  Police Headquarters, Coatbridge
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Save-as-you-Rent Schemes
  Save-as-you-Rent Schemes
  Local Authority Housing (Cost Yardsticks)
  Local Authority Housing (Cost Yardsticks)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING
  West Midlands (Industrial Development Certificates)
  West Midlands (Industrial Development Certificates)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform

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

"INTAL" DRUG: SALES AND FOREIGN TESTS
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the drug "Intal" is already on sale in the United Kingdom, while it is still undergoing clinical trials before clearance in the United States and Common Market countries.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, the Committee on Safety of Drugs examined evidence submitted to them and agreed in September, 1967, that they saw no objection to the marketing of "Intal" for the purposes proposed by the manufacturer. The drug was discovered and developed in this country, and neither the Committee nor the Government saw, or see, any reason to defer marketing here pending clearance elsewhere. The negotiation of arrangements for licensed production in other countries often takes a considerable time, with a resulting delay in submissions to the appropriate foreign drug registration authorities. The Government are not aware of any reason for delay which might be connected with the safety of the drug itself.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether she would not agree that, having regard to the scientific expertise which abounds in the United States and all the Common Market countries, it would be in the
404
interests of the National Health Service, and indeed of the patient, if we pooled our information and waited until those countries also believed the drug was of proven value?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the drug "Intal" has been used extensively for some years at one of the leading teaching hospitals in London and has been a safe and effective drug in the treatment of asthmatic conditions, and that no serious side effects have been reported? And would not the Minister agree that there is something derogatory to British doctors in the idea that the Committee on Safety of Drugs must await clearance from Rome and the United States before they I can make recommendations?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am certainly aware of the facts that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has just pointed out. This drug is undoubtedly of value in certain forms of treatment for allergic bronchial asthma and has brought very great relief to sufferers from that particular complaint. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that if adverse reports on reactions to the use of this drug had been brought to the notice of the Safety of Drugs Committee and had indicated the need for a warning, Her Majesty's Government are certain that the Committee would have issued one. We are greatly indebted to the Committee, under the chairmanship first of Sir Derrick Dunlop and now of Professor Scowen, for the outstanding work they do in this field.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, although it has been mentioned before, would not my noble friend agree with me that the United States have time and time again proved that Britain has not always been right in this matter?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, one can never be sure whether one is right. We can only provide the most effective and efficient machinery we have in this field, and, in my view, the distinguished Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Scowen is one whose word we should always heed.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that in America there are constant complaints of delays in testing drugs in that country?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am glad to know that all Governments and official bodies suffer from the same difficulty that we experience here.

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES
2.40 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government upon what ground they seek to reassure women on the risks of oral contraceptives, in view of the serious warning given to doctors—

(a) to assess the family history of the potential user in relation to hypertension, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, thromboembolism;

(b) to examine for evidence of hypertension, glycosuria, varicose veins and hyperlipidaemia;

(c) to warn the user of the added risk of smoking and weight gain and the possible adverse effects of illness, accidents and operations especially when these require confinement to bed;

(d) to conduct periodical examinations; and

(e) to supervise the woman in such a way that healthy women do not become neurotic]

BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the risk of thromboembolic disease attributtable to the use of oral contraceptives by healthy women has always been small. The recent Report from the Committee on Safety of Drugs has shown that it can be made even smaller; and the recommendations which the noble Baroness quotes in her Question, from a leading article in the British Medical Journal of April 25, are entirely sensible suggestions aimed at reducing the risk to the individual further still. Her Majesty's Government consider this to be a reasonable basis for reassurance about the degree of that risk.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for agreeing with me in this matter. In view of the indications given to the
406
doctors who examine these women, can my noble friend tell me how it is possible for the overworked doctors in this country to make this detailed investigation into every case, if these pills are distributed on social grounds by the National Health Service?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I think I should make it clear to my noble friend—I am sure she is already aware of this—that oral contraceptives are available only on prescription, and it is clearly, and in my view properly, the responsibility of the doctor who precribes the pill to do so in the light of all the relevant facts.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to gather from that reply that the policy is not going to be changed; that the pill is to be given only on pathological grounds and not on social grounds? That will satisfy me.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I feel that I can never satisfy the noble Baroness on this particular point.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the Minister agree (I say this with the greatest possible respect for her reply) that what we must bear in mind is that the morbidity and mortality risks of the pill are less than the morbidity and mortality as a result of pregnancy? Would not the Minister also agree that if to-day women are exhorted to examine themselves, to be examined, to be supervised, and warned continuously, there is a real danger of their being turned into raging hypochondriacs?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, on the question of risks in pregnancy, I would add the further point that the risks where abortion is involved are even greater, certainly very much greater than the risks of the pill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask a final question? The Committee on Safety of Drugs have said that there is very little risk, but is it not a fact that the Committee have also said that only one in ten thromboembolic episodes is ever reported to them?
BARONESS SEROTA: Yes, my Lords; these facts were most carefully and fully set out in the Report of the Committee on Safety of Drugs which was published

407
in the same edition of the British Medical Journal on which the noble Baroness has set her Question.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, while in general agreement with the reply which the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has given to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of the enormous amount of research that is taking place on this particular subject, through the Medical Research Council and in other places, to find not only the safest type of the present kind of pill but also its long-term effects, and to explore other methods of contraception?
BARONESS SEROTA: Yes, my Lords; and the Committee on Safety of Drugs keep in close touch with the Medical Research Council on all matters of common concern.

CHEESE PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: 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 was the total tonnage of cheese produced in the United Kingdom during 1969 and the tonnage exported.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in 1969 118,100 tons of cheese were produced in the United Kingdom, 2,800 tons of which were exported.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether everything possible is being done to encourage exports of dairy produce, particularly bearing in mind the difficult world market for these commodities?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I understand that the British industry is very actively promoting sales overseas.

WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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 the Chancellor of the Exchequer made provision in the Budget to make possible a rise in war pensions and allowances during this year which will take account of the present increase and expected increase in the cost and standard of living.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, no provision was made in the Budget, because war pensions and allowances, together with National Insurance benefits and supplementary benefits, were increased as recently as last November. That increase was the third made by the present Government since they took office in October, 1964.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, the cost of living has already risen, and is rising rapidly; and if the Chancellor makes no provision to do something before this year is out he will be neglecting a very important element in the community. Can the noble Lord give an assurance that war pensions will be considered before this year is out, and especially some of the special allowances, which go to men disabled in the highest degree? There are a very small number of them, and they were not dealt with in the period mentioned by the noble Lord. Is he also aware that the wives and children's allowances given to these men have not been improved since the First World War?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can give an assurance that these matters will be watched. I think the noble Lord will agree that the record of this Government so far has proved that action does follow the review which is given. I have no doubt that he will also have considered the reference in the White Paper in which the Government have given a promise that, as with pensions and other benefits generally, war pensions and allowances

409
will be increased in line with any increase in the cost of living.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, that is a repetition of the pre-Election promise to keep it level, is it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord means. There is a Bill in another place which will shortly be coming here and which will have the effect of putting pensions in line with the increase in the cost of living; and Her Majesty's Government have promised in the White Paper which was published on that Bill that war pensions will be treated similarly.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment on the short list of Amendments. As this Amendment is consequential on the following Amendment I should like, with the leave of the House, to explain what the second Amendment sets out to do. Certain provisions conferring protection on statutory undertakings were, by inadvertence, deleted during the Committee stage of the Bill. The purpose of the second Amendment, which of course has been agreed by the Promoters, is to restore these protective provisions to the Bill, and therefore to give the statutory undertakers the safeguards they require. I beg to move the first Amendment, at page 5, line 18 of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, after ("if") insert ("(i)").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
('(ii) in subsection (2) after the word "subsection" there were inserted the words "or to exercise any powers conferred by Part II of the Flintshire County Council Act 1970 which will or may affect any apparatus" and before the words "the undertakers may" there were inserted the words "in any case where the local authority intend to remove or alter any apparatus"; and
(iii) in subsection (4) after the words "by reason of" there were inserted the words "the exercise of any powers conferred by Part II of the Flintshire County Council Act 1970 in respect of any land purchased under the said Part II or".').—The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
Read, 3a, and passed.
SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I do not propose to move the Third Reading of the Somerset County Council Bill this afternoon.

BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move That this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 5 [Amendment of s. 8 of Building (Scotland) Act 1959]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 30, leave out ("49(1)") and insert ("50(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting Amendment to

411
Clause 5, which is needed because of the re-numbering of the Interpretation Clause of the Roads (Scotland) Bill. At the Report stage we added a new clause, now No. 37, to the Roads Bill; and we have to alter the reference in the Building Bill from section 49 to section 50, otherwise the interpretation of highway authority does not make any sense at all. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE BILL
2.51 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 102 [Amendment of Diseases of Animals Act 1950]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 40A I think I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 41, 42, or 43.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 91, line 6, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: The following Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, are on the same subject, and I hope it may be your Lordships' wish that we should discuss all these Amendments together. These two subsections in the Bill have been introduced to give the Government the powers to vaccinate every animal within a radius around the place of outbreak of any disease which
412
may develop. It was the disastrous outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 1967–68 which gave rise to the setting up of the Northumberland Committee and prompted the legislation.
On the face of things, it may appear that the Government are not being unreasonable in seeking these powers. However, there are considerable drawbacks. First, the cost in present-day terms of the production, storing and turnover of foot-and-mouth vaccine alone would amount to £550,000 a year. The exceptional outbreak of 1967–68 cost the Government approximately £27 million, and if one adds the farmers' losses the total is likely to be around the £50 million mark. To what extent would this cost have been reduced if we had had vaccination? I suggest that it would not have been reduced by any considerable amount. Indeed, the vaccination could have caused enormous damage and additional cost. The 1967–68 outbreak was exceptional, and since then—probably thanks to the Government's wise decision on meat imports—there have been no cases at all.
It is pleasant to find oneself on one part of the agricultural front on which one can congratulate the Government, and the agricultural industry is indeed deeply grateful for the meat import restrictions. Since 1968 there have been new regulations and a tightening up of Ministry administration, further reducing the chances of epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease. The slaughter policy has always in the past proved itself effective, and now that the chances of an outbreak are reduced, why change our policy to one which has grave risks? Vaccination entails a very high risk, and only last week I believe that the Livestock Breeders' Association were making strong representations to the Minister against the policy of vaccination. Vaccination could produce in this country animals which are carriers of the disease. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture himself stated that no Government could be expected to face consequential compensation which could result from vaccination.
At the present moment it is illegal to import into this country any animal which has been vaccinated. Admittedly a few countries vaccinate with live vaccine, and

413
in this country it would be the intention to use only dead vaccine; but if it is too dangerous to import animals which have been vaccinated, is it wise to vaccinate our own stock, even in what may be a limited respect? In recent years we have had experience of vaccination for brucellosis; indeed, the fact that adult cattle have been vaccinated with S.19 has been made by the Government one of the main platforms for excusing the early introduction of a scheme for the eradication of this disease. It has come to light that the S.19 vaccine used for two or three years was an ineffective serum, and it has taken all this time to find the defect. Surely we could not risk any such accidents with foot-and-mouth disease.
Again, a number of countries would not be prepared to import our vaccinated animals, and that could cause loss to our export trade. I am not going to overplay this line, but the trade at the moment is over £1 million a year and it is scarcely surprising that the N.F.U., the Livestock Breeders' Association and most farmers and people connected with the trade have been worried at the proposals to take these powers. At the meeting on brucellosis which some of us attended at the Ministry last week, it was strongly emphasised to us that the Ministry wished to have talks to try to secure agreement with all parties in the industry—farmers, veterinary officers, milk boards and so on—but there appears to have been little or no consultation on a complete reversal of policy on two animal health matters. Indeed, few of us knew anything about these proposals until the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, and during that Committee stage a good many doubts arose. I wonder if the Minister could say whether it is intended to stock vaccines, for example, for every strain or sub-strain of foot-and-mouth disease, let alone the other diseases? Could the Minister give any details of what discussions he has had with the industry, and could he say whether any sections of the industry have given their blessing to this proposal? Could the Minister say whether the undertaking given by this Government (who, I gather, are to use the vaccine only in exceptional circumstances), would apply to future Governments?
If we pass these subsections as they stand to-day we are giving the Government of the day very dangerous powers.
414
If the powers are to be used only in an emergency, once the disease has got out of control or has perhaps got to the proportions of the 1967–68 outbreak the area to be covered and the number of cattle, sheep and pigs involved would be very considerable; indeed, it would amount almost to total vaccination of whole areas of the country. That would be contrary to the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee, which emphasised the speed with which ring vaccination should be administered. Again, who is to give the order that vaccination is to commence? Does that very grave decision rest upon the Minister's shoulders?
I suggest that there are imponderables and technicalities way beyond most of us sitting here this afternoon. As a result of Government action on imports, new regulations and the Ministry's plans, there is no immediate urgency for a decision on this matter. Therefore, would it not be better to delete these clauses from this miscellaneous Agriculture Bill this afternoon and allow full and detailed discussions to take place? Then if it is decided by the industry—and, after all, the industry should have the major say in the matter—that the Government should have these powers, let us have a separate Bill, which could be put through quite quickly if it was agreed and which could cover many of the points I have raised this afternoon. I strongly exhort your Lordships to support my Amendment, and I beg to move.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I have been put in something of a difficulty. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, is one that I would ordinarily support—holding the views I do about vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease I could hardly do otherwise—but I am of the opinion that, even if your Lordships were disposed to accept his Amendment, it would not be agreed to in another place. In view of what the Lord Chairman has said, I hope the Committee will agree that it will be an advantage to discuss my Amendments Nos. 41, 42, and 43 at the same time as we discuss the one that is before the Committee now. All three Amendments are of course interconnected, so it would be necessary to refer to them together.
In my speech during the Second Reading debate, I mentioned that I should

415
be putting down these Amendments concerning the proposed powers of the Minister with regard to ring vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease. I think it essential that we should first consider the pros and cons of vaccination itself, remembering as we do that the Minister already holds power to vaccinate animals that have come in contact with cases of foot-and-mouth disease. What can be said in favour of vaccination is the vast improvement in recent years in the various vaccines. As your Lordships know, there are a number of different types of foot-and-mouth disease virus, against which we now have vaccines of greatly increased potency. The second improvement in recent times is that we are now believed to have protection for pigs which we did not have before.
We must remember, however, the dangers incumbent in vaccination. First, vaccinated animals exposed to infection may become highly dangerous carriers and could spread the disease to susceptible stock. Secondly, there is no adequate protection to the animals which have been vaccinated until 7 to 14 days after vaccination. As I mentioned on Second Reading, in Denmark they adopted a system of ring vaccination and after an outbreak of the disease last December several subsidiary outbreaks occurred in vaccinated stock within 14 days. I understand that the Danes are most disturbed by the possibility that healthy cattle which have been vaccinated will excrete foot-and-mouth disease virus and thus themselves create subsidiary outbreaks.
The most important of the disadvantages is that after vaccination there is a great risk of the disease becoming endemic in this country. But even if it does not become endemic, the risk is that many countries to whom we export livestock would regard it as too dangerous to import animals from this country and a great deal of harm would ensue to our export trade. There are very large numbers of pedigree breeders in this country who are most anxious about this aspect, and who hope that a vaccination policy will never be put in force.
We had all assumed from the recommendations contained in the Report of the Northumberland Committee that very careful consideration would be given before
416
the contingency plans for the application of ring vaccination were implemented. However, a document, dated April 1, 1970, produced by the Animal Health Division gives grave reason to doubt whether due attention has been paid to this requirement, in that it is stated therein:
"If vaccination is deemed necessary it would begin within 24 hours of the outbreak."
This is surely a completely inadequate period, except under the most exceptional conditions, for anyone to be able to make a correct assessment. For this reason it is felt necessary to impose a delay in vesting in the Minister a power to order ring vaccination so that further consideration can be given to the details. It would also give an opportunity for national and international consultations concerning the effect of vaccination on our export trade with other countries. I understand that these consultations have not taken place up till now.
As I said when I began, I think there would be more hope of getting agreement to this delay in the granting to the Minister of these powers of ring vaccination than of obtaining a complete ban. I feel that it is a reasonable compromise and one that will enable a full study to be made of these important matters and of what will be entailed. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will agree to accept my Amendments when they are moved.
LORD BALERNO: I have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Burton, and with the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swathling. However, I have slight reservations in that I think the Northumberland Committee reported in favour of this procedure, and in the veterinary profession I believe the tendency is, on the whole, in favour of what the Government are proposing here. We have been assured that the powers which are being given are, as it were, powers of last resort, to be used only in an emergency. That brings me on to the question of the cost of this operation. I believe that the cost of keeping various strains of this vaccine would be approximately £500,000 a year, and there are many years when it would not be at all likely that ring vaccination would be brought into operation. Indeed, the only likelihood of its being brought into operation would be when there was

417
a massive outbreak, and when a great deal of money had already been spent by the Government in combating foot-and-mouth. My own hesitation arises on whether this is a prudent expenditure of money. If there were a "wild fire" outbreak of foot-and-mouth, and one could pour in the vaccine and get it into action, that would be one thing. But it would be quite another thing, as I see it, to spend £500,000 a year on maintaining the vaccine.
3.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I recognise that there is more than one opinion about this proposal, which is a departure from what we have hitherto stood by in this country. But I am bound to say that I am a little surprised now, in the light of the sort of representations that were made during that dreadful period of the disaster, to hear the objection to the proposal to have ring vaccination as a standby policy. Many noble Lords will remember when we had to report practically each week that there were further animals being infected. Something like 438,000 were, I think, ultimately slaughtered, and from all sides of the House people were asking: Cannot something more be done? Representing my right honourable friend at this Box, I had to say that we had a slaughter policy and we proposed to continue with that slaughter policy. Nevertheless, there was a feeling that the whole matter ought to be looked at again, and it was looked at again by as authoritative a body as could be set up to look at it.
I rather felt, when the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, indicated that this decision of Her Majesty's Government to have this power to engage in ring vaccination was taken without proper consideration, that that was rather unfair. Of course everything was gone into; of course people were consulted; of course evidence was taken by the Northumberland Committee. And we then came to this decision. The Government have accepted that there will be this power vested in the Minister to engage in ring vaccination if, in the light of all the circumstances, it is considered justifiable. I was asked——
LORD SWAYTHLING: Will the noble Lord excuse my interrupting him? I
418
am afraid that I cannot refer to the paragraph in the Northumberland Report which deals with the matter, but I understand that it stated definitely that, if ring vaccination was ever resorted to, it should not be resorted to until after many considerations had been taken into account. If the Minister is given these powers which are in the Bill, can we have an assurance that the period of 24 hours, which is mentioned in the Animal Health Division's leaflet about putting vaccination into operation—which would mean that no assessment could be made of the situation—will be extended?
LORD BESWICK: I was about to say that I was asked who would make the decision as to whether to vaccinate or not. It would be an important decision, and I was asked who would make it. Of course, the decision would be taken by my right honourable friend the Minister but it would not be taken within 24 hours of any outbreak, not just like that. There would be a study jointly carried out by veterinarians, meteorologists, virologists and epidemiologists; and there would be an initial assessment of the risks of potential spread of the disease and the likely direction of spread. That would become available, of course, in a matter of some hours, and it would be on this assessment that a decision would be taken as to whether ring vaccination was necessary as a control measure. If the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, wants assurance that it will be a decision taken after the most careful consideration by all the various people and authorities concerned, then I can give him that assurance. But in the light of the experience which we had in the last outbreak, and in the light of the recommendations that were made by the Northumberland Committee, it would be quite irresponsible of the Minister not to take these powers to vaccinate a ring around an infected area if the various considerations suggested that such a step was necessary.
I was asked about the cost of vaccination. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, it would cost some half a million pounds to stock the vaccines. In answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, there will be more than one strain of vaccines. A number of strains, which between them

419
will give an effective coverage, will be available.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked about the carrier problem, and I know that some farmers and breeders are concerned about vaccinated animals becoming carriers of the disease. Indeed, I think that I made this point myself, in answer to questions, when I was being pressed on the earlier occasion, during the outbreak, as to why we did not vaccinate, and I said that this was one of the possibilities we had to look into. The results of research and experience in many countries show that with modern vaccines and techniques the carrier problem does not constitute a significant risk. We shall have two safeguards against that risk. On most farms there will be young, unvaccinated animals fully susceptible to the disease, and these will act as controls. Secondly, we shall take samples and carry out tests on those vaccinated herds where we consider there is a risk from this problem before we remove restrictions from the area. The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, spoke about secondary outbreaks in Denmark. I understand that these secondary outbreaks had in fact been seeded—that is to say, animals had been infected—before vaccination, and that subsequently the vaccine was effective.
I was also asked about exports. It was the Northumberland Committee, in paragraph 194 of Part I of their Report, who said:
"There will be no problem with exports to countries where vaccination is practised. Exports of livestock to such countries constitute the major part, both in quantity and value, of our total exports. There could be resistance from other countries, but many accept imports subject to special precautions from countries where vaccination is practised. The precautions required for exports to such countries are already considerable, and there is no reason why we should have difficulty in satisfying the extra precautions imposed because we had of necessity resorted to ring vaccination."
Another point put to me concerned consultations by the Minister: I was asked what discussions he had had. He did in fact discuss the plans with the British Veterinary Association on April 8, and the proposals there were, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, favourably received. There were also discussions earlier this month with the farmers'
420
unions, the National Cattle Breeders' Association, the National Pig Breeders' Association and a representative of the Royal Agricultural Society. Opinions were expressed. I cannot say that in these cases the proposals were received favourably, as with the Veterinary Association, but, of course, one understands that there is a reluctance to embark upon a policy which has certain disadvantages. But, of course, there are disadvantages in an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. There are infinitely greater risks there if we have no reserve policy of ring vaccination. I understand the reservations which noble Lords have expressed, but I put it to them that it is only sensible, practical and wise, in the light of all the advice which has been tendered, for the Minister to take the powers for which he asks in this Bill.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for answering the debate on this important matter of the control of foot-and-mouth disease? I should begin by declaring a personal interest in this field, as I am chairman of the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright, which is our main research institute dealing with foot-and-mouth. Let me say immediately to my noble friend Lord Burton that I should have thought he can take some comfort from the fact that our official policy for the control of foot-and-mouth is unchanged. It is still the slaughter policy; and on balance—and, heaven knows ! this matter has been carefully looked into by the Northumberland Committee—I am sure that this is the right policy.
The statement which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has made this afternoon about how the Government propose to use this second line of defence which is contemplated in this clause is, I think, helpful. There is a certain haze hanging over this, as to what should be done; and one has to bear in mind the comments of the Northumberland Committee on this score, where they roundly say that emergency ring vaccination will not be of any use unless it is done immediately. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has told us that in fact it will not be done immediately. This I sympathise with: I do not think it could be, so it introduces other factors. But in so far as ring vaccination is to be applied as a last-ditch measure

421
if an outbreak of foot-and-mouth should become as widespread as it was in 1967–68, and if there really was a danger that the slaughter policy would not be sufficient to contain it so that the outbreak threatened to spread throughout the country, as it did then, then this seems to me a measure which is justified.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether the noble Lord would enable me just to qualify the word "immediately". When I spoke just now I was using the word "immediately" in the sense of "automatically". There is no question of automatic vaccination, but I agree that if all the circumstances of any particular outbreak suggested it, then speedy action would be necessary. But it would be on the basis of a special assessment by all the people concerned in each case.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Yes. I quite take the noble Lord's point, and I think he is right. In fact, this will take time, and this makes it even more difficult for a decision to be taken. But I am sure my noble friend Lord Burton will take Lord Beswick's point that at the height of the crisis in 1967–68 we were all asking: "Is the slaughter policy going to be adequate when the epidemic is so serious and is spreading so fast? Ought we not to think of using vaccination as a second line of defence?" Indeed, the Government then imported a stock of vaccine for that very purpose, and I think this was done with the approval of everybody.
So it really is necessary, in order to judge the Government's present proposal fairly, to remember those circumstances of two years ago and, apart from the financial loss, the immense suffering of the farming community as they saw their valuable herds being slaughtered. My noble friend Lord Burton said that he thought that perhaps the consequential cost was equal to the compensation. I should think that it might easily be double that; and that the total cost of an outbreak might be nearer £100 million than £50 million. Certainly there is no doubt that it was touch and go whether the slaughter policy could get control of it. It is against this background that I think we have to judge what the Government are now putting before us to provide themselves with a second string. Although I hope that we
422
shall never have such a bad outbreak again, on the whole I think we should be glad to think that there is a second string. In fact, the Northumberland Committee, I should tell my noble friend Lord Burton, estimated that if ring vaccination had been applied in the Oswestry outbreak, it might have saved half the outbreaks. They qualified this by saying that ring vaccination would have had to begin very early.
Here I come to the point that I was discussing earlier with Lord Beswick. The decision whether or not to carry out ring vaccination presents enormous difficulty. The Chief Veterinary Officer would have to be the main adviser to the Ministar, and the implications are so extensive, the difficulties of making a correct appreciation of the situation in the middle of an outbreak, when slaughtering is going on every day and when reports are coming in all the time, are so great that it will be difficult to judge whether or not this secondary measure should be taken. The point I would stress is that it is worth while having a second string to your bow; it is going to be of some help to the Minister and his advisers to know that they have it and that they can bring it into action if they wish. That can be the sole justification: that it is a last-ditch measure if the slaughter policy seems to be failing. Really, I should think it is more what the Northumberland Committee called "barrier vaccination" than ring vaccination that would be brought into operation in such an event; and it is bound to come in later rather than earlier because of the great difficulty of sizing up the situation and deciding whether to do it.
I should like to add this footnote to the main issue. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Burton in thinking that it would be disastrous to turn to ring vaccination as a first line of defence. The Animal Virus Research Institute, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, gave evidence to the Northumberland Committee that this would be the worst of all worlds; that the right thing to do is either to slaughter or to vaccinate everything, to have a wholesale vaccination policy.
Of course, it is perfectly true, as has been mentioned in this debate, that the technique of vaccines has enormously advanced in recent years. The Western

423
European countries have by wholesale vaccination methods made tremendous progress in eliminating, or very nearly so, or getting under control, foot-and-mouth disease in their countries which was a serious thing 15 or 20 years ago. So if we decided to carry out wholesale vaccination we should get the advantage then of having complete protection. But it is very expensive. It would cost at least £5 million a year, every year, and more than double that to start it off. There is immense dislocation in doing it and certain disadvantages, as my noble friend Lord Burton has said, to the export trade. I am still quite sure that for us in this island the slaughter policy is the best. But that depends on reducing the number of primaries. These have been increasingly worrying in recent years. The measure that the Government have taken in persuading the South Americans to bone their meat before sending it here represents tremendous progress, and the Government are much to be congratulated on it. I am sure that this will reduce the number of primaries; and if we can reduce the number of primaries then our prospect of being successful with the slaughter policy is very much improved.
I turn now to another point made by my noble friend Lord Burton and by Lord Swaythling on the pros and cons of ring vaccination and the risk to the export trade due to the presence of vaccinated animals in the national herd. I think that one can over-state this risk. One has to remember that if we are ever unlucky enough to be in a situation where we have had such a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth that ring vaccination is employed, this would mean that the disease had been raging over quite large areas of the country and that, in any event, for some months to come the export trade would be prejudiced—whether there had been ring vaccination or not. Inevitably, a potential customer overseas for our cattle would hesitate for some months before buying our cattle. I do not think that if in such a case we decided on ring vaccination it would extend the period of doubt significantly.
I would therefore give my advice to my noble friends and, indeed, to the cattle breeding societies that I do not think that this would be a significant point affecting the export trade. Let
424
us be frank about this: if anybody wants to buy cattle now from a country like France which has regular vaccination, he buys them. The Charollais trade has not suffered by the fact of general vaccination in France. The fact is that beef breeders all over the world want Charollais cattle and they will soon find some means of getting the Charollais cattle from France, sending them through some kind of quarantine arrangement and making sure that they are clear of the disease when they arrive in the United States or anywhere else. I do not believe that this is going to bother our export trade, and in the event of our ever having to ring vaccinate, the prolongation which it would bring about of the period of doubt, if any, would be a short one.
As to cost, it is true that it will cost about half a million pounds a year. That is about the cost which is now being borne in carrying this stock of vaccine. That must be regarded as an insurance policy. It is a second line of defence. In fact, I hear rumours that the cost may be cheaper; that we may be able to get our supplies of vaccine at a lower price. But whether it is half a million or less, it is worth while if we regard it as part of our insurance premium. We might remember that the cost of running the Research Institute is over half a million a year. This is entirely an insurance measure in order to inform us in this country and to give us the strongest team of scientists able to deal with animal virus. It is solely in order to give better protection here. If we pay another half million which helps to keep the virus out of the country, then it is good value. I do not think that that is a significant point that ought to deter us.
The disadvantages we must recognise. Lord Beswick, I thought, made a fair point: there is no perfect policy. Whatever you follow has its pros and cons. What we are being asked to agree to is to continue our traditional policy of slaughter and to add a second line of defence in the form of ring vaccination if we had an immensely serious outbreak which we were in danger of failing to to control. I think that this is a perfectly safe thing to do, and that we should give it our support.
LORD BURTON: I should like to thank Lord Beswick and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am sure that there are a number who may be confused as to what is what, but I think there is not a great deal between us. The only question is how to delay the issue: whether to take it out of the Bill now or to leave it in the Bill and ask for a year's delay. What must come out of this debate, I think, is the considerable divergence of opinion as to whether vaccine should or should not be used. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that although he had the Veterinary Association's agreement it appears that the rest of the industry is not altogether in favour of it. That is the very reason why we are asking for delay. We feel that there ought to be more consultation and consideration. Perhaps the Government would get the farming industry to go with them if we had a year's delay, but at the moment parts of the industry are not in favour and they are the people who will suffer.
I disagree with the suggestion that the Northumberland Committee agreed to ring vaccination. If there is to be ring vaccination, the Northumberland Committee have advocated that it must be immediate. The decision of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee has been that it should not be immediate. We should, perhaps, not be talking about ring vaccination but barrier vaccination, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. This is another possibility altogether, but it is one more reason why we should have discussions with the industry before proceeding with this matter. If I may quote from the Report of the Northumberland Committee, paragraph 221 states:
"We think that in certain conditions ring vaccination could be a useful adjunct to slaughter."
The Committee say "in certain conditions." One of the conditions was if there was no restriction on the import of meat. I have already congratulated the Government on their wise decision to restrict these imports. In the next paragraph the Report says:
"If such conditions on meat imports are not put into force we would recommend that the slaughter policy should be reinforced by ring vaccination."
But as they have been put into force it is questionable whether ring vaccination,
426
or barrier vaccination, should be considered.
I think Denmark is the only country which uses ring vaccination, and there are considerable doubts about it. In one paragraph the Northumberland Committee report considerable doubts about the methods of killing the vaccine, and it might be a dangerous thing to use. I feel that there ought to be more discussion and consultation about this. I am not competent to say whether we should have vaccination or not; it is obvious that some of your Lordships feel strongly that we should have it and some that we should not. But I consider that there is a great need for more consultation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.33 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 91, line 6, at beginning insert ("subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section")
The noble Lord said: I am very grateful to the Minister for having said that ring vaccination will not be put in force without proper consultation. I think it was obvious that we did not suspect that it would be, but I should like to quote from a document called The Outline of Contingency Plans for Ring Vaccination issued by the Animal Health Division on April 1, 1970, which says:
"If vaccination is deemed necessary, it would begin within about 24 hours of the outbreak; would involve the vaccination of all cattle and sheep over three months and pigs over six weeks old, and would be completed within seven days."
In view of what the Minister has said, I hope that this will be corrected and that there will be no thought that they could make a proper assessment within 24 hours of whether ring vaccination should be resorted to. The Minister said that there had been consultations with the breed societies. I can say that the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers and the National Cattlebreeders' Association are still very much against power being given to act immediately. They would approve the acceptance of my Amendment which, after all, is a very reasonable one. It asks only that the power should be delayed for 12 months to enable the kind of details mentioned in the Animal Health Division paper to be sorted out; and also for the question of

427
the effect on our export cattle trade to be assessed properly after international consultations. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said that in his opinion it would not affect the export trade adversely, but I can assure your Lordships that there are many cattle breeders in the country who take the absolutely contrary view. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I hope that we may come to the same conclusion in respect of this Amendment as we did after we had listened to the arguments on the earlier Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, counsels delay. It is conceivable that if we delayed for a period of 12 months, and there were no further outbreaks, there might well be one or two others who would come round to the point of view which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and by the noble Lord, Lord Burton. But suppose that after two or three months of the 12-month period there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth and the same kind of situation as we had in 1967–68 befell us again. What a different approach there would then be! The fact is that there is always a reluctance to pay an insurance premium if one is not having any burglaries. It is when there has been a burglary that people see that their premiums are paid. I suggest to the noble Lord that although it is a persuasive argument that we should wait for 12 months, in the light of the considerations we have referred to in our earlier discussions it would be an irresponsible thing to do. There have been consultations and discussions; evidence has been taken; and the Government have decided that it would be right to have these reserve powers. If we are to have them, surely it is better to have them now.
I was asked about the word "immediate". Immediate vaccination is not possible. You cannot go out within 24 hours and vaccinate all the cattle in an area; you must have a proper assessment of the situation. The more appropriate word is "urgent". There would be an urgent assessment. In some cases it might be possible to decide that the outbreak could be contained. In other cases, if there were the kind of infection explosion that we had two or three years ago, the decision might well
428
have to be that we should have to have a barrier of vaccinated animals around the infected area. In any case, I suggest to the noble Lord that his fears, although understandable, have to be put against the legitimate fears of another outbreak of this disease.
The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, spoke again about the export trade. I can only echo the relevant, and I thought final, comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford: that if we had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, it would be equally, if not more, difficult to sell our animals abroad.
LORD BURTON: Will the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, give a little further explanation to try to allay some of the fears which have been expressed? There is the question of when this might be implemented. Do I gather that it will have to be an epidemic on the scale of the one in 1967–68 before any action will be taken? Would it be a barrier round the area, rather than ring vaccination which is mentioned in the Committee Report?
LORD BESWICK: I did not hear the last sentence of the noble Lord, Lord Burton.
LORD BURTON: If one reads the Report of the Northumberland Committee, one sees that they refer to three different sorts of vaccination: one is universal vaccination; one has been referred to more or less in the Continental phrase of barrier vaccination designed to stop the virus coming in from Asia, and the other is ring vaccination. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did not like the word "immediate", but it will be as immediate as possible around the area of primary infection. Do I take it that what is wanted is a middle course, which is vaccination around the area of an epidemic once it has broken out?
LORD BESWICK: The answer to the noble Lord is that it will be around an epidemic once it has broken out. But again, not necessarily every epidemic; it would depend on the location, the circumstances and the assessment made by all the specialists concerned. Certainly there would not be universal vaccination: that is not the proposal. It is a question of putting up a barrier, a defence in depth, if you like, around the

429
infected area beyond which it would be unreasonable to believe that the infection would spread. That is the intention. However, it would be wrong of me to go into too great detail about a hypothetical case. All I am assuring the Committee is that there is a wealth of advice at the disposal of the Minister, and no step would be taken without proper advice having been received.
LORD BURTON: If that is the case, would not the noble Lord agree that in the case of the 1967–68 outbreak it would have meant vaccinating one third, or even one half, of all the cattle in England and Wales?
LORD BESWICK: I should not like to be too definite about this; but I would say that it was obvious in the very early stages that that outbreak was going to be difficult to contain; and there would have been a case for ring vaccination early in that outbreak.
LORD STRANGE: Has the noble Lord any information about the serious outbreak which took place in Russia: whether there was any vaccination to try to stop it, or was it allowed to run—or any information at all?
LORD BESWICK: I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord the benefit of any information about Russia's experience.
LORD SWAYTHLING: The noble Lord has stated that he thinks twelve months is quite unnecessary. Would he accept six months or four months in order to carry out the policy that I have suggested? He told us that there have been some consultations about the export aspect of this matter, but I am assured that there have been no real international consultations on the matter. He says that twelve months is not necessary. But if he would accept a delay of six months or three months, I should be pleased to alter the Amendment to that effect. It seems to me that it is necessary to have these matters cleared up before the Minister has these powers. It may well be that when they have been acquired he will find that the reasons against them will be such that he would not ever wish to put them into operation.
LORD ROWALLAN: Have we any information as to the percentage of carriers left among animals that have been vaccinated? And have we any information about the so-called means of detecting those carriers? These, I think, are two important points.
LORD BESWICK: I shall be glad to see whether I can find an answer for the noble Lord, but I have not the information at the moment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Perhaps I can help my noble friend, Lord Rowallan. There is a quite satisfactory technique, called the Probang system, for detecting carriers. It consists of a piece of machinery which is pushed down the animal's throat and takes a sample of its gullet, because it is there that the virus, if it is there, lies. This technique is used for the Charollais exported from France and destined for the United States. In the past, these animals have been quarantined here, and quarantined in Brest. The animals are now subjected to this test, and it is quite a satisfactory method of discovering whether an animal is a carrier. So this does not present a problem with specific animals. I should not think that anyone would like to make a guess at the percentage of carriers, but it would be pretty small.
LORD BESWICK: The information I have is that the number of animals would be very small indeed.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think the noble Lord said that vaccination would not be done in every case. I hope I am not misquoting him, but I understood from his earlier remarks on the subject, when he was answering the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Burton, that he anticipated that vaccination would be used only in exceptional cases. He did not give me that impression when he was answering the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and he said that it would not be used in every case. I think it is important to establish which of these two is correct, and which is the Government's idea.
LORD BESWICK: Let me put it again in this way. There is no intention automatically to vaccinate for every outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I have indicated that if there were a notification of an outbreak there would immediately be

431
an assessment. I mentioned the sort of people who would need to look at the situation—veterinarians, meteorologists, virologists and epidemiologists. In the light of their advice, and on their report, a decision on whether or not to vaccinate would be taken. I said that it was unlikely that it would be done in every case; almost certainly it would not be. But a quick decision on the basis of their report would be taken.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think that in the 1967–68 outbreak almost everyone supported the Government in their slaughter policy. Although I can see that in the exceptional cases vaccination could be an advantage, I should have thought the noble Lord might have been rather more forthcoming than he has been so far. What worries me is that in 1968 we went into the matter very deeply, and I believe that nearly all knowledgeable opinion took the view that the Government were correct to continue that sort of policy. What has occurred in the meantime that the noble Lord wishes these powers to be used on any but the very exceptional occasion? I do not think I have expressed myself very well, but this point does worry me.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Duke appears to be suffering from the same difficulties that I have in not expressing myself very well. He asks what has happened since then. There has been an outbreak when 430,000 animals were slaughtered. There was a great demand from everyone in this House and from those outside that there should be another look at this problem. A Committee was established precisely for that purpose, and they had a look at it. The noble Duke asked me about the difference between what I said on one occasion and what I said on another as to the number of times that ring vaccination will be applied. I cannot say. I do not know what kind of outbreak there is likely to be. But I would say that the last outbreak in 1967–68 would have been one where advice would have favoured vaccination. That was an exceptional case. The way that the infection exploded around was exceptional. But whether in the future we shall have a number of isolated cases where no ring vaccination will be necessary, or another case of the 1967–68 variety, I cannot
432
say. All I am saying is that on the basis of the advice that has been tendered to the Minister the power ought to be there. The advice will be in the Bill. It is not a matter of going out and vaccinating immediately the Bill goes on the Statute Book. It may be a long time before it is used; and one hopes that it will never be used. Basically, our policy remains that of slaughter, but on certain occasions ring vaccination is a valuable additional ally.
LORD WISE: I should like to ask the noble Lord one further question. May I take it from his earlier replies that the policy of ring vaccination would not in any way cause the disease to become endemic in the country? That is something which is not fully understood and it is troubling a lot of people.
LORD BESWICK: Universal vaccination of the national herd would have the effect of making the disease endemic. Ring vaccination of this kind would not.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: May I ask one further question: have we enough vaccines now in the country to apply it?
LORD BESWICK: If I were asked to supply them to-morrow I could not give an affirmative answer, but in the very near future the answer will be "Yes".
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Eradication of brucellosis]:
3.52 p.m.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 92, line 10, at end insert:—
("( ) In any scheme made under subsection (1) of this section and by which an order for compulsory slaughter is made then the compensation to be paid will be the difference between the price fetched by the animal when slaughtered and that which it is estimated by one of his inspectors that the animal would have fetched if sold in the open market in sound condition.")
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give the cattle farmer a guarantee that in all cases of compulsory slaughter through brucellosis there will be some measure of compensation, and to give him an assurance that it will be a reasonable measure of compensation. The existing brucellosis accredited herd scheme was designed for the late 1960s, to prepare the way for

433
compulsory eradication. I suspect that the Government hoped it would carry on into the early 1970s. Unfortunately, as noble Lords on both sides of the House are well aware, that scheme has not had the success that was hoped for—indeed, it has been described by some, and not without reason, as a scheme which spreads brucellosis. This is on the ground that reactors and infected animals can be sold with impugnity on the open market. Accordingly we must all welcome this clause in the Bill which the Government inserted at Report stage in another place. At least it shows that the Government are aware of the problem.
We are informed that the purpose of the new scheme is to provide the sinews of compulsory eradication, and that limited eradication projects will be started next year. During the Second Reading debate in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, with his customary picturesqueness, described this as standing on the threshold of compulsory eradication. There is some evidence, however, that this new clause has been hastily drafted with the intention of leaving as many options open to the Government as possible. This is commendable; but when too many things are left open, the probable action becomes quite indeterminate and the position is, quite naturally, regarded with suspicion. Farmers are accustomed to plan ahead, and we should like the Government to learn to do the same. We want some indication of whether the threshold is looking North, South, East or West, and what is the visibility from the threshold.
The purpose of my Amendment is to clarify an essential part of any scheme that the Government may develop. The Amendment is to make clear beyond peradventure that compensation will be paid for all animals compulsorily slaughtered under this scheme, and that the compensation will be adequate though by no means generous. The cattle industry are much concerned by a statement made by the Government in another place when the Bill was in the Report stage (column 1336, of Hansard, for March 24). While conceding 100 per cent. compensation in cases where healthy animals may have to be slaughtered because of excessive exposure to
434
brucellosis, and the herd heavily infected with that disease, the Minister went on to say that in dealing with reactors the Government do not intend to pay 100 per cent. compensation. Most fanners will regard that statement as a rather foggy outlook for them.
The reason given for this is that the Government cannot afford deliberately to create a situation in which it pays people to buy up reactors in the confident knowledge—and I quote:
"that they—and any other animals they may infect—will command 100 per cent. compensation".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 24/3/70; col. 1336.]
If this Amendment is accepted, it will not be worth while for anybody to buy a reactor. The Amendment implies that the purchaser cannot receive in toto more than the value of the animal, and the value cannot be more than the price the purchaser paid for it: it may well be less. It may be argued by the Government that a man buying a known reactor cheaply may be able to keep it for some months and sell it at a higher price. If it is a steer for fattening no great harm will result. Long-term fattening of cows is a most unprofitable business. If it is a dairy cow that he hopes to sell after she has calved he is running at least a fifty-fifty risk that she will abort, and her value will go down. That will hardly appeal to a prudent farmer.
I therefore conclude that we can discount this line of argument which, to judge from what was said in another place, is based on the methods applied to tuberculosis eradication. Brucellosis eradication differs in many ways from T.B. eradication. We have had too much slavish copying of the T.B. methods (I say this almost with my tongue in my cheek) and it really ought to stop. Nevertheless, there is one lesson that we can learn from the T.B. eradication, and that is to proceed area by area. If competently selected, the cost to the Exchequer of this method of eradicating, area by area, can be well controlled. The faster eradication can be carried out in the country, the cheaper it will be in the long run: the cost will be much less. It is this long-drawn-out policy of eradication that is making the matter so expensive. If the Government were really concerned about this, they might have considered the suggestion made in another

435
place and included in this clause a provision that anyone who knowingly or recklessly sells a reactor will have his milk licence removed. I will support my noble friend Lord Burton when we come to his Amendment, No. 45A.
Once the majority of dairy farmers—and this goes for beef, too—know that there is to be a realistic, but by no means generous, measure of compensation, they will welcome the use of the stick upon the "black sheep" of their industry. If we are on the threshold, then I beseech the Government to accept this Amendment, or something like it, and so clear the air in order that we may see in some measure of clarity the road ahead. That will be a real encouragement to all decent farmers to co-operate wholeheartedly in the eradication of the disease.
LORD BURTON: There are many farmers sitting on the fence with large numbers of infected animals within it. They are waiting for a scheme of compensation. Whether the scheme to be introduced in 1971 will include this provision perhaps the Minister can tell us—I think that almost certainly it will. Perhaps he will also tell us whether the scheme is likely to start early in 1971 or late in 1971. I do not think we have had any indication so far. Another year's delay would be adversely received by the industry. A large number of dangerous animals are being kept waiting for this compensation scheme to come into effect, and every day that these animals are kept they are spreading disease throughout the country. Therefore the sooner they are removed, the better.
My noble friend Lord Balerno mentioned differences between the T.B. scheme and the brucellosis scheme. One point which has perhaps not yet come home to the Ministry is that in tubeculosis one can work from the clean to the dirty animal, from the animals which have not got the disease, and gradually work out. With brucellosis, I feel, one should work the other way round. The sooner the dirty, infected animals are removed, the better.
4.1 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Burton, says that there must be many farmers who will be waiting for
436
just such a scheme as this. I can well imagine that that is true and that there would be some farmers, at any rate—a very few, but some—who if they had not a herd of dirty animals would think about acquiring one. This would run contrary to the whole principle behind the scheme. We have a principle here which I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, will accept. It is that one should give rewards to the farmer with healthy animals, rather than give compensation to the farmer with unclean animals.
Before I go on to that argument in some detail, I would point out to the noble Lord that I think he is mistaking the purposes of Clause 103, which has nothing at all to do with compulsory slaughter. It will only enable the Minister to provide himself with funds to implement the voluntary scheme, in which there is no compulsory slaughter. So it would be quite impossible, or at any rate inadvisable, to have this Amendment on the grounds of legislative logicality. It just would not fit into this clause.
However, I plead with the noble Lord, not on some technical factor but on a question of principle. For a start, we have this voluntary scheme. Farmers will be given an incentive to build up a healthy herd; they will be given l¼d. a gallon extra for their milk or 37s. 6d. on the beef animal. This is the right way of going about it, as we see it: putting the incentive on the healthy animal and good husbandry, rather than the other way round. I hope that this is the way round which the noble Lord, on reflection, will accept.
The noble Lord asked about the known reactor, which is mentioned in an Amendment we shall consider later. I shall listen with great interest to the arguments advanced on that Amendment. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's intention there, but I think there is a contradiction between the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, in his Amendment and the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in the matter which he is putting before us here.
I have simply to repeat that the Government do not intend to pay 100 per cent. compensation for reactors on the basis that they are healthy animals when in fact they are unclean animals.

437
The whole essence of the Government's approach to brucellosis is to put the emphasis on the clean animals and clean herd and to reward vigilance against the disease, instead of underwriting infection. That is why, in contrast to anything that has ever been done before in compulsory eradication of our animal diseases, the Government intend to pay appreciable sums in the shape of incentive premiums on the clean animals found in herds subject to compulsory eradication. That is why on those occasions when a healthy animal has to be compulsorily slaughtered because of excessive exposure to brucellosis in a heavily infected herd, the Government will pay the full 100 per cent. compensation. No new statutory powers are needed to do this. Additionally, in the compulsory areas, and to assist in the process of restocking, there will be a flat-rate replacement grant on each slaughtered reactor. That is in the compulsory scheme. But we are here dealing with the voluntary scheme, and in the voluntary scheme the emphasis, as I say, is in the amount of money which Clause 103 will make available to the Minister to give to the owners of the clean herds. I hope the Committee will agree that this is the right way of tackling the problem.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Balerno, before taking a further part in the debate, could make a little clearer how he sees his Amendment working. His Amendment says:
"'… compensation to be paid will be the difference between the price fetched by the animal when slaughtered and that which it is estimated by one of his inspectors"—
that is, the Minister's inspectors—
"that the animal would have fetched if sold in the open market in sound condition."
That seems to be a contradiction in terms. I know that my noble friend has great knowledge of these matters, but I found this a little difficult to understand, because I should have thought that a Ministry inspector when confronted with a diseased animal could have put only a slaughter value on it. I found it difficult to get my mind clear on what sort of value my noble friend saw being put on it. Would he eludicate this point?
LORD BALERNO: Yes, with permission. The animal one was considering
438
would be healthy, because so far as slaughter for eating the flesh of the beast is concerned, the case I have in mind is not parallel with tuberculosis. There is no likelihood of there being any meat to be condemned. Those words were put in with a little hesitation, I will admit, and I should not have minded leaving out the words "in sound condition", but I received some advice which made me leave them in. I quite see that there might be equivocation, but at the same time I do not think any inspector would have difficulty in understanding what was meant.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: If I may make a brief comment on this point (we are in Committee and therefore there is no limit on our speaking), I am still not absolutely clear what my noble friend wants. I should have thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is something which we all accept in these veterinary matters. No Minister of Agriculture can be expected to pay the market price for a dairy cow as a dairy cow if she is diseased; she can only go for the slaughter price. A scheme which provided for her to be paid for as a dairy cow at market price would put an impossible premium on people buying up diseased animals in order to make money out of the scheme. No Minister could possibly justify spending public money in effect to encourage bad husbandry. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Balerno could not have such a thought in his mind.
Of course, there should be full, 100 per cent., compensation for animals which are healthy but have had so much contact with diseased animals that they have to be slaughtered. But that is another matter. It is of course always difficult for us to discuss these veterinary matters and grasp the precise portent of the different technical points. This is a matter of very great interest at the present time. We all want to see the brucellosis scheme for eradication going ahead as fast as possible, and that is why we are debating it now. I should not have thought that we wanted to make too much of any difference of opinion between us. It seems to me that the Government may have the right balance here in giving the incentives they have offered on the milk and carcase, which will bring in additional revenue to the man who wishes

439
to be, and indeed has become, accredited. He will use this additional money to enter into an insurance scheme—I understand that the N.F.U. Mutual is now working one out—which will itself provide the difference between the slaughter value of the animal which is slaughtered and the market value which the farmer would have received if she had not been a reactor.
I should have thought that this was the right structure to get the incentive pulling the right way, so that both the dairy and the beef industry have the necessary incentive to aim for clean herds. Whether the premiums have been set at the right level only experience can show. It looks as though they might be about right, but if experience shows that they are set too low to cover the cost of such an insurance policy I should think there would be a case for uplifting them to make them adequate for the purpose. But I do not think it could be right to give a full market value compensation price for a diseased animal. Therefore I hope my noble friend is not making that the point of his Amendment, because I think it would be wrong. But it would be right to say that the Government must watch these premiums to make sure that they will be adequate to pay for an insurance policy that will compensate for reactors when they have to be slaughtered.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should not like the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, to think that I am critical of him in any way, because we are anxious to persuade people to support the scheme for the eradication of brucellosis, but I think that in this matter his judgment is a little wrong. It seems to me that in this Amendment, which as I see it is asking for 100 per cent. compensation whatever the condition of the cow, the noble Lord is assuming that all farmers are men of high principle like himself. If the farmer was not tempted to dispose of an infected cow, much of this debate to-day and much of the agitation on the part of those who wish to eradicate brucellosis would be redundant. Indeed, the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, which I think is an excellent one, would be redundant. But I do not think we can assume that every farmer is absolutely honest and would
440
not be tempted, if this Amendment were passed, to procure cows which he might subsequently sell for 100 per cent. value. It may well be that this Amendment is wrongly drafted and that this was not in fact in the noble Lord's mind. I would ask him to withdraw it and subsequently, with the help, I am sure, of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to support the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burton.
LORD BURTON: I should like to make one more comment. Particularly with beef cattle, I think it must be borne in mind that once a cow has aborted with brucellosis there is the possibility that she will not abort a second time. Therefore there is quite a strong temptation for a man to continue keeping his cattle; but he is keeping infected cattle which may, and probably will, be endangering his neighbour's cattle. Unless he has some incentive to get rid of his dirty cattle he will not do so; the 37s. 6d. (or whatever the figure is) per head per year will not compensate him for the cost of changing over his herd. With a small herd of 25 cows it will probably cost £2,000 to have his cows slaughtered and to buy in fresh, clean animals. Therefore this man will "sit on" his cows and be a danger to his neighbours, rather than bother with the 37s. 6d.
LORD BESWICK: I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. If the farmer just "sits on" his cows, not only would it be an uncomfortable way of spending the day but he would not get his bonus payment on the milk. He will have to leave the scheme and he will not get all his incentive payments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that the real crux of the matter is the level of incentive; whether it will make it possible for a farmer to get rid in a proper way of those animals in his herd which are found to be infected. The levels of premiums, of course, will be reviewed annually.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised. In the first place, I must apologise for not having made my meaning clear. I have never for a moment suggested that the Government should pay 100 per cent. compensation. What I have suggested is that together with the value that the farmer will get as a

441
result of the slaughter there should be a sum which would make up the market value of the animal. May I give some examples? If it is an animal that is being fattened for beef, then that will be the price, and the Government should have nothing to pay when the animal is slaughtered. If it is an animal that is in process of being fattened for meat there might be a small element of loss, but I do not think there would be a large sum of money to be paid for the difference between the market value of the animal for beef and its market value sold as a store. At the very outside, it would not amount to more than a third, and I doubt whether it would be as much as that.
A dairy cow at the height of her milk production is the only case where there would be a substantial amount to be paid by the Government, but at the moment dairy cows are selling quite well for slaughter. Again I do not think that this compensation could amount to as much as 50 per cent. of the value, and in many cases, with certain breeds, it would not amount to as much as that. Therefore I do not see the Government having to "shell out" a tremendous sum of money, nor do I see the farmer being generously treated, but he is getting the incentive to get rid of a cow in full milk that he knows is a reactor; and that is what we want to happen if we want to get rid of the disease. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that this clause was not compulsory but only permissive. I always find it extremely difficult to understand——
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry, but I was not talking about that at all. What I was saying was that this clause is not dealing with compulsory eradication. It is discussing the voluntary scheme and making possible the financing of the Minister's bonus payments and other administrative expenses.
LORD BALERNO: I apologise. I was thinking that the Government were proposing to go in for a compulsory eradication scheme, and I believe that that is the only way in which we shall get the disease eliminated from this country. Unless there is a compulsory eradication scheme we shall have the disease with us till the end of time. It is questionable whether the "carrots"
442
that the Government have produced, while they are helpful in certain circumstances, will even pay for the cost of the insurance premiums which a prudent farmer may wish to take out. The "carrots" are very small ones and I think the time has come when a stick should be wielded. I am sorry that I gave a wrong impression to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, because before she spoke I had already written in my notes that we had to put the screw not only on the bad animal but also on the bad fanner. Merely to encourage will not be sufficient. That was the purpose of my Amendment.
However, I see that it has some snags, as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has pointed out, and perhaps some illogicalities, in that the Amendment has got itself attached to a permissive instead of to a compulsory clause. In those circumstances, but full of hope that it will not be long before the Government realise that compulsory eradication and forceful action, especially against the bad dairy farmers, will be the only way of getting the disease out of the country, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 92, line 36, at end insert—
("(5) Section 13(5) of the Agriculture Act 1967 (under which a levy scheme relating to the expenses of the Meat and Livestock Commission may not impose charges in respect of livestock slaughtered under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 or any order or arrangements made thereunder) shall be amended by inserting at the end 'or in accordance with any scheme under section 103 of the Agriculture Act 1970'.
(6) Any person who knowingly or recklessly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining for himself or any other person any payment under a scheme under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both.
(7) Any of the following officers—

(a) in England and Wales, any officer of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food authorised in writing by that Minister to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection;

(b) in Scotland, any officer of the Secretary of State or of the said Minister having the like authority of that Secretary of State, and

(c) in Northern Ireland, any officer within paragraph (a) above, and any officer of the

443
Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland having the like authority of that Ministry;

may, for the purpose of obtaining any information which he may consider necessary in connection with a scheme under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, enter upon any land or premises and there inspect any animal, apply any test or take any sample, and examine and take copies of or extracts from any document.
The right of entry under this subsection may be exercised at any reasonable time, but only after production of the officer's authority if so required; and any person who obstructs or impedes an officer acting in the exercise of his powers under this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 in the case of a first offence, and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or both.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment I am now proposing to Clause 103 is, despite its apparent length, very simple, and I hope it will be generally acceptable. The Amendment will, on the one hand, give Ministers certain powers essential to the smooth administration of new schemes made under the clause; and, on the other hand, will ensure that those participating in such schemes receive certain benefits that have gone with schemes made under the Diseases of Animals Act. Perhaps I ought to elaborate on that a little. To take the second and more straightforward point first, Section 13(5) of the Agriculture Act 1967 exempts from the Meat and Livestock Commission's levy scheme all livestock slaughtered in Great Britain under any arrangements made under the Diseases of Animals Act. This exemption has, therefore, applied to reactors slaughtered under the old Accredited Herds Scheme, and in the Government's view it would only be equitable for the same arrangement to be extended to reactors slaughtered under the new Brucellosis Incentives Scheme. Subsection (5) of the Amendment would do this.
The remaining subsections, as I have indicated, give Ministers various powers essential to the effective administration of any schemes that may be made, and were, in part at least, foreshadowed when the Bill was in another place. Briefly, the powers conferred by this part of the Amendment are similar to those contained in Sections 6 and 7 of the Diseases of Animals Act. The need to re-enact them here arises because, as the Minister of Agriculture explained in another place, the relevant provisions in the Diseases of
444
Animals Act apply only to Great Britain, whereas the new clause provides for payments throughout the United Kingdom. Also, the powers conferred by the Diseases of Animals Act in this respect are naturally enough confined to payments made under that Act, so that it will be necessary to ensure that similar provisions exist for any payments made under Clause 103. Thus, the effect of the Amendment will be two-fold. First of all, it will put the new brucellosis incentives on the same footing as the generality of agricultural grants and subsidies by enabling officials authorised in writing by the Minister to enter premises and carry out certain inspections in order to check claims for brucellosis payments. Secondly, it will make it an offence to obstruct any officer authorised to carry out an inspection of the kind I have mentioned, just as it will make it an offence to render a false statement to obtain a brucellosis payment. These are tidying-up provisions. I hope they will have general support. I would say in passing that, having explained all that, I quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, got a little confused when he tried to apply his Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
LORD BALERNO: I think this indicates that the whole of this brucellosis clause, while we are very glad indeed that it has been brought forward, has been brought forward in a great hurry and has been somewhat ill-considered. I suggest that it needs further consideration, and if the Government had further thoughts on this clause by Report stage, I am sure they would get the complete support of noble Lords on all sides of the House. I have only one other word to say. It seems to me that the regulations under this clause are absolutely necessary before we can go ahead with the compulsory eradication of the disease. The noble Lord is shaking his head, so perhaps I am wrong again.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I say this by way of comfort to my noble friend Lord Balerno. In so far as this provision for the eradication of brucellosis appears to have been brought forward without complete preparation and in a hurry, perhaps noble Lords, and indeed noble Ladies, on all sides of the House may take some comfort from the

445
fact that the debate which took place here a month or two ago did not fall on deaf ears and may have stimulated noble Lords on the Front Bench to take action to get a move on with the eradication scheme. Undoubtedly this is the basis for the future eradication areas which we are all most anxious to see set up next year.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.26 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 45A:
Page 93, line 12, at end insert ("(7) Any person offering for sale other than for slaughter any animal known to be a reactor to brucella abortus shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 for each animal so offered").
The noble Lord said: Unlike my earlier Amendment today, this Amendment is quite straightforward; it proposes something which has been sought by farmers throughout the country and is approved, I think, by most veterinarians. My next remarks may be a little critical of the Government, and after the kind utterances we have heard from the other side this afternoon on this Amendment I am a little hesitant, but I feel it necessary to proceed and I hope they will forgive me.
Some of your Lordships may be becoming tired of the mention of this word "brucellosis", but this agitation for action has been brought about entirely by Government lethargy in the past. Until the urgency for action is pressed home, there will be need to continue this agitation. It must be borne in mind that there was a debate on brucellosis in another place as far back as June, 1964, and very little progress has been made since then. Indeed, people who should know feel that the disease has spread during this period. It was only after the defeat on brucellosis in the Committee stage of this Bill in another place that the Government at last took action by introducing their present proposals, in a new clause at the Report stage. This, I think, bears out the remarks of my noble friend Lord Balerno, who said that things seem to have been rather hurried, though we are grateful for any action that has been taken and we should now only like a little more.
Farmers and most veterinary surgeons feel that the proposals in this Bill still do not go far enough. One honourable
446
Member in another place referred to the feeling of utter hopelessness which farmers feel about this disease, and if this Amendment is not accepted to-day—or at least an Amendment to cover the situation is promised by the Government on Report—then the farmers' feeling of hopelessness will only increase. They will say, "The Government are not interested in this disease. What can we do?" There have been references to the need for farmers to impose discipline upon themselves. In this case, as a farmer, I am endeavouring to assist the eradication of brucellosis by seeking to impose such a discipline, by adding a possible additional criminal offence on the farming community. I very much doubt whether I shall have a murmur of protest against my intention from any farmer.
There is little doubt that the disease has been spread to many herds through farmers' putting infected animals on to the market. Some years ago, before this disease became well known, I can remember one of my tenants having an "abortion storm" in his herd. A few months later he sold all his cattle through the open market. How many clean herds this man infected I hate to think; I am only relieved to say that he is no longer farming. But this procedure has continued—indeed, I think I should not be inaccurate in stating that it is quite widespread. Is it surprising that there is a demand from farmers for legislation such as I propose? The Minister may tell us that the scheme which the Government propose to introduce will be taking some action along the lines that I suggest. But even if this is the case—and we shall have to wait and see whether it is—this scheme will not start until some time in 1971. Here may I repeat my question to the Minister? Will it be late in 1971 or early in 1971? Action is urgent now; we must have action straight away.
There is one slight snag to this Amendment, and that is the difficulty of enforcement, the difficulty of proof. How can one prove that the farmer knew that the animal was a reactor, or, if the Government prefer it, an infected animal? This is a reason that the Minister may produce for hesitation over the Amendment. At the present time there is nothing, apart from a man's conscience, to stop

447
him from putting an infected animal on the market; and in the present state of farming the shekels often cry louder than the conscience. If we pass this Amendment to-day, there is a good chance that it will become illegal to put such animals into the market, and, whether or not there is difficulty of proof, farmers will undoubtedly think twice before breaking the law. In any event, in certain cases proof will be quite possible. I can think of many circumstances when proof would be possible. One has laws against theft, but no one suggests that one can prove in court every case of theft.
In discussing the Amendment I have come to the conclusion that possibly it does not go far enough, that in fact it ought to be compulsory for a vet who has found an animal to be a reactor to this disease to mark it indelibly, either by tattoo or ear punch, so that if the animal enters the open market other than for slaughter it will be easily identifiable. If it is felt that this is necessary then perhaps the Government will put down an Amendment on Report stage to legislate for this. Or, if they would make their draftsman available to prepare such an Amendment, I am sure that many of your Lordships would be happy to move it. However, sufficient unto the day—I beg to move the Amendment as printed on the Marshalled List.
4.31 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like to support this Amendment. There are many of us here who would like it to go even further than suggested by my noble friend on the subject of brucellosis. It is the habit in our Parliament to adopt a piecemeal attitude to legislation. I am grateful for this Amendment for this reason. I have been amazed at the apathy of farmers in respect of brucellosis, because often it is the farmer's family and employees who develop the disease. Nevertheless, it stems in a great part from the fact that if a farmer has an infected animal he says to himself "I may be able to pass it off on to somebody else." It is astonishing that in this country it is legally possible for an abortion to occur, for the vet in attendance to know that the cow is suffering from brucellosis and yet subsequently to learn that this cow has been passed on.
448
There are two or three aspects of this matter. A farmer is making money and he points out that he cannot afford not to pass the animal on to somebody. Nevertheless, he feels rather guilty. After the debate on brucellosis a few weeks ago I had a big daily mail, most of it from vets; but a number of letters came from fanners. The fanners asked, "What is going to happen if you do not make it illegal to pass on infected animals? What do you expect us to do?" One farmer was sweet; he used me as a sort of Mother Confessor. He wrote saying, "I passed on an infected animal. I feel such a guilty man that I have got to tell you." I thought that was very sweet of him. There are those who pass the animal on because they are hard up. I am quite sure that the man who confessed to me that he had done it will, along with many others, be pleased to see that it will now be an offence.
Turning to the question of vets, I discovered this fact when I first became interested in brucellosis, which followed on the cleansing of cows from tuberculosis. I realised then that brucellosis was still there to be tackled. But what astonished me was that a vet knows that a farmer has an infected cow, but (and this is where I lay the blame) there are no public health regulations which demand that the vet should inform the public health authorities of the existence of the infected cow. Vets will be pleased about the Bill. We must face the fact that a vet finds his position very difficult, because, after all, he is employed by the farmer, and if in a country district the vet reveals the fact that the cow is infected he must be afraid lest he loses the custom of the farmer. We have to remember that 63 per cent. of the vets in this country themselves give a positive reaction and have all kinds of horrible symptoms. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, is not here, because she spoke of her own vet as a martyr to the disease. This Amendment will remove this obligation from the vet; he will be able to say whether the man passes on that cow. It will be an offence, and the man will be subject to a heavy fine.
We want to go further. I, too, should like to see the cow marked. Nevertheless, this is a most important step forward because it is the kind of step which will alert the whole industry. Farmers will

449
learn of it and vets will learn of it—in fact, the whole of the countryside will learn that the passing on of an infected cow is a criminal offence. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will accept the Amendment.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I am all in favour of this Amendment, but it does not go far enough. I agree with Lady Summerskill that this disease should be notifiable. By making the disease notifiable the vet is protected. Therefore I should like to ask the Government to introduce on the Report stage an Amendment incorporating Lord Burton's suggestion, but also including the word "notifiable". Brucellosis, in the case of humans, comes under the Ministry of Health. I think that the vet should report to the Ministry of Health, and that it should be up to the Ministry of Health to introduce this as a notifiable disease among humans.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to ask my noble friend two short questions. If his Amendment is accepted, does it have effect the day after the Bill receives the Royal Assent? I rather imagine that it does. I find this difficult to establish from reading the Bill. Secondly, is my noble friend satisfied that a fine of £100 is enough? The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to subsection (6), which we have just accepted, says
"Any person who knowingly or recklessly makes any false statement … shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both."
It seems to me that if a person continually sells reactors on the market it might be of advantage to have some provision such as is contained in that Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, replies I should like to add a few words of support for Lord Burton's Amendment. This is, as it were, a third shot, and I hope that it will be "third time lucky." I am happy to find myself this time on my noble friend's side, and I hope that he is successful.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support this Amendment of my noble friend Lord Burton. I do so with the
450
realisation that it is going to come hard financially to certain farmers. Some forty years ago I followed the example of my noble friend Lord Rowallan in establishing a clean herd in this respect, and I have with considerable trepidation maintained herds in that state ever since. Therefore it may appear slightly vindictive on my part to indicate to the ordinary farmer that he has got to do this, and why. But at the same time I think we have got beyond the stage when we can expect purely voluntary action in order to clean up the disease. I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that we must use the stick.
4.40 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Burton, has argued a very strong case and, as he knows, I have a great deal of sympathy with his objective. He has been supported by a number of others, including my noble friend Lady Summer-skill, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. Indeed, all who have troubled to sit in the House during the passage of this Bill have voiced their feeling about this problem of brucellosis. I noticed that last week there were some very forcefully expressed opinions, and that some passions were aroused. But passion alone is not a basis for legislation. If we are to create the offence proposed by the noble Lord, it must be as an act of considered judgment and after careful consideration of the practical implications. I should like to set down the arguments as we see them, for and against. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, would not like his Amendment to be lightly dismissed or lightly adopted, and therefore I am saying to him, "Let us have a look at it in some detail."
For this purpose we must first look at all forms of sale, whether in the markets; between farmers, or from farmers to dealers, and so on—because the Amendment is not confined, for example, to market transactions. There are three types of brucellosis reactors which can be offered for sale. First, there are the unknown reactors; and because only a minority of the national herd has been tested for brucellosis, whether officially or privately, this is doubtless the largest group at this point in time. Sales of reactors in this group would not be affected by the noble Lord's Amendment.

451
Secondly, there are the vaccinal reactors. These are healthy animals which present no risk whatever to human or animal health. Calves treated with Strain 19, and older animals treated with the 45/20 vaccine, will temporarily enter this group until they shrug off the after-effects of vaccination. Not so those treated with Strain 19 as adults before that practice was prohibited in 1967; they are in the group for life, and it will be some two years before the natural processes of culling have reduced their numbers to insignificant proportions. From what has been said in earlier debates, your Lordships will know just how difficult it is for professional veterinary surgeons, with all the modern laboratory facilities behind them, to distinguish vaccinates from animals that are genuinely infected with brucella abortus. Intentionally or otherwise, sales of the healthy animals in this vaccinal group could be caught by the noble Lord's Amendment.
The final group consists of those animals which have been subjected to the most sophisticated blood tests available, and which—in the light of the results and other factors, such as herd history—disclose a degree of reaction that cannot reasonably be attributed to vaccination. Sales of such animals, other than for slaughter, could simply be caught by the noble Lord's Amendment—in this case with good reason. I say advisedly "could be caught" because the proposed offence arises only where the reactor is offered for sale "other than for slaughter". Your Lordships will realise that an owner could, in good faith, sell an animal for slaughter but it would then rest with the buyer whether and when it was in fact slaughtered. It might prove difficult to found successful prosecutions upon transactions of that kind.
Then again, the proposed offence has to be committed "knowingly". I am sure that this is right. The effect is to exempt, for example, the owner who could contend that the animal was healthy when it left his farm and must have acquired infection in transit, in a market, or on the purchaser's premises. In practice "knowingly" would presumably mean that the owner had sold the animal despite knowledge of clear-cut results of a blood test. We should do well to consider whether, confronted with
452
this proposed offence or any similar measure, owners might elect to avoid blood tests altogether so as to retain unfettered freedom to trade their animals. The general effect might be to discourage necessary recourse to the veterinary profession for essential advice; or to find owners placing unwarranted reliance upon other and less effective tests which can only serve as a pointer to—but never evidence of—a "reactor to brucella abortus".
In the final analysis this Amendment seeks to influence farming attitudes and farming practices. Let us be quite clear that if there is a real need to create this offence it is not to safeguard a minority of stupid buyers, but to give more protection to a majority of genuine sellers. Few owners of clean herds are foolish enough to buy untested animals; and if any such owners remain, now that the Incentives Scheme offers premiums for clean herds, then this Amendment would not prevent them from persisting in their folly. Equally, no owner of an infected herd gains anything by buying a clean animal, adding it to his herd and thus exposing it to the disease. The real need here is to protect the owner who wants to sell a clean animal without the risk that its value will be debased because it has to mingle with reactors in the open market. It is this most relevant aspect of the whole problem that the Government are currently discussing with the organisations concerned.
So I am saying to the noble Lord—and to all those who have taken such a great interest in this problem—that it might prove difficult, especially over the next two years, effectively to enforce the constructive measure which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has proposed. In the agricultural analogy, it would be difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff. I am also alerting him to the fact that a law of this kind could have unintended side-effects.
I invite the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and all those who have shown the interest that they have in this matter, to read, or consider, if they will be good enough, what I have said. If the noble Lord, Lord Burton, wishes—and I have stated the case for both sides as clearly, fairly, and as calmly as I can—to press this Amendment, I undertake that on Report stage I will accept it, though I would say

453
to him that it will require, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, said, some amendment as regards the penalty. We have in this Bill rationalised the penalties, and it would of course be necessary to bring this offence into line with the others. But with that one reservation concerning the amount of the fine I undertake, if the noble Lord so wishes, to accept this Amendment on Report stage.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, asked me about the possibility of veterinary surgeons notifying the local medical officers of health. I nave had a good deal of correspondence, both with my noble friend and with others, and this is a matter which is now being discussed between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Social Security. It is a matter of getting agreement with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Approaches will be made to them, and I hope that some progress will be made there, too. But it will be possible to take that action by administrative means, and it will not be necessary to incorporate it in this Bill. Having said that, I end by expressing the hope that the noble Lord will think I have made him a fair offer, and will now withdraw this Amendment. Then we can, if necessary, deal with it on Report stage.
LORD BURTON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, as I am sure all farmers throughout the country will be. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl posed two questions to me, but in view of the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I hope that my noble friend will not expect an answer from me to-day. I am sure that Lord Beswick is more competent to answer on this point than I am. My noble friend Lord Balerno said that my method would fall hard on the farmers, yet my other noble friend is asking for more. So I am not sure of the answer. If the Minister is worried about the use of the term "reactors", perhaps he would prefer the words "infected animals" because, as he says, there are vaccinal reactors. However, an animal which is a vaccinal reactor is almost certainly known to have been vaccinated, and therefore it might be a better wording, if he would prefer this. I think that the argument about proof is a little exaggerated, but I believe that the Minister has accepted that it
454
would be a good thing to put this Amendment into the Bill at the Report stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: With the permission of the House, may I say a few words? I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Beswick very much for what he has done, because I realise that he has taken a personal interest in this matter and understands full well the difficulties involved. I want to say how very pleased I was to hear that the whole question of notification, which is fundamental to this Amendment, is being discussed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
LORD BESWICK: We are within sight of the finishing post, and with that in mind I hope that we may speed up a little. I would suggest, if the idea commands the support of your Lordships, that we take Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 together with No. 46. They are all related and they are all consequential on what we have already agreed. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 105, line 18, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert ("In section 1, subsection (3), paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4), and, in subsection (8), the definition of 'the appropriate Minister or Ministers' down to the word 'Food'.")
Page 106, line 16, column 3, at end insert (", and, in section 1(8), the words from the beginning to 'jointly'.")
Page 108, line 29, at end insert—

("7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 31.

The Agricultural Improvement Grants Act 1959.

The whole Act, so far as not specified in Part I or Part II of this Schedule.")

Page 108, line 45, after ("The") insert ("repeal of the Agricultural Improvement Grants Act 1959, except so far as it extends to subsections (4) and (8) of section 1 of that Act, shall not have effect until whichever is the later of the dates referred to in Parts I and II of this Schedule; and the").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

INERTIA SELLING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
REGENT, ROYAL AND CARLTON TERRACE GARDENS, EDIN BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

PLOUGHING GRANTS SCHEME 1970
4.55 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Beswick, I beg to move that the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on April 21, 1970, be approved. I trust that it will be acceptable when dealing with this Order to deal also with the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1970. Noble Lords are already familiar with these Schemes, which provide grants for ploughing up grassland which is at least twelve years old, where the cost of the work required to bring it into a satisfactory state for cropping is substantially heavier than normal. Our aim is to encourage farmers to improve the condition of suitable land. The acreage recouped in this way helps to counterbalance the agricultural land lost each year to non-agricultural development.
The provisions of the Schemes are virtually unchanged from previous years, but this is probably the last time that
456
we shall see an annual Ploughing Grants Scheme in its familiar form. As the House will be aware from the proceedings on the Agriculture Bill, it is proposed to simplify certain of the agricultural grants, and the Farm Capital Grants Scheme, to be introduced later this year, will include provisions for ploughing up grassland. Arrangements will be made to close the Ploughing Grants Schemes to new applicants from this date. I trust that your Lordships will accept that this grant encourages the effective use of agricultural resources, and will agree to the approval of these Schemes. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme 1970 laid before the House on April 21, 1970, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, at a time when the cereals acreage is declining, the continuation of this grant is certainly welcome. However, the rate at which this grant remains, £12 per acre, is not quite so welcome. Costs have recently risen enormously. Your Lordships will remember from the Agriculture Bill that the tractor grant is to be done away with completely, although tractor prices have recently gone up. The Government will probably agree that the proof of the pudding in an Order like this lies in the results achieved. Therefore, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, whether the Government have any details of the amount of grant-aided land under this Order which is drilled with cereals? I realise that the answer to this question may be that it is a fairly small amount.
May I also ask whether the Government feel that the 32,000 acres which this grant covered last year is a really satisfactory target? The noble Lord, Lord Hilton, has told us that 50,000 acres are taken out of agricultural production each year, and many of us genuinely wonder how the Government's own agricultural expansion programme is going to succeed. I do not want to seem unreasonable; obviously, in a small island no Government policy can replace 50,000 acres indefinitely. But the Economic Development Council Report, published only in March, reported progress for the Government in rather arresting terms. It stated that the expansion of arable acreage

457
needed for the Government's targets had not yet begun. It would seem that there is a disparity under this Order between the 32,000 acres which are brought back into production and the 50,000 acres which are taken out of production.
Finally, several questions were asked in another place about ancillary work; either that which is grant-aidable, such as the chemical preparation of land, or that, such as proper drainage, which has to be undertaken in some cases because the grant will not otherwise be given. May I ask whether, in order to get these grants, there must be not only permission to proceed, but also inspection preceding the work? If that is so, I should have thought there might be factors of which some applicants were unsure before they went ahead with ploughing under this Order. With those few questions, I most certainly support this Older and the continuation of this grant.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, replies to those few questions, I wonder whether I may make a comment. On the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill I said on one occasion that I thought the ploughing grant of £3 an acre which used to be paid was a perfectly absurd grant and that I was glad to see it done away with. I do not think the same comment would apply to the £12 an acre grant, because its object is to bring into production and cultivation land which has previously not been properly used; therefore this does help agriculture as a whole to become more efficient. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to give us some indication how this grant has been used. I believe that in the last year 32,000 acres were grant-aidable under this scheme, but is this a declining figure or has it always been a fairly substantial figure?
Can the noble Lord also say whether the land which has been brought into cultivation has, on the whole, been used properly, and therefore has been of benefit to agriculture as a whole, or has the opportunity to claim a £12 an acre grant merely been taken, the grass re-seeded and then allowed to go back into relative desuetude? If the noble Lord could answer those questions I should be grateful. Can he also confirm that when this scheme comes to an end the new farm
458
improvement grants will cover what this scheme has up to now covered?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they have supported the introduction or the reintroduction of these grants. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, as usual, asked a number of very interesting questions. I cannot at the moment give answers to some of them, but I will write to him with the full information for which he has asked. He asked, however, about cereals acreage, in view of the fact, as he said, that costs have gone up—and that is true. As to the acreage, I cannot let him have the full facts now, but I will write to him.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, reminded us that he had criticised the grant of £3 per acre which was formerly given but that he does not criticise this particular grant, and that is not surprising. As I said in my opening speech, although the provisions of this scheme are virtually unchanged from those in previous years and this is probably the last time we shall see an annual ploughing grant scheme in its familiar form, the House will be aware from the proceedings on the Agriculture Bill that it is proposed to simplify certain of the agricultural grants—and really I am repeating now what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said a moment ago. The farm capital grants scheme, to be introduced later this year, will include provisions for ploughing up grassland, and arrangements will be made to close the ploughing grants scheme to new applicants from that date. If I have not replied fully to the questions put to me, I promise to write to both noble Lords with the information they need. With that, I commend this Order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PLOUGHING GRANTS (SCOTLAND) SCHEME 1970
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Scottish Scheme be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1970 laid before the House on April 21, 1970 be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION (NOISE CERTIFICATION) ORDER 1970
5.5 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Beswick I beg to move that the Draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1970, laid before the House on March 25, be approved.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is not in his place—I see that in fact he is now here.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Earl. I was outside taking advice on certain points which I had not had the opportunity to take before. I understand that my noble friend has moved, on my behalf, that this Order be approved, and I hope that we shall in fact go on to approve it.
All of us in this House know of the need to control aircraft noise, and most of us appreciate the problems involved. This Order is a step forward. It is not a giant leap forward, but an essential and practical step towards a civilised solution. It is the first legislative attempt to control aircraft noise at the point it ought to be controlled; namely, at source. It is made possible by much research and by international agreement which followed the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in convening the first international conference on noise in 1966. With the French and American authorities we have worked hard to secure the adoption by I.C.A.O. of a scheme which will be incorporated in a new Annex to the Chicago Convention. If this House approves this Order, the United Kingdom will be the first country to implement the I.C.A.O. standards.
The main purpose of this Order is to compel the manufacture and use of the much quieter aircraft which noise-reduction technology now makes possible. It aims to ensure that quietness standards are incorporated into the design and manufacturing stages of an aircraft's development, in much the same way as is already the case for airworthiness standards. Noise certification is quite distinct from operational noise abatement measures which, I ought to emphasise,
460
will continue as and when required at noise-sensitive airports, although our hope is that as the future quieter aircraft begin to dominate in the skies the need for operational measures will diminish.
My Lords, I now turn to the main provisions of the Order. Article 1 establishes that from January 1, 1971, an aircraft to which the Order applies, unless exempted, will not be permitted to land or take off in this country without a noise certificate. Article 3 identifies the aircraft to which the Order applies. These are jet aircraft, but excluding light aircraft, vertical and very short take-off aircraft, and supersonic aircraft, such as Concorde. These will be dealt with later, when experience and technical knowledge allows. The types to which noise certification standards will apply which are now under development or projected include the Rolls Royce-powered Lockheed 10–11 "Tristar", the BAC 311, European A 300, and the Douglas DC 10. All but the earliest jumbo-jets will be covered, also.
Under Article 5 the Board of Trade are responsible for the issue of noise certificates in this country. This is in accord with the principles set out in the recent White Paper on Civil Aviation Policy (Cmnd. 4213), which indicated that the main responsibility for noise abatement must remain with the Board of Trade even after the setting up of the proposed Civil Aviation Authority. The remaining Articles make provision for the administration, application and enforcement of the noise certification scheme. Some of the penalties prescribed in Article 14 may look trivial in relation to the issues involved in the Order, but I should like to emphasise that the ultimate sanction will be the denying to an aircraft of the use of United Kingdom airports under Article 10 if the Order is contravened.
The standards themselves are set out in Schedule 1 to the Order. The noise limits vary according to the weight of the aircraft and are specified at three different measurement points, in order to establish the total inherent noise characteristics of an aircraft. They are expressed in EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise Decibels) which is the unit of measurement that records most closely the actual extent of disturbance of aircraft noise as heard by a person on the

461
ground. The unit EPNdB is a complicated one, and its definition and measurement is set out in a Board of Trade publication, CAP 335, which is referred to in Article 2 of the Order.
The prescribed standards represent, roughly speaking, a halving of perceived noise as between a certificated aircraft and a current aircraft of the same weight. As some have expressed surprise at this degree of difference, I would emphasise that it is as between a certificated aircraft and a current type of the same weight. The upper limit of 108 EPNdB represents the maximum allowable noise level for a future subsonic jet civil airliner at the specified measurement points. Even if future aircraft are much larger than the 600,000 lb. aircraft to which this noise limit applies, they will still have to be as quiet as aircraft of that weight. That is the maximum for the future.
The Order, together with its supporting documents, is a complicated piece of legislation, but that is inevitable. This country has given a lead internationally in a matter that is of wide public concern. The work we have done, and the present Order, establishes that the next generation of subsonic airliners, despite their greater power and size, will be very much quieter than those we now have to live with. This is a significant achievement, but I know that we all look forward to still better things to come. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1970, laid before the House on March 25, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord was able to be present to move this important Motion. I am sure also that the House is grateful to the noble Lord for explaining with his customary thoroughness and clarity the purpose and aspirations of this Order on the future control of aircraft noise. I use the word "aspirations" advisedly, as the Order as drafted is somewhat limited in scope. It does not cover, for instance, the Jumbo Jets which we hear are some 15 per cent. quieter—but 15 per cent. of what we are not told. Nor does it cover future supersonic flights, and its effect on reducing
462
noise levels will not, one understands, have much impact until the mid-1970s when the new generation subsonic aircraft come into operation. Coupled with that, the Order does not cover one important aspect of the noise problem around airports, namely, the frequency of flights. Nevertheless, for all those shortcomings, which no doubt will be corrected at a later date, this Order is a notable milestone in a long road ahead, and I am sure that we all welcome its general purpose.
There are one or two points concerning the Order which I should like briefly to put to the noble Lord, although I would say at once, in case he is anxious, that I do not intend either to cross-question him on the mathematical equations of Schedule 2 or to ask him to elucidate the unit measurement of effective perceived noise decibels—not that I doubt that he would be able to do so. The first point that I should like to make, in welcoming the Board of Trade's initiative in organising the International Conference in London in 1966 and the subsequent conference in Montreal in 1968–69, is whether he could tell us what parallel action other countries are taking now on this problem of noise certification and how soon will a new noise Annex to the I.C.A.O. Convention be promulgated, for one assumes that the ultimate success of any such order as we have before us today rests very much with international co-operation.
I should like also to mention, as the noble Lord mentioned, Article 4. He said that the BAC 311 would also come within Article 4. May we assume that this is a hint that the BAC 311 will now be backed and will go forward into production? Under Article 5, which deals with the issue of noise certificates, the Board in my opinion are assuming very wide blanket powers and will be able to place whatever condition they see fit to any certificate. Whereas one can see the necessity to set a target within the current technological capabilities, there must be a danger that these powers of the Board, if not used with great discretion, will lead to a damaging degree of uncertainty for both air transport operators and the industry. I am sure that that would not be the wish of the Board. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give us an assurance that the Board, under

463
Article 5, will work closely with the A.R.B., whose prime responsibility is the testing of equipment.
Turning to Article 8, I would point out that the Board have powers to suspend immediately a noise certificate, even before the grounds for its suspension have been either considered or justified. This power again can lead to damaging consequences to any operator, particularly if a suspension turns out to have been made on an erroneous allegation. One wonders why the Board need to be granted this instant power when they will be empowered to suspend, revoke and modify a certificate after the grounds of such action have been carefully considered. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us in what type of instance this immediate power of suspension will be used. I turn now to Article 10, dealing with the power to prevent aeroplane flying. In subsequent Articles the expression "an authorised person" comes into the Order. This authorised person, under Article 10 and other subsequent Articles, acts on behalf of the Board and will have very wide powers; yet nowhere in this Order are we told who is to be the authorised person, how he will be authorised, what qualifications he will have to inspect aircraft or how he will prove that he is the authorised person. That point was raised in another place when it was discussing the Order; but owing to the usual pressure of time no reply was given. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to take this opportunity of elucidating the point more fully.
Under Article 11, the House will recall that the Board or the authorised person shall at all reasonable times have access to all aerodromes except Government aerodromes. As this Order refers only to civil aerodromes and not to military aerodromes, one finds it a little odd that this exception is put in here. Why are Government aerodromes so privileged? What are Government aerodromes? Do they include the British Airports Authority aerodromes? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us about that as well. Turning to the penalties laid down under Article 14, I think it is a little surprising to note the very limited amount of fines that the Board may impose on any offender. For instance, for what may be considered
464
a fairly serious offence the maximum fine the Board may impose is only £10. That is not a very effective deterrent, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain the reasoning behind the limits laid down and what effect it is expected that a £10 fine will have.
The final point that I should like to put to the noble Lord concerns the progress of the noise monitoring systems. These systems, which I am told (but do not understand how) will be governed by the equations of Section 2, are the key to the success of any noise regulations. I think it would be of interest if the noble Lord would tell us a little about the up-to-date position of the systems. How soon will they be fully automatic? How many are still to be installed at Heathrow? My Lords, I feel that I ought to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for asking him these questions on this Order after his fairly gruelling involvement with agriculture this afternoon, but, as he fully realises, this is a very important Order which, one hopes, is the first step towards improving the problem of aircraft noise. I feel that the Board of Trade is to be congratulated on bringing forward this Order and on its initiative in attempting to obtain international agreement, on which I wish it every success.
5.21 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I will not stand between the House and the next business for more than one or two minutes, but there are one or two points on this Order which I should like to raise with the Minister. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that this is a most important step forward towards relieving the public from the increasing horror—as it is, at certain times and in certain places—of constant aircraft noise. Nevertheless, my Lords, to me the most interesting and encouraging sentences spoken by the Minister were those in which he explained the difference between this Order and the noise abatement regulations to which the captains of aircraft have to adhere. I hope that the Minister will be able to say how soon we can eliminate the noise abatement regulations. I believe that under certain conditions their observation would, to some extent, increase the risk

465
which aircraft crews and their passengers have to accept when they defy the laws of gravity, as we all do when we fly.
My Lords, I was once in the front end, in the captain's compartment, of a 707 which was taking off from Montreal, where noise regulations are strictly observed. The captain said to me, "If one engine cut now" (we were taking off with a full load) "I should be a very worried man." He did not say that it would mean a disaster, but it might certainly have meant something tantamount to an emergency with which the captain would have had to cope. No doubt he would have coped adequately, but, as the Minister will know as well as I do, (hose noise abatement regulations are taken exception to by such representative bodies as the British Airline Pilots Association. Therefore if this Order has the effect of reducing the regulations as soon as possible, it will confer an added benefit on those who are in the air as well as those who are on the ground.
The other point I would raise was touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull; namely, the very wide Dowers which the Executive are taking under this Order. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnuoll, asked why the fines were so small, but that question was answered by the Minister when he introduced the Order. He said that the Board of Trade had the final sanction by being able to suspend or revoke the noise certificate without which an aircraft is not allowed to fly. In fact, the Board of Trade has the power to stop from flying any civil aviation aircraft which has not the necessary certificate. That is a very wide power and I am worried that it may be exercised before a crime has been committed. Article 8 states:
"The Board may, if they think fit, provisionally suspend any noise certificate … The Board may, after sufficient ground being shown to their satisfaction after due inquiry, revoke, suspend or vary any such certificate."
That means that the Board of Trade might say, "You are not complying with the regulations and you must not fly." Then a week or two later, after investigation, the Board might say, "We apologise. We were perhaps a little premature; and of course you can fly." That is a very large power for the Executive to take, particularly when it is linked with
466
this vague Mr. X—"the authorised person."
As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, questions were raised in another place about who is to be the authorised person. I feel that the House and that aviation interests would be reassured if the Minister would tell us that the Board of Trade's powers would not be delegated to anyone below a certain level in the administration of the Civil Service; because this mysterious authorised person can enter any premises, he can inspect any aircraft and can really give any orders. I am not saying that the Executive must not have these powers, but I think that the Legislature is entitled to ask who will be authorised to use them. Having made those few remarks, may I say I think that this is an admirable step forward. But let us, as legislators, all the time watch the Executive in its steps forward.
5.26 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have a formidable list of questions to answer, although I take it that, by and large, the Order is welcomed; and I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken for what they have said. A question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, regarding the noise abatement procedures. I cannot forecast when it will be possible to remove all noise abatement procedures. I do not believe he really thinks that I am in a position to do so. What I can say is that I agree with him that this is a much better way of ensuring a reasonably civilised existence here on earth. We should give the pilot as quiet: an aircraft as possible so that he may fly it as naturally and as safely as possible. I think this is the objective towards which we shall work.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, when other countries are expected to take parallel action. The standards in Schedule 1 to the Order have been recommended for adoption in a new Annex, Annex 16, to the Chicago Convention of ICAO. We expect the standards to be formally adopted and implemented some time during 1971. By that time most countries which need to take legislative action in order to ensure compliance with the new Annex 16 will have to have done so. What form of action they each take in their respective countries will depend entirely on their own legal systems.

467
Regarding the extent of the powers that this Order vests in the Board of Trade, the noble Lord, particularly, will realise that this has international implications as well. The Board of Trade may also prescribe by Statutory Instrument countries which apply substantially equivalent standards to ours. In such countries the noise certificates for aircraft on their national registries will be valid in this country. Finally, we shall recognise the validity of the noise certificates of ICAO member-States pursuant to the Chicago Convention when the proposed noise annex has been formally adopted and has come into force.
I suggest to the noble Lord that all the complications involved here mean that one has to grant a certain degree of latitude to the Board of Trade. In any case, the phrasing used here about the extension of the powers is a common form of words, so I do not think that we should read into it any ulterior or dangerous intention. The noble Lord asked about the conditions. I think I have virtually dealt with that point.
Article 5(2), on conditions subject to which a noise certificate may be issued, and the conditions themselves, must relate to standards as to noise and not to other matters. The Board of Trade is required to make a condition regarding the maximum total weight at which the certificated aircraft complies with the noise standard in Schedule I. This follows from a requirement recommended under the ICAO scheme that such weights must appear on the noise certificate for international purposes. Other conditions may also be imposed at the discretion of the Board of Trade. Some anxiety was expressed by the noble Earl on this point. I give the assurance that it is not the intention to exercise the discretion with regard to conditions in a manner which would impose extra burdens on aviation. As I said earlier, it is common form to keep a reserve power to impose relevant conditions on the issue of licences for certificates, and there is nothing excessive in this particular case.
I feel that the noble Lord was under some misapprehension when he said that it would be possible for the authorised person to go along and say, even before the crime is committed, that he shall not fly this aircraft. It is not a question of
468
committing any crime in the air. This Order proposes to certificate certain aircraft in much the same way as they are granted a certificate of airworthiness. Either an aircraft has a certificate of airworthiness or it has not; either it has a certificate under this Order, or it has not. The crime would be in operating an aircraft without the appropriate noise certificate. It is not a matter of how he conducts himself in the skies, or anything of that sort. I was asked about the authorised persons concerned here. I cannot give the noble Lord the kind of qualifications that such a person would have. The list has not yet been drawn up. It will, one imagines, be officials in the main of the A.R.B.
The noble Lord asked why Government-owned aerodromes were exempt. Again, the purpose of this proviso is simply to preserve the normal position that the Crown is not bound by statutory provision unless expressly named. For reasons of State security, it is necessary to restrict access to Ministry of Defence installations unless the person in charge of the aerodrome agrees. In this particular case, with this authorised person, he would be expected to agree, otherwise no doubt there will be some row in Whitehall.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Could the noble Lord say whether the British Airports Authority airports are covered by that proviso?
LORD BESWICK: No; they are not covered. A Government aerodrome is defined as:
"any aerodrome in the United Kingdom in the occupation of a Government Department or a visiting Force".
The B.A.A., therefore, is not covered by this exclusion. I was asked why the penalties are so small. I quite agree that some of them, on the face of it, are on the small side. But I think I could show the noble Earl that they are closely modelled on parallel provisions in the Air Navigation Order 1966. The Air Navigation Order deals with similar situations regarding offences which are no different in nature. Therefore, it was thought proper to have somewhat similar fines in both cases. But the real sanction here—and I think I indicated as much in my opening speech—is that they cannot land the aircraft in this country unless

469
they have this certificate. That, I should have thought, would be sufficient to cause them to comply with the Order.
The noble Lord asked a question about the monitoring system. He said that this was the key to success in regard to the noise problem. I do not altogether agree with him. Monitoring has nothing at all to do with this. We are dealing here with putting quieter aircraft in the sky. It is whether they are quieter or not that counts, and not whether we can measure the degree of noise that they make as they fly past. Nevertheless, for other reasons it is necessary to have an efficient monitoring system, and progress is being made with the automatic equipment to which the noble Lord referred. There are, I understand, four pieces of equipment in operation around Heathrow. The noble Lord said that he did not know how they worked. I am not sure, either. I gather that in some respects they are no better than the manually operated monitoring system, but that they have certain advantages. The idea is that at a certain fixed point there will be a measurement of the sound created by aircraft flying overhead. This will immediately be transmitted to a central control authority. If the noise is greater than that allowed, then it will be marked, and the aircraft concerned will be dealt with later. I hope that I have dealt with all the questions that I was asked, and that your Lordships will now approve the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
5.35 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill to amend the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889 I think perhaps I should start by explaining the Act itself, although no doubt many of your Lordships are cognisant of it. This Act makes it a crime for anybody to display matter of an indecent or obscene nature so as to be visible to people passing along the street, or to hand it to passers-by, or to throw it down the area of a house or affix or inscribe it on any public urinal. Section 5 of the Act states:
"Any advertisement relating to"
any venereal disease
470
"shall be deemed to be printed or written matter of an indecent nature … if such advertisement is affixed to or inscribed on any house, building, wall, hoarding, gate, fence, pillar, post, board, tree, or other thing whatsoever, so as to be visible to a person being in or passing along any street, public highway, or footpath, or is affixed to or inscribed on any public urinal, or is delivered or attempted to be delivered to any person being in or passing along any street, public highway or footpath."
The purpose of this Bill is not to challenge the need to protect the public from exposure to indecent advertisement as such. But as things stand at present, however sober the terms in which an advertisement or notice may be drafted; however sensible the information or advice contained in it may be, or however sparse and inadequate the information may be, if it relates to verereal disease it is deemed to be indecent if publicly displayed.
Veneral disease to-day is a matter of grave concern, and the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health, in his last Annual Report, expressed anxiety at the rising figures. Since then, unfortunately, there has been a further rise. Gonorrhœa is the great problem. Over the last fifteen years the number of cases of gonorrhœa in men has trebled, and in women it has quadrupled. In the last five years there has been a further increase of one-third for men and women, but twice this rate of increase for women alone. Obviously, something badly needs to be done.
The Health Education Council was set up by the Government two years ago as the authoritative health education body for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As your Lordships will doubtless remember, a debate on health education, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, took place in this House on December 20, 1967. The Council clearly has a duty to perform in this area—and here I must declare an interest, as I am the Chairman of the Health Education Council. Although the decision to attempt to amend this Bill is my own, and I am of course presenting it in my capacity as a Member of your Lordships' House, it does, I may say, reflect generally the views of the Council.
For the Council to carry out its duty effectively it must draw attention to the dangers of venereal disease, to the health hazards of promiscuity and the need to obtain medical attention immediately.

471
But under the 1889 Act the display of any poster on these lines, if visible to the public in any street or footpath—or, probably, in any public urinal—makes the person displaying it liable to a penalty of £20, or one month in prison; and those who produce the poster for others to display are liable to a penalty of £50, or three months in prison. Indeed, it is highly likely that many local authorities have been unwittingly breaking the law, so far as public urinals are concerned—although, frankly, those are the last places in which I should like to see the Health Education Council's posters displayed.
The Council has embarked on an anti-V.D. campaign, directed mainly at the 16 to 30 year olds, where the biggest increase is taking place. It consists of posters and leaflets explaining, in frank, simple terms, the facts about V.D. Incidentally, these were evaluated and researched, and it was found that it was this frank, simple explanation that young people wanted. The leaflets and posters also ask people to consult their doctor or local hospital if they feel that there is a chance that they might be infected, or otherwise contact the Health Education Council for information, and they will then be given addresses of their local clinics.
But, my Lords, every poster and leaflet carries the following warning:
"If this is displayed where it would be visible to some-one passing along a street, public highway or footpath, or if it is handed to anyone in those places, there is a risk of prosecution under Section 5 of the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889."
This, without any doubt, is a hampering factor in the fight against venereal disease. First of all, even with the warning, some of the cautious will not want to take the risk. The rather more indolent, who do not feel the necessity or urgency that many of us feel is needed to combat this rising incidence, will feel free not to take the trouble. Individuals may be prosecuted because they have inadvertently broken the law. The posters might be put up inside a building—for instance, a public library; the door could be opened, and somebody might see the poster from the street and lodge a complaint.
Thirdly (perhaps this is the most important reason of all) in this campaign
472
the Council is trying to break through the ignorance that still exists on such a vast scale in this country. It has established by research that well over 50 per cent. of young people show a complete misunderstanding about V.D. The fear which many people feel in even coming forward if they suspect that they may be suffering from one of these sexually transmitted infectious diseases is not going to be helped when they see this rather dramatic warning at the bottom of the leaflet or poster. What is also needed is to reduce the sense of shame that many people have if they suspect that they may be suffering, or that their partner is suffering, from one of these diseases. All this is endangered when one has to stipulate by law a spurious connection between these highly infectious venereal diseases and the Indecent Advertisements Act. I am sure your Lordships will agree that a change is required, and this is the reason for my Bill.
The only objective of this Bill is to add a proviso to Section 5 of the 1889 Act, stating that advertisements related to venereal disease are not to be deemed indecent if they are published for a local or public authority, or otherwise with the approval of the Secretary of State. The safeguards against giving out irresponsible information are secure. Your Lordships may be interested to know that during the passage of the 1889 Act (which was itself also a Private Member's Bill introduced into this House) the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, expressed doubts as to the comprehensive nature of the proposed legislation. Further, when the Bill was presented on Second Reading the words, "venereal disease", "syphilis" or "gonorrhœa" were not spelt out, but were referred to as "any disease of a loathsome or secret kind".
My Lords, in 1889 there was no cure for V.D. It was included in this section to protect people from quackery. But this is 1970 not 1889. These diseases are no longer secret, and the more they remain secret the more dangerous and widespread they become. Nor should they be swept under our social carpet any longer. To-day they are readily curable if steps are taken in time. It is a great pity that something which is a medical and social matter should be included in

473
an Act with the rather diverting title of "Indecent Advertisements". This may cause a great deal of confusion, which I hope I have been able to clear up. What is even more absurd than the title is that this antique anomaly should seriously hamper, as it does, responsible efforts to deal with this growing problem.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that any legislation that helps in any way to deal with this should be passed as quickly as possible, since the benefits to be obtained from even this limited Bill are potentially very great. This is not only my opinion, and the opinion of the Council, but is the opinion of many leading venereologists and other doctors, and social workers who are concerned with this problem. Therefore I hope you will give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Birk.)
5.47 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships wish me to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on having so clearly and courageously introduced this Bill to your Lordships' House. Nobody would wish to put any impediment in the way of this Bill going through, but there are one or two points that I should like the Minister to explain to us. Your Lordships will be aware that I have something to do with advertisements as Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. Not very long ago it came to our attention that a students' magazine was giving advice on where to go for treatment for venereal diseases. The magazine was taken to task on this matter and I therefore had occasion to look up the law on the point. In that case the subject seems to have been covered by another Act, the Venereal Disease Act 1917. It seems desirable that the two Acts should be harmonised. I am not quite certain that the noble Baroness's Bill goes far enough; it will probably achieve the purpose she had immediately in mind, but it might be desirable to amend the Bill at a later stage to make it a little more comprehensive.
The Venereal Disease Act of 1917 was prefaced as:
"An Act to prevent the treatment of venereal disease otherwise than by duly qualified
474
medical practitioners, and to control the supply of remedies therefor; and for other matters connected therewith."
It says in Section 2 that:
"A person shall not by any advertisement or any public notice or announcement treat or offer to treat any person for venereal disease, or prescribe or offer to prescribe any remedy therefore, or offer to give or give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof".
That is pretty wide.
Then it says:
"Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any advertisement, notification, announcement, recommendation, or holding out made or published by any local or public authority or made or published with the sanction of"—
and, I suppose, the authority is now the Secretary of State—
"or to any publication sent only to duly qualified medical practitioners or to wholesale or retail chemists for the purposes of their business."
That Act plainly did not exonerate the students' magazine and in those circumstances I do not suppose it would exonerate either the Health Education Council—I am not sure, but I should think not.
Where the Venereal Disease Act does not fit in very well with previous legislation is that it seems all right for a local authority to publish an advertisement provided that it does not pin it up somewhere, affix it or, let us say, throw it down the well of a house. There seems to be some need for harmonising these two measures, and to make sure that what the local authorities have been doing for so long, and have presumably thought they had power to do, is something they really are entitled to do, and to ensure that other people also are entitled to do it with the consent or approval of the appropriate authority. It is for consideration whether that authority should be the Secretary of State or possibly the local authorities themselves. My Lords, with those few remarks I wish to give the purpose behind the noble Baroness's Bill warm support, and I wish the Bill well on its way.
5.52 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I also should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on the initiative she has shown in bringing this little Bill before Parliament. It was high time that somebody

475
made a move about this matter. I myself have noticed, and I am sure that others of your Lordships had noticed, in recent weeks and months in the newspapers notices of prosecutions either under the 1889 Act or under the 1917 Act, prosecutions on the part of the police the wisdom of which one was forced to doubt. But of course the full circumstances are never known. It is very necessary that the position should be cleared up.
My noble friend has drawn attention to the really alarming increase in venereal disease of both types over these last years. The measure which was introduced in 1889, at a time when there was no cure at all and advertisements of this kind were obviously fraudulent, was no doubt very sensible—to try to stop people from being cheated out of their money by all sorts of fraudulent pretences. But that situation, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, has completely changed very nearly a hundred years later; and now it is not only possible but probable that these diseases will in fact be perfectly well cured if they are only tackled sufficiently early. Therefore we should have no hesitation in passing this Bill into law.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has drawn attention to a quite important point. The relationship between the two Acts is not as clear as it might be. The 1917 Act, as he has pointed out, contains safeguards. The noble Baroness has introduced rather similar safeguards into the Bill now before your Lordships. The relationship between the two existing measures is not very clear, and I think it would be rather a pity to leave the matter open to the police, who are not always too well equipped for handling a situation of this kind, when the two Statutes are in rather differing terms, of rather differing widths, and raise rather different problems of construction. The noble Lord is quite right in drawing attention to this matter and asking that the situation should be remedied. There will be time to do this, and I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply for the Government will make the position perfectly clear, so that we may know where we are, and so that if Amendments need to be introduced they may be introduced at the proper stage. My Lords, with those words of welcome I add my
476
own support to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
5.56 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, as there does not seem to be a medical speaker on the list of speakers, I thought I ought to add a word to say how much I appreciate the fact that the noble Baroness has brought this Bill before us and emphasised the obvious need to get rid of any old-fashioned Act which is hampering the work of the Health Education Council in this extraordinarily important field, when there has been so much increase in venereal disease in recent times. I am not at all qualified to speak on whether the 1917 Act and the 1889 Act ought in some way to be brought together in the final form in which our Bill goes to the other place and, we hope, obtains Royal Assent in due course. But I hope that nothing will interfere with the urgency of this Bill, which I think is extremely important. We are already in the middle of May and a small Bill like this could easily be put on one side. I hope it will not be, and that it will not be delayed for want of some rather academic Amendment.
5.57 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lady Birk in what I believe is her first attempt to introduce a Private Member's Bill. I am sure she will be successful. After all, all she is trying to do is to remove an anachronism. The Bill of 1889 was passed at a time of great hypocrisy. In fact, the whole question of venereal disease was regarded with loathing, it seemed, by those people who were not prepared to recognise that the sick are to be pitied, however they might have become sick in the first place. Later on, when clinics were established, I notice that a venereologist put it this way:
"The buildings were provided for the cloak-and-dagger days of V.D., when people slunk in basement bolt-holes to get the unspeakable disease dealt with."
That is the whole point. It was unspeakable in those days, and certainly disgraceful to write about it or to mention it. Venereal disease was rife and the doctors were baffled because they knew so little about it.

477
Now times have changed and we are living in what is known as "the permissive society". I find it difficult to believe that anybody will be shocked today by what they see written on a poster which is designed to direct to the nearest clinic people suffering from the disease. It has been murmured in my ear—and I did not think of this for one moment and I am sure that my noble friend will say it is quite out of the question—that these notices might be used to advertise proprietary drugs of some kind, but I am sure my noble friend's organisation will see to it that there is no abuse of this kind.
The figures are absolutely deplorable. Gonorrhœa in men has risen by 12½ per cent. since 1968, and among women by 20 per cent. The Department of Health and Social Security is very concerned at what is happening. I am sorry to say that the venereologists are rather pessimistic about the future. I hardly dare say this because the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, is present, and it is sheer coincidence that I have mentioned the contraceptive pill twice to-day, but the venereologists blame the permissive society and the pill.
We rarely have an opportunity to discuss this matter, which is of great concern to young people because the ages between 15 and 30 are the ages at which the incidence is highest. It is the young people between 15 and 30 who are suffering. One often thought of it as a disease of the middle-aged and of the elderly, because it was quite common for doctors to see the final symptoms manifest themselves later on in life. But this is a disease of young people who should be enjoying life and should be absolutely free from disease, and therefore we must make an effort to deal with it. I mention the permissive society and the pill simply because when the venereologists say that they are pessimistic it does not mean that the pill is a symptom of the permissive society. It means that the pill is not such an effective contraceptive as were the old-fashioned contraceptives, the condom and the pessary. It is a fact that the pill exposes people to this disease, and I hope that my noble friend, when she has reached the stage of deciding what should be put on these posters, will take the whole picture into account.
478
I did not quite understand my noble friend's meaning when she said that she did not like the places where it is proposed to exhibit these posters, that is to say, in the lavatories. I should have thought the lavatories at railway stations, where young girls come, where boys come when they see the big town, so to speak, almost for the first time, are ideal places to reach these young people. Perhaps I should have said it was the first thing they see in a big town. The whole problem is how to reach young people and to tell and explain the details of these diseases and how they can be prevented.
There is a grave shortage of clinics, and we must tackle that situation. I am told that the clinics are absolutely overcrowded and, even more important, that there is a grave shortage of staff. One can understand that doctors are not always attracted to the study and the treatment of venereal diseases. Again, that may be a hangover from the nineteenth century, but undoubtedly in order to make this Bill absolutely effective we must see that there is ample accommodation in our clinics, when of course the available staff will come forward. I wish my noble friend every success.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, it would be a tragic irony if, in a decade when many legitimate advertisements could be called indecent—I am thinking particularly of the connection between sexual attractiveness and smoking—a sensible and educative gesture should be prosecuted under an archaic Act. In urging your Lordships to support the noble Baroness—and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn was so enthusiastic—I would suggest that at a later date we should give some time and thought to the quality and rhetoric of ordinary commercial advertisements in public places which have no such healthy educative function as those we are discussing.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I rise merely to ask whether the Act of 1889 and the Act of 1917 apply to Scotland.
6.7 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords who have supported the Second Reading of this

479
Bill and to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the clear and succinct way in which she led us through the Bill and the reasons why she has brought it forward to the House.
I thought I would confine myself at this stage to attempting to answer the points relating to the present state of the law that were put in questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I have no doubt that when my noble friend Lady Birk replies to this short debate she will explain to the House her reasons for choosing this way of putting her amendment to the 1889 Act forward and the effect she sees it having on the law as it exists at the moment.
The difficulty, as I understand it, is that we have on the Statute Book to-day two pieces of legislation which are in fact irreconcilable. One is Section 5 of the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889 and the other is Section 2 of the Venereal Diseases Act 1917. The latter Act, while preventing any unauthorised advertisement relating to venereal disease, in fact makes specific exemptions in the case of advertisements made or published by any local authority or any public authority, or with the sanction of the Secretary of State for Social Services (and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, was quite right in that point) in England and Wales, or indeed in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
In 1917 when this Act was passed, I think there was clearly no intention of preventing reputable bodies from displaying in public educational posters or advertisements which might help to prevent the spread of what is in fact now one of the most common infectious diseases—and that at a time when in recent years we have almost eradicated a wide range of infectious diseases from our society. But in 1970 clearly there is no reason for so doing. Yet, as the noble Baroness has become aware, this is in effect the result of the 1889 Act, by stating categorically, as it does, that any advertisement relating to syphilis, gonorrhœa, nervous debility or other complaint or infirmity arising or relating to sexual intercourse must be considered indecent under the Act if it is displayed in a public place. The 1889 Act puts highly respectable bodies, such as the Health Education Council, in the
480
invidious position of having either to risk prosecution or to limit their efforts to educate the public. I was glad to hear from those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that there is general support for legislation which attempts to rectify this rather absurd situation.
My Lords, as I understand it, this Bill makes this attempt in such a way that the existing law is unchanged except where those bodies are concerned who are already afforded special exemption by the 1917 Act. In fact—and I think the noble Baroness will confirm this—the Bill makes a very limited amendment which resolves the basic contradiction between the two Acts without in any way endangering the current safeguards against irresponsible advertisements and matters relating to sexual intercourse.
As the noble Baroness assured the House—and I absolutely agree with her—none of us has any reason to believe that the result of this Bill will be a flood of material about sexual matters which certain people might find offensive. Nor, in my view, is there any danger of an outbreak of wildly offensive posters. In fact the Bill is a very mild and moderate measure which, by the minimal possible interference with the existing law, achieves its object of removing the threat of prosecution from organisations and also the purpose we all seek to achieve, namely, to assist the Health Education Council in promoting its very necessary campaign to make young people aware of the dangers and the effects of venereal disease. I have no hesitation whatsoever, on behalf of the Government, in recommending the Bill to the House, and, with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I hope, too, that it will be passed through all its stages as quickly as possible.
6.12 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I first thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate for their very kind words and for their support for my Bill. I think my noble friend, Lady Serota, put very clearly the contradictions between the two Acts, the 1889 Act and the Venereal Diseases Act 1917, and showed how this particular amendment will help to resolve the contradiction. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may I say that I considered very carefully whether to put forward an amendment

481
to the Venereal Diseases Act 1917, but, as I think he now accepts, it would not help in regard to this particular point in the 1889 Act.
The noble Lord raised a further point on the question of advice, and the section under which the student was prosecuted. The student was found not guilty on that count, so I hope that that will act as a precedent in future. I imagine that the reason was that the magistrate found that it was not advice as to treatment, but just advice. The Health Education Council in fact get round this particular point by printing on their posters and leaflets that they will give information. Frankly, in view of the lateness in the Session and the question of Parliamentary time, I felt that this matter could be accomplished without hampering the campaign, whereas the other point, about having to put out a warning, was a very hampering factor.
It is clear, if one takes a wider view, that eventually all these Acts will need a great deal of rationalisation and clearing up, and probably a certain amount of repeal and deletion. It was my first intention to try to amend the 1889 Act by repealing Section 5 altogether, but again it seemed to me that I had to take the practical view. The situation was urgent. A campaign is in progress at the moment. I felt that there would not be much chance of getting that repeal through in the present Session, because the matter needed a great deal more discussion. I think the noble Lord, Lord Platt, put his finger on the point when he said that we are already in the middle of May. This amending Bill will make matters much easier and will give a great deal more freedom and elbow room in the running of the campaign.
In addition to local and public authorities, which include the Health Education Council, the Bill means that any other person who wants to put forward posters or advertisements regarding venereal disease will be able to do so if he obtains the sanction of the Secretary of State. Some noble Lords may feel that one should go further; but at the present stage in the Session I think it is much more realistic to try to clear up one matter rather than to wait, perhaps for a very long time, to deal with things in a very much wider sweep. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked whether the local
482
authorities can take this on themselves or is it on the Secretary of State's sanction. As I have drafted my Bill, the local authority or public authority has a right to act on its own, but any other person has to publish with the sanction of the Secretary of State. But even if a local or public authority produced material that was considered offensive or indecent or obscene, they could still be prosecuted under Section 3 of the 1889 Act. That part of it seems pretty well watertight. Lord Chorley also drew attention to the relation between the two Acts, and I hope he will be satisfied that at the moment this appears to be the best way to deal with it.
I am also very grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Summerskill, who is also a doctor, and I agree entirely with her comment about the buildings. There is no question of any of these posters being used to advertise proprietary drugs. Neither local authorities nor public authorities would do this, and if anybody wanted to issue any material of this sort it would have to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State. So I think she will agree that is a complete safeguard so far as that possibility is concerned. My noble friend asked me why I do not like the idea of the poster being in lavatories. It is because of the aura that this whole subject has had: it has always been thought of and dealt with on a lavatorial level. We need to bring the whole subject more into the open, in order to encourage people who may be infected to go along to the clinic, and I feel that it ought to be, for some time, at any rate, taken out of the lavatory; or, alternatively, that the public lavatory should not be the only or the first place considered for the placing of these posters.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I put this point to my noble friend? It is only in the privacy of the lavatory that the infected person feels he can study that kind of poster. If that kind of poster is placed elsewhere, most people—infected people or anybody else—will not feel they can stand and look at it while other people can see them doing it. It must be put in the privacy of some place where they can study it, and even write down the name of the clinic.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point, and I think we

483
will take it further in the campaign. What the Health Education Council have done is to produce a small leaflet with a plain cover which in fact goes into even greater detail than the posters and also directs people to doctors and clinics, in order to give the information out that way. The poster will lead to the demand for the leaflet.
The point that my noble friend made about shortage of clinics and doctors is quite true, but I know her too well to think she would be suggesting that the campaign should be kept down simply in order to keep it in line with the number of doctors and clinics available. Because, as she knows, in the past when people have been encouraged to come forward to see doctors, sometimes that has led to an increase in the facilities. I think that an increase in facilities must be pressed for; and when there is an increased demand, as unfortunately there will have to be, for these facilities, we may get better facilities. I have on other occasions expressed the view that we still do not include in the basic curriculum for the training of doctors and nurses sufficient education in regard to sex and human relationships. Doctors have told me that many of their colleagues take a rather punitive attitude towards these diseases. This situation also has to be tackled. I am grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie and I take his point. I think the question of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, was answered by my noble friend Lady Serota. I was worried lest perhaps he wondered why Scotland had been omitted, perhaps thinking that there was no V.D. there. My Lords, Scotland was left out because it does not come within my province, but comes under the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Finally, though I do this rather reluctantly, I feel that I must gently take up my noble friend Lady Summerskill's point about the pill. I do not want to spoil her field day on this, but the fact is that the big increase in the incidence of V.D. is among young people of 16 to 20. This is not a group which widely uses the pill. It is used by those in older age groups. I think my noble friend is 'perfectly right in saying that the mechanical and other contraceptives provide more protection; but I imagine that a great many people
484
who contract V.D. possibly take no precautions at all. There was V.D. in 1889, and the pill did not exist then; nor did it exist during the last war, when the V.D. figures were extremely high. The more important point, I think, is to stress the danger of promiscuity and the health hazards attaching to it, as well as the personality danger.
I have always said, in discussing this matter, that for long-term effectiveness any campaign of this sort must be backed by a comprehensive programme of sex education, and also by a change in social attitudes. I do not think that any campaign can, on its own, achieve a great deal. But it can start the whole thing off and give an effective lead. As this Bill has nothing to do with the pill but is concerned with V.D., with which we have to deal irrespective of the pill, I think that is all I need say on that point. I hope that I have been able to answer the few points that were raised and that your Lordships are now convinced that although this is a small but limited amendment of the existing law it can in fact do a great deal. I hope that your Lordships will support the Bill—in other words, that you will help me to get half a loaf now, rather than our having to wait perhaps into the distant future for the whole loaf.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported, without Amendment.
NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment; the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  SEA FISHERIES COMMITTEES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
  SEA FISHERIES COMMITTEES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION