Sitting of 20 May 1970

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

SALMON NETTING ON THE HIGH SEAS
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the present position of negotiations with the Danish Government for international agreement on the prohibition or limitation of netting salmon on the high seas.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, in recent discussions with the Danish Minister of Fisheries, have tried to find an acceptable alternative to the ban on salmon fishing outside national fishery limits recommended last year by the International Fisheries Commissions on both sides of the Atlantic, but rendered ineffective by the objections of Denmark and certain other countries. The discussions were inconclusive and Her Majesty's Government are considering what further steps they should take before the meeting in June of the Commission for the Northwest Atlantic, with special reference to the fishery off the West coast of Greenland.
As regards the North-East Atlantic, where high seas fishing has so far developed only off Norway, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission at its recent meeting in London decided by a majority to recommend a series of measures including two closed areas off the coast of Norway, a close season from July 1 to May 5 outside national fishery limits throughout its area excepting the far South, prohibition or control of certain
1044
types of gear, and a minimum size for salmon. These measures will, failing objections, come into force on January 1, 1971, and are for two years, subject to earlier review in the event of substantial change in the salmon catches and stocks.
Although Her Majesty's Government would have preferred a closure of more extensive areas, especially around the British Isles, they welcome the progress that has been made in the North-East Atlantic, particularly the reduction of the fishing season to seven weeks and the prohibition of monofilament nets and pelagic trawls, both of which are potentially damaging methods of catching salmon. The United Kingdom will continue their efforts to secure adequate protection for the fisheries of the salmon-producing countries on both sides of the North Atlantic.
My Lords, I regret the length of that Answer, but I am quite certain that it will be only noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite who are disappointed at its length. I am sure that the noble Lord who asked the Question will be satisfied that I am giving the fullest possible information.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that fishing interests of all sorts will be gratified at the report of the progress which has been made on this difficult international question? May I also ask the noble Lord whether the Government are aware that while negotiations are going on the menace to the salmon stocks, present and future, is increasing all the time, in that since 1965 the number of salmon taken on the Atlantic high seas has roughly doubled every year; that last year about half a million fish were taken, and that therefore time is very precious?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord is probably correct; but the difficulty the Government have is that unfortunately there is no direct evidence that salmon from United Kingdom rivers have so far been involved in fishery in the area covered by the Agreement.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is it not a fact that Great Britain is the country which mainly breeds and nurtures salmon, and that the Danes get

1045
their profits for nothing? Would it not be a good idea if we were to put a heavy tax on Danish salmon sold here, which would inhibit the trade, to some extent, reduce their profits and make a contribution to our expenses?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, sometimes the apparently most simple solutions are not the ones which produce the best results.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as one who eats herrings, I am not too much concerned about the salmon fishing; but could he make his Answers not so long-winded?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, not on this occasion.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I should like to ask two supplementary questions. First, is the noble Lord aware that in the great Scottish salmon river, the Dee, stocks of salmon this year are enormously less than they were a few years ago? Secondly, can the noble Lord say whether or not it is the case that grilse are not affected in the same way as salmon? And if that is so, what is the explanation?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not think I can usefully add to what I have already said. The Government are well aware of the problem, and if the solution lay in our own hands we should have no difficulty.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether or not it is a fact that fish which have been tagged in Scottish rivers have actually been caught off the coast of Greenland?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lord, a small number have been.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, with reference to the question asked by my noble friend who has just spoken, is the noble Lord aware that it has been estimated, from tagging, that about 37 per cent. of the salmon caught off Greenland come from the United Kingdom? Is the noble Lord further aware that the reason why no grilse are caught is because in their first year at sea the grilse do not go so far as Greenland?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the purpose of tagging was to try to establish the fact that we were so much concerned with what was taking place. Unfortunately the Danish authorities have not yet been persuaded in the same way as we have been.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government represent to the Danish Government that it would be very much in their own interest to come to some arrangement with us and the other countries concerned; otherwise, as is obvious both from the Question that has been put to-day and from what has happened in the past, it is only too likely that our hitherto excellent relations with our good friends the Danes will be impaired.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that no point which can usefully be made to the Danes to advance our point of view has been omitted.

KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS
2.45 p.m.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: 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—

(1) what was the date on which the building of the new Knights-bridge Barracks began;

(2) what, at that time, was the estimated cost and date of completion of the building; and

(3) what is the cost and completion date now expected.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, work began on site in February, 1967. At that time the estimated cost was £3·2 million and the date of completion was October, 1969. The estimated cost is now £3·6 million and the expected completion date is August, 1970.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Can the noble Lord say whether

1047
there was any penalty clause in the original contract for the delay and increased price?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I understand that the delay was due to the fact that the central tower was redesigned twice in order to meet the wishes of the Royal Fine Art Commission.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, would my noble friend tell us whether any Ministry, other than the one immediately concerned with the site, was consulted as regards the design of this banausic excrescence?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I would not agree that the building is all that unpleasant. The view of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was sought at the appropriate point.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, is it now certain that the building will be finished this year? Can the noble Lord say why there was no penalty clause?—because I should have thought that there was a dreadful waste of taxpayers' money.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I believe that the barracks will be completed in August of this year and occupied at the beginning of October. With regard to penalty clauses, I am certain that the barracks were built under the normal contract of the Ministry of Public Building and Works; but, as I have said, the central tower has been redesigned twice in order to fall in with the views of various interested bodies.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the Government whether they will take into account what has happened over Knightsbridge Barracks when they are considering the future of Wellington Barracks.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will bring that expression of view to my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Royal Fine Art Commission made it quite clear in a letter to The Times that, though they prefer the tower to some other alternatives, they object to the whole development which might have been avoided had not the Government themselves insisted on this concentrated use of the site?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Household Cavalry has to perform official functions in the centre of the capital. The site was occupied by the Household Cavalry, and it was only rational, and indeed necessary, that this site should be developed for the purpose for which it was originally built.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that it was necessary to do this irrespective of the amenities of the Royal Parks?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not agree that the amenities of the Royal Parks have suffered thereby. The horses have to be tended, and therefore the members of the Household Cavalry have to live close to them; and that is why they need to live on the site next to the horses.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a further question? While admiring the work that has been done, would he say how many men and horses will be accommodated in the new Barracks?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords, I cannot say that. I will write to the noble Lord, if he wants the exact figures.

PILKINGTON GLASSWORKS DISPUTE
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of any subversive influences that have been introduced into the Pilkington Glass dispute.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, as the House will be aware, the First Secretary has appointed a Court of Inquiry to investigate the background and conduct of the dispute and of the issues involved at Pilkington Brothers, Limited. The first sitting of the Court took place on Tuesday, May, 19, 1970, and further hearings have been arranged. I feel sure that your Lordships will understand that in these circumstances it would not be

1049
proper for me to comment on the conduct of the dispute.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his very informative reply. Does he remember the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, who warned Her Majesty's Government that infiltration was taking place between official unions and management? If I may remind the noble Lord, he made this warning on a very auspicious date for disclosing plots against the Government—November 5.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, it is not unusual for outside bodies and individuals, for a wide variety of reasons, to seek to involve themselves in major disputes. But in the light of circumstances Which I set out in my original reply I should not wish to be drawn into expressing any opinion on the present dispute.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I was going to say that your Lordships were warned, and to ask why the Government did nothing about it, but I do not think this is an appropriate moment to shoot at Her Majesty's Government.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Court of Inquiry will take into consideration the activities of the Press and some of the reports on the dispute that have appeared in the national Press?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the Court of Inquiry will take into account everything the Court thinks to be relevant to the dispute within its terms of reference, and will be very glad to take any evidence from anyone who has information to offer.

ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND ANIMAL WELFARE
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the great increase of zoological parks and gardens which is taking place all over
1050
Great Britain; and whether they are further aware that this increase is causing grave concern to the experienced officials of long existing zoological gardens and bodies concerned with animal welfare, in view of the fact that there are not nearly enough trained personnel in the country to ensure that the exotic animals, in particular, receive proper treatment and that there exists at present no form of official supervision of the conditions in which the animals live in such places; and whether they will therefore appoint a Committee forthwith to investigate the whole position and to report as to what legislation is necessary to ensure proper standards of general and veterinary care, and whether some form of licensing of zoos is required.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland was set up in 1967 under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, with the object of encouraging the proper care of wild animals in captivity. The Federation has established a Zoo Standards Committee to consider what advice might be offered if Government control of zoos were proposed. This professional body is well equipped to deal with the issues involved. Her Majesty's Government therefore doubt whether Government intervention in the matter is necessary at the present time.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of that quite unsatisfactory reply, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government realise that this most worthy Federation of Zoological Gardens is a purely voluntary body and that no zoo or zoological park is compelled to join; and therefore there is no supervision of any zoo which does not ask to be supervised?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl considers my Answer so unsatisfactory. Of course it is a voluntary body, but there are adequate safeguards provided by the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and so on, under which the welfare of these animals is looked after. The Government are well aware of the changing situation is zoological gardens, and the matter is always under review, if necessary.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not think that the licensing and proper supervision of the increasing number of zoological gardens in this country has now become an absolute, vital necessity?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, no, I should not consider it an urgent necessity. But I have said—and it is so—that we keep the matter under constant review.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that many private individuals—leaving zoos out of it—keep wild animals in small back sheds and such like quarters? Some people keep pumas or cheetahs in very cramped quarters. Is the noble Baroness aware that there is far more danger from private individuals keeping a wild animal as a pet, involving, from that point of view, more cruelty, than zoos, which are open to the public, would be able to indulge in?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, there are perfectly adequate ways in which the public can complain if animals are being kept in ways which are bad for them or indeed dangerous to the public. We have very few complaints about that.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, one last question. Do not Her Majesty's Government realise that no zoo or zoological park is compelled by law to retain the services of a qualified veterinary surgeon; and that even if one obtains the services of a local man he is probably absolutely ignorant of everything pertaining to foreign animals? Do not Her Majesty's Government realise that if they persist in this attitude of cynical indifference many hundreds, and probably thousands, of interesting wild animals will eke out a miserable existence and come to a premature death?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, it is perfectly open to the noble Earl or to anybody else to bring proceedings under the existing Act if he feels there is not adequate veterinary knowledge available for any particular animal. This is so and it is acted upon, day in, day out.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that noble
1052
Lords opposite, who are now advocating an increase of Government interference in a wide field, will in a week or two be complaining about the increase in the number of civil servants?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I think my noble friend has shot the noble Earl's fox.

FUTURE BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I hope that it will not prove necessary for the House to return after to-day until Thursday, May 28, for the completion of outstanding Business. On that day a debate may arise on consideration of the Finance Bill. It is not yet possible to be certain of this, but after consultation through the usual channels I hope to make a further statement about it later to-day.
May I also say that it is intended to consider on that Thursday the Report of the Offices Committee. I mention this because the Committee meet to-day and their Report will not be available until to-morrow. It will be quite an important Report to this House, and those noble Lords who are interested may well wish to make arrangements with the Printed Paper Office to receive a copy if it.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Statement, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that it is rather important that this House should consider the Finance Bill before the Dissolution of Parliament?
LORD BESWICK: That will be taken into account, my Lords.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
2.56 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) rose to move:
(1) That the promoters of every Private Bill which shall have been introduced into or presented to this House in the present Session of Parliament, shall have leave to introduce or present the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Noon on the last sitting day of

1053
the present Session; and provided that all fees due by them thereon, up to that period, be paid;
(2) That a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages at which they shall have arrived, shall be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed;
(3) That every such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament for business other than judicial business, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
(4) That the proceedings on any such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
(5) That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any Private Bill which shall have originated in this House in the present Session, in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed;
(6) That every certificate from the Examiners in respect of a Petition for Additional Provision in any Private Bill originating in the House of Commons, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in that House in the present Session, shall be deemed to have been given in respect of such petition in the next Session of Parliament;
(7) That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on any Bill in the next Session unless their petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session;
(8) That any petition presented in respect of any Special Order which has been referred to a Select Committee in the present Session shall stand referred to a Select Committee in the next Session.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this rather lengthy Motion I think I should say that its purpose is really very simple. It is to provide for Private Bills introduced into this House in this Session, and now before the House, to continue their progress in the next Parliament.
1054
In this way the Promoters of these Bills, and such Petitioners as there are against them, will not be put to the trouble and expense of depositing their Bills and petitions again after the Dissolution. Paragraph 8 of the Motion makes a similar provision for any Petition which there may be against a Hybrid Special Order; and also extends the time of depositing Petitions against such Orders. The Motion is in accordance with precedent and a similar Motion, I understand, will be moved in another place next week. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lords concerned to advance to this day the Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Bill and the Local Authority Social Services Bill from Tuesday, June 9 and the Trees Bill from Tuesday, June 16.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in rising to move this Motion, I would only say that these Standing Orders are consequential upon the First Report of the Procedure Committee which came before your Lordships and was agreed to on May 12. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved,
1. That Standing Order No. 41 be amended as follows:—
At end to insert ("or the order of commitment is discharged").
2. That Standing Order No. 42 be amended by the insertion of the following new paragraph:—
"2. If, at the time appointed for the House to go into Committee on a Bill, no amendment has been set down and it appears that no Lord wishes to speak to the Bill or to table a manuscript amendment, the Lord in charge of the Bill may, have given notice, move 'That the order of commitment be discharged'; provided that the question shall

1055
not be put on any such Motion if a single Lord objects."
3. That the following new Standing Order be inserted after Standing Order No. 75:—
Appellate and Appeal Committees.
1. For the purposes of its appellate jurisdiction, the House shall have Appellate and Appeal Committees, of which all Lords qualified under the Appellate Jurisdiction Acts 1876 and 1887 shall be members.
2. These Committees shall be:—

(a) two Appellate Committees, which shall hear any cause or matter referred to them and shall report thereon to the House;

(b) two Appeal Committees, which shall consider any petition or application for leave to appeal that may be referred to them and any matter relating thereto, or to causes depending, or formerly depending, in this House, and shall report thereon to the House.

3. In any criminal matter, or in any matter concerning extradition, an Appeal Committee may take decisions and give directions on behalf of the House.
4. The Lord Chancellor, if present, or in his absence the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary present, shall take the chair in any Appellate or Appeal Committee.
5. For the purposes of the preceding paragraph, seniority shall be determined by reference to the date of the first appointment to the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary without regard to rank in the Peerage.
6. For the purposes of section 8 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, any Appellate Committee may sit and act while Parliament is prorogued.
4. That the following new Standing Order be inserted after Standing Order No. 15:—
Recall of the House.
1. If, during any adjournment of the House the Lord chancellor is satisfied that the public interest requires that the House should meet at a time earlier than that appointed, he may signify that he is so satisfied and notice shall be given and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in the notice, as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
2. If the Lord Chancellor is unable to act for the purposes of this Standing Order, the Chairman of the Committees, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, may act in his stead.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE BILL
2.58 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they,
1056
having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture Bill, have consented to place their interests so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 99, insert the following new clause:
Further provisions as to recovery of possession of redundant farmhouses in England and Wales
".Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 (cases in which a court in England or Wales must order posession of a dwelling-house subject to a regulated tenancy) shall be amended by adding at the end—

CASE 14
Where—
(a) the last occupier of the dwelling-house before the relevant date was a person, or the widow of a person, who was at some time during his occupation responsible (whether as owner, tenant, or servant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of land which formed, together with the dwelling-house, an agricultural unit within the meaning of the Agriculture Act 1947, and
(b) the tenant is neither—

(i) a person, or the widow of a person, who is or has at any time been responsible for the control of the farming of any part of the said land, nor

(ii) a person, or the widow of a person, who is or at any time was employed by the landlord in agriculture, and

(c) the creation of the tenancy was not preceded by the carrying out in connection with any of the said land of an amalgamtion approved for the purposes of a scheme under section 26 of the Agriculture Act 1967, and
(d) not later than the relevant date, the tenant was given notice in writing that possession might be recovered under this Case, and
(e) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation either by a person responsible or to be responsible (whether as owner, tenant, or servant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of any part of the said land or by a person employed or to be employed by the landlord in agriculture, and

1057
(f) the proceedings for possession are commenced by the landlord before the expiry of five years from the date on which the occupier referred to in paragraph (a) above went out of occupation;
and for the purposes of this Case 'employed' and 'agriculture' have the same meanings as in the Agriculture Wages Act 1948 and 'amalgamation ' has the same meaning as in Part II of the Agriculture Act 1967."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, and with your Lordships' permission I will take the other Amendment, No. 2, with it. The effect of these Amendments will be to enable a farmer to let a surplus farmhouse and to recover the house for agricultural use should the need again arise. This will assist agriculture and enable houses to be occupied when sometimes in the past they have deliberately been left empty. However, it has not been found altogether easy to word a new clause to achieve these laudable aims. This is certainly the third attempt, and discussions on this subject extend back to the time of the 1967 Agriculture Act. Our thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who has largely been instrumental in getting the principle of these Amendments accepted and in arranging the wording, and also to the officials at the Ministry who have put in a lot of work on both these new clauses, the first applying to England and Wales and the second to Scotland.
There is one further point that I should like to make. On reading these new clauses your Lordships may agree that they safeguard the retired farmer or the widow. Your Lordships may wish to notice that repossession can be claimed only within five years of such time as the house was last used for agriculture.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, this matter has been the cause of a good deal of head-scratching. Two or three weeks ago, three Amendments ago and three stages ago we had our first look at it. I then advised the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that I thought he was going wider than he intended. In fact he was making a breach in the Rent Act that he did not intend to make. I hope that these words, which have been constructed with the help of the Department,
1058
will achieve the objectives we have in mind, and I am glad to support them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2:
Amendment moved—
After Clause 99, insert the following new clause:
Further provisions as to recovery of possession of redundant farm-houses in Scotland
'.—(1) This section shall have effect where a dwelling-house in Scotland is let on a regulated tenancy and the last occupier of the dwelling-house before the commencement of the regulated tenancy was a person, or the widow of a person, who was at some time during his occupation responsible (whether as owner, tenant, or servant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of land which formed, together with the dwelling-house, an agricultural unit within the meaning of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948.
(2) If—

(a) the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) of this section are satisfied, and

(b) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house, and

(c) the sheriff is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation either by a person responsible or to be responsible (whether as owner, tenant, or servant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of any part of the said land or by a person employed or to be employed by the landlord in agriculture,

the sheriff shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house whether or not he would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.
(3) The said conditions are—

(a) that the tenant of the dwelling-house is neither—

(i) a person, or the widow of a person, who is or has at any time been responsible for the control of the farming of any part of the said land, nor

(ii) a person, or the widow of a person, who is or at any time was employed by the landlord in agriculture; and

(b) that the creation of the tenancy was not preceded by the carrying out in connection with any of the said land of an amalgamation approved for the purposes of a scheme under section 26 of the Agriculture Act 1967; and

(c) that not later than the date of commencement of the regulated tenancy, the tenant was given notice in writing that possession might be recovered under this section; and

(d) that the proceedings for possession are commenced by the landlord before the

1059
expiry of five years from the date on which the occupier referred to in subsection (1) of this section ceased to occupy the dwelling-house.

(4) In this section—
"the Rent Acts" means the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts 1920–39, or any of those Acts, and
"the Act of 1920" and "the Act of 1933" mean respectively the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 and the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933;
"employed" and "agriculture" have the same meanings as in the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949;
"landlord", "tenant" and "tenancy" have the same meanings as in the Act of 1920;
"regulated tenancy" has the same meaning as in section 1(4) of the Rent Act 1965; and
"order for possession" means decree of removing or warrant of ejection or other like order'.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1970
3.2 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this Amendment Order is presented in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation Development Act 1947, under which the principal Order was made in December, 1966. The Amendment will have the effect of increasing from 30s. to 60s. per acre the maximum rate of annual charge which may be levied by the Development Council on registered growers of apples and pears. I understand that consultations have taken place with the organisations concerned. I further understand that the proposals now before us, which are maxima, have the approval of the National Farmers' Union and of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, and I have pleasure in commending them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order 1970, laid before the House on April 28, 1970, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, when the original Order was introduced in 1966 the Government claimed that they were making history because this was the first such Council to be established in agriculture and horticulture. Subsequently the Council has done valuable work in promoting the sale of these homegrown fruits, and certainly I think all apple eaters will agree that, guided by the Council, the packing of this produce in particular has become first-class.
Your Lordships may remember that the growers of cider apples are exempt, and a colourful list of names of cider apples appears in a long Schedule to the original Order. I trust that the fact that Jenkins Red is to continue to grow untaxed will not blind the Government to the fact that they are continuing to make history by doubling the levy to be imposed on the growers. Although we enjoyed hearing the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, saying a word or two about the Order he did not say a single word about why the levy should be so doubled.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, first it is to enable the Council to continue its good work. Secondly, I stress again that the figures put down are maxima, and in the first place, at any rate, it is not intended that the amount shall be as great as that. But it does give greater scope to the Council for future years, and I again stress that consultations which have taken place indicate that the producers and the retailers appreciate what has been done.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the praise which he gave to the Council. Its publicity campaigns have been successful. Indeed, I am told that most retailers carrying out their special promotions have had increases in the volume of their sales of between 50 and 100 per cent., and that these increases are directly attributable to the activity of the Council. Therefore I think we shall all agree that the work should go on. And if the Council is to be able to continue to expand its promotional operations, guard against possible increases in cost and have room for some flexibility in fixing the rate of each annual charge

1061
(and of course the charge is fixed, with Ministerial approval each year, in relation to the programme of work undertaken) then a greater maximum than now current is necessary. I trust this will not only give flexibility to the Council but reassure the noble Lord that the amount of money is being carefully spent and that the planning ahead is under the supervision of Ministers. With that assurance, my Lords, I hope that you will approve the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS) (No. 5) REGULATIONS 1970
3.7 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Elections (Welsh Forms) (No. 5) Regulations 1970 be approved. These Regulations were laid on May 7, 1970, and by Section 171(5) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 they cannot come into force until approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament. The Regulations are part of a series which prescribe Welsh versions of forms used in connection with Parliamentary or local government elections in Wales and Monmouthshire. Under the Representation of the People Act 1949 certain forms were prescribed in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1969. Under the same Act and under the Welsh Language Act 1967 versions of these forms are now prescribed partly in English and partly in Welsh. They are, first, Form A, which is the return as to residence to enable the annual register of electors to be compiled; Form D, which is for the appointment of a proxy; Forms E and F, which are the official poll cards issued to electors and their proxies. The Representation of the People Regulation 1969 was subject to Affirmative Resolution, and as the present Regulations are made under the same powers they are also subject to Affirmative Resolution. The Welsh Office, and also representatives of the electoral registration officers have been consulted about the form of these Regulations.
Form A is the most complex of the forms. It has to be completed by every householder in the country and great care is taken to make it as simple and clear as possible. The Representation
1062
of the People Regulation 1969 provides the prescribed form or forms—such forms substantially to the like effect may be used with such variations as the circumstance may require, and in fact minor changes are made each year to take account of experience gained the previous year. The Welsh version will of course follow suit. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Elections (Welsh Forms) (No. 5) Regulations 1970 be approved.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that clear explanation of these Regulations, which I very much welcome. I am quite sure that they will enable many Welsh-speaking Welshmen to vote for the Conservative Party which, after all, was the Party which established the original Hughes Parry Committee on the legal standing of the Welsh language.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, if it only enabled Welsh speaking Welshmen to vote for the Conservative Party there would not have been much need for the forms, but representing the Party which will have, I hope, a much greater use for these forms, namely, the Liberal Party—making great headway, I may say, in parts of Wales—I should like to ask one question. We appear to be running pretty tightly on the time scale, because this Order comes into operation 14 days after it is passed by this House. If that is so, will the forms, particularly Form D, be available to those who want to use them in Wales in this particular Election, which as we now know is to be held on the 18th of next month?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like first to thank both noble Lords for welcoming these Regulations, and at the risk of also entering the political arena to say that it took a Labour Government to introduce the Welsh Language Act. That was a very historic landmark. One noble Lord approached me and asked whether "Welsh forms" referred to the figures of Welsh ladies. He was disappointed to learn that they were only election forms. The reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is that the forms that are available will be used. I hope that answers his question, but, if not, I will see that he is given something more adequate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EQUAL PAY (No. 2) BILL
3.11 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Requirement of equal treatment for men and women in same employment]:
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 26, leave out ("or any associated employer").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 with No. 1; these Amendments refer more or less to the same subject. I would speak first to Amendment No. 2. On Second Reading I sought to explain the doubts which existed under subsection (2) of Clause 1 about different areas where take-home pay may differ considerably. The noble Baroness replied, in cols. 161–2 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for May 5, to this effect:
"Where an establishment A has a man's wage of £15 and establishment B has a man's wage of £20 these establishments do not have common terms and conditions of employment."
Although I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, it seems to open up the whole question of what the Bill means by "common terms and conditions of employment". Surely the noble Baroness's reply begs the question and jeopardises the Bill's intention. If it is held that because pay differs the employment cannot be equal, surely the whole concept of equal pay, of what the Bill is trying to achieve, goes by the board. I must ask the Government to clarify the meaning of this phrase "common terms and conditions of employment". The noble Baroness says that it does not include pay. What else does it not include? Does it perhaps not include bonuses, or time off, or fringe benefits?
Equal pay for a particular job should be the aim of any supporter of this Bill. I submit that what the Bill does not foresee is that if a London firm, for instance, has a man's wage on time rates of £20 and a woman's wage of £16, and if an associated firm in East Anglia has a man's wage of £16 and a woman's wage of £12, the East Anglian women could claim equal pay of £20 with the men working in the associated head firm in London, and they would leapfrog over the men who work with them in the East Anglian establishment. I think the Committee would agree that the result would be chaotic. That is not at all what the Bill intends, and it would lead to an increase in costs far above any estimates given by anyone hitherto. That is the situation which Amendment No. 1 first of all seeks to prevent.
The noble Baroness may well again deny the possibility and say that it simply will not happen. Very well. May I then ask the noble Baroness what happens to the women working in East Anglia if their male colleagues are suddenly removed? What happens if the employer, quite deliberately, to try to avoid the terms of the Bill, moves his men out, or, if it is an establishment where there is an enormous preponderance of women, moves his women into a single factory or place of employment? With whom then can they claim equal pay? As I see it, the Bill as drafted and interpreted by the noble Baroness on Second Reading will prevent the award of equal pay in a situation like this, and that is why Amendment No. 2 provides a safeguard for women in a situation where they do not have men at the same place of employment to compare with. The operative words are:
"or which would be given to a man if one were to be engaged on such work at that establishment."
The other two Amendments simply seek to discover the exact meaning of "associated employer". This turns on the word "control" to be found in Clause 1(6)(c), and as there is no interpretation of the word "control" I am using these two Amendments to try to ask the Government exactly what they mean by this word. The real core of these Amendments, however, is in the questions, which so far remain unanswered, on "terms and conditions of employment". I hope that

1065
the Government will be able to answer them now in terms which both sides of industry can clearly understand. I beg to move.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Do I understand that the noble Lord was also dealing with Amendment No. 2, because he did refer to it in the course of his speech. Are we discussing No. 2 as well as No. 1?
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, I spoke on the other two Amendments at the end.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Does the noble Lord intend to move separately and speak separately to No. 2 later on?
LORD BELSTEAD: In the interests of time, I asked permission to take the three together.
LORD LEATHERLAND: While I have nothing to say about Amendment No. 1, I have a word or two to say about Amendment No. 2. I hope this Bill will pass rapidly to the Statute Book. I am all in favour of women; they fulfil many useful roles in society. But when I look at Amendment No. 2, I see that the noble Lord wishes us to say that:
"nothing in this section shall require an employer to give more favourable treatment to a woman … than … to a man".
I agree perhaps with the noble Lord's intentions, but I wonder whether he has considered closely enough what the effect of this Amendment would be. It is a fact that many enlightened employers in these days—and I think it is a principle established throughout the whole of the public service: teachers, local government officers and so on—allow women to have a certain period of maternity leave from time to time if the circumstances should demand it, and that period of maternity leave under the terms of several of these agreements extends over many weeks. Apparently the Amendment which the noble Lord is moving would deprive women of the maternity leave which they now get, perhaps as a sexual concession, if I may call it that. I am sure the noble Lord does not intend that that should be the case, but I fear that the words he has used in the Amendment would have the effect of depriving these women—and there are millions of them—of maternity leave to which they are entitled under existing contracts and terms of engagement.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: May I deal with the points in order? I am grateful to the noble Lord for linking his Amendments together. The meaning of "associated employer" is defined in the Bill, and there is no question of interpreting the term to mean that two employers are associated because they are members of the same employers' association, or because one is the sole customer of the other, or anything like that. I think the noble Lord's fear in this connection was that people employed in two companies might be considered to be associated unless this was very clearly laid down. I am not quite certain why he questioned the definition within the Bill. It is clear enough; namely, that two employing companies are to be treated as associated if one is a controlling company and the other is a subsidiary company. If there were no provision of this kind in the Bill matters would be left so vague that many companies would be left in doubt.
I turn to the noble Lord's second point. He gave a quotation from Hansard of my reply on Second Reading, but he did not give it all. I did say that
"if the men in establishment A are paid £15 a week and men in establishment B are paid £20 a week the establishments do not have common terms, and the women in establishment A"—
these are the important words—
"cannot compare themselves with those in establishment B."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/5/70, col. 162.]
The noble Lord suggested that an employer could transfer all his employees from establishment A to establishment B and turn his organisation over so that he had all women working as opposed to all men. There is no legislation which could stop an employer from doing that. But the point under discussion was the comparison. If an employer has establishments in different parts of the country and pays his men differently, the effect of the Bill will not be to raise the lower of the two men's rates to the level of the higher. That is what was suggested in another place, I believe. A woman can only draw comparisons with men in an establishment other than that in which she is employed but which is owned by her employer if there are common terms and conditions of employment in the two establishments. In other words, she cannot take the one which has the much higher rate for men and say that that is

1067
the rate she is going to have. I can assure the noble Lord that the definition I gave on Second Reading is on record, and that this will be the one which will be accepted when the Act comes into force.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Is my noble friend going to say anything about this dastardly attempt to deprive women of maternity leave?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think I said on Second Reading—and that is why I did not repeat it—that any legislation which already gives women protection of that kind will not be affected at all by this Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that the women would still give good value even though they were permitted to have a short time off for maternity.
LORD BELSTEAD: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Unfortunately, we are in the situation to-day that I cannot say that I will go away and read what she has said and then come back later. I am left without a definition of "control"; but I believe there is a definition of "subsidiary" in the Redundancy Payments Act. I must say that if there is a definition of "subsidiary" in one Act and presumably the definition of "control" in another Act is the opposite, I should be content. But there is an important point here. As I tried to explain to your Lordships, there are words in this Amendment which deal with the situation of the man who tries to avoid and has deliberately moved his women labour to a place where there is no point of comparison because there are no men. As I understand the noble Baroness's reply, that will be a way of avoiding the Act. I can say no more to that. I am certainly not in a position to bring forward another Amendment, and with those few words I feel that it would be your Lordships' wish that I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.26 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("in terms of the demand made on a worker")
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I will take Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. Report No.
1068
83 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on Job Evaluation says quite early on, in paragraph 7:
"Job evaluation is impersonal, in the sense that it is concerned solely with jobs and not with the particular quality, competence or effort of the individuals who perform them. In intention, at least, it is the job that is evaluated and not the job's current occupant."
I think it is quite clear from Clause 1(5) of this Bill that the Bill wishes to give a different interpretation. It wishes to place a value on the worker. The purpose of the first of these two Amendments, No. 3, is to discover whether the Government seek to strike some balance by valuing the worker and the job, or whether the Government believe that the whole concept of job evaluation, as described in the Prices and Incomes Board Report, is inapplicable to this Bill.
Subsection (5) of Clause 1 seems quite specific. It says that jobs shall be valued
"in terms of the demand made on a worker under various headings, (for instance, effort, skill, determination) …"
Certainly, these words indicate the relevance of factors other than the three which are mentioned. But what the Amendment seeks to achieve is some acknowledgement from the Government that factors in these evaluations will not have to be related only to the demand made on a worker. The Report of the Prices and Incomes Board made it clear that these job evaluation exercises frequently include the importance to a job of experience, training, original thought, man management, responsibility, and of course, very often, working conditions. These are some factors which are often chosen in these job evaluation studies.
Therefore may I ask the noble Baroness this question? Do the Government believe that jobs should be compared and, if they are found broadly similar, that equal pay should be given to whoever does the job? As I understand it, this is the burden of subsection (4). Or, alternatively, do the Government feel that in job evaluation people should be compared for their physical and mental output, regardless of the job? If it is the latter choice, then it is indeed a new concept.
The second Amendment is a little less than fair, and perhaps I owe the noble Baroness an apology. It seeks to strike out words at the end of subsection (5)

1069
which certainly never apply to job evaluation, and which I contend are totally opposed to the intentions of the Bill. None the less, once the words are in the Bill it would be so easy for my intentions in trying to take them out to be misconstrued. Perhaps I should not have tabled my second Amendment, because it bears no relation to the real importance of the first Amendment on which I should like an answer.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to say straight away to the noble Lord that the Government accept that job evaluation is an evaluation of jobs and not of workers. That is the first point. If I may refer him again to the clause with which he was dealing, the subsection speaks of a woman's job and a man's job being of equal value. But in order to evaluate the job, which may have a different content according to some common scale of value, it is necessary to do this in the terms of the demand made on a typical worker under such headings as effort required, skill required, responsibility required, and so on. As the noble Lord will know as well as I, this is actually how job evaluation is done; and it is necessary to say so in the subsection if the Bill is to make it clear that it is job evaluation techniques which are being dealt with.
At the end of the subsection we see the words, "demand under any heading". I suggest to the noble Lord that his Amendment does not really clarify the sense of the subsection; indeed, the exclusion of the words would make the remaining words of the subsection obscure. I know that this is not what he intended. But I should like to reiterate that it is the evaluation of the job, and not of the worker.
LORD BELSTEAD: The noble Baroness very kindly said that I know the truth of the matter. But it is not that I know it at all; all I know about job evaluation is what I sought to read; and I did so fairly assiduously, not realising that events would overtake this Bill in the way they have done. I had hoped that some noble Lords who have so much knowledge of industry might have seen fit to take part in a short debate on an Amendment on job evaluation, but time presses and we want to get on.
1070
I think that what the noble Baroness has told me is valuable, and I thank her very much. It may be lo the taste of noble Lords opposite if I remind the Committee that it was none other than Beatrice Webb who back in 1919, in a Minority Report to the Atkin Committee, said:
"There could be three ways of deciding on what is equal work. Was it equal pay for equal effort and sacrifice? Was it equal pay for equal product? Or was it equal pay for equal value to the employer?"
I hope that perhaps this Amendment has pinpointed that the equal effort is something of which we on this side are a little suspicious if we deal only with equal effort. But equal value to the employer is something of which the Government are suspicious, and they have gone out of their way to try to see that that is by no means the only criterion in the Bill. Therefore one is left with the question whether we are talking about the equal product; and though the short interchange we have had does not make the answer completely clear, at least it has helped to some extent. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
3.32 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Review of restrictive terms and conditions of employment
".The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with such organisations as he thinks fit and as appear to him to represent the interests of women in employment, carry out a comprehensive review of terms and conditions of employment or any other factors which may limit the opportunities for women to enter into or advance in employment."
The noble Lord said: The subject of this new clause occupied the majority of speeches on Second Reading, and by the end of that debate we were all well aware that there are many occupations in life where women are denied opportunities. They were listed by many people: the Stock Exchange; the Church; medicine; representation on public boards and trade unions. They were just some of the examples given. Perhaps we should also reflect that women's professions are very often low paid. Nursing is one which is

1071
a fair example. I think that possibly noble Baronesses will bear me out if I assert that, even where there is equal pay to-day, women so often find themselves in the lower salary scales. As an example, men in work now outnumber women by two or three to one, but in the £2,000 to £3,000 per annum bracket men outnumber women by 20 to 1, and in the £3,000 per annum bracket the ratio is 30 to 1.
May I give a few reasons for this new clause? If the Government accepted it, I would warn them that they might find that it could lead to some necessary Government action. The 1965 Government Social Survey showed that the greatest attraction for women to go to work was the financial attraction. What a sigh of relief would be emitted from the teaching profession if women were encouraged to return to teaching by being taxed separately from their husbands! The same Government Survey showed that the main bar for married women returning to work was the obvious one of family responsibility. In many areas nursery schools are still a dream. Tax relief for the expense incurred in children being looked after for a married woman who wants to go to work seems to be something that is still unthought of. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who told the House on Second Reading that 56 per cent. of working women were married, and that by 1981 the number was expected to go up to 66 per cent.
Your Lordships will be aware that Part VI of the Factories Act 1961 imposes restrictions on the employment of women, forbidding night work in particular. I know that this is a controversial matter, but it would be unrealistic to disregard the effect of these restrictions when equal pay in fact starts. The reaction of the men, knowing that the restrictions of the Factories Act are still continuing, may be a defensive one. The effect on the employment of women, particularly those women living near to new, automated factories working 24-hours a day, could be disastrous. If this new clause were to be accepted this matter could be discussed, and a situation which is often regulated by annual ministerial exemptions might be regulated by Statute.
In the United States of America, the Civil Rights Bill includes a reference to discrimination on grounds of sex. Your Lordships will notice that the Long Title to this Bill also includes discrimination, but it stops there. I would suggest to the Committee that unless we extend the meaning of the Title of the Bill to this new clause, we may find that women will become more segregated in their work, and that although equal pay will become the law it will be applied mainly to those women in low-paid employment. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment, as I have had some practical experience in employing both women and men. I am chiefly concerned about equality of opportunity. Though we may have equal pay, that does not mean that there will be equality of opportunity. Unless you have equality of opportunity, the Bill becomes a farce. On the question of equality of opportunity, I should like to quote a figure given by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, on Second Reading when she said:
"In 1967 apprenticeships in science and technology for males numbered 9,630; for females the figure was 110."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5/5/1970, col. 141.]
The noble Baroness also gave the figures of skilled craft workers, and she said that there are 270,000 men and only 5,000 women. If we go on to draughtsmen, there 17,000-odd men, and only 350 women. I quite agree—and thank heavens for it!—that there are a great many differences between men and women; there are physical differences and, I suppose, emotional differences, though you can get very emotional men. However, there are great differences: and may they long remain! But to be a draughtsman does not require physical strength; and neither is it required in technology, so far as I am aware, or in science.
I should have liked this Amendment to be a little stronger, but as a small employer I realise that when women have equal pay there will be increased cost to industry. I understand that the cost may be about £600 million. I further understand that it will probably affect the engineering industry with costs

1073
of an extra 2 per cent., and as high as 18 per cent. in the garment or clothing industry. I do not think that that reflects great credit on the employers in the clothing industry.
I should just like to expound a new theory on this and to point out that there is another side to the question. I quite agree that it will probably cost industry a further £600 million, but if we take into consideration the fact that the State pours out a great deal of money for women who have been deserted by their husbands and who cannot afford to bring up their children, if women had equal opportunity they then might be able to afford to bring up their children. That would exonerate the State from paying out this money. I am told that 33 per cent. of the married women who have been deserted by their husbands are bringing up children without any financial assistance from their husbands. These women may have to take second-rate jobs.
Since the passing of the Divorce Reform Act, marriage does not offer such great security to women as it did previously, so it is now more essential that women should have an equal opportunity to earn a living. After all, their brains are equal to men's, and in my experience a large number of them are a great deal more intelligent than men. In addition to this we now have a population explosion, and I should have thought that if women had the opportunity to take up good employment they might not then feel that their only vocation in life was to have children. It is a fact that the average person needs to feel some justification for being alive, and wishes to achieve something. If women had equal opportunity there would be fewer unwanted children; and the fact of being an unwanted child has been proved to be a substantial cause of delinquency.
I should have preferred the Amendment to be rather stronger. The trouble is that old habits die hard, and even if women had equal opportunity some men employers might prefer to employ men. I am not advocating a sex discrimination board, since that would be quite absurd; but we have a Race Relations Board, and sex discrimination can be just as bad as racial discrimination. There are single women who have to support widowed mothers, and women whose husbands are in gaol and who have a great many children;
1074
and although the State helps them, the average person prefers to be independent of State help, because she has her pride. I shall not take up the time of the Committee any further. I shall say only that I have always felt very strongly that the object of legislation was to make the world a just place, and that on the whole women, and certainly intelligent women, have not had a fair deal. I should like to support the Amendment.
BARONESS STOCKS: Of course what the noble Viscount has said is right, and we all regard equal opportunity, as he described it, as very necessary. But I seem to remember hearing Barbara Castle expounding this Bill, not in the House of Commons but at a conference, and she resisted an amendment of this type because she thought it would overload the Bill. And I am sure that she must have been right.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The right honourable lady Mrs. Barbara Castle was probably influenced by the trade unions in this matter, because I understand that the trade unions are rather anti-equal pay.
3.44 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like at once to thank my noble friend for her support. That is one of the problems with which one is confronted if one adds to the Bill. But I must say, on what is virtually an historic piece of legislation, that I am happy we have got this far. I think one can always move on to the other wider aspects of this problem. At Second Reading it was pointed out very fully—and of course I am very grateful, both personally and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to both noble Lords who have supported the cause of women—that a great deal of this discrimination calls for education both of employers and of the community generally. We have still not fully accepted the idea that a woman should be permitted to work outside her own home if she desires to do so, and indeed should have some support and help in this.
I would say at once that it is rather a pipe-dream to assume that if we introduce a measure of this kind employers will automatically employ men because they will think they are better value. The percentage of women working at the moment is so high that without them the

1075
whole economy would grind to a halt. That is the simple fact of the matter there, so we are not in any real danger. Also, we must keep in perspective the number of married women working. In total, one-third of the married women are working. It is also important to realise that for mothers with small children the proportion is one in eight. That is not really a very high proportion of the total number working. These are factors which sometimes colour our discussions.
On the question of extra cost the answer is: Yes, this will cost more. But, as I think my noble friend Lady Summers-kill has asked on more than one occasion, has an economy any right to be made richer on the slave labour of the women? That is the simple answer to that point. Many women have been grossly underpaid and I have here some figures which, even for this day and age, are quite enlightening. In some cases the rates are literally half what the male is receiving for the same kind of labour. The Government are very much in sympathy with the general thought behind this Amendment, which was put over so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
But while there is this need for widening job opportunities for women, and for more women to take advantage of training (and here I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that perhaps the reason they do not take up jobs as accountants, architects, and so on, is because of the length of training; but these are points on which we have to educate the women and girls), the Government feel that there is no need at the present time for a comprehensive review of the factors which limit opportunities, because they are already well known. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, himself quoted from the survey on women's employment which the D.E.P. commissioned; at any rate, it was used during the Second Reading debate. Also, of course, there are a great number of other surveys which I have myself used on many occasions, as well as a whole body of academic and other research which is available on this point.
What is needed now is the practical application of the available knowledge, and the prime requirement is the education of the women themselves. This is
1076
what some of us seek to achieve. The introduction of equal pay is bound to have a profound effect on the whole question of women's employment, and it would be prudent to direct this change before widening the issue. I hope the noble Lord will accept that his comments on this occasion, and during the earlier discussion on the Bill, will have been noted, and that we may return to this subject later. But at this point of time, while having every sympathy with this Amendment, I must tell him that the Government feel that it is not acceptable.
LORD BELSTEAD: I would just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, that one has to be careful not to believe everything one hears at conferences.
BARONESS STOCKS: May I say that I do when the Minister herself makes a statement?
LORD BELSTEAD: I am very glad that the noble Baroness has such faith. It will stand her in good stead in the weeks ahead. The nub of this problem is that since 1921, although there have been increases in the number of women in the professions, and an incredible increase of a million and a half more women working in offices, the number of women in skilled or semi-skilled manual occupations has not increased; indeed, in some cases it has dropped. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for pinpointing from this side of the Committee the many ways in which women have not reached the higher-paid jobs.
Almost all the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, make me feel that both sides of the Committee are running more or less on the same lines in this matter, but I realise that the Government do not wish to accept this new clause. I was rather hoping that they might. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I deliberately tried to word this new clause so that it came within the scope of the Bill; and that is why it may not seem quite as strong as my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard would have wished. I will therefore take comfort from the Ministry of Labour Gazette of 1968, which paid tribute to the increasing willingness of firms—not so great as the noble Baroness. Lady Summerskill, would wish, but none the

1077
less the increasing willingness of firms—to make appropriate arrangements to fit in with their women employees. The Gazette also pointed to the industrial training boards, the Occupational Guidance Service and the Central Training Council as pressures for improvement. With that I think I must be content, and I hope your Lordships will be as well.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, perhaps I may say to him, really to reiterate the point about education, that I was speaking quite recently to an employer who has a very large number of women employees and he said that quite frequently women would not accept increased responsibility with increased salary because it would mean that they were earning more than their husbands. We come back to the emotional and the social problems, and a recognition that this is a far wider issue than we realise. I think we have a great deal of educating to do.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Collective agreements and pay structures]:
3.54 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 29, leave out from ("1919") no end of line 31, and insert ("which may order the parties to the agreement to amend the provision within such time as the Court may decide and to submit any necessary Amendments to the Court for approval.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, and with your Lordships' permission I will discuss also Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. There is a single purpose behind this group of Amendments. In a collective agreement, where any provisions discriminate between men and women, the Bill requires the Industrial Court to make specific amendments, and those amendments are to be found in Clause 3(4). These amendments which the Industrial Court must make have to equalise men's and women's rates for any class of work named in an agreement, and must raise the rates for any work carried out by
1078
women only to the level of the lowest men's rates. My group of Amendments would not upset these objectives, but would place the onus of re-writing on the parties to a collective agreement. Obviously, there must be somebody to enforce such agreements, and the Industrial Court of course should do this. But I submit that as soon as compulsory arbitration is imported into agreements at such an early stage the responsibility of the parties to make, and to abide by, their own bargains really can be weakened, or even destroyed. It is this fact which the Amendments recognise and seek to rectify.
Perhaps I may tack on one question which is connected—and the noble Baroness may wish to take advice before replying. The last part of subsection (4) says that where in a collective agreement there has to be a provision specially for men or specially for women, because the provision applies to a job which is going to be done only by a man or a woman, then the agreement shall be amended so that the terms and conditions of such men-only or women-only jobs
"are not in any respect less favourable than those of all persons of the other sex to whom the agreement applies".
If one has an agreement covering skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled work, and there is a women-only job in the unskilled grade, it seems to me that, with this wording, these women will have to be given equality with the skilled men covered in the same agreement. In other words, my question focuses on the word "all" in line 30. I know that this is not the objective of the Government, but I should like an explanation from the noble Baroness as to how, technically, this is avoided, because it seems to me that, with the way the clause is worded, the objective of the Government will not be achieved. I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to say straight away that the Government agree that it would be desirable for the parties to collective agreements to revise them themselves, in order to remove discrimination between men and women in a way best suited to the circumstances of their particular industry or firm. As the noble Lord has pointed out, it might be better, in one case, to carry out a job evaluation in an industry or firm, and there would have to be ample time

1079
(in fact, I think there would be, between now and the end of 1975) for this to be done. If a man comes before the Industrial Court before the end of 1975, the Court has the power—and we are now looking at subsection (3) of Clause 3—to make its decisions effective from a future date. This will provide an opportunity for the parties to revise their agreement in the intervening period so as to eliminate discrimination in some way other than that proposed by the Industrial Court. This is giving the time factor. Nevertheless, in the last resort, when the parties are unable to reach agreement, the Court must be given the power to eliminate discrimination in agreements between men and women, and the way in which this is done is prescribed in subsection (4) of Clause 3.
The Government believe it is desirable that the powers of the Court in regard to the amendment of collective agreements should be clearly defined in the Statute, so that all concerned will know where they stand; and the Government do not consider that it would be desirable for the Court to be given carte blanche to say how agreements should be altered. The proposal in the Amendment that the Court should have the power to approve or disapprove of amendments to collective agreements proposed by the parties will amount to giving the Court complete discretion to say what was and what was not satisfactory in an agreement. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this clause was very carefully phrased.
In reply to his question, I would say that if treatment is to be no less favourable than that of "all" other persons, this requirement is satisfied if treatment is no less favourable than that of "any" other persons. This is the wording of the Bill.
LORD BELSTEAD: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, and once again I wish that there was a little time to go away and read it. The Bill does not say anything about the last resort. I cordially agree, I think, with all that the noble Baroness has said. The main plank of the first part of her argument was that the Government wish to see parties to collective agreements make their own amendments, and that then, in the last resort, the Industrial Court will come in,
1080
and be there as a longstop. But this is not what the Bill says.
In addition—this is the real worry behind the Amendment—the Bill does not guard against an agreement being amended by the Industrial Court against the wishes of those who are covered by the agreement. Surely there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, having a collective agreement to which the trade unions, for instance, have most willingly agreed, and then having some industrial trouble a year or two later, and, on the other, having an agreement where the Industrial Court has said, "Because of subsection (4) of the Equal Pay Bill, we have to make these amendments; and, whether you like it or not, you on both sides of this collective agreement will jolly well have to agree". Then, a year or two later, when there is trouble in the industry, it would be most reasonable for either side of the collective agreement to say, "Well, this was a collective agreement to which in fact we did not agree." This is the real worry which lies behind my group of Amendments. I do not wish to be impertinent but I should like to put one more question. If, in answer to my question, the Government say that "all" means "any", why on earth do they not say so?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think the noble Lord's comment refers to the words
"less favourable than those of all persons of the other sex to whom the agreement applies."
I think the noble Lord will agree with me that, when dealing with an Act of Parliament, what is taken on the Record in relation to this Act is consulted. If there is any doubt at all, one looks back either at the Principal Act or particularly at the OFFICIAL REPORT when the Act was passing through either House. I think the noble Lord can rest assured that a clause of this kind would be operated fairly. There are several safeguards and it is a lengthy clause.
LORD BELSTEAD: In withdrawing the Amendment I think that those noble Lords with long experience of Parliament will agree that perhaps the noble Baroness is not absolutely accurate in her last remarks. The industrial tribunals are the people who are going to interpret this legislation; the people who make the legislation are both Houses of Parliament. But I think that this matter has been

1081
given a fair airing, I thank the noble Baroness for her replies, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Commencement]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 9, line 10, after ("below") insert ("the foregoing provisions of").
The noble Baroness said: With permission I will put points which are related so that we are dealing with Amendment No. 14, Amendment No. 15 and Amendment No. 16, which is the insertion of the new clause. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said at the Report stage in another place—and I believe this was repeated during the Second Reading debate in this House—that he would consider giving the Industrial Court power to advise on the elimination of discrimination in collective agreements, pay structures and wages orders in the 12 months preceding the coming into operation of the Act at the end of 1975. The purpose of this Amendment is to make provision in the Bill for the Industrial Court to do this. Under the Amendment, those who are empowered to refer a collective agreement, pay structure or wages order to the Industrial Court following the end of 1975 can refer such an agreement, et cetera, to the Court in the 12 months preceding the end of 1975, for the court's advice as to amendments needed to be made under the Bill in order to remove discrimination in the agreement as it stands. The parties are not bound by the Court's advice, but it is hoped that an indication of the Court's views as to how the Bill applies to a particular agreement in advance of the operative dale may help in securing a smooth transition at the end of 1975.
If an order is made for an intermediate stage at the end of 1973, that order may provide for advice to be taken from the Industrial Court in the 12 months up to the end of 1973. The Secretary of State has power to refer agreements, pay structures and wages orders to the Industrial Court after the end of 1975. The Amendment does not give powers to refer agreements
1082
for advice before the end of 1975. It is to be expected that it will be the parties to the agreements rather than the Secretary of State who may be anxious in particular cases to obtain advice about agreements in the period before the operative date. It is hoped that this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee as helping all concerned with collective agreements and other pay instruments to amend them suitably to remove discrimination by the end of 1975. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: May I ask one question? I was anxious about the last two lines of subsection (4) of the new clause. Am I right in thinking that the new clause refers entirely to references and that it does not refer to the coming into operation of the order? I do not want to seem obstructive; but it appears to me, on reading it, that these last two lines may mean that an order for an interim award would come into operation before 1973. If that is so, I should like to know the answer before the Bill finally passes.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I cannot give a direct answer. I suppose it will be of no help to repeat "refer agreements, pay structures, wage awards" because that does not cover the point. I take it that the noble Lord's interest is in interim orders.
LORD BELSTEAD: I am sorry to hold up the Committee, but I should like a reply before the Bill passes. It is something to which we need a reply. My colleagues in the other place have put the point fairly forcibly that there should be different periods of time when an order could come into operation. I have deliberately not put forward an Amendment on this matter because I think the Government are being very fair, although I know that certain noble Lords think that they are not being fair enough. But if the answer to my question is that it can come into operation before 1973, that is something we should want to know.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: By putting the question again the noble Lord has given me the opportunity of providing the answer. There is no question of an interim order fixing a date other than 1973.
LORD CITRINE: May I ask a question for elucidation? The new clause in subsection (2) reads:
"A reference under this section may be made by any person authorised by section 3, 4 or 5, …"
I have looked at those clauses and, so far as I can see, it is intended that they shall be the parties to the collective agreements; in other words, the trade unions or bodies of that kind. But the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to Clause 2 sought to rectify what I thought was rather a singular omission: that no reference was made to a trade union or a body who could act on behalf of an individual in the narrower dispute in which that individual was involved. I was surprised to find that that Amendment was withdrawn before I could get up and ask some questions about it.
Subsection (2) of the new clause makes no reference at all to an individual who may not be a party to a collective agreement. I do not know what that means. If they were members of a trade union it is patent that they would be a party to a collective agreement; but if they were not members of a trade union—and unfortunately literally millions of women are not members—they would have no status at all, so far as I can see. They would not be able to make a claim direct because they were not members of a union; and I think that that would be unjust. But I do not know what assurance was given, if any, to the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, in regard to his Amendment No. 6. I do not know why he withdrew it; it seemed to me to be a matter of importance requiring clarification.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: We shall be taking the Third Reading in a moment. I think that my noble friend will appreciate that he is referring back to a clause which we have already dealt with. I do not think he was here on Second Reading when we also dealt with this matter in some detail. We refer to wage orders or pay structures; and as I understand it an individual does have this right. I should have thought that if it referred to the first clause the new clause would automatically read back to it. I will get a direct answer for the noble Lord when we move to Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, at end insert ("and references in this Act to its commencement shall be construed as referring to the coming into force of those provisions on that date").—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Preliminary references to Industrial Court
(1)A collective agreement, pay structure or order which after the commencement of this Act could under section 3, 4 or 5 of this Act be referred to the Industrial Court to declare what amendments need to be made as mentioned in that section may at any time not earlier than one year before that commencement be referred to the Court under this section for their advice as to the Amendments needing to be so made.
(2) A reference under this section may be made by any person authorised by section 3. 4 or 5, as the case may be, to make a corresponding reference under that section, but the Secretary of State shall not under this section refer an order to the Industrial Court unless requested so to do as mentioned in section 4(2) or 5(3), as the case may be, nor be required to refer an order if so requested.
(3) A collective agreement, pay structure or order referred to the Industrial Court under this section may after the commencement of this Act be again referred to the Court under section 3, 4 or 5; but at that commencement any reference under this section (if still pending) shall lapse.
(4) If an order is made under section 9(2) above for section 3, 4 or 5 to have effect from December 31, 1973 (with or without modifications), then, without prejudice to the operation of subsections (1) to (3) above apart from this subsection, the order may make corresponding provision for those subsections to apply, with such adaptations as may be provided for by the order, so as to authorise the making of references to the Industrial Court during a year (or any less period specified in the order) preceding December 31, 1973; and for that purpose the order may be made so as to come into operation before that date.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, may I reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine. Individual women can take cases to the tribunals. I think this was the point raised during Second Reading. They cannot complain to an the industrial court about collective agreements.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS BILL
4.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may wish to speak on this Motion.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Longford.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has indicated, this may be a convenient moment to make a Statement about the circular on the needs of the disabled with regard to access to public transport which the Government have undertaken to issue to operators and manufacturers of public transport equipment. We have met the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and others representing the interests of the disabled and had a useful discussion on the future action we propose to adopt in the light of this commitment. We are at present engaged in seeking ideas and useful subject matter for this circular, but in the short time which has been available we are not yet in a position to state what it
1086
might contain. Nevertheless, we intend to keep in close contact with the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and with representatives of the disabled on developments and we shall be glad to meet them in due course when we have achieved some working basis in order to further the progress we are making.
I should also like to say that the Government are fully alive to the needs of the disabled and are anxious themselves to take an initiative in promoting feasible and reasonable improvements to the public transport system. Clearly, if we are to keep in contact with representatives of the disabled we may well in due course be able to develop our activities in this sphere in a wider area than can be covered in this Bill.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lords who raised this question so effectively will be most grateful, as I am, to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for what he has said.
On Question, Report received.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Transfer of patients with spinal injuries to specialist centres
".—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue directions to every Hospital Management Committee, Board of Governors of a teaching hospital and Board of Management providing hospital and specialist services under the National Health Service Act 1946 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 requiring them to ensure that any patient in a hospital under their management who is suffering from recent disabling neck or back injuries involving the spinal cord or corda equina shall, so far as practicable and reasonable having particular regard to the proper treatment of the patient, be transferred within twenty-four hours or as soon as possible to a centre specialising in the treatment of such injuries.
(2) 'Disabling neck or back injuries' means such neck or back injuries as, in the opinion of a registered medical practitioner having care of the patient in the hospital, have caused or are likely to cause paralysis resulting in disability."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I put this Amendment forward at this eleventh hour of the Bill as it deals with a most urgent and scandalous situation now existing in this country. I am trying to press the Minister, whom I greatly

1087
admire, to do something more than just giving sympathy; to help safeguard good citizens of this country who, through acidents or illness, become paraplegics and who have become patients in certain National Health hospitals. The Government have taken the responsibility of running this country's Health Service. Throughout the world the correct treatment for paraplegia is known. Sir Ludwig Guttmann, the pioneer doctor in this country, was knighted for his services in the treatment of paraplegia, and Britain was the founder-nation of the paraplegic sports. Sport is not only a physical form of rehabilitation but also a psychological one. It helps people to regain lost confidence and thus it helps the paraplegics back into society.
My Lords, are we now to fall back to the conditions of pre-war days when paraplegics lay rotting as chronic cripples? At this very moment, and for the past 19 months, a man of 29, married with two young children, is existing, helpless, in Middlesbrough General Hospital. On Sunday I visited him and I found him to be a paraplegic, paralysed from the chest down, a similar lesion to my own. He is riddled with pressure sores. His left leg is so contracted that it cannot bend at the knee. His toes are like fixed claws. Four months ago, after having seen so many badly injured people come in and walk out from his ward, this man contemplated taking his own life. After 19 months of hospitalisation he has not started to be rehabilitated and his wife has not even met the doctor in charge. Bladder and renal infection, Which this man has, are the most common cause of depression in paraplegics.
My Lords, this is a very specialised field of medicine. I have attended world conferences in Germany and Dublin, and also lectures on this subject. I have visited many spinal units in various parts of the world and I know what basic equipment is necessary for nursing paraplegic patients. In the same ward is a man of 30, also with a wife and two young children. He is paralysed from the sixth and seventh cervical vertebrae. After one week in hospital he was sat upright. He turned blue and stopped breathing. He has been in Middlesbrough General Hospital for nine weeks.
These men have no feeling from their injury down. They do not call out when their skin is sore. Far more serious is the psychological pain. They lie from day to day and worry about sex problems and how to continue their lives. These were virile young men in the prime of their lives. There is no one in this general hospital who is able to give them expert advice and the training they need. Had they gone to a spinal unit they would immediately have been among others who were learning how to live as normal a life as possible under changed circumstances, and most likely they would have been home within about six months.
I listened with great interest and admiration to the noble Baroness during the debate on the Local Authority Social Services Bill. The noble Baroness stressed the need for prevention of social distress. If she will look into these cases she will find great social distress involving the whole family. When visiting these two patients I was informed that somewhere in the same hospital there were two more paraplegic cases. How many more throughout the country may there be? Before leaving, the wives begged me, with tears in their eyes, to help them get their husbands moved to a spinal unit anywhere in the country. They asked: are these places only for people with money? To me, this is the only way to eliminate this state of affairs that is cruelty of the worst kind. In Southern Ireland there is an excellent system whereby a trained medical team goes in an ambulance or helicopter and collects a spinal patient from the place of accident, transporting him directly to the correct unit near Dublin. Perhaps one day we shall be able to follow their good example.
My own grandfather was a doctor, and many of my close friends are members of this most excellent profession. In all large organisations there are some members who are not as enlightened as they should be. I think your Lordships all accept that there will always be suffering; but I do not accept that there should be unnecessary suffering due to wrong clinical judgment which is swept under the carpet by medical etiquette. The only people who suffer are the patients or their families, and these are the very people who, in many cases, do not know what has happened until it is too late. Hospitals do not like having to accept

1089
patients rotting from sores and in low morale. This is what happens when, after months or years, it dawns on the hospital that it cannot manage and the authorities try to transfer the paraplegic. By the time the patient arrives at the correct hospital he is a second-class patient. This is why I now beg to move this Amendment.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. She has stated her case so fully and so convincingly that I will confine myself to one point, which really arises from the debate on the Committee stage on this new clause in its original form. The noble Baroness the Minister of State, when she mentioned the problem created by the fact that the regional spread of spinal units is not ideal, referred to Sir Ronald Tunbridge's Committee which is "looking at the National Health Service Rehabilitation centres as a whole". It has been suggested to me that this may mean that it is intended to send paraplegics, arthritics and others, all with varied problems, to general rehabilitation centres. Comprehensive treatment is essential in the case of paraplegics. To be effective, it must be rehabilitation not only from the physical aspect, but from the psychological, social and domestic aspects as well.
The noble Baroness has shown that she has studied and understands very well the problems and complications of paraplegia, and I do not need to spell out to her that it is no good simply nursing a paraplegic in hospital for several months—be it adequate or inadequate nursing—and then packing him off elsewhere to start being rehabilitated. Full rehabilitation cannot be achieved where this dichotomy exists. In the United States of America, where in general paraplegics are nursed in hospital and subsequently sent to a general rehabilitation centre, this method is now acknowledged to have been a failure. Sir Ludwig Guttman has been over to the United States, at their request, three times in the past two years to talk about the care of paraplegics, and they are now planning to adopt his methods.
I hope that the noble Baroness can reassure me that she meant simply that the Committee was carrying out a general
1090
survey of all types of rehabilitation centres, and not that it was looking into the possibilities of sending paraplegics to general rehabilitation centres, since the regional spread of spinal units is not perfect. If, however, she can give me no such reassurance, perhaps the Minister will convey my misgivings to Sir Ronald. In this field of the treatment of paraplegia we do without question lead the world: it would be tragic if we now took this retrogressive step. I fully support my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I should like very strongly to support this Amendment. I know that it may raise considerable difficulties for the Department of Health and Social Security, but I think these difficulties have to be faced.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I too have no hesitation whatever in saying a word or two in support of this Amendment. My one anxiety arises from the fact that in the existing centres specialising in the treatment of these injuries there exists to-day a quite considerable waiting list. I would put in a plea that the Government should try to extend the number and scope of the existing centres specialising in the treatment of these injuries, in order to cope with the dreadful leeway that exists at the moment. We have no doubt whatever about the sympathy with which the Government approach this terrible problem, but I should like to urge upon them a sense of the very desperate need that exists for wider facilities. I hope that, if they have any reservations about accepting this Amendment in its present form, at least the spirit of the Amendment will be brought home to them.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I also should like to say two or three words in support of my noble friend's Amendment, because ordinary bone breakages are very much something apart from spinal injuries, and ordinary orthopædic hospitals are very different from spinal units. I myself, in the initial stages after an accident, was taken to a general hospital, albeit an extremely good one—the Radcliffe Infirmary at Oxford. I suffered from a pressure sore early on; and although it was not one of the worst, it was there. I am assured that in a place like Stoke Mandeville that would not have happened. So I very much

1091
support this Amendment. From my discussions with the men in the wards at Stoke Mandeville I can vouch for the worries and fears about which my noble friend was talking. At least some of these problems, even now, fox and concern the experts at Stoke Mandeville; and they must indeed worry, concern and confuse the medical authorities at general hospitals.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I wish to support without qualification what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said in moving this Amendment. I should like to emphasise that this particular clause is concerned with the transfer of patients with spinal injuries to specialist centres within 24 hours, or as soon as possible afterwards. I think that this is the important factor. I hope that we shall not get bogged down in respect of treatment that is given to people who are suffering from injuries of this kind if they are left in the hospital. What we are primarily concerned about is the transfer of such patients, within 24 hours or as soon after as possible, to centres specialising in the treatment of such injuries. This is of supreme importance. I hope that my noble friends will not press this Amendment, other than to try to get from the Minister (as I hope we may) an assurance that such a directive will be sent out when the Act is explained to local authorities and to the Regional Hospital Boards.
4.29 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, may I first say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I do not think it would be appropriate for me to discuss in your Lordships' House the individual cases to which she has referred. I have written to her. I should prefer to confine myself to the principle that lies behind the Amendment which she has moved.
This Amendment replaces an earlier proposed new clause which was discussed fully in Committee and then withdrawn—a clause which would have required the notification of certain disabling injuries to the Chief Medical Officer of my Department and of the Scottish Home and
1092
Health Department. Noble Lords who were here will recall that on that occasion I advised the Committee not to accept the clause because we did not think it was practicable in legislation to lay down the kind of clinical care to be given to particular patients. We felt that if notification was to serve any purpose it would clearly mean interference by the Department in matters of clinical judgment; a point which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, if I understood him correctly, is willing to accept. I am not quite so certain that it would be accepted by the medical profession as a whole: the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Segal, are rather exceptional noble Lords. From our knowledge of the profession we rather feel that this would not be warmly welcomed on all sides.
The Amendment we now have under consideration is open to the same objections as the earlier new clause that was put down in Committee. Under it the Secretary of State would be required to issue to hospital authorities directions requiring them to ensure that patients with disabling neck or back injuries as defined in Section 6(2) are transferred as soon as possible to centres specialising in the treatment of such injuries. The only way that hospital authorities could comply with such a statutory direction would be to instruct consultants responsible for the care of the patients. Such a direction would be an interference by the Secretary of State in the clinical care of patients. Ever since the National Health Service was introduced it has been a fundamental principle of the Service that a consultant is in sole clinical charge of his patient and has full clinical responsibility for him. The Secretary of State, and his agents—that is to say, the hospital authorities—do not intervene in matters of clinical judgment, or attempt to advise a doctor on how to treat his own patients.
I am sure that both the noble medical Peers (if I may so call them) would not as a general rule wish this principle to be breached, although they have indicated to the House that they are so prepared for this special class of patient. I must confess if we were to breach this principle I, and no doubt a number of other noble Lords, could think of other classes of patients for whom such intervention might well be invoked. It is true that

1093
the proposed new clause contains the qualification
"… so far as is practicable and reasonable, having regard to the proper treatment of the patient, …"
but this does not disguise the fact that the clause essentially is aimed at requiring the Secretary of State to issue a direction in clinical matters concerning the care and treatment of patients. This is the reason why on this occasion I must, as I did in Committee, advise the House strongly against accepting the Amendment. I must also advise the House that if, notwithstanding my advice, it were to accept the Amendment, as it could, the Government in another place would have, I think, to take the same point of view as I have done to-day.
I said in Committee—and I repeat it—that the Government are in complete sympathy with the objectives behind the clause. None of us would dissent from the purpose which the noble Baroness seeks to achieve through her Amendment. We want patients suffering from disabling neck and back injuries to have as early treatment as is possible in special centres. There are no divisions between us on this; it is purely a question of method. We do not believe that the method proposed in the Amendment is the right way to achieve the aim. I have already given the Committee—and now I give the full House—an undertaking that the views expressed in this place will be brought to the notice of the Tunbridge Committee, which is at present considering the rehabilitation requirements of patients with spinal injuries, as well as others needing rehabilitation in the National Health Service. I can also give the House the information that my Department proposes to ask hospital authorities to ensure that facilities available at the special centres are known, especially to doctors in accident and emergency departments, and that they are aware that the doctors at the special centres are available to give immediate advice as to treatment, as well as to arrange for early transfer.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who asked me for an assurance on this aspect, that the Government will be acting in the spirit of this Amendment, although I cannot advise the House to accept it. I am equally sure that it is by these and other informal ways of
1094
encouraging liaison that we can secure the objectives upon which we all agree, rather than by passing legislation and by issuing directives to members of the medical profession. I can also assure the noble Baroness that both this debate, and the one that we held in Committee, will have been of great value in drawing the attention of all concerned to the special problems of this class of patient, and to the great importance of making quite sure that there is adequate provision for their care.
I would also say, in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, that it is true that the Tunbridge Committee which is considering the whole range of the rehabilitation services that lie within the National Health Service will of course (also within its terms of reference) be considering the particular problem of the rehabilitation of patients with spinal injuries, and in so doing I am quite convinced the Committee will take into account Sir Ludwig Guttmann's work at the spinal injuries centre at Stoke Mandeville, which Sir Ronald Tunbridge and some of his colleagues on the Committee visited in June last year. I hope that this will set her mind at rest about what was said earlier.
I am sorry that I do not feel able to accept the Amendment of the noble Baroness. I hope that the House, having heard the problems that would flow from it, will agree with me that we should not accept it, on the understanding that my Department will engage in the discussions that I have just outlined.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will have listened with close attention to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she moved this Amendment. They will also have sympathised with her, as I do, in wishing to deal with the particular problem that she set out. Nevertheless, I hope that she will not press this Amendment because I should have to advise my friends behind me that we support the noble Baroness, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Security, when she says that this particular Amendment is not the best way to deal with the problem.
4.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, we are all aware that in all matters of this kind no one is more

1095
sympathetic than the noble Baroness. I cannot speak as an expert; I am not an expert, like one or two noble Lords who have spoken from the Cross-Benches, and one or two leading doctors. I find it hard to know quite what the answer of the noble Baroness will amount to in practice. She said that the Government will act in the spirit of the Amendment, and I am sure that that is her own intention. If that proves to be so, it renders the Amendment unnecessary. On the other hand, she has indicated that the principle of non-interference must not be breached. How you can act in the spirit of the Amendment without breaching that principle, as she has defined it, I am not at all clear. Therefore, speaking for myself, I am not in any way convinced by her arguments, or by the supporting arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. If I suggest to my noble friends that they do not press this Amendment to a Division it is for one reason only—a reason of time and situation: it has nothing to do with the merits of the case.
I feel that there would be a danger to the Bill if this Amendment were pressed, and for that reason only I think it should not be pressed this afternoon. I regard the absence of this Amendment as a great blot on this Bill, and I am sure that many of us will never rest until we have put it right. Nevertheless, in all the circumstances—simply the conditions of time and the situation—it would be a mistake to press the Amendment.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not want to rise in the defence of my noble friend the Minister—she can well look after herself. But I feel that she has made (if I may be permitted to use the expression) a concession in so far as she has said that the Department will call the attention of the medical services to the existence of these special clinics with a view to getting them used, as I understood her, more effectively in the future than perhaps they have been used in the past. If I have any quarrel with my noble friend the Minister it is with the implied suggestion that the medical profession must not be given any directions. I hope that this is not going to be a doctrine that we must accept in the future. I see no reason why they should be excluded. But on the basis that I think half a loaf is
1096
better than no bread at all, I would urge my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to leave matters as they are, bearing in mind that the Minister has said that, although a directive will not be issued, certainly the medical profession and the medical services will have their attention called to the existence of these clinics and be advised to use them at the earliest possible moment in the treatment of patients with spinal injuries.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I, with permission of the House, speak again as the noble Baroness brought me into some of her remarks? She spoke of interference with the proper duties of members of the medical profession to individual patients, and referred to a principle which, at any rate in general, should be observed. But we find ways of skating round it in places. I was for a good many years a member of the Central Health Services Council, and I know that we issued some quite important statements on the causation of disease and also on the prevention of disease. The Department, or the Ministry as it then was, has from time to time issued statements on the dangers of certain treatments and indeed on the dangers of certain contraceptives and matters of this kind.
I should have thought that this Amendment as worded was a matter of prevention; of not telling a doctor how to treat an individual patient but telling him how to avoid certain serious complications. I should have thought that the words, "having particular regard to the proper treatment of the patient" went a long way towards letting the Department out of this dilemma about not directing the doctors.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I also be allowed to add a word or two in support of the noble Lord, Lord Platt? The question is not entirely a matter of issuing directives to the medical profession or interfering with their treatment. But there are instances where it is known that the medical profession is apt to be somewhat conservative—and I take care not to use that word in the political sense.
What can be done by the Ministry is to take positive action in the sense of educating, or assisting to educate, certain doctors who may be confronted with these very difficult cases. I remember one

1097
particular instance where parents pleaded with the doctor in charge of a gravely injured case to have the patient transferred to one of the special treatment centres under the care of a well-known doctor, who ought to be nameless; and they were greeted with the remark on the part of the doctor in charge of the case, "What, under that quack!" It was simply an instance where new methods of proved value may not quite have seeped through to certain members of the medical profession. In this connection, positive information intended to assist in the education of certain doctors on some of the generally accepted more modern methods might with advantage be used by the profession.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, say very briefly that both noble Lords who have just spoken have exactly made the point that I was trying to make. My right honourable friend, on the advice of a number of professional bodies, issues guidance and, on occasion, directions. There is a constant stream of such advice flowing from the Department on a whole range of issues—some people might think too much advice. My only point was that one does not need to do this through legislation.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks for all the support which has been given to this Amendment. It is a very important subject and I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will at some time see some of the conditions of patients who have not had the correct treatment. I thank her for her assurance that she will look towards helping to educate the doctors concerned. I think, with the noble Lords, Lord Platt and Lord Segal, that she should not be frightened of letting the doctors know what they should do. It is very strange that if one employs people and they do wrong one cannot show them the correct way of doing what they should be doing.
I can assure the House that, so far as the cases which have been mentioned are concerned, I will not allow them to remain in the condition they are in now. Yesterday I spoke to Sir Ronald Tunbridge on the telephone, and I hope that by various means we shall ensure that they receive the correct treatment, which
1098
they really need. Because of the position of the Bill in regard to the time factor, I very grudgingly now beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdawn.
Clause 4 [Access to, and facilities at, premises open to the public]:
4.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, places of adult education are now dealt with separately under a new clause and therefore it is not necessary to have them included in this clause. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) This section shall not apply to any building or premises intended for purposes mentioned in subsection (2) of section (Access to, and facilities at, university and school buildings) of this Act.")—(Viscount Ingleby.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, this clause meets in part an Amendment to Clause 4 withdrawn during the Committee stage on an undertaking by the Government to discuss an alternative Amendment. This new clause applies the same type of requirements as those in Clause 4 to new university and school buildings and extends them to use by students and staff. The test of public admission is not applied. As the classes of disabled persons who benefit under the new clause are different from, and wider than, those under Clause 4, Clause 4 is amended to exclude these buildings. That is the effect of what is now before the House. The Government are fully in support of the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which provides that where special facilities are provided for disabled people under Clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill they shall be adequately sign-posted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Signs at buildings complying with ss. 4–6
".—(1) Where any provision required by or under section 4, 5 or 6 of this Act is made

1099
at a building in compliance with that section, a notice or sign indicating that provision is made for the disabled shall be displayed outside the building or so as to be visible from outside it.
(2) This section applies to a sanitary convenience provided elsewhere than in a building, and not itself being a building, as it applies to a building."—(Viscount Ingleby.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not think I need say more on behalf of the Government about the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, except to say that this, too, is the fruit of discussion between the Government and the Promoters of the Bill. The Government are in favour of it and indeed have rendered a certain amount of help with the drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY VISCOUNT INGLEBY moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Improvement of access to local authority's buildings open to the public.
".—(1) Where the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, to a building owned and occupied by a local authority (not being a building used for purposes mentioned in subsection (2) of section (Access to, and facilities at, university and school buildings) of this Act), and the means of access within the building, or within the parts of it to which the public are admitted, are reasonably adequate for the needs of members of the public visiting the building who are disabled, the authority shall, if need be, adapt the means of access to the building so as to make provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of any such members of the public.
(2) In this section 'local authority' means a local authority within the meaning of the local Government Act 1933 or the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 and any joint board or joint committee of which all the constituent authorities are local authorities within the meaning of either of those Acts."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment provides that where access in local authority buildings, once the disabled person is inside, is reasonably good, consideration shall, if necessary, be given to adapting the means of access from the outside. I would express my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his help in connection with this clause. I feel it is a considerable step forward that we have here a clause dealing with access to existing buildings, and I am grateful to him for his help in this matter. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this replaces a wider Amendment which was moved during the Committee stage. The earlier one required handrails and ramps to be fitted, if practicable, to existing buildings to which members of the public are admitted. The Amendment was withdrawn after the Government had suggested that an Amendment limited to public buildings where the provision of facilities would be of value might be acceptable. This new clause applies only to existing buildings owned and occupied by a local authority where, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has explained. the internal design is such that disabled members of the public would be able to use the building once they got into it. In such circumstances the authority would be required to adapt the external aspect of the building to meet the needs of the disabled so far as it was practicable and reasonable.
My advice to the promoters in regard to this Amendment is to withdraw it, and I will now tell the House why. This seems to me to be a matter which could be dealt with equally well either by legisation or by circular—by advice from the Government to local authorities. I would raise no objection to its being dealt with by legislation, and if the mover of the Amendment chooses not to withdraw it I would not advise the House to reject it. I should, however, like to put the point that if this provision stands in Statute Law it may generate a feeling in the local authorities and in general that that is all they are required to do. It might be preferable that it should not stand in Statute Law because the Ministry will certainly send out circulars which will request the local authorities to do a great deal more than this Amendment would require them to do. It is a question of judgment. I have no strong views, but on the whole it may be that we should actually get more buildings in the condition we all want if this were not put into Statute Law and if wider advice were sent out in circulars when the Bill comes into effect. Therefore I mildly advise that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I should like to accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I should like to see these provisions go a little further

1101
than they would do under this Amendment. Therefore I will withdraw the Amendment and continue, I hope, in a spirit of co-operation in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY VISCOUNT INGLEBY moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
(University and school buildings) Access to, and facilities at, university and school buildings
(".—(1) Any person undertaking the provision of a building intended for purposes mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, in the means of access both to and within the building, and in the parking facilities and sanitary convcriences to be available (if any), make provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of persons using the building who are disabled.
(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1) above are the purposes of any of the following:—

(a) universities, university colleges and colleges, schools and halls of universities;

(b) schools within the meaning of the Education Act 1944, teacher training colleges maintained by local education authorities in England or Wales and other institutions providing further education pursuant to a scheme under section 42 of that Act;

(c) educational establishments within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment extends the principles of Clause 4—that is, access to new buildings—to future places of education: schools, colleges and universities. Here again I should like to record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his co-operation. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I said about this Amendment when we were discussing the paving drafting Amendment, which was Amendment No. 2. The Government fully accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons
(".—(1) There shall be a badge of a prescribed form to be issued by local authorities for motor vehicles driven by, or used for the carriage of, disabled persons; and—

(a) subject to the provisions of this section the badge so issued for any vehicle or vehicles may be displayed on it or on any of them either inside or outside the area of the issuing authority; and

(b) any power under section 84C of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (which was inserted by the Transport Act 1968) to make regulations requiring that orders under the Act shall include exemptions shall be taken to extend to requiring that an exemption given with reference to badges issued by one authority shall be given also with reference to badges issued by other authorities.

(2) A badge may be issued to a disabled person of any prescribed description resident in the area of the issuing authority for one or more vehicles which he drives and, if so issued, may be displayed on it or any of them at times when he is the driver.
(3) In such cases as may be prescribed, a badge may be issued to a disabled person of any prescribed description so resident for one or more vehicles used by him as a passenger and, if so issued, may be displayed on it or any of them at times when the vehicle is being used to carry him.
A badge may be issued to the same person both under this subsection and under subsection (2) above.
(4) A badge may be issued to an institution concerned with the care of the disabled for any motor vehicle or, as the case may be, for each motor vehicle kept in the area of the issuing authority and used by or on behalf of the institution to carry disabled persons of any prescribed description; and any badge so issued may be displayed on the vehicle for which it is issued at times when the vehicle is being so used.
(5) A local authority shall maintain a register showing the holders of badges issued by the authority under this section, and the vehicle or vehicles for which each of the badges is held; and in the case of badges issued to disabled persons the register shall show whether they were, for any motor vehicle, issued under subsection (2) or under subsection (3) or both.
(6) A badge issued under this section shall remain the property of the issuing authority, shall be issued for such period as may be prescribed, and shall be returned to the issuing authority in such circumstances as may be prescribed.
(7) Anything which is under this section to be prescribed shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Transport and Secretary of State by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of

1103
a resolution of either House of Parliament; and regulations so made may make provision—

(a) as to the cases in which authorities may refuse to issue badges, and as to the fee (if any) which an authority may charge for the issue or re-issue of a badge; and

(b) as to the continuing validity or effect of badges issued before the coming into force of this section in pursuance of any scheme having effect under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 or any similar scheme having effect in Scotland; and

(c) as to any transitional matters, and in particular the application to badges issued under this section of orders made before it comes into force and operating with reference to any such badges as are referred to in paragraph (b) above (being orders made, or having effect as if made, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967).

(8) The local authorities for purposes of this section shall be the common council of the City of London, the council of a county or county borough in England or Wales or of a London borough and the council of a county or large burgh in Scotland; and in this section 'motor vehicle' has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967.
(9) This section shall come into operation on such date as the Minister of Transport and Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause fulfils the undertaking I gave in Committee on April 30, when the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, withdrew their clauses on the same theme. Basically, the clause embodies a scheme for identifying disabled drivers and disabled passengers and their vehicles by a special badge. The badge will be issued by local authorities in Great Britain on application and on proof of disablement of a character which the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State will define in regulations. It also provides that badges may be issued to institutions concerned with the care of the disabled for use on their vehicles when they are being used to convey disabled people about. These matters are provided for in subsections (1) to (4). As in the present Yellow Badge scheme, the badge will convey no privilege in itself. The intention is that regulations will be made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 which will provide for types of exemption from parking and waiting restrictions to be adopted by local authorities in their traffic regulation orders in respect of vehicles displaying the badge at the time. And it is made clear in subsection (1)(b) of the clause that these regulations can be used to secure for the purpose of the exemptions
1104
the recognition by one authority of badges issued by another. Subsection (5) requires local authorities to maintain a register of disabled persons and vehicles for whom badges are issued, and subsection (7) provides for various formal matters to be covered by regulations to be made under the clause.
If your Lordships approve the clause the intention will be to begin consultations with the organisations for the disabled, the local authority associations and the police over the content of the regulations to be made under the clause and those to be made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act. The consultations will be conducted by the Ministry of Transport, who are taking over from the Department of Social Security the main responsibility for work in relation to disabled drivers and passengers. I commend the clause to your Lordships. It provides in law for matters hitherto dealt with mainly by administration and extends their scope notably in providing for statutory recognition of the needs of disabled passengers. I beg to move.
LORD NAPIER OF ETTRICK: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for what he has just said. This is entirely satisfactory.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I be allowed to direct my noble friend's attention particularly to the form that this badge might take? I would suggest that it should not be, as in the case of badges issued by some local authorities, merely a piece of paper displayed on the windscreen of a car, and that consideration might be given to adopting a form of badge which could be either luminous or illuminated and displayed also on the rear of a car. I suggest this because cases have occurred where a disabled patient, returning on his own from a long journey far from his home, has been overcome by fatigue, or, for other reasons, has been delayed in his arrival home, so that after nightfall, the slow pace at which he was travelling and his own condition of exhaustion might render him a possible accident hazard. It would be to the advantage of everyone concerned if the form of badge could be such that it could be illuminated or luminous at night.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, this clause dealing with badges gives advantages to disabled people, but it has

1105
crossed my mind that these badges may be in demand from spurious clients, rather like the C.D. plates which I am told are used by people who are nothing to do with the Diplomatic Service. So obviously the local authorities will have to keep their issue under very tight control. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Hughes who in the local authority is to decide who comes in the category of being eligible for one of these badges.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, having put Amendments down at Committee stage on this subject, I am pleased to support this new Amendment. A great deal of work has been done by the Ministry of Transport in a short time, and over this problem of parking they have been most helpful. This will be the first time the disabled passenger, who generally has even more problems than the disabled driver, has been recognised. It should give them encouragment for the future. At least it is a start. From one Scot to another, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords I think the least that one of the promoters of the Bill like myself can say is "Thank you" heartily to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am very grateful for the welcome which has been given to this Amendment. It remains for me to refer to only two points; first of all, the point put by my noble friend Lord Segal about badges. I will certainly make certain that that expression of view is drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend, the Minister. The answer to the query raised by my noble friend Lord Raglan is that the categories of disabled people eligible for the badge will be set out in the regulations, and the local authority issuing the badge will do so in consultation with the welfare officer and with the medical officer of health.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I should explain, and apologise for the fact, that the Amendment printed on the Marshalled List refers incorrectly to Section 19 when it should refer to Section 20, and I wish
1106
to move the Amendment in this corrected form. It is purely a drafting Amendment denoting the particular clauses which extend to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 26, after ("provided") insert ("by sections 7, 12 and 20").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8 without the reference to the improvement of access to local authorities' buildings open to the public. The purpose of this Amendment is to draw attention to clauses for which an appointed day provision will operate and to make provision for the coming into force of the remainder of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) This Act shall come into force as follows:—

(a) sections 1 and (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons) shall come into force on the day appointed thereunder;

(b) sections 4, 5, 6 ('signs at buildings complying with sections 4–6'), and ('access to, and facilities at, university and school buildings') shall come into force at the expiration of six months beginning with the date this Act is passed;

(c) the remainder shall come into force at the expiration of three months beginning with that date.")—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of May 18):
5.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I hope it will be convenient if I move this Motion formally and reserve my few remarks, which will be very few, for the end.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Longford.)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD AILWYN): The Question is, That this Bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; the contrary, "Not Content". The Contents have it.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry: we have not achieved quite the purpose I was seeking. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass, and I hope that I can move this formally, giving noble Lords an opportunity, of which I know many wish to take advantage, to say a few words.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Longford.)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Question is, That this Bill do now pass. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; the contrary, "Not Content". The Contents have it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope that the House does realise that I was trying to provide an opportunity for noble Lords to say a few words at the last stage. The procedure is peculiar, but I cannot believe that it can have shut out speakers.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, would it not have been in order for noble Lords to do that on Third Reading?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it would have been, but it was put to the House and carried without an opportunity being given. Let us just pause for a moment. I said it would perhaps be convenient if I moved the Third Reading formally and then reserved my remarks to the end, leaving it to noble Lords to say a few words—and I know that a number of noble Lords wished, and still wish, to say a few words. At that moment I assumed noble Lords would offer their thoughts.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I have no power, as your Lordships know, on the Woolsack to do other than my duty, to put the Question, That the Bill do now pass. I waited for noble Lords to speak and nobody spoke. Therefore the Bill has now passed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, on a point of order, I have never known this in 25 years in the House. It was a perfectly simple situation. I cannot believe that the House would wish to shut out a number of speakers. I moved the Motion formally and gave an opportunity to noble Lords to speak; and I think that some of our friends speaking from a sitting position were waiting for a spokesman on the Opposition
1108
Bench to say a few words. In that slight hiatus the noble Lord on the Woolsack deemed the Motion to be carried. But I would put it to your Lordships that the House would be making a laughing stock of itself if it said there could be no discussion. I must ask the acting Leader, the noble Baroness, to give us some guidance. I cannot believe that the House wishes to shut out comment.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the noble Earl has far more experience than I have in regard to the procedure of the House. I can only say that, if the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker says that the Bill has passed then it has. I, too, wished to speak on Third Reading, but I was waiting for noble Lords who have taken an active part in the debate on the Bill to speak first; and that is why I did not leap up and speak. Once the Bill has passed I am in some difficulty about advising the House to reopen the discussion.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I make a suggestion? Obviously, we cannot speak on this Bill after it has passed, but the House is very tolerant of departures from the strict letter of the Standing Orders, and it seems to me that all that is desired is that there should be some expression of views about the Bill. I do not think it would outrage our procedure as much as speaking after the Bill has passed if noble Lords and noble Baronesses speaking on the next Bill referred to things which they wanted to say on this Bill.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, would it not be possible, as there are noble Lords and Ladies with disability, and probably not quite so acquainted with the rules of the House, on this occasion to ask the noble Lord on the Woolsack to put the Question, That the Bill do now pass, again, and then any noble Lord or Lady who wished to would be able to say a few words?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I did not hear whether the Question was actually put. It is a serious point.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope that the House will follow the last suggestion and will allow a few comments on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, perhaps you can put the blame on us four who could not leap to our feet. I should like to take advantage of the opportunity offered by my fellow Scot to say a few words. Since the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill has been in this House it has given me great pleasure to be so closely associated with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the sponsor of the Bill. The noble Earl has great human under standing of the difficulties of many people in society; and I do not think this Bill could have been in better hands. Many people throughout this country have been watching this Bill, as it refers to their problems or the problems associated with them in some way. I have heard it said that some of the Amendments discussed in this House have been the most important points made. I personally think that the clause dealing with people who are in institutions——
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? I am very sorry, but we are now entirely out of Order. It is unfortunate that these things sometimes happen, but it would be quite wrong for any Member of your Lordships' House to make a further speech after the Bill had passed all its stages and there is no Motion before the House which would enable them to do so. I do not wish to deprive those who have laboured so hard on this Bill, but I do not think I could recommend the House to permit further speeches. It is a matter for the House, but I think it would be the view of the House that this would be wrong.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord was not present when this discussion commenced. The truth is that nobody intended this result. It was arrived at, if I may say so with the greatest respect to the noble Lord on the Woolsack, because he put the Motion and announced the Bill as being passed, when no one quite realised what was happening.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Well, that was so. There really is no doubt about it. I had previously explained to the noble Baroness that I proposed formally to move the Motion. A number of noble
1110
Lords wanted to speak, and I thought it better that they should speak first and that I should say a few words in conclusion. To be frank, this situation has arisen because the noble Lord on the Woolsack announced that the Bill had passed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I agree that I was not present, but I fear that I cannot always be present when the House slips a bit. I have been advised (and there seems to be a degree of consensus among those who were here) that both the Motion, That the Bill be read a third time, and the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, were properly put.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SHACKLETON: Whatever the noble Lord may have intended, it is his responsibility to rise at the proper moment. I have no power to forbid the noble Earl to speak, and I hope that we shall end this exercise in an amicable fashion. But I sense from both sides of the House that there is a feeling that, perhaps through inadvertence or failure to hear, the Question was properly put. I would ask the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, or the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who were here, to shed some light on this matter. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen—
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, may I reply to the noble Lord the Leader of the House? I was here, and in both cases the Question was properly put; there is no doubt about that. The only query in my mind is whether, as there are some noble Lords and Ladies here who are not able quickly enough to catch the eye of the noble Lord on the Woolsack, we might ask him to put the Question again. I have indicated this approach already.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while we all accept the ruling of my noble friend the Leader of the House, may I make a submission? The majority of your Lordships are able to indicate their desire to speak by rising to their feet, but in certain instances this is not possible. Some other means ought to be accepted—perhaps by the raising of a hand, or in some other way—to indicate that a Member who is unable to rise to his or her feet wishes to speak. This is perhaps a deficiency in the accepted Rules of the House

1111
which might be taken account of, and some slight variation made in exceptional circumstances.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I fully accept everything that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said. I personally was not here, but I have been advised that the Questions were properly put. However, I think that there has been a genuine misunderstanding and I am wondering whether we might ask the noble Lord on the Woolsack to be good enough to put the Question again, so that those noble Lords and Ladies who wish to make speeches should be able to do so.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that that is a helpful suggestion. I am bound to say to my noble friend Lord Longford that it was really for him, had he wished, to continue the debate at the correct point, and it is no good his saying that he was reserving his position. It is important to appreciate that noble friends who have fought so valiantly, and whose performances we so greatly admire, find it more difficult to catch the eye of the noble Lord for the time being on the Woolsack. But of course it is not merely a question of rising to one's feet, but rather one of speaking up. I suffered through a failure to get to my feet at the right moment on what was to be my maiden speech in another place, on the Motion, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair". I was a young Member, and everybody else was rather young. I did not get to my feet; the Speaker left the Chair and there was no debate at all. That lesson has bitten deeply into my soul. It emphasises (though I do not wish to be too pontifical) that one needs to know the procedure in your Lordships' House. However, I think that this is an unusual situation. I can see that it would be particularly desirable that the Question should be put again and, if the noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack feels that he can now again put the Motion, "That the Bill do now pass", this would enable noble Lords to speak.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Question is, That this Bill do now pass.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, before we go further, perhaps I may be allowed to express my thanks to
1112
the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and gladly accept any blame for any misunderstanding there may have been.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, may I say just a word or two at this point? I feel that we have had a wonderful selection committee on this Bill. I think the selection committee did very well when they chose the captain in another place. They did equally well when they chose the captain in your Lordships' House. The team has consisted partly of helpers in this House and partly of helpers outside, perhaps not very experienced in their task. We have bowled an occasional no-ball, but I think that it has been a most successful team. I look forward very much to the next match. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, our captain in this House, who has had the difficult responsibility of having to decide, with half an eye on the clock, when to declare the innings closed. I think he has done a wonderful job.
5.18 p.m.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, as this Bill has progressed through its various stages, first in another place and then in this House, one theme has recurred insistently: information. There have been demands for new information and demands that existing information be more effectively given out. We have a good many clauses on information in this Bill which are most welcome—information on welfare services, on research and development, on special educational facilities for deaf-blind, autistic and dyslexic children. I regret, however, that many proposed clauses and Amendments relating to information have not been accepted. I particularly regret the failure to include the clause on improved information from the Department of Health and Social Security to prescribers. Lack of information from the Department to prescribing authorities on the full range of equipment available is in many cases preventing the disabled person from getting the most up-to-date equipment, or resulting in his being issued with one type of equipment when an alternative model would have been better suited to his needs. Several pieces of equipment that could be of great value receive but a brief mention in the foreword of the handbook

1113
issued by the Department. It is most regrettable that there is equipment available which can be issued by the Department, and yet for some reason no one is told about it.
I greatly welcome the broadening of the scope of the annual report on research and development planned in Clause 19, and I hope most sincerely that it will not be limited in the way that the handbooks to prescribers are. I also regret the exclusion of the new clause on information on domiciliary physiotherapy which could have been of great value to many disabled people. There has been an equally loud and persistent demand for improvements in the scheme for helping the disabled towards outdoor mobility. Nearly all attempts to include new clauses relating to mobility have failed. However, it may be that the very welcome Clause 18, which allows powered wheelchairs and "Emma" trolleys on pavements, may encourage more severely disabled people to escape from the confines of their homes. This small taste of freedom may encourage them to clamour for further freedom of movement. The noble Baroness, the Minister, reminded us during Committee stage that the Government do not have to legislate in order to increase the categories of people eligible for vehicles. I very much hope that they will soon see their way to extending the scope for these categories, and that in the meantime some way can be found to give the disabled passenger some financial help towards outdoor mobility.
It is with the greatest possible enthusiasm that I welcome to-day's new clause on parking, which is an important first step towards helping the disabled passenger. It was disturbing that, until to-day, those most in need of help were given none whatsoever. A disabled person with a progressive disease, or who, for some other reason, suffered a deterioration in his physical condition, forfeited all assistance towards outdoor mobility once he was too disabled to drive his invalid tricycle. All financial help still depends on the disabled person being able to drive 'himself. In another place, the Joint Under-Secretary of State summarised the policy as,
"restoring to an individual as much personal physical mobility as it is possible to provide."
1114
Surely this principle is outdated and we need to review the whole policy. Surely it must be possible to provide a solution that does not penalise whole families While purporting to help the individual. The disabled, in common with their able-bodied fellows, are members of families. The disabled mother has children to transport and care for, the disabled passenger has a husband or wife, or constant attendant. Their lives are being made more difficult; they and their families are being cut off from society, and in many cases the more severely disabled, although quite capable of holding a job, are prevented from doing one by lack of transport.
Closely allied to the mobility theme is that of access. I welcome most warmly the clauses dealing with access and facilities suitable to the disabled, and in particular to-day's new clause concerning places of education. But there is one startling omission—that is, access to, and facilities in, places of employment, such as factories, offices, et cetera. So lack of transport in certain cases, and lack of facilities and access, are still to prevent the disabled from going out and earning their livings and paying their income tax. In fact, the whole question of employment has featured very little in this Bill. I feel that a greater effort should be made to train the physically disabled for work suited to them. There is still too much emphasis on workshop work: in most cases of physical disablement by accident or disease the brain is not affected, and surely a physically disabled person with a need to compensate mentally should be encouraged to use his brain. I feel that this lack of reference to employment is a serious error. I, too, have seen figures which prove conclusively that: unemployment among the disabled is increasing yearly. A disabled person who cannot work and cannot contribute to the community loses his self-respect. I believe that this is a problem which must be tackled very soon.
I hope I have not sounded too critical of this Bill. On Second Reading I welcomed it as being humane and extensive. I still think it is humane and extensive—indeed, a little more so than when it arrived in this House. And here I should like to thank your Lordships for having listened so kindly and so attentively, and for so long, to the views of the "mobile

1115
Bench". This Bill will be of enormous value to the chronically sick and disabled, but we must not sit back and congratulate ourselves on having achieved the ultimate in their rehabilitation. Rehabilitation has many facets. It means being as active and independent as possible, certainly, but it also means holding down a steady job, a worthwhile job; looking after a family; contributing to society; leading a full and satisfying life. You do not fully rehabilitate a person by providing him with a job but no transport to get him there. Equally it is no use providing him with access to a place of work if he has not been trained to do the job. Much must be put into rehabilitation, but the debt will be more than repaid in many ways by a truly rehabilitated person—financially, socially, and domestically. He and his whole family, and indeed the community will benefit beyond measure. We must realise that we still have a long way to go, but I hail this Bill as a big step, a vital step, towards the true reintegration of the disabled into the able-bodied world.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships very long—some of you may be getting a little restless. However, I also should like to give my thanks to everybody who has supported and discussed this measure. I think that this very fact has given great encouragement to disabled people. In saying that, I want to pay my tribute to all the associations for the disabled who have followed this Bill so carefully through Parliament. Your Lordships will see that this "mobile Bench" is not the only one; we have another one over my right shoulder. I should like to thank them very much—the group known as Access for the Disabled, and the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, have been gleaning a tremendous amount of information, and their close attention has been most welcome to us and most valuable.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I have found it most interesting to see the two Front Benches supporting each other over this Bill. The Bill deals with many different aspects. It has had to be rushed through in this House, and much is being left untouched. I hope that this is a start for much progress in this field in the future.
5.27 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am sure it would not be the wish of the House that I should use this particular occasion, when we are considering the last stage of this Bill, to add substantially to the many hundreds of thousands of words that have been spoken about it, both in Parliament and outside. By any criteria, I think one will judge it as a remarkable Private Member's Bill; remarkable in its length for a Private Member's Bill, and remarkable for its scope, and also perhaps most remarkable for the enthusiasm which it has received both inside and outside Parliament.
There have been occasions when Ministers have had to utter words of warning, and indeed have had to advise the House that certain lines of thought should not be pursued at the present time, but I can assure your Lordships that these particular objections have not been to the objectives of the Bill but to the practical and legal considerations, and I believe both Houses have accepted them in that spirit. The Bill is also, as the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, has just reminded us, a remarkable one in that all sides of the House have had the constructive help, the wisdom and, I would say, restraint from many who have been active in the fields of voluntary service. Many of them have freely given much of their time to the promoters of this Bill. It has also been remarkable in its sponsors. Mr. Alfred Morris and his colleagues in another place will always have the honour of having conceived and fostered the Bill, and they are indebted in this House to the noble Earl, Lord Longford and the many Peers who have helped him steer the Bill through until this moment of time.
This, of course, like all Bills, is only the beginning. There is much work to be done, and I hope the House will credit the Government with the will to get on with it, if only for the fact that the Government have already done so much work on this Bill. The honourable Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Mr. Ashley, speaking on the Third Reading in another place, had a phrase for this when he said:
"The Government have leaned over backwards to give every conceivable assistance to this measure. … All the work which has been put in by the Government has not been visible. It has been like a duck's feet. They have been paddling away like mad. but the

1117
work has not been visible in the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 20/3/1970; col. 926.]
I was not quite sure, when I read the account of the debates in another place, whether my honourable friend on that occasion was thinking of Ministerial effort or bureaucratic effort. I certainly hope it was both, because I know—and I think colleagues here who have shared responsibility for this Bill on the Government Front Bench will agree—that all Departments have worked hard. We are deeply grateful to Parliamentary Counsel and our legal and other professional staff, who have worked together so hard to see this Bill through to the Statute Book.
In some respects our deliberations in recent days have been a little rushed, but, speaking now as an individual, I make no complaint of that, because I am anxious to get the Bill on the Statute Book; and your Lordships, I hope, will have moved towards this to-day. But none has worked so hard on the Bill as (he handicapped themselves. To my mind, it is their Bill, and it is the Bill of those who have represented them. As we know, it is largely of their designing and, as I said on Second Reading, it carries a message to all of us who are entrusted with the task of providing services for the handicapped; namely, that we should take special care. Your Lordships' House has taken this message so much to heart today that, in fact, we shall be passing the Bill twice rather than the customary once.
5.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I believe that the whole House can take pride in a Bill which, as the noble Baroness has said, will always be associated with its creator, Mr. Alf Morris; and, as she also said, it can fairly be looked upon as the Bill of the handicapped themselves, both inside and outside this House. Here, as elsewhere, it has been entirely a non-Party, or an all-Party, effort and in that sense I pay equal tribute to all concerned. But one must especially thank the Ministers, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and including the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. One thanks them individually for their very
1118
great and genuine sympathy, and for their very hard work. One also thanks the Government for making the time available under these peculiar and difficult circumstances. When it comes to Parliamentary time, it is generally understood that the Opposition must concur with the Government for an arrangement to be reached, and therefore we thank all elements in the Opposition, particularly the leaders.
The most moving champions here have naturally been those who have spoken from wheelchairs. When I pressed for an opportunity for a few final words, I was not aware that one or two of them were going to pay a tribute to me: that was certainly not my object in getting a few words on the Record. But if we reflect on the performance of the handicapped in this House, we can fairly say that it is an example to everyone, and in particular it will have encouraged the handicapped and strengthened them, not only in this country but, when the news reaches them, all over the world. As has been said, this Bill, like other human things, is imperfect, and the circumstances have prevented as full a discussion as would no doubt otherwise have taken place. But we have had a very full discussion in the existing situation, and we are aware that the Government have done all they could in the time available, and in the financial situation, to meet the points that have been raised. There are no doubt matters which we should have pressed still harder (if there had not been the question of time, there was one this afternoon), but I need not go into them now. There will, I am sure, some time or other—and I hope sooner rather than later—be another Bill. Meanwhile there will be a duty on the Government, which I hope and believe they will fulfil, to interpret this Bill as humanely and liberally as possible, and there will be a duty on everyone else to exert a constant and legitimate pressure and to educate public opinion. However, all that lies in the future. Sufficient unto the day is the good thereof. I believe that there is great good and great hope in this Bill, and I believe that the whole House can rejoice in its passing.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES BILL
5.34 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Local authority to establish social services committee]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: In view of the pressure on Parliamentary time, we on this side shall not move any of the Amendments which we would have moved had time permitted. But I hope the Committee will agree that it would be right and convenient to say a word or two here and there on this important Bill, so as not to indicate, by saying nothing, that we under-value it. I have indicated to the Chairman and to the Minister of State a number of clauses on which we wish to say a few words, and the first is Clause 2, in connection with the establishment of social work committees in each of the local authorities set out in Clause 1.
The object of my intervention on this clause is to ask the noble Baroness whether she is able to confirm that the mandatory obligations, which are set out, as it were, baldly in this clause, are required merely for setting up the new unified service, and that they are not generally intended to continue indefinitely, and certainly not beyond the reform of local government, when that comes and in whatever form it comes. That is the only object of my intervention on this clause, and I should be grateful for the observations of the noble Baroness.
BARONESS SEROTA: May I first of all, at the outset of the Committee stage, thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford,
1120
and other Peers for the way they have agreed to facilitate the progress of this very important Bill though the House, in order that it may receive the Royal Assent in the life of this Parliament. The Government are very grateful for their help and co-operation.
The point which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has raised was touched on in our Second Reading debate, and I know that it also concerned the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. It has been, and still is, the view of the Government that the integration of the range of personal social services in local government, which are at present divided between children's welfare and certain aspects of the local authority health committee, requires a statutory framework now. This does not necessarily mean that a statutory requirement will always be needed, if it can be shown at some time in the future that integration, the object of this Bill, is firmly established.
I said on Second Reading, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that I could not put a time limit on this possibility. It is a matter that was considered by the Seebohm Committee and was mentioned in their Report. I can only say that this Government, and any other Government, would clearly wish to look at developments and to consider whether the requirements of this Bill were being met, and would make decisions in the light of the way in which the services were working. But whether, and when, such a review would be undertaken, and whether any modifications would result from it, are matters which it is difficult to judge at this moment and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will expect me to try to do so.
LORD SANDFORD: May I try once more to draw the noble Baroness a little further? I agree with her that it is impossible to set a calendar time limit to the operation of these mandatory obligations, but can she not say that it would be most unlikely that they would need to continue beyond the reform of local government, because it seems to me that the Government's proposals for local Government reform would be totally inconsistent with the continuation of this kind of legislation?
BARONESS SEROTA: The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can draw me to this

1121
point: that the timing of future amending legislation which would be designed to modify these requirements might or might not coincide with local government reform when it is brought forward. But I would say this—and it might perhaps bring the noble Lord some comfort. It would obviously be natural, when legislation on the reform of local government is brought forward, that the Government at that time should look at the statutory provisions regarding the internal organisation of local authorities and not only those which affect the particular services we are now considering under this Bill.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Business of social services committee]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: If the Committee is agreeable to this procedure, I should now like to turn to two matters on Clause 3 to which I should like to give an airing. This clause is to do with the business of the social service committee. Several of us have said, and a large number of bodies outside your Lordships' House have said, that we deplore the absence of any coherent expression of the committee's overall duties. This clause relies, instead, on a whole catalogue in Schedule 1 of the existing functions which are transferred to it. All I really want to do is to put on record the fact that if such a clause as is in the Social Work (Scotland) Act is right for Scotland—and it seems to be—we are quite unconvinced by the argument so far brought forward in support of the case that it is not appropriate for England or Wales. In our view, such a clause is certainly needed as yeast to leaven this rather stodgy lump of dough, to provide not so much any new functions but scope for new approaches, new ways of undertaking the work—preventive work, experiments and greater participation by the citizens concerned. We cannot let this Bill go through without recording our regret that it has not been possible to do for England and Wales something which was so obviously necessary when we were dealing with Scotland.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am not unfamiliar with the point of view that the noble Lord has just expressed. This
1122
matter was discussed in some detail in another place, and it has also been the subject of considerable discussion and debate generally. The noble Lord is aware, I am sure, that the reason why the Bill does not in fact amend the functions of local authorities in the way that he suggested—by including powers which confer on them a general duty to promote social welfare—is that we have always seen this Local Authority Social Services Bill as primarily a machinery Bill. The noble Lord will, I am sure, also be aware that in the wide-ranging consultations which the Government have undertaken in the past year on the reform of local government, on the reorganisation of the health services and on the implementation of the Seebohm Report, there were very strong pressures on the Government to delay legislation on the recommendations of the Seebohm Committee to coincide with the legislation on those other matters.
The Government took the view, for reasons which we touched on at Second Reading. that there was an urgent need to legislate in this field. I believe that that was the right decision; and I am delighted that they took the decision at the time they did and submitted the Bill so that, with co-operation to-day, we shall be able to move forward to Royal Assent in the life of this Parliament. Therefore, it had primarily to be a Bill which implemented the essential recommendations of the Seebohm Committee in relation to the organisation of the local authority social services. In this sense it is different from the Social Work (Scotland) Act. But we are, of course, also legislating, as the noble Lord will be aware, for a somewhat different position from that obtaining at the time when my noble friend Lord Hughes steered the Social Work (Scotland) Bill through this House.
I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord. I am very conscious that it does not meet his particular point, but its seems to me that he is trying to have it both ways. We have just had a discussion about not making certain requirements of this Bill mandatory because there are those who in fact dislike any practice whereby central Government is appearing to dictate to local government—and that feeling I can well understand, having myself spent many years in the

1123
services of a local authority. Now, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is saying that we must tell them that they must do more than they are already doing. I expressed the view on Second Reading that, with the passing of two major pieces of legislation since the publication of the Seebohm Report, the responsibilities and the duties of the new social services departments following the passing of this Bill will be very wide indeed—in the view of the Government, as wide as is needed at this moment of time and in the light of the resources available (and here I mean skilled manpower as well as money) to undertake the kind of work the Seebohm Committee envisaged the comprehensive social services departments would carry out. So I hope that the noble Lord, having made his point, will accept that at this moment of time it was right and proper to legislate in this way, and that the time may well come in the future when the point he has made can be looked at generally in the light of the situation at that time.
LORD SANDFORD: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, and I am certainly not going to press her any further. I know how well she knows the history of the point that we are discussing, and I have a shrewd suspicion that if she was still a member of the Seebohm Committee and not a member of the Government she would have signed the recommendation that I am now supporting.
May I now turn to another matter; namely, education welfare? This is attached, as it were, to this clause because if it were carried out under a statutory function—and of course I appreciate that it is not—it would be one of the things which, unless this Bill permitted, could not be transferred subsequently to the social work committee. All I would ask the Minister of State to do is to agree, if she would, with what the Seebohm Report said, which amounted to saying, rather more generously and courteously, that here we really do have a second-class service. This is no fault of the people who serve in it and who make it up, and there are very many notable exceptions to this general criticism. But the Seebohm Committee made the criticism, and it is in the experience of many who are concerned in various ways with
1124
the social work services that this service is a good way behind. I appreciate the reasons which have been given as to why the education welfare service cannot be transferred, in the way that other services can, to the social work committee; namely, because it has no statutory basis. I accept that. Nevertheless, unless an initiative is taken—and I believe it must in the first place come from Her Majesty's Government—this service will continue to be less than satisfactory (and that is putting it mildly), and, as the new social work department grows, this one will decline; and a slowly withering away service is the last thing we want.
At the Committee stage of this Bill in another place the noble Baroness's right honourable friend, Mrs. Shirley Williams, at column 101, indicated that consultations were now in hand—I think with the Department of Education and Science, but it may be with the local authorities or with both—to expedite the process whereby this service can be put on a proper basis as soon as the legislation we are dealing with has been enacted. Can the noble Baroness say, before moving away from this clause, how those consultations are proceeding, what fruit they have borne so far, if any, and what other initiatives are contemplated or in hand in this field?
BARONESS SEROTA: This is an area within this general field to which the Government attach great importance. The reason for there being no express reference to education welfare in the Bill in those terms is that the services which are to be administered by the social services committees are available to schools and schoolchildren without further legislation. Local Authority functions under the Childrens and Young Persons Act 1963 are assigned to the social services committee by the inclusion of this Act in Schedule 1 to the Bill, and Section 1 of that Act, as the noble Lord knows, confers wide powers to promote the welfare of children and their families. The Government feel that how far schools avail themselves of such services is not a matter for legislation but a matter for local arrangement and discussion. This is a service of great importance if we are to see continuity of care and support for families and for children as they grow up through their various ages and stages.

1125
The Seebohm Committee attached great importance to the integration of the social work aspect of what we call the education welfare services in the new social services departments. I am afraid that at this moment I cannot add much to what my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office said in the later stages of the debate in another place, but I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will promote the discussions to which he referred between the authorities concerned bearing in mind that there are certain problems.
Thinking ahead towards the reorganisation of local government, there are clearly special arrangements which will need to be made in this field as, in metropolitan areas, education will be in the top tier of local government (as set out in the Government's recent White Paper) and local authority social services departments are to be in the second tier. There are particular problems for particular areas. I can assure the Committee that the Government will proceed with these discussions. We sympathise with the objective of disengaging social work elements, which sometimes at the moment is provided by education staffs, in such a way that the members of the staff engaged on such work would become members of the community-based team, which is also responsible for the work arising from the social service functions defined in this Bill.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Joint committees and subcommittees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.53 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: May I, on this clause dealing with joint committees and sub-committees, raise a further question—different from the one raised at Second Reading—about district sub-committees? The noble Baroness will agree that the basic unit of the new service as seen by the Seebohm Committee is the area team of social workers, a group of 12 professional social workers, ideally operating under one roof, serving one district with a population of between 50,000 and 100,000 people, so that there is certain
1126
to be a number of such teams in a number of such districts within each local authority area, even under the present local authorities and certainly under the new unitary authorities that are foreseen.
While making it quite plain that my own Party are not in any way committed either to the Maud Report or to the proposals in the Government White Paper on the Maud Report, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she can say anything about the use to which the Government propose to put the suggestions outlined in paragraph 52 of the White Paper dealing with district committees in the context of reformed local government, which it would seem to me, whatever other advantages or disadvantages they may have, would provide an ideal framework for the new area teams? Does she envisage any experiments on such a pattern being undertaken or encouraged when this Bill has been passed and between the time of its coming into force and further proposals being brought before Parliament for the reform of local government? It seems to me that it would be useful if the new area teams, as they come into being, could operate within the framework proposed in paragraph 52 of the White Paper, so that we could see how the system might work. It seems difficult to apply this across the board over the whole country until there has been some experiments. This would seem to be a particularly good opportunity for conducting them.
BARONESS SEROTA: As the noble Lord said, the White Paper looked forward to a series of district committees appointed by the new unitary local authorities on which members of the proposed local councils would serve as of right. I reminded the House on Second Reading that the proposal in the second Green Paper on National Health Service reorganisation envisaged that the new area health authorities, which will parallel the new unitary local authorities, would be appointing district sub-committees to enable residents in the local community immediately concerned to participate in the running of their integrated district health services. The necessity for local participation in local government generally, and in the health and personal social services, is one which I think everyone now recognises and accepts; and I have

1127
no doubt that the social services committee constituted by this Bill will be anxious to secure as much participation as possible. They will therefore consider, among all the other measures they will be considering in the immediate period ahead, the establishment of district sub-committees. As some noble Lords are aware, there are some parts of the country where children's committees have district or area committees of the kind we contemplate. In the pre-London Government reorganisation era, the L.C.C. Children's Committee worked through three district committees which consisted partly of members of the main committee and partly of members from those districts.
I have noted the point that the noble Lord made about experiments, and the fact that one would like to see developments of this kind in the interim period. Clearly, the pattern is bound to vary in different parts of the country. I have no doubt that the pattern will vary between rural areas and urban areas, and perhaps between some regions of the country and others. So I think that this is the way forward. We see a relationship with the Maud White Paper, and we will certainly take note of the noble Lord's point about the need for development and experiment in advance of local government reform.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [The director of social services]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: May I raise a question on this clause which is concerned with the appointment of the director of social services in each local authority area? The Secretary of State (we can come later to the question of which one it is going to be) has taken power under this clause to veto the appointment of this director. I think there is a general understanding that the vesting in the Minister of this power of veto is a necessary measure for effecting the first appointments, and justified for that purpose; but probably fully justified only for that limited and single purpose. Certainly one would want to see the stage at which this power is vested
1128
personally in the Minister superseded as soon as possible by one under which the appointment is made subject to regulations yet to be prescribed. The first thing, I think, that we should like to hear from the noble Baroness is when such regulations are likely to come into operation to supersede the temporary and rather unsatisfactory arrangement which will, perforce, apply over the period when the first directors are appointed.
Secondly, may I again try to draw her on to confirm that the present intention of the Government is that powers such as these, together with powers such as those in Clause 2, will be considered as quite inappropriate after local government has been reformed, if such reforms are on anything like the lines proposed by the Maud Report and set out in the Government's own White Paper?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am not sure whether I can tell the noble Lord at this moment just when the regulations will be ready. I can only assure him that we intend, once the Bill has received the Royal Assent—and even in advance of that—to move as fast and as far towards change as we reasonably can. In the meantime, we have made considerable progress, in consultation with local authorities, and with their very willing co-operation, to the point where the interdepartmental social work group which will assist local authorities in these matters is in touch with a considerable number of them about their first appointments. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no delay. We shall proceed with the regulations as soon as possible.
I am afraid that my answer to his second point will not be quite so satisfactory as I can only say to him, as I said to him in the general question of the statutory provision in relation to the setting up of social services committees, that the same considerations apply to the statutory conditions affecting the appointment of the director of social services. I do not think that the Government could possibly commit themselves to any specific date, nor necessarily to the implementation of general local government reform itself. I can only repeat that it will be for any Government to review and assess the progress of the services and decide in the fullness of time, whether or not this requirement needs to remain statutory.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Local authorities to exercise social services functions under guidance of Secretary of State]:
6.3 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 18, at end insert—
("The foregoing provision is without prejudice to subsection (2) of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which excludes arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) of the said section 2 and certain other arrangements from the requirement that arrangements made by a local authority under section 29 of the said Act of 1948 shall be carried into effect in accordance with a scheme made thereunder).")
The noble Baroness said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 1, I speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 which hang together with it. I should point out immediately that the Amendments to this Bill refer to clauses in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill which the House has just passed, and that these references will have to be changed now that we have added certain new clauses to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill. Amendments 1, 6 and 11 are technical. I am not sure whether the Committee would be prepared to agree them "on the nod", but if there are any questions that noble Lords would like to ask about them I shall be very happy to explain further. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I certainly do not want to press the noble Baroness in any detail on any of these Amendments, and I sympathise with the difficulty which she is in, with this Bill and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill going through Parliament simultaneously at the speed at which they are travelling. I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: Before we move on from this clause I should be grateful of an opportunity to say a word about the manner of the guidance which the Secretary of State will give local authorities in the exercise of these new functions, and to comment on the process of unification
1130
at central Government level which is distinguished by its absence. Instead of a single Secretary of State, which was one of the central recommendations of the Seebohm Committee's Report, we still have a multiplicity of Secretaries of State. There are varied opinions, inside and outside Government, about which Minister should be responsible for this new service, but I would judge that there is near unanimity outside about a preference for one Minister rather than a multiplicity, whoever the Minister might be.
Until this stage of the single-Minister responsible for the whole service has been reached, it will in my view be quite impossible to move towards the strong central guidance which the new service obviously needs, and more particularly so on its initiation and launching than later on. While this central issue remains unsettled, the general responsibilities of central Government and the recommendations on that; the question of a central Government inspectorate and the question of a new single advisory council to advise Ministers in this field will, I submit, hang fire. I do not want to show any disrespect or lack of appreciation for the inter-departmental group that is carrying out the functions that need to be carried out in the meantime, but I am sure the noble Baroness would not attempt to say that this group anywhere meets the recommendations which the Seebohm Committee, of which she was a distinguished member, make about the steps to be taken at central Government level.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am not surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, speak in the terms in which he has spoken. The Bill before the Committee to-day provides only for the reorganisation of certain services at local operational level. I should like to make clear (because I think that there has been some misunderstanding about this) that the Bill is not in itself designed as an interim arrangement, but it does come into force in what the Government regard as an interim situation, when, as we all know, further changes in the organisation of the National Health Service and local government are in prospect. Therefore, as a deliberate act, we confined the Bill to the essential organisational reforms required to secure the essence of the recommendations of the Seebohm Committee.

1131
Acknowledging that the structure of central Government was outside their terms of reference, the Committee recommended that there should be changes at central Government level corresponding to the changes proposed at local level, and the Government accept that eventually this might be suitable. But, bearing in mind that the changes at local level this Bill provides are only part of the changes in local administration being considered at the moment, the Government have decided that it would not be wise at present to make changes in Whitehall.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, finds this unsatisfactory. I can only say to him that it is an interim situation in which the Government have not prejudged what the central Government organisation should be, and have set up the interdepartmental social work group to which local authorities can apply for help and advice. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services, for Home Affairs and for Wales are working together towards the developments necessary in this field, and that nothing will be done by central Government to impede in any way the progress towards the objectives which we all have in mind.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Protection of interests, etc. of local authority staffs]:
BARONESS SEROTA: This is a minor and technical Amendment to the provisions in Clause 9(2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2) above may be so framed as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision thereof is to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made shall not place any person (other than the person required by the regulations to pay compensation) in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been so framed as to have effect only as from the date on which they are made.")—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Delegation schemes to be revoked, so far as they relate to social services functions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: In subsection (6) of this clause there is a reference to voluntary organisations and the manner in which the new social work department might assist and support them. I hope that this will be interpreted widely and generously, because the voluntary organisations have always had, and will continue to have, a vital and important role to play in the social services; and the establishment of this single, coherent, unified social work department in each local authority and the setting up of the area teams in each district will immensely facilitate their work. I think the Committee will agree that discussion in detail of this whole matter of voluntary organisations in the social services would not be appropriate on this Bill, and certainly not appropriate at this time. But it is a topic to which, if I may suggest it, we might venture to return in your Lordships' House at some later stage, and discuss the role of voluntary organisations and volunteers under the new setting that will be created by the passing of this Bill.
BARONESS SEROTA: The reason why, as the noble Lord has pointed out, the Bill contains only this minor provision in respect of voluntary organisations is that existing law gives local authorities all the necessary powers. We have on a number of occasions in debates in this House been concerned with the development of voluntary organisations and the work of individual volunteers. All see a developing future for voluntary service in relation to social services, and I join with the noble Lord in welcoming an opportunity in the future to discuss this in its wider aspects.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Amendment of Health Visiting and Social Work (Training) Act 1962]:
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.16 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF GRASMERE: I venture to mention a point which I raised in the Second Reading debate. This

1133
clause concerns the two existing Training Councils—the Council for the Training of Health Visitors and the Council for Training in Social Work. I should mention to your Lordships again that I am at the present time Chairman of these two statutory Councils. It is explained in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that Clause 11 facilitates the development of the Council for Training in Social Work in certain ways. It is known to your Lordships, I think, and certainly to the Government, that there is a great deal of concern among those who are interested in community nursing about that side of the work of the two Councils.
Mention of this Council, and all the great thought that has been given to it and the opportunities that are to be taken under this Bill (whether your Lordships will regard it as easy to understand or not), has given a great deal of concern to people concerned with the health visiting services and, more widely, the community nursing service. There are a good many people who feel strongly that the training of community nurses requires re-thinking and that rearrangement needs to be carried out quite as importantly and quite as urgently as the arrangements for the training of social workers. They have read this Bill—whether understandably or not—to mean that the Government are much less interest in health visiting and, more widely. community nursing than they are in social work.
I understand that the Government have had, and are having, a good many discussions about this matter. But I think it would remove a great deal of alarm, and some misunderstanding about the effects of this Bill, if the Government could make some kind of statement making it clear that one important reason why development of the Council concerned with the training of health visitors is not covered by this Bill is not that the Government consider these services less important, or that training in this field is less important, but simply that the present time is not suitable for dealing with this Council in quite the same way as it is to deal with the Council for Training in Social Work.
If they could make clear that they regard the work of the Council for the Training of Health Visitors as important,
1134
and perhaps even mention (what I think they would take perhaps to be obvious, if I am right) that this Statute will not go any way to diminish the status of that Council, I think it would help a great deal. If it were possible for the Government to say something about how far they have got with their discussions in relation to interim arrangements for the training of community nurses, this would give a good deal of relief all round. I venture to mention this again, although the Minister was not able to say anything about it in the Second Reading debate, because there is a lot of trouble about recruitment and some trouble about the staff of the statutory council.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, for giving me an opportunity of doing what I unfortunately failed to do when he made this particular point on Second Reading; namely, to give him and others the assurance that the Government attach the greatest importance to developments in the training of health visitors and community nurses, and to assure him that although this Bill preserves the separation of the Council for Training in Social Work from the Council for Training in Health Visiting, this in no way derogates from the importance that we attach to the training of health visitors. In this Bill we simply provide for the future training of social workers, bringing together the responsibilities of the Council for Training in Social Work, the Council for Training in Probation and After Care, and the Central Council for Training in Child Care.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, is aware of measures we should like to take in the near future to concert our thinking in the health visitor/community nurse field while the Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Asa Briggs, is considering the role and function of the nurse and her education and training for the future integrated Health Service. Clearly we need to make some interim arrangements for the consideration of the important matters that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, has touched upon. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that the Government attach great importance to the training needs of health visitors and community nurses.
LORD MORRIS OF GRASMERE: May I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for the skill with which she has understood what I was trying to say and the great care she has given to her statement? I think the statement as she has now made it—for which I am grateful—will relieve the anxieties of a great number of people.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Citation, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: One of the first of many advantages in having this General Election is that this important and welcome Bill will reach the Statute Book several weeks earlier than expected. I hope that all concerned will use that advantage to good effect. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she would like to say anything about the time programme? I think a date was mentioned at an earlier stage, and I wonder whether there is to be any advance on that. Probably the noble Baroness will not want to be drawn on that subject, but could she confirm that the powers for flexibility in the introduction of the Bill, both as to area and to one function as compared to another, will be applied not so much as according to any general principle but as to the merits of each particular case in each particular area?
BARONESS SEROTA: Clause 15 provides in the usual form for the provisions of the Bill to be brought into force on a day or dates to be appointed by the Secretary of State. I confess that I have been so anxious to ensure that this Bill reached your Lordships' House in good time, and before a certain event, that I have not yet found the time to inquire whether that event will accelerate its implementation. What it certainly will do is give us a little more time than we had originally envisaged. The Government want to bring the Bill into force as soon and as widely as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has reminded us, there are provisions in the clause whereby particular authorities may make out a case on efficiency grounds for avoiding
1136
a double set of changes—implementing the provisions of the Bill before the forthcoming restructuring of local government. It would be less than fair if I did not indicate to the Committee that it is the view of the Government that exceptions of the kind I have mentioned should be very few, because we are committed to the general policy of early unification of the local social services throughout the country. Only if, in the Minister's view, a special case is established will such exemption be granted.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Enactments conferring functions assigned to social services committee]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 13, line 42, leave out ("Part I")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3, perhaps the Committee will allow me to include Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8, which are all technical, drafting Amendments intended to make clear that all the functions of the local authorities under the Children Act 1958 and Adoption Act 1958 are, or should be, assigned to the social services committee with the other enactments mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 43, column 2, at end insert ("prosecution of offences").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 13. line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 48 and insert in column 2—
("Making, etc. arrangements for the adoption of children; regulation of adoption societies; care, possession and supervision of children awaiting adoption; prosecution of offences.")—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 42, at end insert—
("Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c.)

Section 1

Obtaining information as to need for, and publishing information as to existence of, certain welfare services.

Section 2

Provision of certain welfare services.

Section 16

Provision of certain information required by Secretary of State.")

—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments of, enactments]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("Part I of").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("Parts II and IV of").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) section 2(1)(f) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 and section 7(4) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969;")—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("section") in line 27 and insert—
("(h) section 2(1)(f) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960;
1138
(i) the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 except Part II and")—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 35, at end insert—
("The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c 54)
.—(1) In subsection (1)(a) of section 63 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (which requires every local authority to make returns to the Secretary of State with respect to the performance by the authority of the functions specified in section 39(1) of the Children Act 1948) for the words from "the functions" to "committees)" there shall be substituted the words "their functions under the enactments mentioned in subsection (6) of this section".
(2) In subsection (5) of the said section 63 (which requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament reports with respect to certain matters, including the exercise by local authorities of the functions specified in the said section 39(1)) for the words from "the functions" to "1948" there shall be substituted the words "their functions under the enactments mentioned in subsection (6) of this section".
(3) At the end of the said section 63 there shall be added the following subsection:—
"(6) The enactments referred to in subsections (1) and (5) of this section are—

(a) Parts III and IV of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933;

(b) the Children Act 1948;

(c) the Children Act 1958;

(d) the Adoption Act 1958;

(e) section 9 of the Mental Health Act 1959 and section 10 of that Act so far as it relates to children and young persons in respect of whom the rights and powers of a parent are vested in a local authority as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section;

(f) section 10 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 so far as it relates to children and young persons in respect of whom the rights and powers of a parent are vested in a local authority as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section;

(g) section 2(1)(f) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 and section 7(4) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969;

(h) the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 except Part II and section 56;

(i) this Act."

The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c.)
.—(1) In section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which imposes a duty on local authorities to make arrangements for certain matters in exercise of

1139
their functions under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948) the words "under the general guidance of the Secretary of State and" shall be omitted, and after the words "the purpose)" there shall be inserted the words "and to the provisions of section 7(1) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (which requires local authorities in the exercise of certain functions, including functions under the said section 29, to act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State)".
(2) In section 2(2) of the said Act of 1970 (which makes provision in connection with the carrying into effect of the said arrangements) after the words "section 35(2)" there shall be inserted the words" and to the said section 7(1)".")—(Baroness Scrota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.
Then Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution) Report received.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Scrota.)
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a very few moments. This is a Bill to which, if it had followed its normal course, I should have desired to set down Amendments, and some of the Amendments would probably have been of a controversial nature. I am not taking that course, not because my objection to some features of the Bill has in any sense abated but because I desire to send this Bill on its journey to the Statute Book. This is a good Bill, with some exceptions. It is a Bill which I think local authorities require and with which they will work.
There is only one other matter I should like to mention. In the Second Reading debate I think I made some observations concerning the Children's Service which caused the noble Baroness some pain. That is the last thing I desired to do. I think that if the noble Baroness will look again at what I said she will see that I was referring to the administrative structure against which the Children's Service has been built up. If my words were interpreted in any other way, all I desire to do now is to say that that was not my intention, and I hope the noble Baroness will accept that from me.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, now is the moment to wish this important Bill well and send it forward to the Statute Book. The effect of the Bill on its own, the unifying and the standardising of the services which it will bring about on its own, will certainly lift up the very lowest standards and raise the poorest services and set them in a better frame. But, unless fresh and further resources are also put in at the same time, the effect of the Bill may well be to bring the highest standards down and to reduce the best services to the average. Really, how can it do otherwise? Just changing the set-up and the frame-work can do no more than that. But these changes we are about to enact, combined with more resources, are certainly going to make those resources go far further and do a far better job than they could in their present deployment.
Accordingly, I congratulate those who have laboured on this piece of legislation and brought it to the launching stage: the Seebohm Committee, the Government and the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, in particular, who has served best. Quite a good deal more remains to be done yet; and who is to be responsible for ensuring that it is done has to be decided, too. Meanwhile, let us send the Bill down the slipway to the Statute Book with a cheer from both sides.
6.35 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the Government are much indebted to noble Lords for facilitating the smooth, swift and efficient passage of this important measure, especially at this stage in the life of Parliament. The prime object of this Bill is to integrate the services through which the local authorities discharge their extensive duties of social care and social support, and also to develop their preventive work. It will end a considerable period of uncertainty about the future organisation of local authority personal social services, which in the view of the Government has been threatening their efficient working.
I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to-night in thanking the organisations and individuals who have been associated with bringing this Bill to the Statute Book: the local authority associations, professional organisations, and all other interested

1141
bodies who have helped the Government with advice and comments during the long period of consultation that preceded the introduction of the Bill. Having declared my own personal interest, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, once again in thanking the Seebohm Committee for their comprehensive analysis of the problems of local organisation, without which this particular measure could not have been framed. I am sure the members of that Committee will in fact be rewarded in the best possible manner when, with the cooperation of all sides of the House, their major recommendations involving legislation will pass into law just 22 months after the publication of the Report—no mean achievement.
I am also sure that we wish all local authorities well in the tasks they face under this Bill, and particularly the staff who will be concerned in the day-to-day implementation of the more effective community-based and family-oriented service which this Bill seeks to achieve. To those who will be carrying the burden of change, I think we should send our warm good wishes and support. The development of the services to their full potential will be the joint responsibility of the local authorities and their staff.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FUTURE BUSINESS: THE FINANCE BILL
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I indicated earlier that I would be making a further Statement about business on Thursday of next week. It has now been agreed, through the usual channels, that there will be no formal debate on economic affairs on the Thursday, but of course on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill it will be open to any noble Lord to make any point he or she would wish to make. I hope that this will be generally agreeable to the House.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should like to thank the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms for making that Statement. It is quite agreeable to this side of the House, and it is perfectly understood that any noble Lord who wishes to make a speech on that day can still do so.

MARRIAGE (REGISTRAR GENERAL'S LICENCE) BILL
6.38 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. There are perhaps two kinds of Private Member's Bill: those that err on the side of trying to do too much and those that err on the side of doing little. This Bill of mine is in the second category. It makes the most modest incursion possible into those deep and mysterious waters, the marriage laws of England and Wales, into which none but stout and well-found vessels like the Law Commission can hope to venture without perishing beneath the waves for ever. This Bill is not a matter of such high venture. It has only one very limited purpose; namely, to extend to others an advantage and a benefit which is at present held exclusively by the Anglican Church for the benefit only of her own members; and to extend it to that limited number of occasions when one of two parties who wish to marry is very seriously ill and not expected to recover, who may be at home or in hospital, but who is too seriously ill to be taken to any of the places where, under present law, a marriage can be solemnized according to the rites of the Anglican Church. This Bill will confer on the Registrar General powers in respect of others analogous to those which the Archbishop of Canterbury has in respect of Anglicans; namely, power to issue a licence for a marriage in the special circumstances in places not registered for that purpose.
My Lords, even this extremely modest objective requires a Bill of 20 clauses, first, because of the complexity of our marriage laws and also because of the importance, value and sanctity of marriage itself which, if it is not to be entered into inadvisably, lightly or wantonly, requires a substantial legal frame to support it.
The Second Reading of this Bill was set down for June 9. In preparation for that I already have 18 to 20 pages of notes on which, with further development and refinement during the Recess, I could well have made a speech lasting some 30 minutes on the Second Reading alone. However, I hope that your Lordships will be content with the much briefer introduction that I have now offered and will

1143
be still further reassured when I say that this Bill was thoroughly discussed in another place.
I like to think that the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, will be able to confirm that this Bill is satisfactorily drafted and that it does nothing whatever to delay the much wider and deeper review of the marriage laws which the Law Commission has currently in hand, and out of which enterprise I propose to keep well clear, if I possibly can. My Lords, if in my desire to expedite business I have been over brief, I shall be only too glad to answer questions, but I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I think the House will want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on changing gear so smoothly, and perhaps even on changing his collar. We are all deeply indebted to him for pruning those 20 pages to which he referred. As he said, this Bill provides a means of helping a small number of people who are, in urgent circumstances, in this particular situation. At the moment the Archbishop's special licence is available only for marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, and it is an anomaly that Roman Catholics, Methodists and those of other denominations and faiths are unable to have the religious marriage ceremony they wish and that people who wish a civil ceremony have no means of getting married.
I should also point out that, in addition, the Archbishop's licence is not available for divorced persons having a former spouse still living. The Bill will not in any way affect the Archbishop's power to issue a special licence, and the Bill applies only to England and Wales, as there is already provision in Scotland for marriages in the circumstances outlined in the Bill. The House will like to know that the Registrar General has undertaken that one of his senior officers will be available to deal with urgent applications, in co-operation with the local superintendent registrar, and of course in urgent cases the work can always be done over the telephone.
1144
I should like to confirm the point made by the noble Lord about the Law Commission. As the House will know, a Working Party has been set up jointly by the Law Commission and the Registrar General under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Scarman, and we think that probably as a result there will be wider improvements in this particular branch of the law. Nevertheless, the Bill is required now. It is a useful Bill, it will remove distress in a number of cases and I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. In the ten or eleven years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House this is my first experience of taking responsibility for a Private Member's Bill. If I had thought it was as easy and straightforward as this I might have tried my hand before. However, I am quite aware that it is indeed "beginner's luck" that I am to be allowed to take the Bill through all its stages in one day. I am extremely grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to do this, and to the Government and the "usual channels", in particular, for their treatment of this modest measure; but, what is more important, so will be those people, albeit only a few in number, and their dependants, for whose benefit the Bill has been put forward. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

TREES BILL
6.47 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is a Private Member's Bill, introduced in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Duncan Sandys, and was to have been introduced in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who unfortunately is ill and unable to be here. He has asked me to do it in his place, although I am

1145
afraid I shall not do it with his fluency and eloquence.
The object of the Bill is quite simple. It is to close two loopholes in existing legislation designed to safeguard our fine heritage of trees and woodlands. As your Lordships will know, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 a local planning authority may make tree preservation orders on amenity grounds. That means that the owner of the trees may not cut them down without the consent of the planning authority. But an exception is made in the case of woodlands which are subject to a forestry dedication covenant. Under such a covenant the owner of the woods dedicates them for the purpose of forestry and agrees to manage them in accordance with a plan drawn up in co-operation with the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission in such a case work in close collaboration with the local planning authority, and an owner who manages his woodlands in accordance with a forestry dedication covenant is not subject to a tree preservation order from the local planning authority. This is obviously sensible, and avoids duplication.
But a problem arises and one loophole appears when an owner dies or sells his woodlands and his successor, or the purchaser, is under no obligation to observe the terms of the previous owner's covenant, although technically it remains in force. The result is that the new owner may cut his trees as he wishes and the local planning authority have no power to make a tree preservation order. It is this loophole that Clause 1 seeks to close. It allows a local planning authority to make a tree preservation order, even if there is a forestry dedication covenant in force, but only under two conditions: one is if the woods are not being managed in accordance with a plan approved by the Forestry Commission, and the other is only if the Forestry Commission agree. I hope your Lordships will agree that this effectively closes the loophole but provides adequate safeguards for the private owner who is operating a dedication scheme.
The second loophole is a similar one, and it arises in cases of felling licences. As your Lordships know, anybody who wishes to fell trees has to get a licence from the Forestry Commission, and the
1146
Commission may make conditions, usually, and naturally, insisting on the replanting of the felled area. But in this case, too, the owner who has made a dedication covenant is exempted from any such conditions, for obvious reasons. Once again, however, if an owner sells or dies, his successor, or the buyer, is technically treated as if he was still operating the dedication scheme, even though he is not observing its terms, and he may cut trees without first obtaining a felling licence and without any obligation to replant. Clause 2 seeks to close this loophole. A felling licence will be required unless the woods are being managed under a plan agreed with the Forestry Commission. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a useful Bill which will ensure that there is no getting round the expressed will of Parliament to preserve our great heritage of woods and woodlands. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
6.52 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, foresters are not opposed to the thinking behind this Bill, but the Bill as drafted is far from clear in a number of its sentences and is thought to be likely to lead to overlapping between the Forestry Commission, who are the forest authority, and a local authority. It is hoped that assurances will be given during the course of this debate to clear up these very reasonable apprehensions.
The noble Lord has explained the purpose of the Bill, but I was sorry that he said very little about forestry being a business, and how many of the most beautiful woods in Europe, in this country and in other countries, are those which are and have been for many years run as a business. There was no mention in his short speech of forestry being a serious economic undertaking. Secondly, I am not sure that he is correct in saying that a new owner of dedicated woodlands, where the plan of operations had automatically lapsed, was in a position to cut down trees on a lavish scale without a felling licence. That was the impression that I gathered. I think I am right in saying that such an owner is only entitled to cut down the quarterly allowance as agreed with the Forestry Commissioners, and for the rest he needs a licence.

1147
The loophole is that the Commission under such conditions are not in a position to lay down replanting conditions. The gap which has been represented to us is not really a very wide gap, but it can exist, and I should think it would be of advantage for us to try to bridge that gap by some simple legislation. But what I am afraid of here is that a spectre has been created that vast areas of woodlands in this country are at risk when the owner dies, and therefore it is necessary for, not one public authority, but two public authorities, to step in and try to prevent some remote possibility from happening.
There is one other point which I believe is going to be raised on an Amendment later, and I do not want to speak at length. I should like to think that where it is thought right by the Forestry Commission to give their consent to a local authority proposal to make a tree preservation order under the conditions in this Bill and to bridge the gap, that tree preservation order would automatically lapse, be repealed, come to an end, if the new owner made a proper plan, a working plan, approved by the Forestry Commissioners. As drafted, the Bill does not provide for that, and I am rather doubtful whether the Amendment provides for it either. I make that point in advance in order to avoid making a second speech. I should like the Minister, if he can, to give me assurances to meet those misgivings, which arise, I think, very understandably from the extremely loose drafting of the Bill.
6.56 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has explained the purpose of this small measure, which I can say straightaway has the full support of the Government. Although the amendments which the Bill makes to the existing legislation on trees are small ones, they are none the less important. It is on occasions such as this that we see the value of the Private Member's Bill procedure. It avoids having to wait for an appropriate piece of Government legislation in order to make small changes that are desirable in the general law. We welcome the initiative of the sponsor of the Bill in the House of Commons, and are grateful
1148
to the noble Lord for agreeing to pilot it through this House.
I do not intend to go into the technicalities of the law on trees. In outline, the Bill, as the noble Lord said, deals with two weaknesses in the existing legislation. These mainly stem from the fact that the control exercised by the Forestry Commission under a forestry dedication scheme may largely cease when there is a change of ownership and the plan of operations relating to the management of the land is no longer legally binding. In those circumstances the Forestry Commission may not be able to control felling and replanting. That position creates a difficulty in connection with tree preservation orders. At present, a local planning authority may not make an order where a forestry dedication scheme is in force. That provision was based on the assumption that in these circumstances adequate control would be exercised by the Forestry Commission, but it may not be the case if the plan of operations under the scheme is no longer in force. It is right, therefore, that the local planning authority should not be precluded from making a tree preservation order when that happens. It is not proposed, though, that a tree preservation order should be made where there is a continuing interest in forestry which will be controlled by the Forestry Commission. I hope that point will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. It is for this reason that the consent of the Commission will be needed before the local planning authority make an order.
Doubt has been voiced about the question of the change of ownership, say, following the death of an owner, when the local planning authority might make a tree preservation order before the new owner has had a chance to agree a new plan of operations with the Forestry Commission. That will not happen, and the safeguard is in the need for the local planning authority to obtain the Commission's consent. I can give an assurance on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, and the Secretaries of State, that the Forestry Commission would not agree to the making of a tree preservation order where a plan of operations was no longer in force as a result of a change of ownership, if the new owner intended to agree a fresh

1149
plan of operations with the Commission. I hope that meets the noble Lord's point.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD KENNET: The other weakness which the Bill seeks to remedy relates to the powers of the Forestry Commission to attach replanting conditions to felling licences. No such conditions can be imposed where the land is subject to a forestry dedication scheme, even though, if the plan of operalions is no longer in force, the Commission may no longer be able to exercise effective control. It is clearly right that the Commission should be able to impose conditions in these circumstances in the same way as they do in other cases. Otherwise, an owner would be able to avoid the obligations ordinarily imposed on owners of dedicated land. In all these circumstances, and in view of the explanations and assurance I have given, I hope that the House will see fit to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
7.0 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Modification of restriction on power to make tree preservation orders]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Where a tree preservation order is made in respect of land to which this section applies, the order shall not have effect so as to prohibit, or to require any consent for, the cutting down of a tree in accordance with a plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Forestry Commissioners, and for the time being in force, under such a covenant or agreement or under a woodlands scheme made under the powers contained in the Forestry Act 1967.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to meet points which were put to my right honourable friend in another place by my noble friend Lord Dalkeith, and I trust also that it will go some way towards meeting the point made by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. May I say that I acknowledge what a great expert he is on the matter of forestry, that I think I slipped up a little on the felling licence side, and that what matters is the replanting conditions rather than the freedom to fell. But I hope that, with the assurances which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gave, and with this Amendment, he will be happy about the Bill.
The Amendment brings within the scope of Clause 1 of the Bill approved woodlands schemes, as well as forestry dedication schemes, and owners operating approved woodland schemes will not therefore be subject to a tree preservation order. In point of fact, in this case too the Forestry Commission consult with the planning authority before agreeing to an approved woodlands scheme, just as they do on a dedication scheme. But I hope that your Lordships will agree that this gives further safeguards to the private woodland owner and is a valuable Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD INGLEWOOD: This Amendment is very nearly incomprehensible, but I think the meaning of it is that where after a tree preservation order, with the consent of the Forestry Commission, has been made, a working plan is then approved, at least such part of the tree preservation order as is in fact concerned with the cutting down of trees will not have effect. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that instead of his words surely it would be very much better to have something straightforward, such as
"where, after a tree preservation order is made in accordance with subsection (2), the plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Forestry Commissioners in accordance with the dedication covenant or an approved woodlands plan comes into force, the tree preservation order shall cease to have effect or be repealed."
The noble Lord's Amendment in fact provides that the tree preservation order will remain running, as it were, in cold storage on the books of the local authority. Surely it would be preferable

1151
in these circumstances for a tree preservation order to lapse when the proper working plans are revised and brought into effect. I would commend that idea to my noble friend and to the Minister. If the Bill cannot be amended in that way here this afternoon, there will be another opportunity in another place next week.
LORD KENNET: I fully accept that this Amendment is complicated and difficult to understand, and perhaps it would be best if I set out—I hesitate to say "the Government's understanding" of what this Amendment means, because the Government drafted it, but if I set out my understanding of what this Amendment means. We shall then see whether that meets the noble Lord's purpose—because we are here attempting some "instant legislation", as is customary at this time in the life of a Parliament; and I hope that we shall not be forced in any way to throttle back on our breakneck speed on this excellent little Bill.
These two Amendments, taken together, ensure that where a tree preservation order is made under the Bill it will not have the effect of prohibiting, or of requiring the consent of the local planning authority to, the cutting down of a tree where this is in accordance with a plan of operations or other working plan which has been approved by the Forestry Commission and which is in force under a forestry dedication scheme or an approved woodlands scheme. Before approving a plan of operations or other working plan under a forestry dedication scheme or an approved woodlands scheme, the Forestry Commission consult the local planning authority in those cases where a tree preservation order is in force or where the Commission otherwise consider that there is an amenity interest. The views of the local planning authority are taken fully into account by the Commission and any sustained objections by the planning authority would be met or the Commission would not approve the plan.
It is therefore unnecessary to require the owner to obtain the consent of the local planning authority where felling is in accordance with an approved plan of operations which is in force. This position is recognised in the form of the tree
1152
preservation order which is prescribed under the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order) Regulations 1969. Under those regulations a tree preservation order contains provisions which have similar effect to the present Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked: Why do it in that way? Why not abolish the tree preservation order in those circumstances? But I think that there is an amenity case, a case to do with local authority influence and control in these matters for saying that in this case of dual responsibility it is better to keep the thing there even if it is in a somewhat shadowy condition or, as the noble Lord himself put it, on ice.
The regulations which I have just quoted relate to England and Wales. Comparable provisions will be included in regulations to be made before the end of the year, prescribing the form of tree preservation order in Scotland. The Government would advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: I have a good deal of sympathy for what my noble friend Lord Inglewood said about the tree preservation order. But I am afraid that at this late stage in the Bill it is rather awkward to make a change, and I hope that he will agree that, if this Amendment is accepted, the tree preservation order is in the background and provided that there is a working plan in operation, will not affect the management of the forest by the private owner. I hope that, as we are at the very end of this Parliament, my noble friend will allow this Amendment to go through.
LORD INGLEWOOD: There is nothing to commend "instant legislation". It is as ineffective as "instant trees". But at this late stage I do not wish to press my noble friend any further.
LORD KENNET: With the leave of the Committee, I would say that I should never dream of commending "instant legislation" if I had knowledge in advance of any objection to what was proposed. I should just put it on record that in this case I did not.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("this section").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Report received.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, may I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and to the Government for their help in the drafting of the Amendments.
LORD INGLEWOOD: And their assurances.
LORD ABERDARE: I move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA (AMENDMENT) BILL
7.10 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE LORD WILBERFORCE had given Notice of his intention to move the Second Reading of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord said: It is not my intention to move the Second Reading of this Bill at the present time. If, out of courtesy to noble Lords, and in a sentence or two so as not to be out of order, I may explain just why this course has become necessary, it is that I had hoped that the Bill would be a useful and practical measure which would be acceptable to all interests concerned. But unfortunately only this morning it came to my notice that in two respects (which I can identify for those noble Lords who are kind enough to be here as those arising under Clause 1(3) and Clause 6(4) of the Bill) it has not been possible to secure agreement among certain shipping interests. Therefore, rather than to proceed with a Bill which might not be satisfactory, it seems preferable not to
1154
do so at the present time but to leave it to another Parliament to bring it forward in the hope, and expectation, that another Parliament will be able to bring it to a successful conclusion, it being, as it undoubtedly is, a Bill of great utility if it is put in the proper form. My Lords, I do not move the Second Reading of this Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, if I am in order, and as the Government have supported this Bill throughout, I think it is proper for me to say that, in the light of the facts mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, it is probably a considerable disappointment to many Members of this House that this Bill is not being proceeded with—for good reasons, I may say. Perhaps I should say that while obviously I could not commit a future Government to introduce legislation of this sort, after a discussion with the shipping officials of the Board of Trade I am reasonably confident that they will press upon a future Government the necessity of legislating in the interests of the development of containerisation and other modern methods of shipping. I believe that there is reasonable hope that legislation will be proposed by a future Government and that the Bill will not lie on the Table sine die.

CONVEYANCING AND FEUDAL REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.13 p.m.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill represents the first stage in the fundamental reform of land tenure in Scotland which was outlined in the White Paper, Land Tenure in Scotland: A Plan for Reform, published by the Government in July of last year. The changes proposed in the White Paper are not such as readily lend themselves to accomplishment overnight. They are of a complex nature, and because of that the Government's view, expressed in the White Paper, was, and remains, that the final legislation could not be ready until 1971 at the earliest. What, however, we made clear was that we would deal in the interval with some of the aspects of the existing system most ripe for change, at the same time making

1155
some other much-needed changes in the law of conveyancing. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in the Third Reading Debate in another place, we believe that the publication and presentation of the White Paper contributed to the creation of a new climate of opinion in Scotland about land tenure; a climate in which fairly fundamental change is accepted both as being desirable and attainable.
I think one can fairly claim that the Bill received a warm welcome in Scotland, both from the legal profession and from others, and the Government have been further encouraged by the fact that during the debates on the Bill in another place no-one has seriously called in question either the need for fundamental reform of land tenure in Scotland or the need for the main provisions of this particular Bill. Such criticisms as have been made—and of course there were some—have related in the main to matters of procedure and practice rather than to matters of fundamental principle. These criticisms have, of course, in the main been helpful and useful, and the Bill in its present form reflects a number of changes which we agreed to make during the earlier stages.
Before touching, I hope very briefly, on the main purposes of this measure, I think it appropriate that I should say that both before and since the publication of the Bill we have had the benefit of widespread consultation with a large number of bodies, and indeed individuals, concerned with the day-to-day work of land transactions in Scotland, and we are very grateful to them for the considerable trouble to which they have gone to ensure that we should have the benefit of their comments on the detailed provisions of the Bill. We are indebted in Scotland in particular—and I must say this—to Professor J. M. Halliday, the Report of whose Committee forms the origin of much that is in the Bill and who, incidentally, has continued very helpfully to act as consultant to the Scottish Office since the Bill was introduced. I should perhaps also at this stage acknowledge the so very valuable work which has been done in this field by an earlier Committee on registration of title to land in Scotland, which was chaired by a distinguished Member of your Lordships'
1156
House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. It was of course, as the noble Earl knows far better than I do, as a result of a recommendation in the Reid Report that the Halliday Committee was subsequently set up.
My Lords, the Bill has three main purposes. The first is to reform certain features of the existing system of land tenure. The second is to create a new form of heritable security for loans over property which is simpler and more satisfactory than the existing forms of security. The third is to simplify and clarify a number of aspects of the law of conveyancing in Scotland.
Part I of the Bill contains the reforms of the feudal system as it at present stands. Provision is made, for the first time in Scottish legislation, for a means of appeal against burdensome land obligations. The Lands Tribunal for Scotland, for which statutory provision was made over twenty years ago in the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 (the Tribunal was never set up) is now empowered to vary or discharge such obligations and to pay compensation, in certain circumstances, according to defined criteria. These provisions have great potential usefulness in removing unreasonable impediments to development. This Part of the Bill deals also with a problem which has caused a great deal of injustice and hardship to individuals, with which your Lordships are no doubt familiar; namely, that of unallocated feuduties. A system of procedure is set out whereby a vassal, faced with the reality or the threat of having to act as an unpaid debt-collector for his superior, is able to secure allocation of his own portion of the feuduty, and thereby have a limit set to his particular liability.
Part I also makes provision in Clause 8 for a reduction in the period of positive prescription from twenty years to ten years. This is a reform which has been widely welcomed by the legal profession in Scotland, and which should save a good deal of time and, one might hope, in consequence, expense, in property transactions. Parts II and III of the Bill have their origin in the Report of the Committee on Conveyancing Legislation and Practice, to which I have already referred, which sat under the chairmanship of Professor Halliday. The

1157
Committee concluded in the course of their deliberations that the forms of heritable security prescribed by Statute were unsuited in many ways to modern conditions and commercial practice. They accordingly recommended the creation by Statute of a new and more satisfactory form of security.
Part II of the Bill aims to create this new form of security, to be known as a "standard security", which will be free of the defects of the present statutory Scottish forms, and which will be adaptable to all the kinds of situation in which it is necessary to create a security over land. The individual clauses in Part II set out the provisions relating to the constitution of such a security, and deal with the various types of transaction that may arise in relation to it: they are also designed to make rights and responsibilities clear for debtor and creditor alike in such matters as enforcement of the security where the borrower defaults. When the Bill passes into law there will of course be very many securities still in existence which have been created under the present law, and the aim of Part III of the Bill is to simplify the law governing such securities.
Part IV of the Bill contains a number of provisions, again based on recommendations of the Halliday Committee, which are designed to bring certain features of the law of conveyancing more into line with modern conditions. The Government have good reason to believe that they will all be welcomed by the legal profession in Scotland, and by others concerned with transactions in land, as improvements in this area of the law. Part V of the Bill contains in Clause 49 an amendment to the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act 1925, the desirability of which was brought to the notice of the Government by the Church. Clause 50 makes certain amendments to the Lands Tribunal Act 1949, which are designed to enable the Tribunal to discharge the responsibilities already vested in them by existing Statutes and the important new functions conferred upon them by this Bill. Finally, Part VI of the Bill contains a number of the usual general provisions relative to Crown application, interpretation and the like.
In the Government's view, and I am sure your Lordships will share it, the
1158
Bill is a useful and practical piece of forward-looking legislation. Though it is a precursor of major legislation, it is important in its own right and will be of not inconsiderable value to Scotland. In short, it can be recognised as a useful and significant reforming measure in the context of this aspect of the law, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it should be read a second time. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wilson of Langside.)
7.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Bill, which has been so well explained to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, is mainly a Bill reforming the law of conveyancing, which I think enjoys general support. It happens to bear what I think is the rather pretentious title of Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Bill, but in fact it does very little about feudal reform. It is nearly all about conveyancing, and it is nearly all agreed, and in so far as it affects feudal reform I think this Bill is generally agreed also.
The only thing which I think the Bill does about feudal reform is this. Under our present law in Scotland when land is feued under a charter, which determines the use to which the land shall be put under that charter (although the charter is perpetual) if the owner of the land wishes to change the purpose, or to alter the contract under which he or his predecessors signed the feu charter, he has to get the leave of the superior which the superior may or may not give; or if he does give it he may say that, as the effect of the change would in one way or another damage the purposes and nature of the property, he would like compensation for it. So that the owner of land which is held under feu charter has to get the consent of two parties, the feudal superior and the town and country planning authority, which I think is probably a good thing. Sometimes the feudal superior may be a better judge of the public interest than the town and country planning authority, and there is no harm in having two planning authorities.
This Bill now provides that if the consent of the superior is withheld on a proposal which the superior thinks may

1159
be unreasonable the owner can appeal to the Lands Tribunal, and the Lands Tribunal may decide that he should be allowed, in spite of the opposition of the superior, to do what he wants with his own land. I only wish that there could be a similar appeal against the decisions of the town and country planning authority, because they are not always infallible either. But I think it is perfectly right that there should be this appeal, which is provided for in the Bill, against the veto of the feudal superior; and I think practically everybody is in agreement with that.
But this Bill has been discussed in the country and in another place, not as if it were a Bill which was almost universally agreed on by everybody—which it is—but as if it were a Bill to abolish what is called the feudal system in Scotland, which of course it is not. I think that to-night we ought to confine ourselves simply to what is in the Bill and not to what people in another place or in the country have implied may come after the Bill.
I noted what the Lord Advocate said about changes in the climate of opinion with regard to the fuedal system. The noble and learned Lord will remember that in England subinfeudation was abolished by a Statute of King Edward I, 600 or 700 years ago. It was not abolished in Scotland. Since then, while subinfeudation has disappeared in England, the system there of leasing land to occupiers or leaseholders has been far more oppressive and far more onerous than the feudal system in Scotland, which has been on the whole a lenient and benign system which has enabled, among other things, the feuar of the land to occupy his property in perpetuity for an annual payment (or service which has been commuted into an annual payment) whose value continually declines with the decline in the value of money. This is a very great advantage to the feuar. I am very doubtful whether it would be to the advantage of people in future who want to acquire building land in Scotland that this system should be altered.
The land on which my own home is situated happens to be land of which I am not the tenant in chief. It is land which was feued in the year 1500 by the Abbey Balmerino because there were not
1160
enough monks to work it all, and they feued off a great part of their property for an annual feu duty of £17 sterling a year—sterling, that means over £200 Scots a year, which is not very much now but it was quite a lot in the year 1500; and that has gone on all these centuries becoming worth less and less all the time. About 15 years ago I caused this feuduty to be purchased by my son, who was then a small child not able to act for himself—he is only 21 this year—because I thought it would be a good thing for him that he should acquire that feuduty. He now tells me that I have cheated him and he is not at all satisfied. He points out to me that 15 years ago this annual sum of £17 would have been enough to pay for one of these student skiing trips to Switzerland and back, whereas now it is hardly enough to pay a return air tourist fare from London to Edinburgh—and he thinks that if a Labour Government are returned next month it may very soon not be enough to pay for a bus fare from London to Greenwich. So he has this grievance.
I point out to him that he is really very lucky, because after all he is the superior and I am only a vassal, and he ought to be very happy. I also point out to him that, under paragraph (ii) of subsection (4) of Clause 1 of this Bill, if I should decide to use any part of this land for any purpose, such as having some interesting caravans, or do anything else exciting with it, of which he does not approve, and if he appeals, then
"a sum to make up for any effect which the obligation produced, at the time when it was imposed"—
that is to say, in the year 1500—
"in reducing the consideration then paid or made payable for the interest"
shall be given to him. I tell him that he will be very lucky to get this compensation but he still does not seem to see the point.
However, my Lords, I hope that whoever is returned to Parliament in the Election will think of the future interests of feuars, and I rather hope that this emotive wording, "superior" and "vassal", may be abolished, because it leads ignorant and uninstructed people to get quite a wrong and fallacious idea of the true meaning of this feudal system in Scotland. Newspaper readers who do not

1161
know what it is about cannot help thinking that a man who is called a superior must be in a position to exploit and oppress the person who is called the vassal, whereas in my own case it is entirely the other way round. I hope that that will be borne in mind in any future legislation. There has been a lot of grand talk about abolishing the feudal system, and all that has been introduced so far is this—I call it a little Bill so far as the feudal system is concerned but quite a good Bill so far as conveyancing reform is concerned. I hope that whoever comes back next time will bear in mind that the largest owners of feuduties in Scotland are not the great landowners now but, overwhelmingly, the Scottish Church, whose Assembly the Lord Advocate and I have just been attending and which we have both left in order to attend this debate.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Bill, have consented to place their interests so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Principality and Stewartry of Scotland at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Wilson of Langside.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  PRESERVATION POLICY AND FINANCE
  PRESERVATION POLICY AND FINANCE