Sitting of 14 July 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Bills considered ; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Public Works Programme
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the unemployment in the civil engineering contracting industry in Scotland amounting to nearly one-sixth of the labour force ; and if he will take steps now to authorise road, water, sewerage and other public works contracts scheduled for 1972–73 in this current financial year.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of winter work programme for 1971–72 he has approved ; and if he will raise the ceiling of individual projects.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he now has for a public works programme this coming winter ; what is the estimated cost of such a programme ; and what proportion this figure represents of the United Kingdom total.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I refer to the new public works programme announced in my statement yesterday during the debate on the economic situation in Scotland.
    Dr. Mabon: We are disappointed that it has taken the Secretary of State two weeks after we put down these Questions to make his statement. Seriously, in view of the need to make the fullest use of this programme, will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to make a statement to the House in October about progress in the take-up of the moneys available under the various schemes? What must not happen is that the money is not spent.
    Mr. Campbell: I shall certainly seek to keep the House informed of progress with this programme. As I said in my statement yesterday, we hope that some of it can be started very soon.

    Employment
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to initiate a study of the measures necessary to stimulate employment in Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: My Department already makes, in conjunction with other Departments, a full and continuing assessment of the economic situation in Scotland and of the measures necessary to stimulate employment which may be practicable from time to time.
    Mr. Smith: The Department's efforts have been singularly unsuccessful so far. Will not the right hon. Gentleman try to plan for the future to give some injection into the economy before we are hit with serious unemployment, instead of afterwards? Also, will he have talks with the Leader of the House to make sure that we have many more debates about the Scottish economic situation, because on each occasion we have an announcement about a little more money to hide the Government's shame?
    Mr. Campbell: I do not acquiesce in the sentiment expressed in the hon. Gentleman's last few words, but I am keen to debate Scottish affairs as often as we can both in the Chamber and in the Scottish Grand Committee. As I

    465
    recorded at some length in the debate yesterday, the Government have taken vigorous action in their first year, in regional development and in other ways, to deal with the upward trend of unemployment starting from October, 1969.
    Mr. Mackintosh: Is it not clear that Scotland has come off much worse in the current recession than any other region of the United Kingdom and that all the efforts made over the past 10 years have run into serious difficulties? Could we not have a special study into why the Scottish situation has been so much worse than that of the other sections of the United Kingdom so that we might learn how to prevent this occurring again?
    Mr. Campbell: I agree that this is a serious matter. Studies have been made of particular aspects of it. What has happened during the past year must be the result of the methods which were being employed over the previous five years, during which time we, the then Opposition, pointed to the serious losses of jobs, running to tens of thousands, taking place at that time. But I agree that this is a serious matter which needs further consideration.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why have not the Government published the study which was undertaken or initiated by the previous Government of the effectiveness of investment grants? Why did the Government depart from the investment grants prior to publication of that study, and will the Secretary of State now make known what the findings were?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will see in HANSARD what I said about this yesterday. We were informed by the last Government that a study was to be made within the Government on investment grants as a result of the recommendation by the Estimates Committee and the dissatisfaction then expressed on both sides of the House at Question Time—I remember it well—about the effectiveness of investment grants. As far as I know, that study was not completed or its progress announced by the last Government before they went out of office We had made our own studies, under the chairmanship of the late Iain Macleod, into all these matters. After coming into office, we naturally took account of all the advice available both outside and
    466
    within the Department before going ahead with our own proposals, which were announced last October.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was his reply to the Scottish Development Council's request for a meeting concerning unemployment in Scotland ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Department of Employment, I had a most useful meeting last week with representatives of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). We had a valuable exchange of views on Scotland's economic problems and I look forward to maintaining close contact with the Council on these important matters as I always have done.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he is taking cognisance of what was said by Lord Clydesmuir about reflating the economy? Will he also tell us again about the £33 million he intends to spend, because that is only scratching the surface? Will he try to get concerted effort from industry to form a policy not only to bring jobs to Scotland but to make them grow there so that he can in the long term solve this pernicious problem?
    Mr. Campbell: It is for the Scottish Council itself to state what it said to me and my colleagues at that meeting but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are determined to get the growth to which he refers.
    Mr. Douglas: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a severe dichotomy in the rôle of the Scottish Council at present because it can hardly sell Scotland effectively abroad—which is the rôle he has prescribed for it—while at the same time having these considerable misgivings about the future of the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Campbell: The Council has ex-expressed publicly apprehension about the present state of unemployment in Scotland—as, indeed, we all have. It has also for some years taken a leading part in the promotion of Scottish industry and of Scotland as a site for industrial development. What we have done is to

    467
    try, through its agency, to co-ordinate the efforts which were previously separately being made by different parts of Scotland and by different bodies to promote Scotland abroad.
    Mr. Maclennan: When the right hon. Gentleman intervened to stop the Highlands and Islands Development Board from promoting the Highlands abroad and spending £100,000 for the purpose, he announced that the Scottish Council was to be given £20,000. Can he now say what success the Council has had and what steps it has taken to promote development in the Highlands in view of the growing and record levels of unemployment there? Why did he make no mention of the Highlands and Islands during yesterday's debate on the Scottish economy? Does he not regard that as part of the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Campbell: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I live in that area, 10 miles from Inverness. The boundary of the Highland counties runs down the side of my garden. I would like to have spoken about the Highlands and Islands yesterday—indeed, I could have done so for half an hour. But the problems raised in the debate by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) were serious ones affecting other parts of Scotland, and, naturally, I concentrated on them. I spoke in general terms without mentioning other important areas, such as the Borders, the South-East and the North-East. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman says about my intervening to stop the Highlands and Islands Development Board from carrying out some promotion abroad, because the Board is free to do this itself.
    Mr. Ruchanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests he has received from church, local authority, trade union or management organisations asking him to meet delegations to discuss the question of unemployment during the last six months ; and which of these he has met.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have received requests from such organisations for a total of 21 meetings. I and my hon. Friend have met or are shortly to meet 10 groups. Three other meetings have been taken by officials in my place, and the most recent requests are still under consideration.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general feeling in Scotland that the anxiety felt by those who have not met him is equalled only by the anxiety felt by those who have met him? Does he agree that if he met more people he would be more aware of the deep-seated anger in every sector in Scotland about the present position and would do something about it?
    Mr. Campbell: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I have met a number of deputations at very short notice in addition to the ones I have described in the reply, including a deputation which came with the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to views of different kinds put even from within the deputations. I am very much aware of the feelings of members of deputations who come to see me, and I think that they are aware of my very deep concern about the unemployment situation in Scotland.

    Housing Imprvements
    Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he has in mind to increase the rate of house improvement in Scotland ; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. GeorgeYounger): A substantial publicity campaign was launched in May, including advertisements in the Press and on television, local displays, and talks. This will be extended to publicise the increased grants now proposed after the Bill at present before Parliament is enacted. In a circular issued to local authorities last week my right hon. Friend has suggested ways in which they can help by reviewing their procedures.
    Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that a by-product of the fresh incentives is liable to be an outbreak in the rural and Highland areas of the purchase of holiday houses by people who live in them for about four weeks of the year and the rest of the time leave them empty and unavailable to persons who do not own their own houses and are looking for accommodation?
    Mr. Younger: That is a problem in certain parts of the country, but I hope that full use will be made of the largely increased grants for housing improvement

    469
    by all local authorities and private individuals in Scotland who can find their way to doing so.

    Economic and Industrial Surveys
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of economic and industrial surveys undertaken by local authorities in Scotland in the period 1965 to date, and the assistance given by his Department to such surveys.
    Mr. Younger: A comprehensive list of such surveys by local authorities is not available. My right hon. Friend's Department has not given financial assistance for economic and industrial surveys unless they were on a regional scale.
    Mr. Douglas: That is an interesting reply, but will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that an interesting survey is likely to be forthcoming from the county of Clackmannan and the University of Stirling? Why has his Department been particularly parsimonious about that useful study, which will look at the possibilities of growth in indigenous industries?
    Mr. Younger: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about the value of the study, and I congratulate Clackmannan shire County Council on its initiative, and the hon. Gentleman, who has been to see me about it. The cost of the study is not unreasonable. The total which is estimated at about £1,400, if met through borrowing, would not amount to more than 0·0lp on the Clackmannan county rates. That is a pretty reasonable price for anyone to pay for such a valuable survey.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if Great Britain enters the European Economic Community, whether Her Majesty's Government will be free to continue beyond the transitional period all the production grants at present payable to Scotland's hill farmers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The need for the production grants will depend on the extent to which producer prices move
    470
    upwards when we are in the enlarged Community. In any case, as the White Paper made clear, we shall be able to give the continuing assistance needed to maintain the incomes of farmers in the hill areas.
    Mr. Strang: When will the Minister stop flannelling on this issue? Is it the case that he has not received from the E.E.C. an assurance that the British Government are free to continue such production grants?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should realise that in the Six already there is a considerable number and variety of regional aids to agriculture in the difficult areas, and that we have had recognition from the Six, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has reported, that we should be free to look after the income problems of our hill farmers, which is the important thing. I do not think that a particular pattern of production grants needs to be sacrosanct.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: If production grants are not allowed, how does my hon. Friend propose to keep the farmers' incomes up?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said in my original reply, we expect an increase in producer prices, and that will help the incomes of such farmers. There are certain aids in Europe, though not necessarily exactly the same pattern of aids as we have now. We are confident that we shall be able to carry on many of the aids or devise new ones which will help farmers in those areas.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the Minister accept that his answers this afternoon have hardly clarified the matter? Will he make it clear that the Highlands and Islands Development Board can and will continue in its present form if we enter the E.E.C. and that the grants now payable to crofters, whether called production grants or something else, can also continue?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has raised the wider question of regional aid to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That is a different question. There should not be any difficulty in maintaining the structural aids already given to crofting.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister realise that he is being unnecessarily unhelpful, and that when attempts are made to elicit information about production grants and the Highlands and Islands Development Board his own cause would be better served by being more forthcoming? Will he now give the categorical assurances which have been sought, that production grants can be paid under the Community regulations, and are being paid, for example, on sheep retained for breeding purposes in France?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should be rather more realistic and listen to what I said. I have already pointed out that in the Six there are many regional aids. The hon. Gentleman must realise that over the years under both Conservative and Labour Governments the exact pattern of aids to farming in difficult areas has never been the same. It has changed after consultation with the National Farmers Union. I cannot give a guarantee that an exact pattern will continue. What I will say is that we believe that it is perfectly possible to maintain those aids which are vital to help the incomes of those farming in the difficult areas.
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effects of the Treaty of Rome on the present systems of support to the fishing industry with regard to storage, daily rate and operating subsidies, should Great Britain join the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the Community is still considering its regulations on State aids in the fishing sector, it is not possible to say what the final position will be.
    Mr. Baker: That is a most extraordinary reply.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a most extraordinary supplementary question.
    Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend realise that that is an extraordinary answer? I should have thought that by now his officials could have got down to making an appraisal of what is likely to happen, and that is precisely what I am asking.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend should realise that, though the truth may sometimes be extraordinary, it is the truth that the Community is still considering its regulations in this matter. I appreciate that among the fishing matters which have been discussed limits and marketing have been the chief concern, and I appreciate that under the appropriate articles of the Treaty of Rome they could give cause for concern to the fishing industry, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are watching this issue carefully in the negotiations. However, until we know what the regulations are, it is impossible to comment upon them.
    Mr. Strang: As the Minister has just returned from Brussels, and as a tremendous change in the Government's position took place when he was there, may we have an assurance that this matter will be settled one way or another—namely, whether it will be left to 1973 or whether the six-mile proposal will be accepted before the crucial debate in October?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster hopes to make a statement after Questions today, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to await that.

    General Teaching Council
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for the General Teaching Council (Scotland) of the Lords of Appeal decision in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation.
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the consequences upon the Joint Teaching Council of the judgment in favour of Mr. Malloch.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): While the decision in this case does not appear to have any implications for the General Teaching Council, I am, of course, studying the judgment in detail. I am, however, advised that it remains a requirement of the Schools (Scotland) Code that teachers holding permanent appointments in education authority and grant-aided schools should be registered with the

    473
    Council. So far as concerns this particular teacher, I have nothing to add to the reply given on 8th July to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern).—[Vol. 820. c. 452.]
    Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is vital that the full implications of the decision are clarified by his Department and the Law Officers, and that advice is then given to local authorities on their precise position? Will he now give a categorical undertaking that he gives his wholehearted support to the General Teaching Council, which is something he did not do when in Opposition?
    Mr. Taylor: I do not think there has ever been any question about this Government's support for the Council. I do not see any further implications, but I am studying the judgment very carefully.
    Mr. Johnston: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is saying clearly that membership of the Council remains mandatory rather than permissive, and that Mr. Malloch won his judgment because of a technical error by the Aberdeen education authority?
    Mr. Taylor: That appears to be the position on the face of it. I have taken the best advice available to me, which is that it remains a requirement of the Code that teachers holding permanent appointments in education authority and grant-aided schools should be registered with the Council. That is still the position.

    Scottish T.U.C. Special Congress
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to send an official Government observer to the Scottish Trades Union Congress Special Congress to be held in August.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: If an invitation is received, I shall certainly arrange, in consultation with my colleagues whose interests are also involved, for an official observer to attend.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the trade unionists gather for the special congress in August, while they are likely to welcome his belated conversion to the need for a
    474
    public works programme they are most unlikely to be satisfied by the scope and size of the programme he announced yesterday? Many trade unionists believe that it should be £66 million and not £33 million, and that it is necessary for us to return to an investment grant system and to have an immediate, massive reflation of the economy as the only way to solve the unemployment problem this coming winter?
    Mr. Campbell: As I have said in reply to a question from, I think, the hon. Gentleman before, we regard a public works programme as a useful contribution to dealing with the present situation, but it cannot itself be a complete solution. As to investment grants, I am very much aware of the criticism at an S.T.U.C. conference at Oban of the investment grant system. I always listen carefully to the advice of the S.T.U.C. and have met its representatives many times. It was they who particularly pressed for the establishment of a special development area in West Central Scotland, and they were extremely grateful when it was done.
    Mr. Eadie: But, since the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to send an observer, will he get that observer to study in detail the prediction of the S.T.U.C. that the unemployment level in Scotland will rise to about 160,000 next winter? Will the right hon. Gentleman then come to the House and say what he thinks of that prediction?
    Mr. Campbell: I am aware of the figure which the S.T.U.C. has produced but there are a number of variables which cannot be predicted and I would not be in a position to make a prediction of that kind.
    Mr. Ross: In view of the gravity of the situation, would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman addressed the S.T.U.C. and submitted himself to questioning? Would he not be able to tell it why the Government struck the great posture of cutting public expenditure last October but are now frantically seeking to increase it, and why they are urging local authorities to increase expenditure at considerable cost to the ratepayers?
    Mr. Campbell: I shall not pursue the latter point made by the right hon.

    475
    Gentleman. I understand that this is not the kind of conference to which I would be invited to make that kind of contribution and that Ministers, as Ministers, do not attend such conferences. But, as I have said, we are as usual ready to send an observer if an invitation is received.

    Clyde-Forth land Bridge
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to build up the land bridge between the Clyde and the Forth.
    Mr. Younger: The steps being taken include the improvement of road and rail communications ; the extension of the Greenock container terminal ; the provision of a new lock at Grangemouth ; docks and the extension of Glasgow Airport.
    Mr. Grimond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. As this is one of the most important areas to the Scottish economy and will be of increasing importance if we join the E.E.C., can he give us the date when, for example, he expects the Greenock terminal extension to be finished? Are the things he has announced today part of the general programme announced yesterday or additional to it? If they are additional, is any part of yesterday's programme to be devoted to this area of Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: Various parts of the programme announced yesterday will be devoted to projects which would have relevance to this reply. I understand that work is going well on the Greenock container terminal the provision of a new lock at Grangemouth docks, and the extension of Glasgow Airport, but I cannot give a precise date. The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the proposals for developing central Scotland as a corridor for industrial development depend not only on communications but on the manufacture of raw material brought in at one side of Scotland and sent out as finished goods at the other. The Scottish Council is taking further steps to establish priorities for putting that in hand.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Is any research or investigation being done into the use of a pipeline to transfer solids?
    Mr. Younger: I know of no particular investigation into that matter, but if my
    476
    hon. Friend has any proposals in mind I shall be glad to receive them.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman does not know that there are a number of phases in the Greenock terminal project. Two of them were authorised by the last Government, and I understand that one is pending. Has that phase been authorised yet? When will he authorise the fourth stage?
    Mr. Younger: Details of particular projects are another question, and I shall be glad to answer if the hon. Gentleman puts one down.

    Tulliallan Primary School
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to representations made on the siting of the new Tulliallan primary school ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Fife County Council wished to purchase some three acres of the grounds of the Scottish Police College as a site for the new primary school. After consulting the governors of the college and weighing the needs of the college and those of the education authority, my right hon. Friend reluctantly decided that the site in question could not be made available for the new school.
    Mr. Hunter: That is a disappointing reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed site is only a small part of the large area at the disposal of the college, which totals 97 acres, of which 27 are being used? Is it too much to ask that out of the remaining 70 acres, three and a half should be allowed for a primary school? Is he aware that in Tulliallan the only alternative site would cost £70,000 to prepare? Does he not agree that the argument that security is involved is not valid and that the most important thing is that the children should get a short and safe route to school? Will he reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Taylor: I appreciate the importance of a site for the primary school but there is also the very great importance of the college. To build a school in the grounds would be to encroach upon ground which might be needed for future college purposes. The cost figures which I have do not entirely tally with those of the hon. Gentleman. One of the alternative sites would cost the figure

    477
    which the hon. Gentleman has quoted but I understand that there is another site where the additional cost would not be as great.

    Primary School Construction
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new primary schools have been started in the last six months ; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last 10 years.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: In the six-month period to 31st May 17 new primary schools were started. With permission I shall publish the answer to the second part of the Question in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The additional public works programme announced by my right hon. Friend yesterday will enable additional primary school building to be undertaken.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House now the comparable figures for 1964 and 1969? Can he also say whether it is the policy of the Scottish Office to allocate the money it is getting from stealing the milk from primary school children to the building of additional primary schools, as has been indicated by the Secretary of State for Education and Science is to be done in England? The right hon. Lady has said that she intends to spend the milk money on primary school building. Why cannot the Scottish Office do the same in Scotland?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member's attitude is outrageous. We inherited a school building programme which we immediately confirmed. We added £4½ million for 1972–73. Yesterday my right hon. Friend announced even more. All the detailed figures will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The current figure is 17 ; I do not have all the figures handy, but I can give that for December, 1969, to May, 1970, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in charge—13.
    Mr. Buchan: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question? His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in England said that the savings on meals and milk would go on primary schools. When asked whether she really meant that, she said, "No, it is just an intellectual
    478
    exercise that we run when there is nothing else to be said." Would he agree with that?
    Mr. Taylor: I do not always rely on the hon. Gentleman for quotations from my right hon. Friend. What is obvious is that the additional resources which have been made available by our financial policies have contributed towards a situation in which we can spend more on primary schools.
    Following are the figures :

    SCHOOL BUILDING, SCOTLAND

    New Primary Schools Started :

    Period

    No. of Schools

    December, 1960-May, 1961

    20

    December, 1961-May, 1962

    7

    December, 1962-May, 1963

    24

    December, 1963-May, 1964

    22

    December, 1964-May, 1965

    29

    December, 1965-May, 1966

    29

    December, 1966-May, 1967

    39

    December, 1967-May, 1968

    36

    December, 1968-May, 1969

    22

    December, 1969-May, 1970

    13

    Illegal Fishing (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions resulted from detection and interception of vessels fishing illegally by fishery protection cruisers in each of the years 1968, 1969 and 1970.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The numbers of detections made by my right hon. Friend's fishery cruisers of vessels fishing illegally in Scottish waters during the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 which resulted in prosecutions were 41, 34 and 41 respectively.
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will be aware that these figures reveal that the problem is merely being touched, that we are only getting at the fringe of it. Will he give an assurance that the whole method and the type of craft being used will be examined by his Department? Has further consideration been given to the possible increase in illegal fishing should we become a member of the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would remind my hon. Friend that one does not necessarily measure the effectiveness of one's policing methods in this or any other area by the number of detections. The existence of a fishery cruiser fleet has an enormous deterrent effect.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that a more

    479
    effective deterrent than mere prosecution is successful prosecution? Can he say what proportion of prosecutions reached a conviction?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest in this subject. I could not answer his question offhand, but if he will put it on the Order Paper, I shall be delighted to answer it.

    Geriatric Waiting List (Kirkcaldy)
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of elderly persons in Kirkcaldy on the waiting list for beds in the geriatric wards of the Victoria Hospital and of the Cameron Hospital in Fife.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Thirty for the geriatric assessment beds in the Victoria Hospital. There is no waiting list for Cameron Hospital since patients are admitted from the assessment unit and not direct.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these figures are a dismal tale of misery and human suffering and even danger to life? Is he further aware that the number of geriatric beds per thousand of the population in the Kirkcaldy area is much smaller than elsewhere in Scotland, and will he, therefore, ensure that some of the additional millions for public works announced by his right hon. Friend yesterday will be made available and used to rectify this harassing and urgent problem in the Kirkcaldy area?
    Mr. Taylor: I accept that so long as there is any waiting list for geriatric accommodation a serious personal problem may arise, and the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to particular cases. It may be some encouragement to him to hear that a 30-bed geriatric unit is to be provided at Cupar and that building should start in 1972–73. It is proposed in the post-1972 major building programme to provide 60 geriatric beds and 90 psycho-geriatric beds and other services, including a day hospital service, at the Victoria Hospital, and geriatric beds, probably 30, will be included in the hospital development at Glenrothes. I hope that this will be of some help for the future.

    Passenger Transport Authority (Glasgow)
    Mr. Tom McMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he now has for forming a passenger transport authority in the Glasgow region.
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet reached a decision on a passenger transport authority in the greater Glasgow area ; and if he will make a statement on the timetable for preparing designation orders.
    Mr. Younger: I am inviting the local authorities concerned to meet me in Glasgow to discuss the matter. My right hon. Friend will make his decision when he has had an opportunity to consider their views. Meanwhile, the question of a timetable for designation orders does not arise.
    Mr. McMillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Before he meets the local authorities in Glasgow, will he study the success of transport authorities in other areas?
    Mr. Younger: That is undoubtedly one factor to be borne in mind in the consultations.
    Dr. Mabon: When will this meeting be? How long will it be before the Secretary of State takes a decision on a matter which has been pending for some time? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that financially there will be no interruption in the subsidies given to British Rail in the area?
    Mr. Younger: The date is now purely a matter for the convenience of those concerned, the local authorities and myself, and we shall try to arrange a date as soon as is mutually convenient. All relevant factors will be taken into account in our discussions. In the meantime, rail grants for the Glasgow area will not be affected by the negotiations and we shall have plenty of time to have the negotiations before there is any doubt about that.

    Livingston (Housing)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses he

    481
    has approved for building in the new town of Livingston for the next three years ; and to what extent he has amended house building proposals there.
    Mr. Younger: At 30th June there were 1,976 houses in the corporation's approved building programme for the three years. The corporation itself has adjusted its housing programme from time to time, in the light of expected demand ; but my right hon. Friend has made no adjustments.
    Mr. Eadie: How far is the housing programme being amended and how is it related to the special development area status of the new town of Livingston?
    Mr. Younger: The housing programme is under continual review by the corporation, which keeps in close contact with my Department and receives such advice as it considers it wants. Any decisions taken on the housing programme in Livingston are entirely for the development corporation, and there is no question of any disagreement. The hon. Gentleman and I had a meeting in Livingston about special development area status. All the points which he put to me will be closely considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade carefully and quickly in the months ahead.

    Graduate Teachers (Intake)
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what, according to the latest application figures, is his present estimate of the likely intake for next session of graduates into postgraduate and post-diploma secondary teaching courses in colleges of education, and how this estimate compares with the actual figure for the present session ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: On the basis of the applications received by the colleges up to 7th July, 2,200 graduates compared with 1,496 last year and 600 specialist diploma holders compared with 521. The increase in the graduate entry is likely to be particularly marked in mathematics and science.
    Mr. MacArthur: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent this welcome increase of 783 graduates is likely to offset the expected shortage of secondary teachers
    482
    in Scotland following the raising of the school leaving age?
    Mr. Taylor: There is no question that these very encouraging figures make the position look better than it did on our previous estimates. It is a very encouraging trend, and if it continues the problems which we thought we would have to face will be reduced.

    Ninewells Hospital, Dundee
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make an estimate of the final cost of the Nine-wells Hospital in Dundee ; and when it is likely to be completed.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The estimated total cost as published in the 1971–72 Supply Estimates is £18·2 million, but the financial outcome of the arbitration between the contractors and the Eastern Regional Hospital Board cannot yet be estimated. The conclusion of the review referred to in the reply given to the hon. Gentleman on 10th February last is that, instead of the dates announced on 17th December, 1969, some buildings should be handed over before the end of 1972, but total completion cannot now be expected much before the middle of 1973.—[Vol. 810, c. 181–2; Vol. 793, c. 325.]
    Mr. Doig: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his party had this hospital in its election manifesto in 1955? Is he further aware that architects and consultants are paid on a percentage basis and that their fees up to now exceed £2 million? [HON. MEMBERS : "Shame!"] Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that there is a financial incentive in delay? Will he take steps to end this ridiculous system of paying fees to architects and consultants on a percentage basis?
    Mr. Taylor: This is a very serious problem. It is fair to say that the 1961 estimate of £10 million and the 1971 estimate of £18 million are not directly comparable as the latest estimate includes £2½ million for equipment. Additions to the original scheme account for about £700,000 and the rest of the difference is made up mainly in provision for increased prices normal in a construction job of this size and other items incidental to the main development. As to the question of architects' fees, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we

    483
    recently agreed with the architects new scales of charges which allow for tapering on major contracts. In fairness, I should say that a major complex such as a teaching hospital would be excluded.

    Sick Children's Hospital, Glasgow (Pay Beds)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet authorised the hospital management committee for the Sick Children's Hospital, Glasgow, to provide pay beds for child patients ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend is considering the case which has just been presented to him and he will let the hon. Gentleman know his decision in due course.
    Mr. Carmichael: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I hope that when his right hon. Friend considers this he will realise that this would be the first such departure in a children's hospital outside Great Ormond Street? Is he aware that for a famous hospital to do this would be to introduce two standards of treatment for children.
    Mr. Taylor: I do not believe that that would be a problem. The hon. Gentleman has made representations on this matter and my right hon. Friend will pay-careful attention to them before he maker a decision.

    Doctors' Lists
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average number of patients per principal doctor at the latest date for which figures are available ; and how this figure compares with that for the same date in each of the previous two years.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The average number of patients per principal general practitioner at 31st March, 1971, was 2,076. The figures for 31st March, 1970, and 31st March, 1969, were 2,085 and 2,087 respectively.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: As the only things for which the Opposition do not at present claim credit are unemployment and the weather, is my hon. Friend aware that this is a tremendous achievement on his part? Will he continue the good work?
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a considerable satisfaction to be able to announce in one day this improvement, an improvement in the supply of teachers and an expansion in primary school building. We did not have many such days when the Labour Party was in power.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures give a national average? Is he aware that in some of the industrial areas, particularly in my constituency, the figures he has given do not bear inspection?
    Mr. Taylor: We certainly appreciate that the average is taken from highs and lows. If the average improves, however, then surely the general position improves.

    Countryside (Use)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to ensure that those who use the countryside are made aware of the risks of causing damage ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: Education in the proper use of the countryside is one of the chief concerns of the Countryside Commission for Scotland, which made this a main theme in its contribution to European Conservation Year 1970 and is still increasing its efforts to promote better behaviour in the countryside.
    Mr. Rankin: While welcoming that statement, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the countryside nowadays is being used increasingly by large cities for the disposal of their rubbish, with consequent disfigurement and the pollution of the streams, which is becoming increasingly evident? Will he look at that aspect of the problem and see what can be done to give the country a better deal?
    Mr. Younger: I agree that this is a growing problem. I can assure the hon. Member that the Countryside Commission is well aware of this. As a matter of interest, it has appointed a project officer at Speyside to study visitor problems at first hand. This experiment will provide the basis for considering the potential of a special range of services in pressure areas where there are large : numbers of visitors.
    Mr. Rankin: It is all right having appointed—[Interruption.]—It is all right having appointed an officer at Speyside, but why not have one for the rural areas surrounding Glasgow? We need one very badly there.
    Mr. Younger: I am sure that the Countryside Commission will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The appointment of the officer at Speyside is in the nature of an experiment, and if it is successful, I am sure that the Commission will build upon that.

    Fishing (Hunter Report)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on his consideration of the Hunter Report on fishing.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not yet able to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman's Questions on this subject on 26th May and 23rd June.—[Vol. 818, c. 347–8 ; Vol. 819, c. 279.]
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the precise cause of Ministerial constipation?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his assiduity in following our example. When we were in Opposition we pursued this. I am sure that our constipation is as nothing compared with the constipation of the Labour Party when it was in Government. I can assure him that our consideration will result in a conclusion in a much shorter period than was the case under the Labour Party's administration.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the percentage change in manufacturing investment in Scotland between June, 1970, and June, 1971.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Estimates of manufacturing investment normally relate to the full calendar year. The outcome for 1971 will not be known until considerably after the end of the year.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this side of the House we are becoming used to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite not knowing the answers to our questions? Does
    486
    he not realise, from the debate yesterday, that many of my right hon. Friends are becoming increasingly perturbed over the number of factories which are closing down and the amount of industry returning to England? Will he do something quickly to stimulate investment in manufacturing industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: We had a full day's debate yesterday, and I will not repeat all that I said then. The hon. Gentleman asked for a precise estimate between the two years, including this year. Any figure that I tried to give at this stage would be unreliable.

    Released Detainees (Hostels)
    Mr. Ronald King Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to provide hostel accommodation where youths could live for a limited period under appropriate supervision on being released from detention centres and young offenders' institutions.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Several hostels already provide accommodation for this purpose, but I will gladly consider any further proposals which may be put forward by local authorities or voluntary bodies.
    Mr. Murray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that law reform bodies have been pressing strongly in recent months for the provision of hostels specifically for this purpose? Is he further aware that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in May unanimously adopted a recommendation to the same effect? Will he think again about the urgency of this matter, particularly since youths who now go to prison may be placed on probation with a condition of hostel residence if this is implemented?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to admit that there are two opinions on this and that many people are doubtful about the wisdom of segregating discharged offenders in separate hostels. As to the future, I can tell him that two local authorities are considering the provision of after-care hostels, and I hope it will not be too long before they put forward some detailed proposals. When we get these, we will give them urgent attention.

    Western Isles
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for reducing unemployment in the Western Isles.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Highlands and Islands Development Board is ready at all times to assist viable projects which can create jobs, and the county councils concerned may now propose projects in the Western Isles for inclusion in the additional public works programme I announced yesterday.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman in part for that reply, but may I again draw his attention to the fact that mine is the constituency with the worst unemployment figures in the whole of Britain, with continuing high emigration, appallingly high freight rate charges which he recently approved, and anxiety about what may happen to fishing if Britain enters the Common Market? Is he aware that the situation justifies a more urgent and extensive programme than the one he has outlined?
    Mr. Campbell: I am aware of the special difficulties of the Western Isles. Work on the expansion of the Hebrides rocket range is under way, and the contract, worth between £4 million and £5 million, has, I am glad to say, gone to a Scottish firm. Most of the increase in freight rates was, unfortunately, due to the 16 per cent. increase in seamen's wages agreed last April.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the failure of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the Inner and Outer Hebrides, in Inverness-shire, Ross-shire and Argyll has been shameful in the last six years? Will he consider giving a directive to the Board urgently to bring forward proposals to do something about the unemployment which has lasted over these years and the emigration, which I am sure the census will show has been pretty disastrous?
    Mr. Campbell: I think that the hon. Gentleman is criticising the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board over the past six years. The Board has had a difficult job to do, but I have
    488
    every confidence in it and I will do all I can to encourage it in its work.
    Mr. Maclennan: What reply has the right hon. Gentleman made to the proposal contained in the successive reports of the Highlands and Islands Development Board that the freight routes to the Western Isles should be treated for grant purposes like trunk roads and be given a 100 per cent. grant? Has he responded positively to that suggestion?
    Mr. Campbell: I responded three or four weeks ago when I visited Orkney and Shetland by making an announcement about the direct routes to those islands from the mainland.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to the mining areas of Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: From time to time I make visits to mining areas for various reasons, but I am not at present planning to make a special tour of Scottish collieries.
    Mr. Sillars: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision on this matter. Is he aware of the great concern in the mining areas about our entry to the Common Market? Indeed, the concern is matched elsewhere in Scotland only in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), where people are very concerned about the "no comment" remark by their Member of Parliament. Is he aware that there is reference to pricing policy in paragraph 157 of the White Paper on the European Community? Has any separate assessment been made of the effect of that pricing policy on the Scottish mining industry, bearing in mind our difficulties about transport and geology as distinct from other coalfields in Britain?
    Mr. Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not the Minister responsible for the coal industry. But I am aware that there is some anxiety about the position of the coal industry if we join the European Coal and Steel Community. But it is being unnecessarily whipped up by the hon. Gentleman, who has misunderstood what is likely to happen.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Civil Servants
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister for the Civil Service what diminution in personnel he has achieved, and at what public saving, from 1st July, 1970, to 30th June, 1971 ; and whether he will now make a statement on further reductions contemplated in the year to 30th June, 1972 and the consequential monetary economy.
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister for the Civil Service what further results he has achieved in reducing the number of civil servants.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): The numbers of non-industrial civil servants have remained fairly steady since the beginning of the year but fluctuations in the figures are bound to occur from quarter to quarter. The numbers of industrials have continued to fall. As to the future, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) on 28th May.—[Vol. 818, c. 238–40.]
    Siir G. Nabarro: Has my hon. Friend failed to remember that 13 months ago today I stood on election platforms on the eve of the poll promising, in consonance with my party's policy, a drastic curtailment of the bureaucracy? As the Minister responsible for the bureaucracy is proving to be such a dismal failure, will my hon. Friend prevail upon his colleagues to alter their policies and secure the reduction of 50,000 civil servants which is urgently needed?
    Mr. Howell: The 50,000 reduction which my hon. Friend promises is his own affair. It was made on his own platform. I do not think he could have heard what I said. I said that there has been a curtailment in the growth of the Civil Service. I hope that he will welcome the sharp cut in the enormous rise in the Civil Service which we inherited from our predecessors. As to the future, the Government share my hon. Friend's wish that there should be a diminution in the numbers in the overloaded central administration area and the sensible delegation of management tasks. We have made a start on this
    490
    matter by setting up the procurement executive, for example.
    Mr. J. T. Price: The House will be deeply grieved by the disappointing reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) about the failure of the Government to honour their election pledge to reduce the Civil Service, as has happened with many of their other pledges, but is he aware that the Government's proposals on the Common Market will obviously have the effect of increasing the Civil Service by the necessity of having to set up a vast bureaucracy to administer the value-added tax? Is the hon. Gentleman trying to persuade the House that the Government have any policy for trimming the Civil Service or reducing the cost of living or doing any of the things that they were pledged to do when they were returned on a false election manifesto last June?
    Mr. Howell: The question of the Civil Service in relation to the Common Market is next on the Order Paper. I had better deal with it when we reach that Question.

    European Economic Community
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is yet able to estimate for the period from 1973 to 1980 the increase or decrease in the Civil Service consequent upon accession of Great Britain to the European Economic Community.
    Mr. David Howell: It is still too early to make a firm estimate.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Why is it too early when everybody knows, from studying the European Economic Community, that it is dominated by a bumbling bureaucracy in Brussels? I make no apology for alliteration in this matter. Surely we are entitled to be told whether our Civil Service will increase, either in Brussels or in this country, to cope with the onerous burdens of administration in the E.E.C., should we unfortunately enter it?
    Mr. Howell: If Parliament decides that we should enter the E.E.C., there will be some switching of staff to new tasks. But that does not mean that an increase in overall Civil Service numbers is inevitable. We are continually on the look-out

    491
    for economies in staff in all areas of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Heffer: In order to save the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) a great deal of embarrassment——
    Sir G. Nabarro: I am not embarrassed.
    Mr. Heffer: —will the hon. Gentleman arrange that, prior to the next General Election, an indication is given to Conservative candidates of which of the party's pledges it is seriously intended to keep and which ones it is not intended to keep?
    Mr. Howell: Any serious approach would reveal that cutting the Civil Service or reorganising the bureaucracy cannot be done by instant government. That was the approach of our predecessors. Luckily, the present Government adopt a more mature and sensible approach.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. In view of the urgent anxiety among a great number of scientists working in the Government service, may I inquire whether you have had any request from the Minister for the Civil Service to answer Question No. 45, tabled by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), and Question No. 44, tabled by me, on this very urgent matter?
  Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the meeting with the European Community which I attended in Brussels on 12th July.
We discussed three issues : harmonisation of capital movements, transitional arrangements in the field of the common commercial policy, and fisheries.
Our object in negotiation on capital movements was to secure the agreement of the Community to an adequate transitional period which would allow us to
492
make the necessary adjustments to our present exchange control restrictions progressively and in reasonably even stages.
Our proposals were briefly outlined in paragraph 130 of the recent White Paper.
I am glad to be able now to report that the Community has accepted our proposals in relation to capital movements in full.
The main transactions affected, and the stages of the proposed changes, are as follows.
First, from the date of our accession, restrictions on financial transactions necessary to facilitate the free movement of labour will be removed, and there will also be a substantial relaxation in the rules affecting financing of direct investment, both ways.
Secondly, remaining restrictions on the financing of direct investment will be removed not later than the end of the second year.
Thirdly, restrictions on movements or personal capital, among which the most important are those affecting emigrants and those affecting house purchase, will be removed by the middle of the transitional period. The main impact of this change is likely to be a once-for-all cost to our reserves probably spread over about two years.
Finally, arrangements will be made to cover dealings in quoted foreign currency securities by the end of the transitional period If circumstances permit, any of these timings may be accelerated at Her Majesty's Government's discretion.
The negotiation itself has of course been concerned only with this question of transition. Her Majesty's Government have throughout accepted the obligation ultimately as a Member State to conform with the Community's rules regarding capital movements. At the same time, it is worth recalling that the Treaty of Rome itself provides for all Member States, important safeguards, particularly Articles 109 and 70(2).
The directives explicitly leave members free to verify by appropriate exchange control measures the nature and reality of transactions or transfers, for example to ensure that a direct investment in the Community is in truth what it purports to be. This gives protection against the

493
exploitation of freedom within the Community as a channel for movement of funds outside it.
There is provision also for special action by Member States to take protective measures in the face of any actual or prospective damaging balance of payments situation.
Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the phased transition which has been negotiated will spread the unavoidable impact on our reserves as evenly as possible and over a period which will delay the main burden until it is likely to be increasingly offset by income returns and an expected growth of inward investment.
We also reached agreement on a number of transitional measures in the field of the common commercial policy, in particular in relation to anti-dumping and the gradual phasing out of certain import restrictions against state trading countries.
Finally, fisheries. As I reported to the House on 24th June, we have explained fully to the Six the great difficulties that would arise for the United Kingdom, as indeed they would for the other applicants, from the extreme nature of access provisions of the common fisheries policy and the need to modify them to take account of the circumstances of an enlarged Community.
In an attempt to find a permanent solution which would be fair and reasonable for everyone, we proposed that waters within a six-mile limit, measured from the usual base lines, should be reserved for vessels genuinely belonging to the ports from which such waters are now being fished.
We still consider that our proposal is in all the circumstances a reasonable basis for a common settlement that would be sensible and equitable for all the parties concerned.
The House will recall that at the Ministerial meeting at Luxembourg between 21st and 23rd June it was not possible to reach a substantive solution to the problem. But there was an important advance in that the Community put formally on record its recognition that the access provisions of the common fisheries policy would need reconsideration in the different circumstances of the enlarged
494
Community. It was agreed that the matter should be taken up at the Ministerial meeting which has just taken place. Recognising that this is a matter of great political, social and economic concern to all the applicants and that a satisfactory settlement could be therefore worked out only on a multilateral basis, we proposed that the other applicant countries should also be invited to join in these discussions.
In the event, it did not prove possible to arrange this. In those circumstances, we could not hope to find an effective and equitable way of reconciling the interests of all four applicant countries and the existing Community at the meeting on Monday.
Against this background and given that there must be agreement regarding the common fisheries policy in the Treaty or Treaties of Accession, I proposed to the Community that we should seek to reach an interim agreement. This would mean that, if the negotiating conference was unable in the time available to reach a final agreement satisfactory to all, everyone's legitimate interests would be protected until we had done so.
Under such an agreement, the applicant countries would maintain the status quo pending further reconsideration of the regulations and the achievement of a detailed and definitive agreement after enlargement of the Community. None of the applicant countries would be called upon to give up anything at this stage or be put at any disadvantage in discussing more permanent arrangements. In particular, it would avoid the unacceptable situation in which any of the applicants would be expected to agree unconditionally to a permanent solution for themselves without knowing what the final outcome of the common fisheries policy would involve for an enlarged Community as a whole.
The Six have taken note of this proposal and have indicated that they now feel the need to study the matter in greater depth.
We shall take up the question again after the Summer Recess. I am convinced that together we shall be able to find a way through this complex problem to a satisfactory solution.
This is a matter in which it is more important to get the right answer than

495
the quick one. In the meantime, our interests are fully safeguarded.
Mr. Harold Lever: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the fact that these negotiations, because they happen to come after the White Paper, leave hon. Members without that explanatory detail which might have been incorporated in the White Paper if they had happened to come earlier? Will he, therefore, take steps to circulate to hon. Members, either in the OFFICIAL REPORT or by some other means, greater detail, especially dealing with capital movements, explaining the effect of the Government's economic and financial strategy in relation to these new arrangements, so that hon. Members may be provided with the proper means of examining these matters before the "take note" debate? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the House will expect in the "take note" debate a very rigorous and comprehensive examination of these important decisions on capital movements?
As for commercial policies, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether reports which have been issued are true, that the Common Market countries have pressed him to liberalise the terms of our trade with the Eastern European countries, and whether he has reacted favourably to that pressure?
Finally, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the fisheries question is a matter of important principle as well as of grave economic consequence to many of our fellow citizens who eke out their livelihood in difficult circumstances? Will he, therefore, bear this in mind continuously throughout the remaining negotiations on the fisheries problem?
Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the points which he has raised.
On the details of the agreement on capital movements, I will certainly take steps to see that further information and details are circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The best way to deal with this detailed explanation is better left to be considered. However, I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need to consider these matters in detail in the debate which we shall be having next week.
496
Concerning the common commercial policy, it is true that in certain fields the Community, which has been expanding its trade not only within itself but with Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth, has a more liberal trading policy than we have. Throughout the transitional period we shall be taking steps in these directions to harmonise our policy with theirs.
Concerning the fisheries regulations, I think that I have made it clear that we attach a great deal of importance to this matter. I accept the views which the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, hon. Members on both sides have at various times expressed on the matter.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: In view of the fact that control of direct investment is to come to an end within two years at most, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what studies he has made and what estimate he has arrived at as to the amount of plant and factories which British and overseas capital, such as American capital, may locate on the other side of the Channel instead of here? In the event of consequential unemployment arising, will he tell us whether, in his understanding, Article 109 of the Treaty provides any opportunity for relief or whether, as appears from the text, it is restricted exclusively to balance of payments considerations?
Mr. Rippon: It is not possible to make precise estimates of the effect of these arrangements on the harmonisation of capital movements over the whole period, but I do not see why the balance should not be positive.
Concerning protective measures, I am inclined to the view that regard should be had in this case not to Article 109, but rather to Article 70(2), or perhaps Article 73.
Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he gave me great pleasure this morning by the announcement that he is standing out for a 12-mile limit around Shetland comparable with that asked for by the Norwegians? Is he further aware that a high proportion of the fish landed in the Shetlands is caught between the 6 and 12-mile limits and that it would be grossly unfair to Shetland to be put in a different position from the Norwegians as fishing is of great social as well as

497
economic importance to the islands? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also confirm that what he said at Brussels is correct?
Mr. Rippon: What I suggested in Brussels was that, as I indicated in the statement, although we put forward our proposals in good faith as a basis for negotiation, if any of the other applicants sought and obtained different arrangements—for example, a 12-mile limit—we would wish to be free to put the case for a 12-mile limit around particularly the Shetlands. I gave the Shetlands only as an instance, but not the only instance which might arise. I pointed out that whereas since last October, because the Anglo-Norwegian Agreement has ended, Norway had been able to impose certain limits in her 12-mile limit, nevertheless she had rights in the Shetlands to fish only dog-fish and shark and therefore could not unilaterally hope to come and take our herring.
Mr. Horden: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us now, or in the "take note" debate, what will be the position during the transitional period about the surrender of the 25 per cent. of the dollar premium which under present conditions is surrendered to the Bank of England? Will he also confirm that freedom of capital movements will be allowed into European securities quoted not only in this country but in Europe itself?
Mr. Rippon: We have until the end of the transitional period to deal with portfolio investment. As to how we operate it in detail within the framework of the broad agreement which I have reached will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I will draw my hon. Friend's points to his attention. I am sure that these are the kind of matters which can and ought to be dealt with in the debate we shall have next week.
Mr. McNamara: Reverting to fishing policy, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when the next meeting of the Council of Ministers will be held to discuss this point, and will he confirm that before the House is requested either to accept or reject the White Paper and the terms which have been agreed by the Government and the Community we shall have a definitive fishing policy?
Mr. Rippon: We shall be raising this matter at the next Ministerial meeting, which we have fixed for 21st September. I hope that we shall then make substantial progress. I have always been careful throughout these negotiations not to tie ourselves to a particular deadline where that is not necessary or desirable, because it is important that we should get this aspect of the negotiations right and deal with it in a way which is not only acceptable to us and to the Community, but to the other applicants as well.
Mr. Wall: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the firm stand which he has taken on British fishing interests. Is he aware that the two alternatives to which he referred in his statement would be acceptable? What would not be acceptable is that Britain should contract for a 6-mile limit whereas other members of the enlarged Community expanded or maintained 12-mile limits. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also tell us whether the question of marketing, as well as the limits question, will be dealt with before the final vote in this House?
Mr. Rippon: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. Different circumstances apply to different applicants. At the end of the day, we must work out a solution which maintains a fair balance between us all. That is our purpose.
We agreed that we could not deal with the marketing arrangements at our last meeting and that we would have to leave them until after the Summer Recess. They are complex. We have quite a number of points to make on them, particularly the inadequacy and unsatisfactory nature of the proposals concerning, for example, the withdrawal prices and the effect on remoter areas.
Mr. Mackintosh: I should like to reinforce this point. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that, while many fishermen would like the withdrawal price system of the marketing regulations, there is genuine worry that the remoter ports could not sustain a uniform withdrawal price compared with the central ports? In this matter an element of subsidy is acceptable, but not one which would be damaging to these ports.
Mr. Rippon: There is no reason to suppose that we should not benefit from

499
proper regulations, including marketing regulations, provided that we get a full opportunity, for which we have asked and which I know we shall not be denied, to sort out these problems as they affect remoter areas in particular.
Mr. Burden: Has my right hon. and learned Friend made it perfectly clear that a 6-mile limit is the absolute minimum we can accept? Will he assure the House that he will not allow this limit to be eroded in future negotiations?
Mr. Rippon: We have made our proposals quite clear about the 6-mile limit. It is from the 1964 base lines. I must leave it there. It is perfectly clear.
Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether he has yet succeeded in identifying the person, described in the Financial Times as a senior member of the Government's negotiating team and elsewhere vaguely as a Minister, who was responsible for reports in several newspapers on 25th June, the day after the Chancellor's last report to the House, that the Government's estimates of the foreign exchange cost of entry to the Common Market in 1977 would be £500 million?
Mr. Rippon: No, I have not.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have a four-day debate on these matters. There are two other statements to be made today and a debate to which I know that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen attach great importance. I call the Secretary of State for Scotland to make the next statement.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While in no way questioning your right to call whom you wish on this matter, is it not a fact that my starred Question No. 68 bore a direct relation to the statement which has just been made? Might it not be possible to put that Question to my right hon. and learned Friend who is just leaving the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: My recollection is that the hon. Member has already had an opportunity today of asking a question on these matters. I may be wrong. Anyhow, it is a matter for me and I have called the Secretary of State for Scotland to make the next statement.

HOUSING FINANCE (SCOTLAND)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Mr. Speaker, with permission I wish to make a statement on the reform of housing finance in Scotland.
Since our plans were outlined in the House on 3rd November I have been discussing them in detail with the Scottish local authority associations. The White Paper which I am today presenting to the House sets out the Government's proposals, framed in the light of these discussions. Copies of the White Paper will be available in the Vote Office from 4 p.m.
We intend to introduce a national scheme providing rent rebates for all tenants of unfurnished houses who need help to pay a reasonable rent, whether their landlords are public authorities or private individuals. Under this scheme, for example, a married man with three children earning £20 a week who pays a rent of £1·42 a week, which is the average council house rent in Scotland, will have it reduced to 75p a week.
Most of the cost of these rebates will be met by the Government. In addition, we are proposing to replace the existing subsidies for house building by three new subsidies designed to give special help to those authorities which still need to build substantial numbers of houses and to those which still have slums to clear. The new slum clearance subsidy will meet 75 per cent. of the cost of slum clearance operations, and it will be payable on expenditure incurred in the present financial year.
We intend to introduce a more rational and uniform system for fixing rents in the public sector. The White Paper proposes that each local authority should be required to increase rents until its income from them, taken together with the new subsidies, meets its total housing expenditure. These rent increases, however, will be limited to an average of 50p a week for any one year, and no individual tenant will have his rent increased for any year by more than 75p a week.
In the private sector we propose to speed up the conversion of the remaining controlled tenancies to rent regulation.

501
Here again rent rebates will prevent hardship, and the fair rent will be reached by three equal annual increases.
The changes we now propose will redirect Government help to the tenants and the areas which most need it, and they will ease the heavy burden of housing expenditure which Scottish ratepayers now bear. They will provide the right framework in which to pursue successfully the policies needed to meet the housing problems of Scotland, now and in the future.
We intend to introduce a Bill early in the next Session to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper.
Mr. Ross: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. He will appreciate that it is, necessarily, a very sketchy outline of what is a complicated business.
Am I right in thinking that basically what is going to happen is that there is to be a considerable annual increase in all rents in Scotland of tenanted properties, be they privately owned or local authority owned, and that thereafter, imposed upon that increase, there will be a rent rebate scheme? To the extent that that will alleviate burdens, so much the better, but is it still the Government's aim to save for the Treasury between £10 million and £20 million by 1975, as was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th October? If so, that really means that a reduced amount of subsidy will be spread over a greater number of people and, without arguing about fairness or anything else, it will mean that over a relatively short period a heavy new burden will be placed upon the shoulders of tenants in Scotland.
Who will fix the rent? The right hon. Gentleman says that local authorities will be required to do so. Does that mean that the Secretary of State will fix it? The right hon. Gentleman said that the rent rebate scheme would be imposed. Will he fix that? Has he discussed with, and got the agreement of, local authorities to that rent rebate scheme? There are many schemes in Scotland, some of them very unsatisfactory, and I should not accept as satisfactory the one mentioned in yesterday's White Paper.
Will a minimum rent scheme be incorporated in these proposals? There is no mention here that there will be a
502
minimum of, say, 40 per cent., or £1, whichever is the more suitable. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the new system will start, and will he confirm that there will be separate Scottish legislation for it? Further, will he say how many new local authority staff will be required to administer the scheme, and who will administer it in the private sector?
The whole thing is riddled with questions, and I hope that we shall have an early debate on the subject.
Mr. Campbell: I should like to reply to as many questions as I can. I agree that time is required to study the White Paper and the details of it.
The increases proposed compare with the increases imposed over five and a half years by the right hon. Gentleman's Government, when the average rent in Scotland was doubled. The limit which his Government placed of 7s. 6d. on the average rise per year is not very different from the limit of 10s., which now becomes 50p, which we are proposing.
The average rent increase will be 50p. The maximum for any individual will be 75p. When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State the equivalent of the proposed 50p was 7s. 6d., so there is not much difference there. There has been a change of currency. We are now using decimal currency, but perhaps I may give the figures again in the old currency so that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can follow them. Under the right hon. Gentleman the average increase was laid down as 7s. 6d. in the old currency. Ours will be 10s. in the old currency.
On the question of subsidies, our aim is to redirect the amount of subsidy that is being paid to local authorities. It is intended that the amount will remain the same and not be reduced.
The requirement on local authorities eventually to balance their housing accounts will be in the legislation which we propose to introduce.
We intend to standardise rate rebate schemes in a national scheme, and in this we are guided by the recommendations, amongst others, of the Brownlie Committee which looked into this in Scotland. Local authority rebate schemes in Scotland now cover no less than 91 per cent. of all council house tenants, but they

503
differ, and it is time that there was standardisation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about minimum rents. Some people, due to their circumstances, will not be required to pay any rent at all. Others may pay a rent and then have it refunded completely from the social security offices.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how the private sector would be looked after. His Government introduced a Bill to move from controlled tenancies to regulated tenancies, and the same system will be continued. We intend to speed it up. There should be no need for extra staff for this.
I think that that answers all the right hon. Gentleman's questions.
Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his attempt to move towards a more rational system of housing finance and subsidy in Scotland, but that we shall have to look carefully at the proposed rent increases in view of the unemployment situation and the low wage earning potential in Scotland at the moment? Is he aware that we shall object to any separate means test system apart from the taxation system, which is the one he ought to be using?
Mr. Campbell: The new rent rebate scheme on a national basis is to be extended into the private sector for the first time, as well as the public sector, and that, I hope, will deal with cases where incomes have become reduced owing to unemployment. I hope, too, that by the time this scheme gets going the present unemployment situation will have changed for the better.
There are now no fewer than 43 different means tests being operated for benefits. As I said a few moments ago, rent rebate schemes in Scotland already cover very nearly all council house tenants, and therefore this should not cause very much change from the present situation.
Mr. Lambie: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will apply a true rents formula to the rents of council houses and a fair rents formula to the rents of privately-tenanted houses? If so, does not that mean that private tenants will be hit harder than council tenants
504
and that in Scotland the only people who will be subsidised are the owner-occupiers? The Government might get away with that policy in England, but they certainly will not get away with it in Scotland. The Scottish people will revolt against this policy.
Mr. Campbell: The fair rents system was brought in by the last Government—[Interruption.] Yes, it was.
Mr. Ross: Not for council houses.
Mr. Campbell: The fair rent system is operating now in the private sector in Scotland. I should have thought that the hon. Member, who I thought knew something about housing policy, judging from the number of statements he makes and letters he writes, would have known that——
Mr. Lambie: Answer the question.
Mr. Campbell: The fair rents system does exist and it will be speeded up. It was brought in by the last Government and the procedures which were followed will be continued.
In the public sector, we have devised a scheme for Scotland which meets the situation in Scotland, where there are so many more public sector tenants, and where it is difficult to make a comparison between the large majority of those houses which were built in the last 30 years and the small privately-tenanted sector, which is mostly in tenements built last century. Therefore, we have devised what are known as true rents on a pooled historic cost for the public sector.
Mr. McElhone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these increases, despite the rebates, will mean a great deal of hardship for the people of Scotland? Is he aware that, in Glasgow, 2,000 people a year on average have to be evicted or abscond because of the high municipal rents imposed by three years of Tory local authority? Would he consider a suggestion that rents should be frozen during this period of high unemployment, especially for local authority houses?
Mr. Campbell: Everything that the hon. Member says will be met by the comprehensive rebate scheme, which will cover tenants in the private sector, as well as those in the public. There should be no need, therefore, for a freeze. Even the last Government did not freeze rents

505
when they were trying to freeze practically everything else.
Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is proposing a massive extension of the means-test State, and that these proposals, combined with the family income supplement and all the other means-tested benefits, are creating a situation in Scotland in which hundreds of thousands of workers will be deterred from working overtime or from seeking better-paid jobs because that would mean that they were worse off?
Mr. Campbell: No, I entirely disagree with the hon. Member. I have just mentioned that there is a large number of means tests in existence. The rate rebate scheme and the means test for that were brought in by the last Government. Rent rebate schema were also advocated by the last Government in circulars to local authorities ; they are well understood and have been used in many cases. What we will do is make sure that there is a standard one to cover all the points which need to be covered in such schemes.
Sir J. Gilmour: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward this Measure to deal with housing in Scotland, which has bedevilled industrial development in Scotland for many years. Does he estimate that these changes will encourage local authorities to sell houses to tenants, so that we get a larger increase of owner-occupiers in Scotland?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, I think that it will lead in this direction. One of the first things that I did on arriving in office was to give local authorities the permission which my predecessor had denied them to sell council houses in appropriate cases.
Mr. Dempsey: The Secretary of State says that he consulted local authority associations. Can he give us some idea how they reacted to his proposals enormously to increase rents over a period of years? Did they unanimously agree? Did they partially agree, or did some of them oppose the suggestion?
Mr. Campbell: They were not asked to comment themselves upon these proposals, for which the Government take full responsibility. But I should like to pay tribute to the co-operation and help
506
which the local authorities gave and the constructive contributions which we received in these discussions.
Mr. Hamish Gray: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement. May I remind him that, despite what hon. Members opposite may say, thousands of families in the lower income groups in Scotland will thank him for this?
Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for having so quickly seen the point of these reforms.
Mr. Sillars: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions? First, would he agree that this measure means that the vast mass of council tenants will get substantial increases in rent from now over the next five years? Second, if a miner from my constituency faces a rent increase of 75p, is he not entitled to demand an increase in his wages to offset it? Third, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have experience of national rent rebate schemes in Scotland in the Scottish Special Housing Association, that most tenants regard that national rebate scheme as camouflage for eventually raising the general level of rents for everyone, and that that is unacceptable to us—or at least to a number of us on this side?
Mr. Campbell: I see that there is a split in yet another direction in the Labour Party. No, I do not foresee that this will mean huge increases in rents over the next five years for most of the population. In many cases, the rents of individual families are likely to be reduced in both public and private sectors as a result of rent rebate schemes. The S.S.H.A. has operated a rent rebate scheme, but our intention is that all these separate schemes should be brought together in one standardised form.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked me earlier about the amount of subsidy involved. I have explained to him many times in the House that the amount of subsidy from the Government, it is intended, will remain the same. But had the previous system continued, much more money would have been spent indiscriminately on subsidies—[HON. MEMBERS : "What about the owner-occupiers?"]—in future

507
years than under this proposal, and that is where the saving takes place. Further, at present, the Scottish ratepayer is paying 37 per cent. of the cost of council houses in Scotland. The equivalent figure in England is only 7 per cent.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: In what substantial way does this White Paper differ from the one presented yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Is this simply a carbon copy of the English White Paper? Second, if the right hon. Gentleman has done any calculation of rent rebates, how many Scottish households, on the figures available to him—he gave us one example—will get a rent rebate? How does he see this operating in the winter ahead and in the years ahead which this very rapid conversion will embrace? Can he consult his right hon. Friends, so that, in the Scottish Grand Committee, if not on the Floor of the House, we can debate the White Paper before we rise for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Campbell: First of all, there are differences between the Scottish White Paper and the English one. The hon. Member will see this when he has had a chance to study both. The main one, of course, is the way in which the rent system in the public sector is to be carried out. In Scotland, certainly in the early years, it is proposed that there will be a calculation of the pooled historic cost, as I explained, whereas in England the fair rent system is being introduced in the public sector.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to say how many families would be likely to fall within the rent rebate scheme. I should need to be omniscient to be able to do that. However, the hon. Gentleman will find in the appendix to the White Paper a number of tables setting out many variations of income of, and numbers of children in, a family and the results in terms of rent rebate. I suggest that he examines those statistics.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the question of debating this subject is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, we had a very full two-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee recently——
Mr. Ross: Not on this subject.
Mr. Campbell: I suggested through the usual channels that we should postpone that debate until we had been able to make this statement, but we were told that the Opposition wanted to hold the debate at that time.
Mr. Ross Mr. Ross indicated dissent.
Mr. Campbell: I am sorry if I have misunderstood the position. The right hon. Gentleman will accept that we should naturally have wished to have had that debate after this statement. Nevertheless, I was able to outline our policy clearly during that debate—[Interruption.]—so that hon. Gentlemen opposite knew what was coming.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will think about this again. There seems to have been a misunderstanding. It was thought to be for the convenience of Ministers, but not for the convenience of my hon. Friends and back benchers, for the debate to take place at a later date. Had we known of the immediacy of this statement, we would have reconsidered the position.
As the English Minister is favourably considering the possibility of debating this subject before we rise for the Summer Recess, should we not in our turn have an opportunity to debate this White Paper fully in Committee upstairs? This is a House of Commons and not a party point, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that a debate occurs before we rise.
Mr. Campbell: I am always keen to debate these matters.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: May we have a debate?
Mr. Campbell: It is a matter for the Leader of the House. I said that it would have been better for the housing debate to have been held later, because a Government statement was imminent.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Ross: What effect will these proposals have on the house-building programme? [Interruption.] I do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to care very much about the trials and tribulations of the cities of Scotland, which will be hit by these changes. The right hon. Gentleman said that differential subsidies would be paid to authorities in need of

509
more houses generally—that is, beyond the figure of 75 per cent. for slum clearance, which is the only figure he has given. We in Scotland have always resisted this differentiation because much of our problem has been related to overcrowding. Will the right hon. Gentleman now say exactly what effect this will have—he must know because he says that he has had consultations with the local authorities—on the house-building programme in Scotland, because, to my mind, it will fall disastrously.
Mr. Campbell: My view is entirely in the opposite direction. The effect of these clear proposals should be to give an impetus to building, both in the private and public sectors.
I emphasise that there are three new subsidies—the housing expenditure subsidy, the special high cost subsidy and, most important, the slum clearance subsidy, which is related to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about city centres. It will be retrospective and will apply this year. There will, therefore, be an incentive to local authorities to get cracking.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. More than 70 per cent. of the houses in my constituency are local authority properties. We have just had a statement which suggests that the Government intend to welsh on agreements under which most of those houses were built. Am I not to have an opportunity to question the Minister on this matter, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: The Chair is always in difficulty in matters of this kind. We have three statements today. I allowed nearly 20 minutes for the first. This statement and the discussion on it began at 3.49 p.m. and it is now 4.14 p.m. I must try to safeguard the time of the House.
Mr. Ross: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend. Is not the situation worsened by the fact that the Secretary of State, unlike the English Minister, has refused to ally with us in
510
asking for a debate on this important subject?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Campbell: I thought I said that I was always keen to have debates on this subject. I added that it was not within my power to arrange one and that the question of having a debate was for the Leader of the House.

DEVELOPMENT AND INTERMEDIATE AREAS (INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS)
4.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a statement on infrastructure works.
The Government have decided to authorise increased capital expenditure on infrastructure works in the development and intermediate areas. This will give still further practical support for the improvement of the economic and social infrastructure of these areas and will help alleviate unemployment, particularly in the construction industry.
The so-called winter works programme of the previous Administration did not give local authorities and others involved the time and scope needed to plan and execute works of lasting benefit. The work under these programmes had to be completed in the winter months—in the least favourable weather conditions for the construction industry as a whole.
The provision we are making now will, therefore, allow the inclusion of more substantial schemes than was possible in the winter works programmes. The infrastructure works now to be undertaken will be those which can be substantially completed during this and the next financial year—that is, by the end of March, 1973.
The Departments concerned will now discuss the implementation of the increase in expenditure with the local authorities and others concerned as a matter of urgency. We estimate that in England, Scotland and Wales the spending authorities should be able to incur total extra expenditure of about £100 million during 1971–72 and 1972–73.

511
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced yesterday the main arrangement for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is making a similar announcement.
This £100 million will cover a wide range of projects, such as trunk and principal roads, improvement and extension of educational buildings, minor capital works for hospitals and other health and personal social services. There will be provision also for infrastructure works selected by local authorities within the field of locally-determined capital expenditure. It certainly should be possible for a good deal of work to be done during the remainder of this financial year, with a larger amount to follow in 1972–73.
This expenditure is wholly additional to the estimated £46 million that will be incurred over the next two years under the measures already announced for higher grants for the improvement of older houses in development and intermediate areas.
These additional sums, totalling an estimated £146 million, should be seen within the framework of the Government's determination to help in bringing about a large improvement of the economic and social infrastructure of the development and intermediate areas. But they will also make their contribution to employment in these areas in the period immediately ahead.
Mr. Crosland: The House will welcome any measures to strengthen the infrastructure of the regions, and, in particular, the House will welcome the belated admission by the Government that there is a serious regional problem with which to deal.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many jobs he estimates will be created by this new programme? He will be aware that unemployment nationally now stands at about 724,000. By how much might this figure be reduced as a result of his announcement?
Will he accept that any measures designed to improve the infrastructure, extremely welcome though they are, are no substitute for direct measures to attract new industry, such as the investment grants, which the Government are now so hastily and fatally withdrawing?
512
Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the state of the economy, particularly in the regions, with rising unemployment, falling investment and stagnant production, is too serious to be dealt with simply by palliatives of this kind and that what is now called for is a major policy of general reflation and expansion?
Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a series of announcements has already been made affecting the regions—in connection, for example, with the road programme and extra expenditure on clearing derelict land and on sewerage—in addition to this announcement.
I cannot give a figure for the number of jobs that will result, because until one has consulted the local authorities on the nature of the work involved, it would be wrong to put a figure on this. But obviously the injection of £146 million of extra work will mean a substantial uptake of people in the construction industry.
As for the relationship of this to the general unemployment situation, I would have thought that in addition to these proposals the regions will benefit considerably from the substantial tax reductions which have come into operation this month and the considerable injection into the economy that will result from that.
Far from being a palliative, this is a very considerable injection. It is far greater than has ever been made previously in a similar approach to this problem, and is certainly far greater than anything done by the Labour Government—[Interruption.]—in a period of rising unemployment.
Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation of all parties in my part of the world? We shall take full advantage of what is offered to us, though we shall come for more and more until we get the position properly established. Is he aware how right he is to improve the infrastructure because this is very important to our area? The more improvement we can get the more likelihood there is of our attracting new industries. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) may say in his

513
carping way, we are very grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Walker: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. I believe that if we can progress with the road programme as announced and with the increases which are taking place in derelict land clearance, there is no reason why during the decade there should not be a fundamental change in the infrastructure of these regions.
Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a regional breakdown of the additional Government expenditure? He said at the General Election that the Government would reduce this expenditure, but now they are increasing it. Can we have a breakdown, so that we may determine how effective or ineffective the programme is likely to be in relation to the growing unemployment problem in the regions concerned?
Mr. Walker: I am in some difficulty here because until one has selected the actual schemes one cannot know in exact terms. But as general guidance we expect the figure to be in the region of £102 million, which will be divided as to £55 million for England, £33 million for Scotland and £14 million for Wales. Looking at the nature of the development areas at the present time, of the £55 million for England something in the order of half will probably go to the Northern Region.
Mr. Redmond: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has just said? May I make a plea for the regions that need great help with their infrastructure but which are not development or intermediate areas and seem to be getting no help at all? I refer particularly to the county borough of Bolton.
Mr. Walker: Such areas are going ahead apace with improvement grant schemes and I know that Bolton has taken a substantial part in such efforts. There are various other ways of increasing help for infrastructure, such as sewerage and sewage disposal schemes, and the like. But it is right that we should discriminate between those areas which have suffered from long and difficult unemployment
514
problems and others which have been more fortunate.
Mr. Orme: I agree that the position in all areas is bad at the moment. The greater Manchester area, with a population of about 2 million people, now has an unemployment level of nearly 5 per cent. When is that area to get intermediate status? Will any of the schemes announced cover it in any way?
Mr. Walker: These are schemes for development areas and intermediate areas. Future designation of areas is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The more one extends such areas the less priority one can give to the areas concerned, and I think that the policy pursued by both Governments of concentrating fundamental help on areas which have suffered for a very long time is correct.
Mr. Skinner: Can the Minister guarantee that the £100 million will be provided in total by the Government? In any case, how much will it cost the ratepayers as a whole to go ahead with these schemes?
Mr. Walker: On the improvement grant side, we have increased the proportion provided by the Government to 75 per cent. With regard to the £100 million, it depends on the nature of the works. Trunk road schemes and schemes connected with hospitals will attract 100 per cent. Government grant, but in other cases the percentage will vary.
Mr. Nott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be greatly welcomed in Cornwall, which is a development area? He said that of the £55 million for England about half would go to the Northern Region : may I assume that a very high proportion of the remainder will go to Cornwall? While we welcome the priority given to hospitals and schools, can the nature of the work be regarded fairly flexibly, because all sorts of schemes which could be of enormous benefit to unemployment in Cornwall are on the margin of infrastructure?
Mr. Walker: I am aware of the unemployment situation in Cornwall, and I hope that the local authorities will quickly prepare the schemes they would like to submit to us.
Mr. Bagier: While welcoming the Minister's announcement, can I take it from the figures he has given that about £25 million is to be spent in the Northern Region in the next two years? If that is correct, does that figure take into consideration existing schemes which have been lumped together, and therefore is to that extent not additional? Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the very relevant fact that it is jobs that are required, and that he must not write off the question of winter works? That being so, will he not very urgently consider labour intensive schemes because this is the time to start if they are to take effect?
Mr. Walker: One should get the figures in perspective. In the last three years of the previous Government the total for winter works in all regions was £51 million. We are now talking of injecting £146 million in two years. It is a dramatic difference. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, this expenditure is completely additional to any existing schemes.
Mr. Evelyn King: My right hon. Friend referred to discriminating in favour of areas of high unemployment and that, of course, I accept. Is he aware that in South Dorset there is an area where the rate of unemployment is as high as it is in the areas mentioned, and where the wage rate is lower? Can my right hon. Friend tell us of any way in which those areas will benefit by what he has announced and, if not, why not?
Mr. Walker: I am aware of these problems, but I believe that the basic infrastructure in some of the regions presents far more of a problem than is the case in South Dorset, and I think it right to concentrate more help on them.
Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Is the right Hon. Gentleman aware that £14 million for Wales will cover hardly half of the total loss in investment grants? Will he give an assurance that the £14 million spread over two years will balance out the 30 per cent. increase in unemployment in Wales since last June?
Mr. Walker: I must point out that the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. If he wants comparisons of taxation effect, he should look at the reductions in S.E.T., in income tax, and all the rest.
Mr. Waddington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be very welcome in North-East Lancashire, but am I entitled to hope that as a result of his announcement some quite major roadworks will be included in the programme, and that even more important programmes, such as phase 3 of toe Calder Valley Highway, will be accelerated?
Mr. Walker: We have already speeded up the phasing of parts of the Calder Valley programme, and we shall have urgent discussions with the authorities concerned as to the best projects which may be started as soon as possible to help the construction industry and the regions concerned.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts :

1. Criminal Damage Act, 1971.

2. Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1971.

3. National Insurance Act, 1971.

4. Torbay Corporation Act, 1971.

5. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Ore Berth) Act, 1971.

6. Luton Corporation Act, 1971.

7. Surrey County Council Act, 1971.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention and that of the House to a matter which may constitute a breach of privilege. I refer to today's edition of the Sun and to a report in page 2 headed
"Market M.P.s get cash threat".
The report is by Mr. Keith Mason, and the relevant passage reads :
"A union yesterday threatened to withdraw cash support from pro-Market Labour M.P.s if they divided the party.
They were told to toe-the-line '… or join the Tories'.

517
The warning came from Mr. Alex Kitson, executive officer of the transport union, at its conference at Scarborough.
He said that any Labour M.P. backed financially by the union should seek support elsewhere at the next general election if they voted for entry.
Eighteen Labour M.P.s get transport union grants of up to £500 a year towards their constituency expenses.
But the union would not be allowed to cut off funds during the present Parliament.
Mr. Kitson's warnings carry weight for he represents the trade unions on the Labour Party national executive."
The rest of the report is not relevant to what I have to say.
I should like to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I know Mr. Kitson and have a high regard for him and that I am not in any way casting doubt on the normal arrangements for financial assistance made by many outside bodies to Members of Parliament and openly declared.
It is intolerable that Members of Parliament should be bullied or threatened by sanctions of this kind into voting one way or the other on the Common Market question, which should be a matter entirely between a Member of the House and his constituents.
I am fortified in that view by a precedent to which I now draw your attention. On 25th March, 1947, a complaint was made by the then Member for Dorset, North—Mr. Frank Byers—of certain actions by the Executive Committee of the Civil Service Clerical Association which, he submitted, were calculated improperly to influence Mr. William Brown, the Member for the County of Warwick, Rugby Division, in the exercise of his parliamentary duties and constituted a breach of the privileges of the House. The matter of the complaint was referred to the Committee of Privileges.
The Committee, whose Chairman at that time was, I believe, Mr. Herbert Morrison, reported to the House and the House accepted its recommendation on 15th July in the following Resolution :
"That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee of Privileges, and in particular declares that it is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, or any
518
Member of this House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, contrary or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament ; the duty of a Member being to his constituents and to the country as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1947; Vol. 440, c. 365.]
I submit that the report which I have read to you is in complete contradiction of that Resolution.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that a prima facie case of breach of privilege must be presented to you and to the House as soon as possible after it has allegedly been committed? The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has said that this report appeared in the Sun this morning. This was in the Press yesterday and it was on the radio yesterday. There was ample time for this complaint to have been made yesterday.
There have been occasions when prima facie cases of breach of privilege have been declined because they have not been presented at the earliest possible moment. Will you bear this point in mind, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: From the point of view of the Chair, one of the more agreeable customs which have developed is that Mr. Speaker is allowed 24 hours in which to consider these matters before he rules. I will rule tomorrow on this matter.
In accordance with the custom, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) must hand in the newspaper.
Copy of newspaper handed in.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That at this day's Sitting, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock ; and the Education (Milk) Bill and the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr Humphrey Atkins.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [27TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
  EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
    New Clause 4

      EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AREAS—ENGLAND AND WALES
      Notwithstanding anything contained in section 1 of this Act and notwithstanding anything which may be done between the passing of this Act and the commencement of the said section 1, regulations in force when this Act is passed shall continue to apply to any local education authority in England or Wales any part of whose area forms part of a development area.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.32 p.m.
      Mr. Edward Short: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this new Clause the House can discuss new Clause 5—Future development areas—England and Wales ; new Clause 6—Existing special development areas—England and Wales ; new Clause 7—Future special development areas—England and Wales ; new Clause 8—Exception related to male unemployed ; new Clause 9—Exception related to future male unemployed ; new Clause 10—Exception related to Urban Aid Programme ; new Clause 11—Exception related to future Urban Aid Programme ; Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert :
      'Subject to subsection (3A) below'.
      Amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 4, at beginning insert :
      'Subject to subsection (3A) below'.
      Amendment No. 25, in line 9, at end insert :
      (3A) In relation to any local education authority whose area is wholly or partly situated in a part of England and Wales which is for the time being a development area within
      520
      the meaning of the Local Employment Act 1960, sections 49 and 78(2)(a) of the Education Act 1944 shall continue to have effect as amended by section 3 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 and the Education (School Milk) Act 1970, and subsections (2) and (3) above shall not apply.
      Amendment No. 26, in line 10, at beginning insert :
      'Subject to subsection (3A) above'.
      Amendment No. 32, line 20, at beginning insert :
      'Subject to subsection (6) below'.
      Amendment No. 54, in page 3, line 5, at beginning insert :
      'Subject to subsection (6) below'.
      Amendment No. 55, in line 13, leave out 'on 1st August 1971' and insert :
      'when Scotland ceases to be a development area within the meaning of the Local Employment Act 1960 ; but thereafter in relation to any education authority whose area is wholly or partly situated in a part of Scotland which is for the time being a development area with the meaning of that Act, sections 53 and 55 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 shall continue to have effect as amended by section 3 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968, and subsections (1) and (4) above shall not apply'.
      Amendment No. 62, in line 13, at end insert :
      (7) The restriction imposed by this section on the duty of local education authorities to provide milk at educational establishments under their management shall not apply to any such authority in whose area the average earnings are below the national average ; but section 3 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (in so far as it applies to Scotland) shall continue to apply.
      And Amendment No. 63, in line 13, at end insert :
      (7) The restriction imposed by this section on the duty of local authorities to provide milk at educational establishments under their management shall not apply to any such authority in whose area the number of males unemployed exceeds a figure of five per cent. of the number of males in employment at the time of the coming into force of this section or at any time thereafter ; but section 3 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (in so far as it applies to Scotland) shall continue to apply.
      Mr. Short: This miserable, rather shameful, Bill does two things. It enables schools to sell milk to their pupils and it withdraws free milk from primary school pupils between the ages of 7 and 11, except in two categories—first, if they have a medical certificate from the medical officer of the authority stating that the child's health requires that he should

      521
      be provided with milk at school, and, second, if he is in a special school.
      This group of new Clauses and Amendments—17 in all—seeks to add a third category of children to retain their free milk. All of them are based upon a regional differentiation of one kind or another. There are some which would retain free milk for children in development areas, some in special development areas, some in areas in receipt of urban aid, some in areas where unemployment is 5 per cent. or over, and some where the level of earnings is below the national level.
      These 17 Clauses and Amendments are based upon this kind of regional differentiation. All these regions—whether they are development areas, special development areas, urban aid areas, high unemployment areas, or whatever they are—are characterised by high unemployment and, therefore, by the poverty which is consequent upon high unemployment. They all suffer in varying degrees from poverty, deprivation and need.
      Poverty is bad enough in the case of able-bodied adults, but when poverty afflicts children and old people it is writ large. I often think that the morality of men and of Government can be gauged pretty accurately by how they treat their children and their old people. This Government in this miserable Bill are taking free milk away from children between the ages of 7 and 11.
      Mr. Anthony Fell Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth) indicated dissent.
      Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman need not shake his head because that is what the Bill is about. This Government, but not this Bill, are also taking milk away from the pre-school child, unless he is fortunate enough to have a place in a nursery school. This is nothing to do with taking milk away from almost adult teenagers many of whom do not like milk. This concerns taking milk away from very young children aged 7 and over.
      In Committee we heard a number of reasons why the Government are doing this. The most frequently stated reason is that the Conservatives believe that social benefits should not be given across the board irrespective of need but should be given only to those in need. Indeed, the
      522
      Minister for Housing and Construction repeated this yesterday when he was talking about his housing plans. The Conservative philosophy is that there should be selectivity in social benefits. I can bring forward, if the House would wish them, 50 quotations from right hon. and hon. Members opposite about selectivity in social benefits. Here in the Bill they deny that principle. The Bill denies the principle of selectivity. Selectivity is the ark of the covenant. Indeed, it is the covenant inside the Tory ark.
      All we do here in this group of Amendments and Clauses is to ask the Government to apply the principle of selectivity. We on this side of the House hate it, but we have tabled these Amendments and Clauses because, if only one of them were accepted, it would mean that a large number of children in need would retain their free milk.
      "A Better Tomorrow", which I quote pretty frequently, as the Under-Secretary of State knows, has a great deal to say about selectivity and about regional policy. For example, in this publication the Conservatives say that they want to create a country which uses prosperity wisely and which helps the elderly and those in need. On page 7, dealing with regional policy, they say this :
      "We will introduce effective regional development policies to bring prosperity to every part of the country."
      On page 8 they say that they want to create a better tomorrow—
      "A better tomorrow with living standards rising again…".
      This really ought to be sung ; it sounds much better—
      "A better tomorrow with living standards rising again at a reasonable rate so that every family can enjoy a fuller life.
      A better tomorrow for all : for the families that are homeless today, for the unemployed ; for the children still in poverty …"
      That is in their own election manifesto.
      Mr. John Nott (St. Ives): I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a joke or is being serious. [HON. MEMBERS : "It is no joke."] Is he suggesting that it should be part of regional development policy to provide milk for children between 7 and 11 years of age? He is not seriously proposing that as part of regional policy, is he?
      Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that it is part of regional policy, there is something wrong with him. He has no compassion. If that represents Tory thinking and Tory policy about the regions and the development areas, then God help those areas. If the correcting of regional imbalance does not have a social content, there is nothing much to be said for it.
      Again, on the page referring to regional policy, the Tories said this in their manifesto :
      "We regard an effective regional development policy as a vital element in our economy"—
      and so on—
      "socially, because we are not prepared to tolerate the human waste and suffering that accompany persistent unemployment, dereliction and decline."
      So much for "A Better Tomorrow ". The Government have an opportunity here to apply what their party said in its manifesto about selectivity and about regional policy and regional imbalance.
      We had a number of bets in the Standing Committee, and I had one with the Under-Secretary of State that when the Bill came into operation, if ever it did, there would be seen to be a close correlation between the medical milk category and unemployment, that where unemployment was high the number of children in the medical milk category would be high also. I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed, but there is a close correlation emerging already, as is seen from the right hon. Lady's Written Answer about school meals, between, on the one hand, the number of children dropping out of paid school meals and the number of free meals and, on the other hand, unemployment.
      In the Northern Region there is 7·1 per cent. male unemployment, in Scotland 75 per cent., and in Wales 5·3 per cent. I draw attention to the column in the right hon. Lady's Written Answer which gives the proportion of free dinners as a percentage of the dinners taken. There are 26 areas showing over 30 per cent. free dinners, and 22 of those are in either the North or Wales. There are no figures in this connection for Scotland. There are 37 areas with over 25 per cent. free dinners—again, excluding Scotland—and 31 of those are in the North or Wales.
      524
      My own city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne records nearly 50 per cent. of its meals taken as free meals. Imagine that—almost 50 per cent.
      The right hon. Lady tried to make out on a number of occasions that the recent increase in the parental income scales has to some extent at least compensated for the increase in price. But that is quite wrong. I had some figures sent to me this week by the Tyneside Child Poverty Action Group, figures well prepared after the Group had carried out its own survey. This is how the matter looks. In Newcastle there has been a drop of 23 per cent. in the take-up of paid meals and an increase of only 8 per cent. in free meals. In Gateshead there has been a drop of 25 per cent. in paid meals and an increase of only 14 per cent. in free meals. In South Shields there has been a fall of 31 per cent. in paid meals and an increase of only 5 per cent. in free meals, and, I should add, South Shields has the highest percentage of free meals in the country. So one could go on.
      The right hon. Lady said that the number of meals taken falls off in the summer. How does she explain net falls in the North-East of up to 20 per cent. in the number of children taking meals? I can give the explanation. It is simple. It is due to sheer, stark poverty. The net drop in the number of meals taken revealed by that survey is due to sheer, stark poverty in Britain in 1971, after 13 months of Tory misrule.
      The Government know nothing about what is happening in the North, in Wales and in Scotland, and I do not believe that they care, either. To withdraw free milk from 7-year-olds in a city like mine, where nearly 50 per cent. of the meals taken are free and where there is 7·5 per cent. male unemployment, is shameful and disgusting. How can the Government defend it?
      4.45 p.m.
      The shame of it is made all the greater by the right hon. Lady's thoroughly misleading assertion that it is all a matter of priorities. I have her speech here. It was deliberately misleading. This year, on the Government's own figures in "New Policies for Public Spending", education expenditure has been reduced by £21 million. It is a matter of priorities all right, but it is not a matter of priorities within the education budget.

      525
      I see that the right hon. Lady was called an alchemist the other day by one of her Tory councillors in Barnet. She was called a lot of other names as well, but I should probably be out of order if I used them here. Indeed, the right hon. Lady is an alchemist, trying to turn a base metal into gold, and trying without very much success, according to the public opinion polls, to justify snatching away the children's milk in order to make surtax payers even richer. That is what she is doing. It is a matter of priorities all right, but not priorities in the education budget.
      Mr. Nott: Extremist rubbish.
      Mr. Short: It is extremist rubbish to protest about milk being taken away from 7-year-olds, is it? If that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks, I invite him to come to my constituency and say it.
      The right hon. Lady—in passing, may I say how pleased we are to see that she got safely out of her glasshouses this morning ; she does escape from some of them, apparently—is the Minister charged under Section 1 of the 1944 Act with the duty
      "to promote the education of the people of England and Wales."
      Mr. Fred Evans: God help them.
      Mr. Short: Ever since State education started 100 years ago, it has been recognised by nutrition experts and educationists that there is a close connection between quality and standards of education and nutrition. I discovered that in a Report ordered to be printed by the House in 1885 Sir James Crichton Brown said :
      "… the question of milk supply claims priority over that of education."
      At the turn of the century, progressive people throughout the country were advocating the supply of free school milk. I came across an old pamphlet issued by the Independent Labour Party in 1905. It was written by a gentleman named Councillor A. W. Short, who was, I am pleased to see, the first Labour Councillor in Bootle. He said :
      "It is useless to spend money on educating children who have not the physical capacity to assimilate it. Nay, it is inflicting on them untold injury."
      526
      That was written 65 years ago. Now, in 1971, this new style Tory Government are way behind those progressive gentlemen at the turn of the century.
      The Government could retrieve the situation to some extent by accepting one of these Amendments or new Clauses. We have offered them a wide variety, and they can take their pick. I do not mind much which they choose. I do not greatly mind what the criterion is so long as there is a poverty criterion, as there is in the case of school meals, added to the two other criteria.
      If the reason for the Bill is the one given, for example, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) in Committee, that our children are too fat and ought to be thinned down a bit and, therefore, we ought to stop their free milk—that is what he said—I hope that the Government will say so. Whatever their reason for this mean Bill, their own philosophy, stated over and over again, demands that there should be a poverty criterion if they are withdrawing milk from young children. Their economic policy also makes a poverty criterion urgent and essential.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind hon. Members that a large number of new Clauses and Amendments are being taken for discussion with the Clause.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): Because the set of new Clauses and Amendments which we are debating cover Scotland as well as England and Wales, I hope that it may be for the general convenience of the House if I intervene briefly now and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, intervenes later. Between us, we shall hope to cover the whole board. We shall try to follow that procedure throughout at least the major debates which lie ahead.
      I wish to direct my attention strictly to the new Clauses and Amendments, but I must stray a little after the opening statement of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). As I watched him in his white surplice, preaching his sermon, with a halo around his head as though he

      527
      had never taken part in a similar exercise, my mind went back to 4th November, 1968, when he removed free school meals from the fourth and subsequent children. By chance, I have the HANSARD extract by me. In defending his action, mostly against his own side, he said :
      "This is not a cut. It is simply using resources much more wisely. All the children who need free meals can get free meals. There is no need to give the money to quite wealthy people with large incomes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th November, 1968 ; Vol. 772, c. 486.]
      I think he was absolutely right. What I find surprising is that he cannot carry the logic into opposition but can permit himself to say, "We hate selectivity". Indeed not. He rightly attempted to get more people to take up their entitlement to free school meals, which was a total commitment to selectivity. The process of which the Bill forms a part is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said it was—using resources much more wisely.
      The Bill must be looked at as part of a whole. We heard something about the distinguished Councillor Short of 66 years ago. But Councillor Short, who I am sure was a paragon of virtue—I understand that he was not related to the right hon. Gentleman—would never have known anything about the modern social benefits and the advance in social provision, such as the family income supplement which comes into effect on 5th August. These matters must be looked at as a whole. He would not have known of the social benefits which we as a people rightly regard as important in this part of the 20th century, all of which are being improved as a result of the reallocation of resources, in which the Bill plays a part.
      Now I will direct my attention to the three strands in the new Clause and the Amendments. We are invited to be selective in terms of development areas. It is true that in Committee we are all accustomed merely to seeing an argument got on to its feet by an Amendment, but on the Floor of the House we naturally expect the proposals to be in a workable form, and the new Clauses and Amendments are drawn with a greater degree of sophistication than is the case in Committee.
      Supposing the House agreed that there should be a duty upon local authorities
      528
      to provide milk free for the 7-to-11-year-olds in those areas any part of which were affected by the urban programme. One of the areas to benefit would be Buckinghamshire. The House would have decided that the children in all of Buckinghamshire should receive free school milk, and as a result the poverty-ridden stockbrokers of Chalfont St. Giles would benefit. That is an astonishing suggestion to put before the House.
      I am talking now about the urban programme, which is covered by one set of Amendments, and I shall deal with the development areas later. Let me take a city. The urban programme also benefited the city of Leicester—rightly so, because it has pockets of poverty. But I am told that per capita it is one of the richest cities in Europe. It is solemnly proposed that as a selective measure we should benefit the children of Leicester.
      Let us take an outer London borough now, the borough of Barnet, which is an admirable borough. One of its best features is that part of it returned my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to this House. I doubt whether there will be hon. Members opposite who, on reflection, would feel it right that they should vote for a measure of selectivity which provided that for the whole of Buckinghamshire and Barnet, not just those areas affected by the urban programme, there should be free school milk. I rest my case there on the urban programme proposals. They do not stand up to examination for one moment.
      What would be the effect if we were to take as our criteria for selectivity the special development areas, the intermediate areas or the development areas? It is true that for the situation with which they seek to deal those areas are a useful weapon in the Government's armoury for regional assistance. But the new Clauses are so drawn that any part of the area affected comes under the free school milk provision. I have lists of the areas here, including Cornwall and Devonshire but not, for example, Dorset or Somerset. Yet we have just heard from one of my hon. Friends about the unemployment figure in a limited part of South Dorset. Will Labour hon. Members troop through the Lobby in favour of a selective system which provides free school milk for children of 7 to 11 years of age in every school in Cornwall and

      529
      Devon but not in Dorset and Somerset? I believe that they are susceptible to rational argument. I have fought this matter through Committee with a number of them.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Ernest Armstrong: It is much more reasonable to do this than to take free milk from 7-year-olds when the figures of the Secretary of State have proved that families are living in poverty and unable to buy the milk. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to that.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: My right hon. Friend has shown no such thing. I am coming to the question of unemployment. In view of the large number of new Clauses and Amendments, I hoped that I was being courteous in taking the three central threads. I would have been attacked by the Opposition if I had not done so. I am now dealing with the suggestion that the selectivity should be by way of development areas. Now that I have shown the ridiculous results which would come from that, I do not suppose the matter will be persisted in, so I move to the third thread.
      Mr. James Lamond: If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that selectivity should be operated in this way, why do the Government themselves from time to time use these criteria—for example, in giving extra assistance for the improvement of housing, irrespective of whether the housing needs are greatest, in the development areas or other areas?
      Mr. van Straubenzee: For the reason that assistance within a development area should be used selectively. But that is not what is being argued now. I am being asked to provide compulsorily for free school milk in all schools in any part of an area which is in a development area. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Opposition's own new Clauses. He will then appreciate what I am saying. They do not stand up to scrutiny. There is, in fact, a certain element of selectivity in the Bill already. If one wants to make an intelligent selectivity as between schools or as between children, one does not do it by way of development areas, because this would produce the ridiculous results which I have just outlined.
      Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has presumed to do a job demolishing the argument about selectivity for development areas. But his point is not valid. Does he not recognise that the Government are operating such selectivity already? For example, we passed the Housing Bill yesterday, which specifically gives special subsidies to house improvements in development areas. The Bill was specifically designed for them. That is the principle we are seeking to implement here.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. It is unlike him, but he is not. I give an example. Only certain small parts of the development area in Devonshire would be affected—namely, the exchange areas of Barnstaple, Bideford and Ilfracombe. The result of the Opposition's new Clauses and Amendments would be that the entire county of Devonshire, development area or not, would be given free school milk. I think I have made my point. I am simply saying that hon. Members have not fully appreciated the effects of these new Clauses and Amendments.
      The third criterion would be unemployment. I wonder whether it has been considered for a moment how this would work. Obviously, it is outside my responsibility but I take the example of the great city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in deference to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that within the city area there are two entire employment exchange districts and part of a third. The same applies to a number of our other great cities and areas. As I understand the new Clauses and Amendments, it is suggested that the city council of Newcastle should pass a resolution saying that, to the best of its belief, unemployment within the city area has reached a certain minimum percentage. But how, since there is no correlation between unemployment areas and local education authority areas, is a reputable city council to arrive at a statement of that kind if, for example, the rate of unemployment should fluctuate downwards in any particular area? Are we to have, in those circumstances, the immediate removal of free school milk within them?
      I must therefore tell the Opposition that selectivity on these three grounds does not begin to stand up to examination. I am asserting roundly, first, that

      531
      there are provisions in the Bill for certain types of school ; secondly, that there are certain medical provisions, which we shall be debating later ; thirdly, that this is part of the reallocation of resources which must be looked at as a whole. I believe that when these criteria are examined objectively no hon. Member will want to pursue them.
      Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: The hon. Gentleman has given a pettifogging kind of reply. He raised an extraordinary kind of argument in his detailed objections to our attempt, for example, to include development areas for the continuation of existing regulations. I pay him the credit of believing that his heart was not in the job.
      I speak on behalf of my constituency, where we have, by temporary mischance, soon to be corrected, a Conservative council. It has made clear its objections to these proposals by the Government and its wish to see the existing provision for milk continue. I am, therefore, speaking not purely on party political grounds in arguing my case in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) but, indeed, for the whole generality of people in my area.
      The right hon. Gentleman rather contemptuously referred to our proposals for the development areas. I am speaking for a constituency where the male unemployment has risen steadily until now it is 15 per cent. I am talking about a constituency in which the cost to many families of sending their children to school has mounted steadily. Many are now being asked to pay as much as £3 a week merely to get their children to school. I have had precious little comfort from the Department when I have appealed for help in this regard. The problem has to be seen as a whole. The question of school milk is only one part of the whole problem of areas like mine—a problem for which hon. Members opposite must accept total responsibility. Conservatives and Labour supporters, and Liberal supporters where there are any, regard the Conservative Government as wholly responsible.
      I strongly support my right hon. Friend on this series of Amendments. I do not suggest that we are tied to any individual
      532
      Amendments, but we are trying to see whether we can get some glimmer of encouragement. I am concerned especially with the development area and with constituencies such as mine where the hardship being suffered is clear and where some of the emergency programmes which the Government are now introducing will do little to help in the period immediately ahead. I want a much more forthcoming answer from the Government, or it will take a very long time to get the remaining stages of the Bill through the House.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: The speech of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) seemed to have one or two unusual features. One was that he forgot to make his usual attack on his former civil servants. Secondly, he seemed to be placing the provision of milk above schooling as the primary function of education. To paraphrase Housman, he was saying,
      "Milk does more than Milton can, To justify God's ways to man ".
      It is a pity that the Department of Education is responsible for these policy decisions, because the provision of milk is essentially a matter of health and social security. While the actual administration of the milk scheme is bound to be through the education system, I hope that in future it will be possible to transfer the policy decisions to the Department where they rightly belong, and I do not say that in any sense of criticism of the way in which the Department now responsible conducts its affairs.
      I have felt some unease about one aspect of the Bill, and it is that which underlies this group of Amendments. It is the risk that in some parts of the country there are some children who are not sufficiently nourished when they arrive at school and are now benefiting from the provision of milk. There seems some reason to believe that in certain areas in particular—and they will tend to be the kind of areas which the Amendments discuss—this possibility exists.
      In principle, I should have been happier if it had been possible to enable local authorities to decide whether to go on providing milk for these categories. However, I accept that in a Bill of this nature it is probably wrong to tackle the fundamental question of the powers of

      533
      local authorities, although I believe that that is something to which we shall return.
      The question is what can be done about the problem, and I should like to point to what I believe may be a solution which is offered by existing legislation and will continue to exist after the Bill has become law. As hon. Members will recall, Section 6(1) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963, says :
      "A local authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, incur expenditure for any purpose which in their opinion is in the interests of their area or its inhabitants, but shall not, by virtue of this subsection, incur any expenditure for a purpose for which they are, either unconditionally or subject to any limitation or to the satisfaction of any condition, authorised or required by or by virtue of any enactment other than this section to make any payment."
      That is the so-called penny rate Clause. It allows a local authority to spend the product of a penny rate at its discretion, so long as it does not spend it on something either specifically provided for or specifically forbidden under other legislation.
      Would it be possible under that provision for local authorities to provide breakfast or refreshment, whatever it might be called, to children who, it had reason to believe, might be arriving at school without adequate nourishment? The problem is that a sizeable number of children in certain areas arrive at school without an adequate breakfast and often without any breakfast. In some parts of the country it is a serious problem, but under that Act it might be possible to meet it.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Simon Mahon: I may be able to assist the hon. Gentleman. I am a vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Association has written a remarkable letter, dated 13th June, saying that if the Bill goes through in its present form, it would seem that individual local authorities which are not themselves education authorities might be able to resort to the use of the so-called free penny under the provisions of Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provision) Act, 1963. That would mean that we had one set of local authorities, not education authorities, which would be able to
      534
      operate it, and another set, local authorities which were themselves education authorities, not able to do so. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that?
      Mr. Raison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that that power would allow them to provide milk as such, for that would be covered by these provisions ; but, equally—and I seek confirmation on this score—I think that it might be possible for them to provide breakfast, refreshment of some kind, which was clearly nourishing, but not milk itself. [Laughter.] The problem we are discussing—Labour Members might be serious about it—is that of under-nourished children, and I am seeking to know whether there is any way in which to tackle it.
      Mr. van Srraubenzee: The Bill would affect the provision to which my hon. Friend has referred, but he will be assisted if he studies the Provision of Milk and Meals Regulations, 1969. He will there see the powers vested in education authorities. I gladly confirm that those powers would not be affected by the Bill.
      Mr. Raison: I am grateful, because my hon. Friend seems to have made an essential point ; namely, that, in spite of what the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) said, perfectly honestly, local authorities will have the power to provide refreshment, or whatever it may be, to the children about whom the House is concerned. I am not sure whether I understood my hon. Friend correctly. I am not sure whether the penny rate comes into it. If it does, it is relevant to note that very few local authorities spend it ; certainly Newcastle does not, and Manchester does not, and Merthyr Tydvil spends only a very small part of it. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance, and it seems that the position will be satisfactory.
      Mr. Edward Short: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman sat down?
      Mr. Raison: I had sat down, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That ends the matter.
      Mr. John Pardoe: I do not want to deal in detail with the lack of consistency in the Labour Party's attitude to milk and school meals. This must be the nth time that I have opposed an increase in the price of school meals, or an attempt to abolish school milk, and on one occasion I divided the House, but that was when the Labour Party was in office.
      I support the Amendments, but the Labour Party has no one but itself to blame for the Measure which the Conservative Government are now able to introduce, because if the Labour Government had done what I asked, milk and meals would have been taken out of education and put into welfare, where they belong, and we should have been arguing about the matter in terms of entirely different priorities.
      After all, why should we be concerned with education in this case in general or in particular in the development areas? It is far more a matter of welfare, more a matter of family provision. The right hon. Lady wants us to assess the priority of the cost of school milk in terms of the priority within the education budget. This is the wrong budget in which to discuss it. We ought to be discussing this in terms of the priorities for the total of family provision. If this had been done in the past it would have been much easier to make an argument this afternoon for selecting development areas.
      The hon. Gentleman has sought to ridicule an attempt to be selective in terms of development areas. In a sense, of course, if he confines his argument to education he is on fairly strong ground. There is no great argument for selecting development areas and giving them an added slice of the education budget because there is no argument for saying that Cornwall, which I represent, is educationally deprived. I often argue for more primary and secondary schools, but when I travel around the country looking at education elsewhere I have to admit that education in the urban educational priority areas is in a far worse shape than it is in rural Cornwall.
      Where the hon. Gentleman is on very weak ground in arguing that we should not be selective in development areas when it comes to total family provision.
      536
      Cornwall is certainly deprived in terms of family provision. He spoke of Devon and Cornwall and said that it would be ridiculous if we selected those areas in preference to Dorset. But he is missing the point here, because the central thing about Cornwall is that it has a very low income level indeed, the lowest of any county in England and almost as low as any county in England and Scotland. It is almost on a level with Northern Ireland in this respect. There was a point when I thought he was going to glorify the advantages of living in Devon and Cornwall to the extent that he would say "Let them eat cream as the alternative to milk." It is not the comparison between Cornwall and Devon and Dorset that is ridiculous, but the income levels and particularly family income levels in Cornwall.
      In the autumn term we shall see a substantial increase in the cost of transporting children to school. This will be borne not so much by the county councils but because of the rules introduced in the early 1950s, which have not been brought up to date, it will mean that the cost of transporting children to school in rural areas such as Cornwall—where virtually all rural transport will cease on the last day of this month—will be very much greater than in urban areas. There is no doubt that in areas such as the South-West development area family poverty is real. It is true that it may not always go hand in hand with a high level of unemployment, although I would say that was as good a guide as we can find.
      The hon. Gentleman quibbled about whether it was an extraordinary situation when whole counties have part of their area in development areas. If he wants to accept the principle of this Amendment it is open to the Government to bring forward their own Amendments at a suitable time. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that can be done. The point I want to emphasise, as I have done before, is that school milk, which is not part of the education of this country—although children may be better educated because they are healthier—is part of the family allowances which the Beveridge scheme recommended. It was recommended in two parts—one in cash and the other in kind. Successive Governments have continually

      537
      diminished the part of the family allowances paid in kind.
      This is a crazy thing to do because we all know that if we have to make a political case for increasing family allowances the argument that goes up against us from all sections of the community is "Do not pay it there because it is only dad who will drink the beer." That argument can be far better countered, however wrong it may be, if we provide a large part of the family allowance in school meals and milk, which cannot be gambled away, or whatever the popular myth may be.
      I beg the Government to consider this argument in terms of development areas. This is where family poverty is at its height. They should also consider this in terms of the total welfare provision. It is not a question of whether we spend money on school milk or primary schools. That is a totally "phoney" and hypocritical distinction, because it will not happen ; we know we will not get more money. It is a question of deciding whether it is better to provide school milk or to increase tax allowances for children, which have been increased in the last Budget. That is part of the total provision for family welfare, and I would far rather have forgone a part of the increase in the tax allowances for children than have this cut or the increase in school meal charges. I begged the Labour Government to do this and I beg the Conservative Government to do it.
      Dealing with family allowances, if the Government say it is a question of priorities and there is a total level of family provision which they cannot exceed, then, while I do not want to see family allowances cut—and they have not gone up by anthing like sufficient to keep pace with the standards set in the Beveridge Report—I would nevertheless rather have family allowances cut in cash and school milk paid for than the way we have it now. I beg the Government to accept this Amendment or the principle behind it, even if they wish to quibble over individual words. This will be a substantial help towards total provision of family living standards in parts of the country where they are very low indeed.
      Mr. Fred Evans: I was disappointed to see the Under-Secretary try to obscure a fundamental principle in a cloud of
      538
      legalistic evasion. I would like to know how many representations he has received from local authorities throughout the country. Many large bodies have strongly condemned this mean and despicable Bill, including the Association of Education Committees, which has condemned it in strong terms. In Scotland 12 local authorities recently met to plan opposition to the Bill, while individual authorities like Merthyr Tydvil have been expressing their concern for a very long time.
      Condemnation has also been forthcoming from nutritional experts like Dr. Lynch and Professor Yudkin, and nutritional research units throughout the country. In addition, associations such as the British Association of Social Workers have come down very heavily against the Bill. Despite this, in Committee we failed to wring one single concession from the Government. They are determined that for the sake of this £9 million the widow must contribute her mite and the children their milk. Most other people in low income groups must also make their contribution.
      The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has been very severely criticised by her council in Barnet. This was reported in The Times yesterday, when some of the language used was extremely severe. The right hon. Lady was referred to as a "chemist", an "alchemist" and a "part-time lawyer". If the right hon. Lady has any knowledge of alchemy her knowledge is not that of the medieval alchemist who wanted to turn base metals into gold but of the modern Tory alchemist who seeks to transmute children's milk into silver to line the pockets of the Tory surtax payer.
      5.30 p.m.
      The suggestion about the penny rate was made at the annual meeting of the Association of Education Committees. No doubt the Secretary of State has had representations made to her about this matter, and I should like to know what answers she has sent to the organisations concerned.
      It has been suggested that development areas are not significant as units. I do not wish to bore the House by giving masses of statistics, but I ask hon. Members to look at HANSARD for 5th July and correlate the detailed figures given by the right hon. Lady in an answer

      539
      about the provision of school meals and the drop in take-up which has occurred with the detailed figures of male unemployment for Wales as a development area.
      In one area in the County of Glamorgan the male unemployment rate is 10·1 per cent. Subsequent to the increase in the price of school meals, the take-up of school meals in Glamorgan dropped by 25 per cent. In the County of Monmouth it dropped by over 31 per cent. The male unemployment figure in that county is 7 or 8 per cent. In the county borough which has attracted a lot of attention because it began its resistance to this Bill at a very early stage—Merthyr Tydvil—the male unemployment rate is 8 per cent. When the borough's estimates committee decided last February to keep the figure of £5,000 in its estimates to supply 3,000 children with free milk, it was worked out that in this area of low rateable value it could be done for less than a halfpenny rate.
      The point has been made that if the penny rate is acceptable, education authorities cannot carry on with supplying free milk but other authorities can. In other words, the district councils could operate this scheme while the county education authorities could not. I do not doubt that areas like mine could come to an amicable arrangement about the sharing of costs, but it is possible that great tension will arise in certain areas if use of the penny rate is acceptable.
      The serious point about the Bill is that no criterion is established for poverty. The criterion of poverty is accepted for the school meals system, which is a means-tested system. But in this case there is a blanket withdrawal of free milk except for children in special schools and for children with medical certificates. The fundamental, almost imbecile point is that children in State schools who are not healthy may not qualify medically for free milk, but it is possible for an unfortunate mentally handicapped child who is absolutely bursting with health to claim free milk because he is in a special school for the mentally handicapped.
      The Bill bristles with inadequacies and near ridiculous points. To use the deprived areas which, by any criterion—unemployment, their social fabric, and so
      540
      on—are suffering very heavily to try to defeat in principle the argument that they merit special treatment is pettifogging. Study of these areas reveals the downward trend. Those who usually suffer first are the children. We have been led into this maze of argument and very sorry situation for the sake of £9 million by a doctrinaire decision that everyone across the board will have to pay so that the Conservative Party can effect its so-called economies and direct resources away from areas of great need to areas where the need is not so great.
      Mr. Nott: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has left the Chamber because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), he made a very good speech. I agree with very much of what he said. The question of school milk should not come within the education budget ; it is a matter of welfare. The hon. Member was absolutely right to criticise the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short)—who made, as usual, a most extraordinary speech—for not dealing with the issue in a more fundamental way. After all, he had responsibility and was in the Cabinet for many years.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may not agree with me, that the distinction, as a priority, between primary school rebuilding and school milk is not valid. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and that is ample reason why the two should not be considered within the budget of the same Department.
      It is the custom in Committee and on Report to be reasonably generous to people who table new Clauses and Amendments, but the new Clause we are discussing is one of the stupidest that I have seen on the Notice Paper. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central made, as usual, a thoroughly extremist speech. Why does he do it? The question of school milk and meals is serious and, although he may not appreciate it, many of us on this side of the House, including myself—and I represent a development area—consider this matter to be very serious and are disturbed about it. But it is absolutely absurd for the right hon.

      541
      Gentleman to make the kind of extremist remarks he made or for his colleagues to talk about the Tories benefiting the surtax payer. One really has to raise the level of debate on such an important subject about that of slinging that kind of putrid remark across the Floor.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not think the hon. Gentleman served on the Committee. If he did, he did not speak. Will he accept from this side of the House that the main argument given in Committee for the £9 million reduction in expenditure was that, on the basis of the Government's priorities, this expenditure was unnecessary, and that they intended to use it to decrease the burden on taxpayers, especially on surtax payers?
      Mr. Nott: That has nothing to do with what I was saying. If the hon. Gentleman wants another debate on the Finance Bill with me, he can have it when we have another economic debate. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set aside a vastly greater sum on family allowances in this budget than he did on anything else. There is no point in drawing in my right hon. Friend's measures, when a very large proportion of the main taxation reductions, leaving aside S.E.T., went on improving family allowances. However, that is a different subject.
      I was making the point that I am worried about school milk and meals. But how can I honestly feel sympathy or support for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they make the type of extremist speech that we heard from the right hon. Gentleman? He and his hon. Friends do not have a monopoly of conscience. It is no use their pretending that they do.
      I represent a development area and, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said, in Cornwall we have considerably lower family incomes than those in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.
      Mr. Edward Short indicated dissent.
      Mr. Nott: The right hon. Gentleman does not agreed. If he has better figures than mine, it will be interesting to hear them. However, he has not. The only figures of comparative incomes which exist are those of employment incomes published by the Inland Revenue, and
      542
      they show conclusively that incomes in my constituency are lower than the general average in Scotland, in Wales, and in every other county.
      Some hon. Members opposite have suggested that I am a banker. I am not. I take the insult with a smile. This is part of the absurd throwing of charges across the Floor about surtax payers and bankers. It has nothing to do with the subject that we are discussing.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: What is the hon. Gentleman, then?
      Mr. Nott: I represent a constituency in Cornwall.
      Mr. Mitchell: Full stop?
      Mr. Nott: Full stop.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury about local authority discretion in this case. However, we shall come to that later when we discuss another Amendment. But the reason why I say that this is one of the stupidest Amendments that I have seen on any Notice Paper is that we have a system of regional development, of which, naturaly, I am in faour. The basis of regional development and the whole purpose behind it, which was agreed by both parties, is to build up the infrastructure of the areas and improve the industry, the roads and the housing of those areas. It is nonsensical to extend that and say that we want to create a class of development area children, special development area children and intermediate area children, and intermediate area milk, special development area milk and development area milk.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Fred Evans: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. We believe that, on an entirely nutritional basis, all children should have school milk. Having failed to wring anything out of the Government, we are driven to being selective. Among the top priorities, we have put children who live in development areas, because, obviously, they will be the first to suffer.
      Mr. Nott: I quite understand what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to do. They are seeking a debate on the main issue. I take the point. But I hope that they will not

      543
      force a vote on such a foolish Amendment.
      I can speak for children in my constituency. There is no doubt that families in my constituency have extremely low wages. Often they are out of work. Figures of 10 and 12 per cent. unemployment have been mentioned. In winter months in my constituency it goes up to 15 and even 25 per cent. But schoolchildren in my constituency live in a beautiful part of the United Kingdom. The system of education in Cornwall is good. It is probable that schoolchildren in my constituency and in the rest of Cornwall are fitter and healthier than their contemporaries in many towns in the United Kingdom which would be left entirely outside the concession that right hon and hon. Gentlemen opposite seek. It would not be right for schoolchildren to look across the valley of the Tamar to the villages on the other side of the river and say, "Yah, we get free milk between the ages of 7 and 11, but you in Devon do not."
      Mr. Pardoe: I apologise for not being present to hear the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but does he realise that many children in all constituencies now have to look across their classrooms and say, "Yah, we get free school meals, and you do not"?
      Mr. Nott: I am always willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman. But he has only just come into the Chamber and probably is not aware that I spent the first few minutes of my speech saying what an admirable speech he had made. Again, while I am prepared to take up the time of the House and argue with the hon. Gentleman, there is no need to do so, because he will be able to read HANSARD in the morning.
      The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) spoke about selectivity. The hon. Gentleman will know that, although we are forced by economic necessity to have a system of selectivity, none of us likes it. I can speak only for myself, of course, but I should prefer not to have a system of selectivity. I should prefer a negative income tax. The only reason why we have selectivity is that it is an economic necessity if the country is to afford to help the families in need. That is what the Labour Party did for six
      544
      years. The only reason why the country was near bankruptcy when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power was that they did not know where to stop. That is why we had to devalue the £.
      Hon. Members may remember that I spoke against the principle underlying the family income supplement when it came before the House. It was one of the first debates in this Parliament. I do not like the idea of subsidising families who are in work. I do not like the Speenhamland basis of the F.I.S. On the other hand, it must be admitted that, perhaps more than any other, my constituency will benefit greatly from F.I.S. and, to that extent, I have to welcome it.
      Mr. James Hamilton: It is not a matter of subsidising workers in this case. It is one of subsidising employers who are not paying their workers a living wage.
      Mr. Nott: That, again, is an entirely different issue. The reason why we have a regional development policy is clearly both to raise the level of employment in the regions and to raise incomes. The only way of raising incomes in development areas is by bringing in more employment and creating more competition for labour among employers. In a free society that is the only way to get wages up. We do not disagree on that point.
      I am concerned about the whole issue of school milk and meals. But this matter cannot conceivably be carried out—I hope that the Opposition will not vote for the new Clause—on the basis of an arbitrary distinction between development and non-development areas. That is entirely wrong. The whole matter should be part of the general system of welfare. I believe that it is devaluing the admirable objectives of regional development policy to try to bring school milk within that context.
      Mr. James Hamilton: I have taken a very keen interest in this subject. Indeed, I initiated an Adjournment debate on it on 17th February this year. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, replied to that debate. On that occasion I revealed what has been revealed today ; namely, that a survey carried out by Dr. George Lynch showed that only 32 per cent. of

      545
      the samples taken were at the desired nutritional standard. Therefore, in in essence, 68 per cent. were under the required nutritional standard.
      We hear talk about development areas. I come from not only a development area but a development country. The part of the country in which I live and which I have the honour to represent is a special development area. In Scotland 49,000 male workers over the age of 21 earn less than £15 gross per week. These figures were given to me by the Minister in reply to a Question in the House. I also ascertained that 41 per cent. of the male population in Scotland over the age of 21 earn less than £24 gross per week. When we talk about wages of that nature, we obviously quickly and correctly come to the conclusion that many children in Scotland will have to go without school milk. Because of increased bus fares, and children having to pay fares for travelling to school, families are having to pay out more each week. Consequently, this falls heaviest on the large families.
      Last week I visited a maternity hospital in my constituency—one of the finest maternity hospitals in the country—and spoke of the consultant gynaecologist and the matron. Both readily agreed that this was one of the most retrograde steps to be taken by any Government.
      I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite who criticised my right hon. Friend about the withdrawal of milk from secondary schools. I did not vote with the Labour Government on that occasion. Therefore, I can claim to have certain principles about this matter. Nevertheless, in fairness to the then Government, they at least sought medical advice to ascertain whether this would be detrimental to the health of secondary schoolchildren. The answer was in the negative. It was only after they received that reply that the Government took their decision.
      A sample taken in Renfrewshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) will speak on this matter from the Front Bench—showed that 11 per cent. of the children attending not only secondary but primary schools had neither liquid nor solid food before going to school. Therefore, if this situation continues, it is obvious that
      546
      many of the diseases which we thought things of the past could easily recur.
      According to Scottish newspapers, only yesterday there were 55 men chasing two jobs, and the police had to be brought out to control the crowd. It is obvious, therefore, as we have often said, that the poor families will suffer because they will not have the financial resources to purchase milk for their children.
      I am not a great supporter of selectivity. Nevertheless, in this situation—the Government did not bend one iota in Committee—we are justifiably entitled to put down the necessary new Clauses and Amendments to try to get them to see the light concerning our children. Any Government, irrespective of colour, who use schoolchildren in the interests of economy have their priorities completely out of order.
      I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to depart from the idea that all the new Clauses and Amendments which we have put down on this issue are frivolous. Most of us have put down Amendments on the basis of our experience in our constituencies. The Under-Secretary, who represents the Cathcart Division of Glasgow, will readily concede, I am sure, that representations were made to him by his local authority because it was determined to give free milk to schoolchildren. It is also interesting to note that the local education committee in Edinburgh, which is not Labour-controlled, has taken a decision to give free milk to its schoolchildren. So we have local authorities wanting to use their valid rights to look after the children in the various localities.
      The Government have always subscribed to the view that local authorities should be given power to administer in their own areas. They freely stated, when we discussed fee-paying schools in Scotland, that they wanted to give more freedom to local authorities. I challenge the Under-Secretary to be consistent and to fight now to ensure that local authorities are given the freedom which he cherishes. If he shows consistency on that basis on this issue, he will be doing something for the citizens of tomorrow. It will also mean that this will not be one of the many misrepresentations and misplaced policies which have come under fire not only from the Opposition but from the

      547
      capitalist Press and Lord Clydesmuir in his representations to the Government. Otherwise, this Government will be remembered for having deprived children in primary schools of the free milk to which they are entitled.
      I ask the Minister to treat these new Clauses and Amendments seriously, to listen to our views, and to accept them.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Fry: It was typical of the right hon. Member for Newcastle - upon - Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) to quote from 1905. In this Chamber he has repeatedly shown that his thinking has not moved on from that era. In fact, he always vitiates his arguments and loses sympathy by painting a caricature of right hon. and hon. Members on these benches which is almost unrecognisable even by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is a pity that he should lose sympathy in this way, because an important principle is involved. Many of us on this side of the House think very seriously about this problem and are aware of the issues which have been raised.
      If one examines the so-called Amendments to provide selectivity, one finds that they are not selective at all. They are all blanket Amendments covering every child in a development area, and every child in a town which receives urban aid. There are poor children in Chelsea, and well-off children in Bootle. If one wants to tackle the problem of poverty, one has to deal with all areas, and not be selective. I suggest that the Amendments amount to a nonsense.
      I believe that poverty can be dealt with only on an individual basis. That is why I agree with those who consider that this is basically a welfare matter. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans), who believes that all children in schools should have free milk. With respect, perhaps he and I are examples of why all children in schools should not have free milk. The problem today among many young people is that of having too much of the good things of life, and the hon. Gentleman and I are good examples of that.
      Mr. Fred Evans: We had this classic argument in Committee. An hon.
      548
      Member had the cheek to talk about over-nourishment among children. Undernourishment maybe, and perhaps too many people eat the wrong things and suffer from obesity, but the overwhelming evidence of research people is that the cheapest form of preventive medicine in supplying calcium and riboflavin, which are essential to children, is milk. If we want to provide protection for our children, the easiest and most economical way of doing it is by supplying free milk.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke about differentiating between areas. To set up an administrative scheme to deal with the areas of poverty in each constituency would cost far more than the miserable sum which the Government are saving by taking milk away from children.
      Mr. Fry: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I meant that the problem was a welfare one, rather than one of trying to deal with pockets within larger areas. It is not just a question of providing school milk or school meals. I have heard many arguments to the effect that the best way of dealing with poverty is not to dole things out in kind but to provide money, to give a family the wherewithal to purchase what it needs in the way of nourishment and other things. I think that the old argument that we should provide so much in kind and so much in cash is losing its relevance today. Beveridge was rather a long time ago, and some of the conclusions of Beveridge do not have any relevance to 1971.
      We have heard a lot of nonsense about school meals. In those areas where local authorities provide varied menus there has been no drop-off in the numbers taking school meals. While the price of school meals is relatively low, many families are willing to pay for them in order to salve their conscience. They think that it does not matter whether their children eat the meal or not. But when the price is put up to a more realistic level they ask whether their children are eating the meals, and whether they are getting value for money. That is one reason why, when the price was increased, many parents stopped their children from having the school meals. In those areas where local authorities provide variety in their menus the number of children taking school meals has risen.
      Mr. Fred Evans: I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but the level of

      549
      his argument is on the level of the argument advanced by his right hon. Friend when she said that she was saving £9 million to build better primary schools. That is what she said at Eastbourne, although afterwards she said that it was only an intellectual exercise which was not meant. The logic of the right hon. Lady's argument is that we should build palaces in order to let people starve. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we put up the price of meals more and more in order to make parents more critical of their children's eating habits.
      Mr. Fry: Not at all. If parents believe that their children are eating a full school meal and getting value for money, they are prepared to pay a reasonable price for it, and that is proved. Where the menu provides a choice, children enjoy school meals. They eat more. The amount of wastage is reduced. A better service is provided, and the cost can remain the same.
      There has been a lot of talk about the nutritional value of milk. Why cannot milk be incorporated more into the main meal of the day, which is the school meal, which far more children take than they do milk? Despite the efforts of schoolmasters, in many schools one sees crates of milk that has not been taken up. If one compares the number of bottles of milk ordered with the number in the school, one sees that there is a difference in the two figures.
      Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House. The evidence from the Minister, and from successive Ministers, is that in primary schools the take-up of milk has never been less than 92–95 per cent.
      Mr. Fry: Nevertheless, it is not 100 per cent., and the hon. Gentleman's comment does not vitiate the argument that milk should be part of the basic school meal.
      I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and St. Ives (Mr. Nott) when they say that if the question were one of welfare, and if it were taken outside the scope of education, we would see it in its proper context. The problem should be considered in the wider context of what the Government are trying to do for the poor and the deprived in our community.
      550
      They have introduced a whole range of measures during the last 12 months to help the needy. There is the family income supplement. That was not introduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The income of the physically disabled has been increased. That was not done by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Child allowances have been increased, and again that was not done to the same extent when hon. Gentlemen opposite were the Government.
      If an unbiassed observer considers the full picture, he has to admit that the Government are doing far more to help the needy than was done by those who are criticising them today. We are supposed to take these Amendments seriously. New Clause 17 says that where free milk is requested as a result of a referendum it should be supplied. I wonder what is coming next. Free football matches? Free bingo? It is sheer nonsense.
      Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am wondering what is coming next. Is it paid-for books, paid-for exercise books, paid-for pencils? That is the other side of the argument used by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Fry: I had concluded my speech.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was giving way to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
      Dr. M. S. Miller: I want briefly to appeal to the Government's sense of commitment to the future. Our main concern here is not with statistics such as those with which the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has been playing in his speech. If one considers statistics of the take-up of school meals and milk, one can make out any case that one likes. We are dealing with children, their health and their lives.
      I remember listening to a debate on television a couple of weeks ago when an hon. Gentleman opposite was trying to justify this drastic Measure which the Government are putting through the House. He said that if children went to school without food or without milk it was the parents who were to blame. and that they should do something about it.

      551
      No one on this side would disagree with that. We are not saying that the parents are not to blame : what we are concerned with, however, is the health of the children.
      High unemployment in the development areas is a very serious matter. I want to impress upon the Government that it is not just a question of unemployment or even of parents who either can or cannot afford to give their children this milk at home. What we are trying to impress upon them is that the children should have the milk.
      Most countries in the northern hemisphere are being bombarded more and more with radiation—natural radiation and radiation from fall-out—and there is also much greater use of diagnostic X-rays. The best way of preventing disease in future adults is milk in childhood. I am surprised that the Government have not taken expert advice. We are laying up trouble for ourselves for the sake of a few pence a week.
      As a doctor, I know that, when cod liver oil was withdrawn, if one case of rickets resulted, it cost more to cure than a year's supply of cod liver oil for the child. This is what the Government are doing in this instance.
      I am sure right hon. Gentlemen opposite know that a child does not stop growing at the tender age of 7. Milk is the most valuable source of everything required for his development—calcium for his bones and teeth, as well as vitamins and protein—but milk is also a powerful protection against the development of blood disease and also perhaps in respect of some other forms of cancer, the cause of which we do not know very much about at present.
      Before they take this step, the Government should set up a high-powered medical commission to look into the possible future injurious effects on the blood and perhaps the organs of our children when they grow into adults.
      Mr. Simon Mahon: I am looking for clarification of a matter raised by the A.M.C., but first I would compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) on using the name of the first Labour councillor in Bootle—in 1905. I am sure that the House will
      552
      think it fitting that that councillor should have raised such an important issue and that 66 years later the wisdom of his words should be expounded by my right hon. Friend. I am grateful to him, as I am sure are my constituents.
      6.15 p.m.
      It is a pity that we have to talk about 1905, because my experience is that only a Conservative Government could have introduced such a parsimonious and miserable Bill. One would think that we were back in 1905. I never thought that even a Tory Party could get down to this level in dealing with the welfare of schoolchildren. This is being said by most responsible people. I am used to dealing with professional Tories outside the House. I have not heard one Conservative with any social conscience defending this proposal. The Government should listen not only to us but to their own people, who are not with them on this.
      The Association of Municipal Corporations could not be regarded as a very Left-wing organisation. They wrote to me only yesterday to say that they were perturbed at the situation and would like clarification. They said that they were still worried. After having studied the Committee proceedings, they feel that the position is still unresolved. The Under-Secretary gave the House to understand that the matter was resolved, but this very responsible Association says that it is not.
      The Association says that if the Bill goes through it appears that local authorities which are not local education authorities may be able to use a penny rate under the provisions of Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act of 1963. They want to know whether this power can be used for the continued supply of milk without cost to parents and pupils and whether the matter will be contested in the courts. If the power can be used only for this purpose, it is most unsatisfactory if an authority which is an education authority will not be able to make this provision but one which is not will be able to do so. Then, people in one place might be getting this legally, while people in another could be getting it illegally.
      There is a duty upon any Government when dealing with people like the A.M.C.

      553
      and education authorities to consult before they do things like this. Government means not only national government. It is in every village, town and city : we depend one upon the other. Westminster is not isolated. How often did the Tory Party say in opposition that Whitehall did not know best? Many of us in local government in those days agreed with them on that issue. But what a turnaround there has been because they are now the Government, and we are asking them to do what they said they would do.
      Local government is being given instructions rather in the way that the London boroughs were instructed during the depression years, when attempting to assist the unemployed, and when George Lansbury was surcharged or told to go to gaol. They are now being told that if a local authority exercises its social conscience in this matter, and provides free milk itself at own expense it is likely to find itself in trouble.
      All shades of political opinion in education want to know where they stand on this issue. I have been asked to speak on their behalf and to remind the Government that they said in their recent White Paper on local government :
      "Vigorous local democracy means that authority must be given real functions with powers of decision and the ability to take action without being subjected to excessive regulation by central government through financial or other controls."
      Where do the Government stand on that now? I have been known to give Governments good advice in the past. I advise the Secretary of State to remember that when the subject of the Common Market has been forgotten, the people of our nation will remember the mean and parsimonious attitude they are adopting today.
      Mr. J. T. Price: If proof were needed of the dire straits in which the Government find themselves tonight in defending this deplorable Bill, it would be found in the attempts that have been made to put up a rearguard action. Two such attempts have been made since I came into the Chamber, notably by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). Anybody familiar with the ways of this House
      554
      will know that when a Government are trying to push through an unpopular measure, they sometimes rely on faithful camp followers to put a gloss or veneer on the issue in an attempt to save face. That is what those two hon. Gentlemen have done on this occasion.
      The hon. Member for St. Ives always addresses the House in a pleasant manner and with a smile on his face. He never looks angry, but he has too logical a brain to try to defend this proposal in logical terms. He could only attempt to put himself right with his constituents and praise the remarks of one of his Cornish colleagues. I suppose that he felt it necessary to refer to certain remarks made on this side as extremist.
      This is common form. It is good knockabout stuff, but it has nothing to do with the merits of the case. I have often had the pleasure of debating more serious issues with the hon. Member for St. Ives, particularly in Committee upstairs, and I know that he is worthy of adducing better arguments.
      As for the speech of the hon. Member for Wellingborough, I suggest that he goes instantly into the Press Lobby and does his best to persuade the publishers of his local newspapers in the Midlands not to reproduce the incoherent attempt which he made to fight a rearguard action on behalf of the Secretary of State.
      I do not think any hon. Gentleman opposite will charge me with making extremist speeches. I never speak in extreme terms because I try to be rational and reasonable. I believe in sugar rather than vinegar. However, if anything could tempt me to lose restraint and make an extremist speech it is the document we are discussing today. The Bill is designed to deprive schoolchildren of free milk. It is, by definition, one of the most reactionary proposals that I can remember any Government introducing in the 20 years that I have been in this place.
      The Secretary of State is an equally pleasant right hon. Lady. I have always found her most courteous and helpful whenever I have met her. She knows that she cannot defend the Bill in rational terms. The Amendment is an attempt to mitigate its effects, at any rate in the development areas. For my part, it does not go far enough. I do not want to see it on the Statute Book at all.
      Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak) rose——
      Mr. Price: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I have no doubt that, being a milk merchant, he has some good advice to offer me.
      I remind hon. Members that the preamble to the Bill is vital in considering the Amendment. It says, in the crudest terms imaginable, that it is a Measure to
      "Restrict the duty of education authorities to provide milk for pupils at educational establishments"—
      Why cannot they be called "schools"?
      "maintained by them or under their management and make further provision with respect to their power to do so ; to restrict their power to secure provision of milk for pupils at other educational establishments ; and for purposes connected therewith. Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty."
      I wonder if Her Majesty knows anything about this? Would it not be a derogation of her position to endorse this sort of legislation?
      Mr. Gurden: I have no interest whatever to declare in the industry, though I was once connected with it.
      Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has run dry.
      Mr. Gurden: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the similar measures affecting secondary schools which his party introduced when they were in office?
      Mr. Price: I have not, and the hon. Gentleman will agree that I did not always agree with my Government when we were in office. They were vulnerable to be conned on occasions by the Civil Service—on, for example, economic matters ; sometimes they went too far, beyond the realms of economic matters, and delved into ethics and morality—and then I sometimes found it necessary to disagree with my right hon. Friends. I never ducked an issue and I never had to apologise for arguing with them.
      The Bill has been condemned by every responsible nutritional expert and by a great many educational authorities, including that of my native county of Lancashire. Will the Lancashire Education Authority be charged with extremism, for it has sent me a resolution in terms far more extremist than any I have used in this debate? I therefore echo what
      556
      has been said all along, and particularly in Committee upstairs, about the implications of the Bill.
      The Secretary of State has been courteous in being here for most of the debate. She has a heavy responsibility in this matter. We are faced with a Bill which will deprive thousands of schoolchildren of a basic food which has been confirmed to be of the greatest value during the years from seven to the age of puberty. I therefore condemn it as a bad Measure.
      6.30 p.m.
      What is to happen to all the surplus milk that will be released as a result of this Bill? If, as we are told, £9 million is being saved in this way, what will happen to that £9 million worth of milk? This country has the most efficiently organised system of milk production in the world. If anyone goes to Europe, to any of our prospective partners under the new marriage licence which is being sought for consummating a union with six others—[Interruption.'] The right hon. Lady knows quite well what I mean, and I do not need to spell out a simple joke—they will not find there, or even in North America, the clean, wholesome, tuberculin-free milk which we enjoy.
      That state of things is a credit to those who organised the Milk Marketing Board, with the encouragement of previous Labour Governments—[HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] That is certainly the case : I think of our late lamented friend, Tom Williams, one of the greatest Ministers of Agriculture the country ever had. All this has been put at risk by the Government at a stroke—the only stroke they have succeeded in striking since they came to power—for the sake of £9 million worth of milk for school children.
      What will happen to that surplus milk? Has the whole British farming community to reorganise itself? Have the milk distribution agencies to sack a lot of men? Is that milk which is being set free by the Government's mean and parsimonious action to be sent to the factories at one-sixth of the price of liquid milk in order to be turned into umbrella handles, and all kinds of other manufactures?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not quite certain whether the hon. Member is in order to speak on these lines. The debate

      557
      appears to me to be about development areas.
      Mr. Price: I am not sure myself, Mr. Speaker. I remember that when a former colleague of ours, Leslie Hale, was expounding from these benches and letting rip with his eloquence, the then Mr. Speaker said : "The hon. Member will forgive my interrupting him, but he is going rather wide." Leslie Hale, who was rather broad in the physical sense, replied : "Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am—that is what my doctor says."
      In many respects our social services, in spite of some deficiencies in recent years, are more advanced than those in neighbouring countries, but we have been criticised by those who say that many of the benefits the Welfare State provides for children have never been passed on to the children. We have been criticised because family allowances may not have been passed on by improvident or feckless parents to their children.
      In our great cities and urbanised areas particularly, there are hundreds of thousands of homes where both parents are out earning a living, in spite of unemployment, and innumerable cases where their children either have to take the school dinner or, if the parent cannot afford that, take sandwiches. Many children go home in the evening before either parent has returned from work. The safety factor for many such children of tender age has been the provision of that small daily ration of milk.
      The right hon. Lady must not therefore regard this as a purely economic equation, but should tell the House frankly what nutritional expert of any standing in this country is prepared to endorse her present action. I have never heard of any. I have had letters from constituents, and not only those who support me politically but quite often from intelligent Tories, quite often——
      Mr. Fry: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if both husband and wife are at work they cannot afford to buy their children milk at the rate of one-third of a pint a day?
      Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusions from what I say. I am responsible for my own words. I merely say that the provision of milk
      558
      during the day at least gives children such as those I have in mind something in the nature of a stop-gap meal.
      I sincerely hope that we have not been talking in vain to the Government this afternoon, although judging by past performances I am afraid that that may turn out to be the case.
      Mr. William Hamilton: The Bill must be seen in the context of the White Paper on Public Expenditure which was produced last October. I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either in the course of the debate on the White Paper or his statement on producing it, saying, "We were elected at the last election pledged to cut public expenditure and to reduce taxation, and this is a series of measures, a package deal, which will give us room for manoeuvre." He said that the White Paper was an exercise in the redistribution of national wealth. It was a whole package dealing with school meals, school milk, National Health Service charges, taxation measures, housing subsidies and the rest—a package going right across the whole field of social expenditure.
      I do not know whether this present legislation was inevitable or whether it became imperative because certain education authorities, Labour-controlled, were prepared to defy the determination of the Government and the intention expressed in that White Paper. Perhaps the right hon. Lady can enlighten me on that point now.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I think that it would have been possible by regulations to impose a charge for the milk, but the Bill does a great deal more than this. Imposing a charge for the milk would have meant imposing a condition that it would continue to be supplied to all children who had been previously supplied with it. We could have done that by regulation, but we could not have done as much as the Bill does. Also, we could not by regulation have given a power of sale.
      Mr. Hamilton: In other words, the right hon. Lady is contradicting what she said almost as soon as she took office. She then proclaimed that local authorities, particularly local education authorities, would be given the maximum freedom to decide in their own area how

      559
      they would organise their educational services. This Measure limits their freedom.
      I hazard the guess that every Labour-controlled local education authority and many enlightened Tory ones, if given the right by Parliament, would still opt to provide children with free school milk and pay for it completely out of the rates. The vast majority of the ratepayers in those areas would support that ; because all enlightened opinion agrees that this is one of the soundest investments that we can make in our future.
      However, the Government introduce the Bill and say that it will save £9 million. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) objects because we say that this is part of the exercise of redistributing the national wealth to enable the Government to take 6d. off the standard rate of income tax which benefits most those earning £4,000 a year and upwards. The man who cleared himself had to be earning more than £3,500, taking the package as a whole. However, this is what the Government were elected to do. They said that they would reduce taxation and public expenditure. They are doing it. The people have only themselves to blame. By these Clauses we seek to lessen the harshness of the consequences of what the people themselves decided last June. Not in Scotland, nor in Wales, but in certain parts of England—let us say over the United Kingdom as a whole—the decision was taken to give the Government power to do what is being done in the Bill.
      Our Clauses seek to be a little selective, because this was one of the key words that the Conservative Party used at the last election. The Conservatives said that the Labour Government were the Government that supported the scroungers, that gave carte blanche social services to everybody, regardless of means. All Governments have given tax concessions in the form of tax concessions on mortgage interest, not only irrespective of income, but in inverse proportion to income—the higher the income the bigger the tax concession. The Labour Government introduced the mortgage option scheme because those who do not pay tax at the higher rates cannot qualify for the concession on mortgage interest.
      I agree that my Government engaged in selectivity. During the 21 years I
      560
      have been in Parliament I have never under any Government supported anything of the kind, whether it has been prescription charges or whatever. Perhaps it is just because I have not been a member of a Government. If I had been a member of a Government I might have been as corrupted as hon. Members seem to get when they become members of a Government.
      Mr. Fred Evans: My hon. Friend would not become corrupted.
      Mr. Hamilton: I might well do so. I have seen good men and women go astray once they get on the Treasury Bench. I see some of them there now. The right hon. Lady is a perfectly honourable lady, but she has been corrupted by people who have given her misleading advice.
      Mrs. Thatcher Mrs. Thatcher indicated dissent.
      Mr. Fred Evans: Orders.
      Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Lady was told that she had to cut something in the education service to give herself and the Chancellor some room for manoeuvre. This is one of the things she has done. She has sought to justify this—very dishonestly—by saying that the money saved will go to providing new primary schools. The right hon. Lady knows that it is dishonest and that the argument is invalid. I received an Answer from the Treasury only last week telling me so. The right hon. Lady knows full well that money saved in this fashion is not hypothecated for a particular purpose. It is like the myth of the road fund.
      6.45 p.m.
      The Minister sought to dismiss all our Clauses and Amendments with contempt. He went through them all—the development areas, urban aid areas, unemployment areas, and so on. I was here until four o'clock this morning, not debating the Housing Bill, but listening to the debate ; I had an Adjournment debate on another matter. The sufferer is sitting on the Treasury Bench—I mean the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office. He suffered with me. He probably suffered more than I did, because I took 25 minutes of the half hour.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): Twenty-seven minutes of the half hour, in fact.
      Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, exact in his figures. We were debating the Housing Bill which does precisely what some of these Clauses would do for development areas. The Housing Bill provides £46 million
      "spread over the three financial years ending 31st March 1974".
      The Housing Bill gives specially high improvement grants for all houses in local government areas that come
      "wholly or partly within a development area or an intermediate area"
      as specified in Section 1 of the Local Employment Act, 1970.
      Glasgow is in a development area. The whole of Scotland, except Edinburgh, is in a development area. There are suburbs of Glasgow which contain extremely wealthy people. They will get these higher improvement grants by right. The Under-Secretary may say that the Housing Bill is for improving the infrastructure. The hon. Member for St. Ives asked how the improvement of the infrastructure can be compared with giving milk to children. I should have thought that the one was as important as, if not more important than, the other. To put milk into children is as sound as putting bricks on mortar.
      Mr. Raison: Surely the difference is that the housing measures are providing jobs for human beings. Cows may need to provide a certain amount of milk, but there is a radical difference between the two propositions.
      Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is trying to rationalise a nonsense. He knows full well that once we get involved with selectivity we get riddled with all kinds of anomalies. However we had done it—whether we had taken unemployment percentage rates, development areas, urban aid programmes, or blue-eyed boys or girls, or whether it had been said that blue-eyed boys and green-eyed girls could have free milk and selectivity had been operated in that way, there would have been criticism.
      However, that has never stopped either the Government from attempting selectivity
      562
      throughout the whole range of social services. The more anomalies that are created the more one is forced back to the position where the only satisfactory means of selectivity is a progressive tax system. These services should be given free at the time of receipt. Then the adult population should be taxed in accordance with their ability to pay.
      All these Measures flow from the fact that no Government have produced a taxation system which is progressive and fair and under which evereybody pays his fair share. We have two systems of taxation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has often said—people who pay as they earn and people who pay as they like.
      The Minister should not look surprised at that. He is not as green as all that. He may be a pompous Minister, but he knows the facts of life. We all know what goes on. My point is that the hon. Member was being unfair in attempting to shoot down these Amendments, because we are trying to enlarge a principle on which the Conservatives fought the election—the principle of selectivity.
      As the Scottish Under-Secretary knows, in Glasgow there are areas of intense poverty and unemployment, but there are also suburbs of high prosperity. The Housing Bill will give weathly house-owners flat-rate improvement grants simply because they live in development areas. It does not exclude wealthy people ; it covers the whole lot. The constant factor in respect of the areas that we have selected—urban aid areas, areas with high rates of unemployment, and development areas—is under-privilege, which means restricted job opportunities, slum schools, slum houses and a slum environment, which, in turn, means that the education of the children is jeopardised. Those factors are yardsticks that have been accepted by most Governments for one or other exercise in social security.
      When my right hon. Friend moved the new Clause he referred to the decline in the uptake of meals that had taken place since the price increase. That is relevant to the relationship between the percentage rate of unemployment and hardship on the one hand, and the uptake of meals, on the other. I received some figures in respect of Scotland in a Written Answer on 30th June. The Secretary of State

      563
      gave figures showing that between January, 1971, to May, 1971, as a consequence of the increase in charges, the total number of children taking meals fell by 57,525, or 16 per cent., and the number paying the prescribed charge fell by more than 30 per cent.
      If, in that situation, we take away school milk, there will be even greater deprivation of innocent people. We can squabble and fight in the House about party politics, but it is wrong to bring in children. It is wrong to talk, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) did, at great length, about parents drinking too much booze and engaging in too much bingo. He said that he had no sympathy for them when they could not provide milk for their kids. But it is not the kids who are responsible for their parents drinking or gambling, and they should not be made to suffer for it by the Government. It is the duty of the Government to protect innocent people, whether they be adults or youngsters. The most squalid aspect of the Bill is that it is seeking to save £9 million at the expense of innocent citizens.
      I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) has returned to the Chamber, because he made a point of some relevance. It has been said by all the world's nutritional experts that milk is probably the most nearly perfect food known. I want to quote from a report that appeared in the Scottish Educational Journal on 18th December 1970. It is a report of a council meeting of the equivalent of the N.U.T.—the E.I.S.—in Edinburgh the previous week. At that meeting a Mr. Ronald Page moved a motion condemning the proposal to abolish free school milk. He said that there was no doubt that there was a very close link between education and health, and that we could not educate children on empty bellies.
      We can talk about being one of the most prosperous countries—and so we are—but whether we like it or not there are still some children going to school without breakfasts. We can bame the parents, and say that they should stand on their own feet, but we cannot change the situation overnight. Meanwhile we must give some protection to the children either
      564
      by way of fee school meals or free milk, or both.
      Mr. Page went on to say that
      a good example of how the withdrawal of free vitamins affected health was the way in which the incidence of rickets had increased after the reduction of the Vitamin D content of welfare foods and the increased cost of National Dried Milk between 1956 and 1960. The average incidence of rickets among children attending the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Glasgow from 1953 to 1958 was less than 2 per annum. During 1959–62 it averaged 6 per annum. and the number of comparable cases during 1964 was 24.
      Rickets was a disease that had disappeared, but it is now reappearing. It can be said that 24 is not a large number, in all conscience ; but it is 12 times the average between 1953 and 1958. It is 12 times what it need be. That is some indication of the long-term effects of the sort of policies that are crystallised in the Bill. That is why we have put down these new Clauses and Amendments. They are not frivolous, and I hope that we shal press them to a vote, because we have most of the enlightened support in all parties.
      Mr. Edward Taylor: As the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has said, for the second time today it is my privilege and pleasure to follow him in debate. He was speaking in the Adjournment debate at half-past three this morning, as he spoke just now, with his usual courtesy and charm.
      I want to reply to some of the points that have been made and to say something about the position in Scotland. The general argument put forward is that it is wise, proper and right to have selectivity. It has been said that we should apply selectivity to the proposal to remove free school milk for the 7–12s. The selectivity proposed by the Opposition, however, would not achieve a just situation, or one that could possibly be justified.
      Let us suppose that we agreed to the provision of free meals, not on the present basis of income but according to whether parents lived in a development area or an area where the percentage of unemployment had reached a certain figure. That would clearly create a ridiculous situation. It would mean that all Glasgow children, irrespective of their circumstances, would receive free meals, and all the children in Birmingham would

      565
      not. The situation could not be justified.
      I know that many hon. Members have tried sincerely to find what they regard as the right answer. We had constructive speeches from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans), from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) and from others, all directed to an effort to determine what is the right way of going about it. But I suggest that, irrespective of the views which we have had from hon. Members opposite on that subject, the right way cannot be the way which they have proposed in their Amendments.
      7.0 p.m.
      Let us assume that we apply to Scotland, where I have responsibility for health and education, the proposition in new Clauses 10 and 11, relating to urban aid. It would mean that all the children in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Ayrshire, Clackmannan, Dunbarton, Fife, Lanark, Renfrew, Roxburgh and West Lothian would have free milk, and the rest of Scottish children would not.
      Next, I take the proposal based on a 5 per cent. level of unemployment. This is Amendment No. 63, on which the hon. Members for Caerphilly and South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) spoke so eloquently. This would probably mean that Aberdeen City, Kincardine, Perth, Kinross and the Border counties would be the only places in Scotland where primary pupils would cease to have free milk automatically.
      Now, I take the proposal based on wage levels below the national average, that is new Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7. This would mean that all the children throughout Scotland would have free milk, but the same would not apply to the rest of the country. I realise that the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) feels that this is something which we should do. I put it to him that, the principle having been established on Second Reading, if we were to pick out among the children of Britain those who were to have free milk, assuming abolition, that would not be a sensible or rational thing to do.
      The hon. Member for Bothwell spoke about the health of the children concerned, as did his hon. Friend the Member
      566
      for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller). I can give the assurance that, following the decision which was taken, we consulted the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, on which we have our chief medical officer from the Scottish Home and Health Department. Having been consulted, C.O.MA. indicated to us, as it had done before, that it had no evidence for believing that the decision would have an adverse effect on the health of children, but it would wish us to continue careful monitoring on this point.
      Dr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman make available to the House the exact terms in which the medical officer made his report?
      Mr. Taylor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not twisting any words or giving a misleading impression. I have told the House what was said to us by C.O.MA. on this matter, that it had no evidence that the decision would cause a deterioration of health but that, on the other hand, it wished careful monitoring to take place. This will take place. As has been said, if there were a deterioration of health linked to this decision which emerged clearly, the whole question would, of course, be completely reconsidered.
      What sort of evidence has been put to us in the debate? The hon. Member for Bothwell talked about the Renfrewshire survey. It is only fair to point out that this so-called survey was related to two secondary schools. They were visited in 1968, and the children were asked to hold up their hands if they had had breakfast. The survey was commissioned by Scottish dairy interests when the previous Government abolished the provision of milk in secondary schools, and it was based on that evidence alone. I do not for a moment say that we can therefore take it as wrong, but I am pointing out that it was not a massive scientific or medical survey. It was done in 1968, and based on the results in two schools when the children were asked to put up their hands.
      The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Manon), who knows a great deal about local authority matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) raised the question of the penny rate. I assure the House—I hope that

      567
      this will explain the matter—that the powers of local authorities under Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963, and Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, will remain. Those are the penny rate provisions. Obviously, it is not for me to interpret those Acts to local authorities, which have available to them highly competent advice.
      I can confirm, also, what was said earlier, namely, that nothing in the Bill diminishes the power of local authorities under the provisions of the milk and meals Regulations, 1969, that is, the power to provide refreshment, a point specifically raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury.
      I hope that that clarifies the matter to some extent. I cannot put myself forward as a lawyer, and, as I say, the local authorities have highly competent advice available to them. But nothing in the Bill has changed the situation as regards the penny rate provisions.
      Mr. Simon Mahon: But the quality of professional advice available is the same today as it was yesterday and the day before, and that advice will be available to local authorities after they have read what the hon. Gentleman has said. The opinion which the lawyers gave to the A.M.C. two days ago was that this must be challenged in the courts. Do the Government really think that a decision of this kind must be challenged in the courts before we can have a final decision?
      Mr. Taylor: No, I am saying nothing of the sort. I am simply pointing out that the position as regards the penny rate provisions is exactly as it was before. Nothing in the Bill has changed that, and neither has there been any change in respect of the powers of local authorities under the milk and meals Regulations, 1969. Nothing in the Bill has changed that in any way.
      Mrs. Doris Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a penny rate. Under the decimal currency, there is no such thing. Does he mean one new penny?
      Mr. Taylor: I apologise. When I talked about a penny, I meant an old penny. I am afraid I am a bit of a reactionary at heart. I was referring to
      568
      the so-called penny rate provision. It is related to one of the old pennies—and splendid they were at the time.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) hit the nail on the head when he said that, if we have to choose, it is surely right that Amendments which propose that we should discriminate between areas must be regarded as wrong and we should think in terms of the children themselves. Families in poor circumstances are not confined to particular areas of the kind specified. If we accepted what is proposed, we should create a situation in which all the children in a certain area had free milk. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is quite right when he says that in Glasgow we have many parts where children are very poor, but in other areas, I am sure, the children are just about as prosperous as they are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell).
      Children themselves vary, and circumstances vary. The Government's case is that the needs of families in poor circumstances are being met in other ways, through generous provisions which the Government have introduced in other respects. These ensure help for needy families, whatever the area in which they live.
      Although I appreciate that hon. Members opposite have been honestly endeavouring to find the right way to discriminate, I can only say again that what they have proposed is the wrong method. It would create more problems than it would solve. I understand that some hon. Members opposite feel strongly on the principle of the Bill and the question whether free milk should be abolished at all. None the less, I hope that the Opposition will not press this matter to a Division, recognising that their proposals, if put into effect, would create a ridiculous and anomalous situation. I hope that that is not what they would wish to recommend the House to do.
      Mr. Buchan: I can settle that straight away. If the Government are not prepared to accept one or other of our new Clauses and Amendments, we shall press the matter to a Division. We want to be on record as being concerned for the children of this country, so we shall certainly be voting.

      569
      It is almost incredible that no right hon. or hon. Member opposite seems to have taken on board that there is no hardship exemption in the Bill. On the question of school meals, there are hardship exemptions. On the question of free milk, there is no hardship exemption whatever. This is quite disgraceful from a Government who nailed their colours to the mast of selectivity in social welfare. Yet not one hon. Member opposite, neither on the Front Bench nor on the back benches, from which we had some curious arguments, seems to have taken that on board.
      Mr. Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Buchan: I am anxious to get on. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman gave way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), but I shall give way later if we have time. We have been a good while on this debate, and I want to press ahead.
      The comment has been made that, in trying to introduce selectivity in one way or another, by reference to development areas, unemployment levels and so on, we are somehow going against our own principles. We oppose the Bill in toto, and the purpose of the Amendments is to lessen what we regard as a monstrous evil.
      Hon. Members talk about apparent anomalies created by the Amendments, and show how there would be an overlap and so on, but they can choose between Amendments. Let them take whichever of them would most satisfactorily deal with the question of poverty. If they will accept those, we shall willingly withdraw the rest. Let them not talk about one Amendment contradicting another. They cannot escape the fact that they are apparently not giving one iota on the question of hardship.
      I am not very often involved in debates with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I am usually dealing with Scottish education, and am much more used to government by war-dance than Government by smokescreen The hon. Gentleman was not so much puffing out smoke as pouring out rich, unctuous cream, without a consideration for the problems with which he was dealing. He said first that the Government
      570
      could not accept our Amendments relating to the urban areas and development areas because they would cover wealthy places like Buckinghamshire and Barnet. His argument on the development areas was exploded by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and others in a number of ways. The Government make proposals for development areas despite the fact that there are some very wealthy necks of the wood in them all. I know. That is why I am in a marginal seat. There is plenty of poverty in my constituency, but it has a number of wealthy necks of the wood as well.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the Government could not accept the concept of high unemployment in an area as a qualification for free school milk. He had to find another argument here, and so he said that the rate might fluctuate. It will not fluctuate under the present Government, except upwards, and we are happy with the figure of 5 per cent. unemployment as a base-line for looking after poverty. The hon. Gentleman said that in any case the Government could not accept our proposal, because the local employment areas were not the same as the local education authority areas. I have never heard a weaker argument on a case that should have been based on principle, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly ashamed of it.
      There is another set of Amendments in which we deal with individual types of hardship. If we are told that to deal with the problem by areas is wrong, we hope to have a concession on that set of Amendments, because the Government's only arguments for rejecting the Amendments we are now considering have been the area points. But there are good reasons for using area hardship. When an area becomes a development area or has high unemployment the whole area is affected. The small shopkeepers are one example. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) spoke of the problem of low wages that goes with the other development area and unemployment problems. If we had a decent tax system from the Government that would deal with the wealthier people within the development area.
      Our proposals deal with one major problem that the hon. Gentleman raised in Committee. To my astonishment, he

      571
      did not repeat it today, although he may do so on the next set of Amendments. I hope that he does not, for the sake of his reputation. He said then that by our attempts to introduce selectivity to exclude some people from the evil we would single out pupils who would be seen to be receiving free milk while others were not. That will not happen with the area policy, because the children of rich and poor, unemployed and employed parents within the area would be able to receive free milk.
      7.15 p.m.
      The hon. Gentleman's last point was on consultation. Is it not the case that the consultation took place after the decision was made? What kind of consultation was that, when the Government's mind was already made up? We were told in Committee, although we could not quite understand the formula used, that the teachers of Scotland were consulted. I checked on that. A month after the documents were published, the teachers had to write to the hon. Gentleman's Department asking him to explain what was happening. Far from being consulted, they had not even been fully informed after the first preliminary circular.
      There is no argument for the Bill in toto, and there is no argument for rejecting Amendments which would protect areas of need.
      A Scottish Minister cannot represent only his party in the House. That is something that I had to remember. He is seen both as a spokesman for the Government within Scotland and as a spokesman for Scotland within the Government. We saw little sign of that today from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office. In Scotland this month there are over 120,000 unemployed, a figure of 7·5 per cent. male unemployment. On Clydeside, after the sordid conspiracy which has ended in the near-demise of U.C.S., we have 9·5 per cent. male unemployment and 20 men chasing each vacancy. That is one of the areas in which the hon. Gentleman wants to prevent children having free school milk. We can see the area's problems working down the line towards the children.
      We heard an extraordinary argument from the hon. Member for Wellingborough
      572
      (Mr. Fry), who seemed to suggest that if the cost of school meals is increased parents will pay more attention to them and therefore the figures of those taking them will go up. But the figures have come down. That is an indication of poverty. The other indication is the number of free school meals provided. In Glasgow, with one man in 10 unemployed and facing further redundancies, there was a drop of 5 per cent. between January and May this year in the total of free and paid meals taken. But within that drop there was an increase of 16 per cent. in the number of free meals, which has now reached the astonishing proportion of 64 per cent. That is a function of poverty, not of the extension of the exemption limits, and so on. There is a direct correlation.
      This is a sorry, miserable, mean, cruel and callous Bill. If the Government will not accept this set of Amendments to exclude whole areas from the hardship which the Bill will help to create, we want to see some evidence of understanding when we discuss the next set of Amendments, so that even the Government's principle of selectivity, much as I abhor it, can at least be put into practice for compassionate purposes for a change.
      Mr. E. Fernyhough: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did his best to justify the indefensible. This debate is a continuation of those which we had last week. The Government are determined to reduce public expenditure. A week ago, we discussed the saving of a miserable few millions of £s which the Government are achieving by stopping the first three days of benefit for the sick, the injured and the unemployed. Today, they are trying to save a miserable few millions of £s by taking away milk from the children.
      Hon. Members argue that they are justified in doing so and that they have a mandate to do so because they told the country that they would reduce public expenditure. Not one hon. Member opposite said in his election address last year that he would stop the first three days of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and industrial injuries benefit and do away with the supply of free school milk. They all merely made the general statement that the Conservative Party

      573
      would reduce public expenditure. They did not specify where the cuts would be made because they knew that they could not go on to a public platform and defend such cuts. These cuts are mean and contemptible. If the Government want to save money of this magnitude—£9 million—I can tell them where they can start. The military bands cost that much.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the new Clause, which deals with development areas.
      Mr. Fernyhough: I beg you to understand, Mr. Speaker, that I am talking about the saving of £9 million and how the Government could save it in ways other than this. I believe that I am entitled to say to them that they could have saved it in other ways instead of hitting at the children. We have been told that the medical officers will watch the situation, and presumably if the health of any child deteriorates supplies will be resumed. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said, it will then be too late. The lasting damage will have been done to the poorer children by this mean and contemptible saving.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Fife. West (Mr. William Hamilton) revealed the records about rickets. It was the proud boast of this country in the middle 1950s that, because of our welfare and
      health services, British doctors had to go abroad to study rickets because none of our children were suffering from it. Yet now the Government are beginning to pursue policies which could lead to that disease once more becoming commonplace in the poorer districts.
      I have promised my hon. Friends to be very brief. I ask the Government even now whether there is no other way, if they are so anxious to save the tax payers' money in order to give relief to surtax and income tax payers and to reduce corporation tax, that they can do it than by taking it out of the children by withholding the milk from them.
      As a consequence of our welfare and health services, our children have grown more in physique, height and strength than any comparable generation. Our children are our proudest asset. They are magnificent. Anyone who is sensible wants them to remain so. This Bill is a step back to the days of the old Jarrow, to the days when there was hunger, to the days when there were many victims of rickets in this country. Today is not a day of which the Government can be proud. They still have time to reconsider and I hope that they will accept the new Clause.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time :—
      The House divided : Ayes 228, Noes 249.

      Division No. 426.]

      AYES

      [17.25 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Dunn, James A.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Eadie, Alex

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Coleman, Donald

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Ashley, Jack

      Concannon, J. D.

      Ellis, Tom

      Atkinson, Norman

      Conlan, Bernard

      English, Michael

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Evans, Fred

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Barnett, Joel

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dalyell, Tam

      Foot, Michael

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Ford, Ben

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Forrester, John

      Booth, Albert

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

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

      Deakins, Eric

      Ginsburg, David

      Buchan, Norman

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Golding, John

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

      Delargy, H. J.

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Gourlay, Harry

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Dempsey, James

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Cant, R. B.

      Doig, Peter

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Carmichael, Nell

      Dormand, J D.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Driberg, Tom

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Hamling, William

      McElhone, Frank

      Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      McGuire, Michael

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Hardy, Peter

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Roper, John

      Harper, Joseph

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Hooson, Emlyn

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

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

      Horam, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Marquand, David

      Sillars, James

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Marsden, F.

      Silverman, Julius

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Meacher, Michael

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hunter, Adam

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Mendelson, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Millan, Bruce

      Steel, David

      John, Brynmor

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

      Mitcheff, R. C. (S'hamoton, Itchen)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Strang, Gavin

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Taverne, Dick

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Moyle, Roland

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Tinn, James

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Murray, Ronald King

      Tomney, Frank

      Kelley, Richard

      Ogden, Eric

      Torney, Tom

      kerr, Russell

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Tuck, Raphael

      O'Malley, Brian

      Urwin, T. W.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Oram, Bert

      Varley, Eric G.

      Lambie, David

      Orme, Stanley

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Lamond, James

      Oswald, Thomas

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Latham, Arthur

      Paget, R. T.

      Wallace, George

      Lawson, George

      Palmer, Arthur

      Watkins, David

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Weitzman, David

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Pardoe, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Leonard, Dick

      Parker, John (Degenham)

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Whitlock, William

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Pendry, Tom

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Prescott, John

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Woof, Robert

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Probert, Arthur

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Rankin, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

      MoBride, Neil

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Mr. Alan Fitch and

      McCann, John

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Edwards., Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&Nairn)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Carlisle, Mark

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

      Astor, John

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Emery, Peter

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Channon, Paul

      Eyre, Reginald

      Awdry, Daniel

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Fell, Anthony

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Balnied, Lord

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Fidler, Michael

      Batsford, Brian

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Clegg, Walter

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Bell, Ronald

      Cockeram, Eric

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Cooke, Robert

      Foster, Sir John

      Benyon, W.

      Coombs, Derek

      Fowler, Norman

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Cooper, A. E.

      Fox, Marcus

      Biffen, John

      Cordls, John

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

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fry, Peter

      Blaker, Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gardner, Edward

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester S. W.)

      Costain, A. P.

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Body, Richard

      Critchley, Julian

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Curran, Charles

      Ginsburg, David

      Bowden, Andrew

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Goodhart, Phillip

      Bray, Ronald

      d'Avidgor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James

      Goodhew, Victor

      Briroton, Sir Tatton

      Dean, Paul

      Gorst, John

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Gower, Raymond

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Digby, Simon wingfield

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Dixon, Piers

      Gray, Hamish

      Bryan, Paul

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Green, Alan

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

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Grieve, Percy

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Dykes, Hugh

      Griffiths, Eldon (Burry St. Edmunds)

      Burden, F. A.

      Eden, Sir John

      Grylls, Michael

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Maude, Angus

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Gurden, Harold

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Sharples, Richard

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Simeons, Charles

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Moate, Roger

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

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Molyneaux, James

      Soref, Harold

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Money, Ernie D.

      Speed, Keith

      Hastings, Stephen

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Spence, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Monro, Hector

      Stainton, Keith

      Hiley, Joseph

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hill John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

      More, Jasper

      Stewart-Smith, D, G. (Belper)

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Holland, Philip

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Stokes, John

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Mudd, David

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Murton, Oscar

      Sutcliffe, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Neave, Airey

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Hunt, John

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Temple, John M.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Normanton, Tom

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      James, David

      Nott, John

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Jessel, Toby

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Tilney, John

      Jopling, Michael

      Osborn, John

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Kilfedder, James

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Peel, John

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Kirk, Peter

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Waddington, David

      Knox, David

      Pounder, Rafton

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Lane, David

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Wall, Patrick

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Warren, Kenneth

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      WeatherilI, Bernard

      Longden, Gilbert

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Luce, R. N.

      Raison, Timothy

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Redmond, Robert

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      MacArthur, Ian

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Wilkinson, John

      McLaren, Martin

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      McMaster, Stanley

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Worsley, Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Maginnis, John E.

      Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)

      Rost, Peter

      TELLERS FOR TOE NOES :

      Marten, Neil

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      Mather, Carol

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

    New Clause 12

      EXCEPTION RELATED TO FREE SCHOOL MEALS
      Notwithstanding anything contained in section 1 of this Act, and notwithstanding anything which may be done between the passing of this Act and the commencement of the said section 1, regulations in force when this Act is passed shall continue to apply to any local education authority which, within three months of the passing of this Act, shall have passed a resolution declaring that to the best of its belief the average daily number of pupils for whom school meals were during the six months preceding such resolution being provided free at maintained schools within the area of such authority or at educational establishments under its management was not less than 10 per cent. of the total average daily number of pupils for whom school meals were tehreat provided.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take new Clause 13—"Exception related to future free school meals"—new Clause 16—"Exception related to future school meals"—and
      Amendments No. 7, in page 1, line 19, after 'school', insert :
      'or he is a member of a family any other member of which is currently being provided with free school meals'.
      No. 8, in line 19, after 'school', insert :
      or he is a member of a family living together in a single household where any member thereof is currently in receipt of supplementary benefit under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966'.
      No. 9, in line 19, after 'school', insert :
      or he is a member of a family living together in a single household where the total net income of such family currently does not exceed the sum of £5 per member'.
      No. 10, in line 19, after 'school', insert :
      'or he is a member of a family for which family income supplement is paid by virtue of the Family Income Supplements Act 1970'.
      No. 11, in line 19, after 'school', insert :
      'or he is a member of a family any other member of which is currently being provided with milk by virtue of the provisions of this Act'.
      No. 12, in line 19, after 'school', insert :
      'or he is currently being provided by the authority with free school meals'.
      No. 23, in page 2, line 3, at end insert :
      'In the case of pupils at primary schools any regulation so made shall authorise those local authorities where, in May 1971 over 25 per cent. of the total meals served were free meals, to remit any charges otherwise payable by pupils or parents thereunder'.
      No. 40, in line 31, after 'school', insert :
      'or is a member of a family for which family income supplement is paid by virtue of the Family Income Supplements Act 1970'.
      No. 41, in line 31, after 'school', insert :
      'or who is a member of a family any other member of which is currently being provided with milk by virtue of the provisions of this Act'.
      No. 42, in line 31, after 'school', insert :
      'or who is a member of a family any other member of which is currently being provided with free school meals'.
      No. 43, in line 31, after 'school', insert :
      'or who is currently being provided by the authority with free school meals'.
      No. 44, in line 31, after 'school', insert :
      'or who is a member of a family living together in a single household where any member thereof is currently in receipt of supplementary benefit under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966'.
      No. 45, in line 31, after 'school', insert :
      'or who is a member of a family living together in a single household where the total net income of such family currently does not exceed the sum of £5 per member'.
      No. 53, in line 38, at end insert :
      In the case of pupils at primary schools any regulation so made shall authorise those local authorities where, in May, 1971 over 25 per cent. of the total meals served were free meals, to remit any charges otherwise payable by pupils or parents thereunder.
      Mr. Fred Evans: The purpose of the three new Clauses and the 14 Amendments is again to take the edge off the harshness of the Bill and to introduce a more compassionate attitude to children.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I was in error in calling the hon. Member because, I am advised, his name not being on the Order Paper, he cannot move the new Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) would formally move it, the hon. Gentleman could continue his speech.
      Mr. Edward Short: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Evans: The three new Clauses are aimed at areas such as those we have just discussed, the special development areas, development areas, and areas of poor social conditions. The figures given by the right hon. Lady on 5th July of the failure in the take-up of school meals and the percentage increase in the number of free meals against the total demonstrated a clear link between the necessity to look after children and the needs of areas undergoing the economic stringencies of the moment.
      We want local authorities to have power to make decisions in certain eventualities. If within a given period the provision of free meals is 10 per cent. of the total—25 per cent. is suggested in one new Clause—the local authority may pass a resolution and the regulations now applying to the provisions of school milk will operate. This is a reasonable suggestion, because the yardstick of the number of children taking school meals is relevant to judging the condition of an area in terms of employment and economic viability.
      The Amendments provide some protection for several categories of children. The first is when a child is receiving free school meals, when it is proposed that all children in the family should receive free school milk. The second category is children in families in receipt of supplementary benefit. The children of that family, we say, should be entitled to free milk. The other category is children in families drawing family income supplement. The Under-Secretary is probably disappointed about the take-up of family income supplement. I know that he hoped that it

      581
      would be taken up more extensively. In any case the total provision of such supplement as envisaged by the Government is such that we would argue that there would always be the need to provide supplement for these families.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: I think I am right in saying that the group of new Clauses and Amendments we are now discussing deal exclusively with the question of a percentage taking up certain school meals and not with those who are individually in receipt of school meals. I am not trying to make a debating point ; I am simply anxious to answer the hon. Gentleman correctly.
      Mr. Evans: I did not say it was in the new Clauses ; I said that it was later, in the group of Amendments. I am trying to combine the two because the Amendments have been added to the new Clauses, which, until today, were a separate group. The Amendments applying to the individual hardship cases——
      Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am sorry. This has just been added today.
      Mr. Evans: It is an understandable mistake. I did not know until I came into the debate. It is something that can happen all too easily in this House. We are saying that where a child is a member of a family in which any child is in receipt of free school meals, then all the children should be given free milk. Secondly, we say that where the child is a member of a family receiving supplementary benefit, then the child is in need of free school milk.
      As I said, I know that the hon. Gentleman was hoping that there would be a bigger take-up of family income supplement. He has been warned by this side of the House that it is often those in most dire need who are most difficult to find. They are the people who do not know how to fill in forms. If they are surrounded by a mass of forms and a variety of means tests they will say, "To hell with these forms ; I will not bother." There are also those who are, quite irrationally perhaps, so proud that they will not go, as they feel, cap in hand for one means-tested benefit after another. Some of us who believe in the universality
      582
      of benefits face the problem of evolving a much simpler application form.
      The last group of exemptions is children who are members of a family where the average weekly income is less than £5 per member. We feel that is a reasonable level. Overlaid on all this is the question of local option and the freedom of local authorities to reach their own decisions.
      There was no sturdier champion of the rights of local authorities than the right hon. Lady in her speech in the education debate on the Gracious Speech. Quote after quote can be given of her passionate protagonism for the rights of local authorities to self-determination. In the document which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) seems to make his bedside reading—"A Better Tomorrow"—we have statements like this :
      "Under Labour there has been too much government interference in day-to-day workings of industry and local government. There has been to much government ; there will be less."
      Later we find :
      "The independence of local authorities has been seriously eroded by Labour Ministers. On many issues, particularly in education and housing, they have deliberately overridden the views of elected councils. We think it wrong that the balance of power between central and local government should have been distorted and we will redress the balance and increase the independence of local authorities."
      If a local authority does not know best the problems of the children in its area, then I do not know what other body can make that judgment. I am sure that the right hon. Lady and the Under-Secretary have received many representations about this.
      Local authorities are only too anxious to be able to protect the nutritional standards of their children. I was disturbed to hear of the report from my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), about the possibility of the recurrence of rickets. We would not claim for one moment that this is a sudden and dramatic thing. What emerged in Committee was that the Government have no criteria to give medical officers about the way in which they should examine children and categorise them. It is the dietary deficiency spread over the years that matters. There is real fear in the medical profession concerning diseases due to dietry deficiencies.

      583
      We ask the Government in the name of humanity to give these Clauses and Amendments much more serious attention. They did not like the last series of Amendments, although they certainly were not nonsense, as some hon. Members opposite suggested. The Clauses give more power to local authorities. Doubtless there will be arguments from the hon. Gentleman that this will be difficult, that there will be areas of differentiation, that there is the possibility it will rise to 12 per cent., then drop to 8 per cent. With respect, these are rather facile arguments. What is at stake is the well-being of children.
      Dr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend accept from me—I have made a rough calculation—that if the incidence of rickets increases at the same rate at which it was increasing when my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) made his statement, then in five years' time it could be costing the country between £1 million and £2 million to cure the disease?
      Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend is a member of the medical profession I would accept that. I have seen the incidence of this disease in the past. I ask the Government to consider this carefully. Each of the hardship exemptions which we have tabled is eminently sensible and would not be administratively difficult to implement.
      Mr. Gurden: These Amendments are just another machine by which free milk may be supplied in the schools for certain categories. On the last Amendments, we heard the same arguments for continuing the supply of free school milk. Many people listening to the debate today and to the debate in Committee might well be forgiven for thinking that the Government have introduced a Bill to prevent all children from taking school milk. That is absolutely untrue. The Bill seeks to return to the situation which we had before there was any Government interference or legislation on school milk.
      I said in an intervention that I had no interest to declare other than that as a Member of Parliament. However, I was at one time in the dairy industry and concerned with the matter of school milk. I thought up the idea and was responsible for the first supplies of milk to schools
      584
      after making research in a school in Birmingham and finding malnutrition. I thought that the need was to make school milk available at a charge of a penny per bottle. It was discovered that a small percentage of children needed milk on nutritional grounds but that their parents were unable to provide the money for it.
      Mr. Fred Evans: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us by what criteria this small percentage of children were found to be under-nourished?
      Mr. Gurden: It was on the certificate of the medical officer of health of the city of Birmingham. A small number of children were not getting milk simply because their parents could not, or would not, provide the penny to pay for it. Therefore, the local authority provided the money to pay for it for the small number of children who were thought to be, and shown to be, under-nourished, but for the rest of the children who had the milk a charge of a penny a bottle was made. The principle in the Bill is to return more or less to that situation, except that for any children who are shown to be in need of milk the Government will provide the money for it.
      When the scheme got under way, I was invited by the Government to discuss it with them with a view to ensuring that all children who were proved to be undernourished had free school milk. In those conversations, the idea of providing free school milk for all children was discussed and I warned the then Government that it was neither satisfactory nor necessary because the vast majority of families of children having the milk could afford to pay for it and did pay for it. Nevertheless, it was decided that the price of the milk should be halved and the children had it for a halfpenny a bottle. Later, the free school milk scheme came into being.
      I can only say, based on the millions of bottles of milk which were collected at schools, that there was a great wastage of milk. A large number of children, particularly in primary schools, did not feel like consuming all the milk.
      Arguments have been adduced today for continuing the free supply of school milk to certain categories on the ground that some children are under-nourished and go to school without breakfast. That

      585
      might be a good argument for supplying tree breakfasts in schools, but it is not a safeguard against malnutrition for the children to have free school milk. The safeguard against malnutrition is clearly set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(1).
      There is not as yet evidence to show that the problem of rickets among school children is returning. If there are children in the 6-to-8-years-of-age range who are showing signs of rickets, it must have taken place when the Labour Party was in office, because these children were alive then and were brought up during the time of the Labour Government.
      Mr. Fred Evans: The hon. Gentleman said that there was no evidence as yet to show that rickets was returning among school children. This is the same philosophy as that contained in the Bill. Certain children can have free milk provided they undergo a medical examination and produce a medical certificate. They can then, by some criterion which I do not know, be assessed as being undernourished. But the point is that if they had had a dietary supplement they probably would not have become undernourished and would not have gone to the doctor. I do not know what sort of argument it is to say that there must have been cases of rickets when the Labour Party was in office. Poverty is no respecter of Governments. Of course, rickets existed when the Labour Party was in office, it has always been present in Britain and it will be present for generations. It is our job to get rid of it.
      Mr. Gurden: I was saying that if there is evidence that malnutrition causing rickets had disappeared in the 1950s and that it was returning—admittedly only small figures were given—then the children affected must have been brought up during the period of office of the last Labour Government.
      Mr. Kinnock: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that we on this side of the House care when it happened? Does he realise that we would be very surprised if the hon. Gentleman cared when it happened? Would not the knowledge that one case had occurred be enough for people to say, "If we can remove the possibility of it happening, we shall do so"?
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Gurden: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I was prompted to make the remark by the suggestions from the benches opposite that we are seeing a return of rickets.
      Dr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that this is a problem which is arising? I want him to think about this. When people talk about rickets they have to know what it is they are talking about. Does he want to see children grow up with bow legs, women with contracted pelvises, and the bones in children's heads not knitting together properly? That is what rickets means. Does he want to wait for that to happen before he asks his Government to act?
      Mr. Gurden: Many years ago, before we started the milk in schools scheme, I studied this problem. I knew all about it then What the hon. Gentleman says is right. However, Clause 1(1)(a) and (b) covers the point. Moreover, as a doctor, the hon. Gentleman will know that a third of a pint of milk to a child in school is not the only preventive medicine against rickets.
      Mr. Fred Evans: It is the easiest.
      Mr. Gurden: Many other foods help in this regard.
      Dr. Miller Dr. Miller rose——
      Mr. Garden: No. I gave way to the hon. Gentleman just now. I am only telling him what he knows already.
      There is another factor. Milk is not supplied in schools for 365 days a year. If there is a tendency towards rickets, a child needs daily nutrition, for 365 days a year, and not just the 200-odd days on which he gets school milk. It is not the complete answer if there is any risk of malnutrition, rickets, and so on.
      Dr. Miller: Then is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government should consider not giving children this small amount of milk each day, but increasing the amount to deal with the point that he has just mentioned? I agree that they need more, but this is something to go on with. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that the amount should be increased to a pint a day, I agree with him.
      Mr. Gurden: In a case where rickets is suspected or could develop, that is my argument. Such a child needs more than a third of a pint of milk for just over 200 days a year. The hon. Gentleman has given me my point.
      The Bill does not prevent children taking milk. It does not prevent children taking milk at school. It ensures that any child who is likely to suffer or is suffering from malnutrition shall have the milk. That is what the scheme was set up for originally. By this Bill, we are returning to common sense.
      All the knowledge and all the conscience on this matter is not confined to the benches opposite.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: What concerns me is that local authorities should not have some power in their own hands to deal with this matter. Some of us represent areas which have suffered greatly in recent years as a result of unemployment. I do not pretend that the problem has not been of long standing. It has. For that reason, it is difficult to understand why a decision should be taken, in effect, to make it impossible for free milk to be provided in the way that it has for a considerable period of time. It is quite monstrous for the Government to pick on this moment.
      I am not aware of any authority which supports the Government's attitude. As I tried to say earlier, it is not as though there is a division in the country on an ordinary party political basis. There is not. There are almost as many Conservative authorities complaining about the Government's action as there are Labour. It may be that they see the danger to come. Such Conservative authorities as remain appear to be desperately anxious to improve their image.
      Whatever the reason, there can be no doubt about the strength of feeling in the country. I cannot understand why the Government are committing themselves to these proposals. It is to be hoped that they will think again, even at this very late stage.
      Mr. Michael McGuire: When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) was replying to the charge that one of the possible consequences of withdrawing free milk was that rickets would appear once again
      588
      amongst our children, he said that Clause 1(1)(a) and (b) provided the safeguard. I do not agree with his interpretation of those provisions.
      From time to time, all Governments take unpopular decisions on the grounds that they will save money. My own Government did it, and I regretted it, because my right hon. and hon. Friends gave hostage to fortune. I am told that sound economics is not merely the exercise of saving money. It is to spend it wisely. I suspect that the £9 million that will be saved by not paying for free school milk will cost a great deal more in the long run. I believe that it has been money well spent.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West-houghton (Mr. J. T. Price), speaking to the first set of Amendments, said that he had received strong letters of protest from local authorities in the Lancashire County Council area. Similar letters have been addressed to me, and to others of my colleagues. The county council sent to hon. Members a very full report of discussions that it had had about the effect of withdrawing school milk. That authority is Tory-controlled. There could not have been a more revolutionary worded letter of guidance to Members of Parliament about the action that they should take. The county council considers it a retrograde step.
      I repeat what has been said several times already. There is no body of opinion in the country which has advised the Government that, on balance, no great harm will result from the withdrawal of free school milk. On the contrary, every informed opinion seems to be that this will have damaging consequences for children.
      I want to draw attention to my constituency which, like most constituencies, has some areas which are socially deprived and others which are not too bad in this year of 1971. Part of my constituency has the highest proportion of schoolteachers receiving the special payment for teaching in socially deprived areas. Long before there was any talk of eliminating free school milk from the over-sevens, the teachers and school welfare officers in that part of my constituency used to tell me how valuable the provision of free school milk was in such an area. I am sure that they will lament the decision to withdraw

      589
      this provision, because this is a socially deprived area with a high rate of take-up for free school meals. What astonishes me is that there is no quid pro quo on the basis of selectivity for free school milk as there is for free school meals.
      Mr. Fergus Montgomery: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the schoolteachers to whom he talked also expressed concern when the Labour Government abolished free milk for the over-11s? Will he also tell us why, when the Labour Government abolished free milk for the over-11s, no provision was made at that time for children of needy families?
      Mr. McGuire: That is a very fair point. I understand that the advice given on the withdrawing of school milk from children in secondary schools was that it would not be anything like so damaging as was at one time thought. I very much regret giving that hostage to fortune to our political opponents. When measures like that come forward again I shall not so easily be persuaded to support a Labour Government. I am sure that I speak for many hon. Members on this side. We have to be very canny about these matters. We try to think that it will not happen again, but it will, and we shall get a reactionary Government—I want to be honest and blunt about it—which will use this kind of argument to add further to the misfortunes of the poor. We are talking about the children of the poor.
      I want to get back to my constituency. [Interruption.] I have waited a long time to say these few words. We hear talk about the usual channels. I must have been one of the channels last time because what was said to me was, "Michael, would you mind sitting down on this and then we shall get our lads up and they will get their lads up and you will have a moment or two later." I am having my moment now. If hon. Gentlemen want to prolong it by interrupting me I shall keep on.
      The Lancashire County Council and my local education authority have condemned the Bill. I condemn it, too. I suppose that miracles can happen to prevent it becoming an Act, but when the Bill is passed, if it is, it will be very damaging. When hon. Gentlemen opposite attempt to defend the Bill—the hon.
      590
      Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) did not attempt to defend it—they say that, whatever the argument about free school meals and milk, this is a job better done by the Department of Health and Social Security. That is lot of tommy-rot. I will explain why.
      Before the war children in need of free school meals used to be sent to what were called in my part of Lancashire feeding centres. Many children used to have breakfasts as well as dinners. Many children who were in need of those breakfasts and dinners at school did not go to those feeding centres, because those who administered the scheme could not prevent them feeling that they were really poor, and a certain sense of humiliation used to creep into this exercise. If we start to think on the lines, "Let us separate them", it may cost more. I find that, according to Parkinson's Law, whenever things are hived off there is a certain amount of empire-building and it can cost more and not be better administered.
      8.15 p.m.
      There is grave danger of humiliating children by sending them to special places. I am old enough to know that one of the great things standing to the credit of the Labour Party, apart from the whole concept of the Welfare State, is that, particularly the last Government, it has progressively made the avenues of State benefits to poor people—it is a nonsense to talk of under-privileged—less humiliating. The more we can make it less humiliating, the more we can encourage people to take up the benefits which the State has provided. The more we can continue in that direction, the better I shall like it.
      I must digress. My mother was on relief for a few years and that has burned in my soul. We used to go to a place where one queued in the wind and the wet and went in and periodically was examined. If there was the slightest sign of affluence, someone would be down to check on everything. The Labour Government changed all that. We gave people dignity when they were thrown to the wayside and had to get succour and sustenance from the State.
      When Peggy Herbison was the Minister she found a little avenue which we could go along and make things better

      591
      for people. Before 1964 even the colour or the size of the book indicated the benefits which people were getting. We therefore made it as anonymous as possible. That is what I want any Government to do.
      There has not so far been any entertaining of the idea that the Department of Health and Social Security should administer this scheme. I doubt whether it would do it any better than the schools service, but there is the grave danger which I have outlined.
      I condemn the Bill. I think that the Tories have been very foolish. The speeches from the steps of No. 10—I was going to say the throne of No. 10—about wanting one nation are complete codswallop and an insult to the intelligence and integrity of the British people. I am sure that when they get the chance, as they certainly will, they will remember headlines like, "Jolly, jolly sixpence", and then recall the taking away of free milk from children over seven. It is a lamentable step.
      I ask, even at this late stage, that the selectivity which applies to school meals should be extended to school milk. That is a logical argument. We do it now for school meals. Why can we not extend it to school milk, if we cannot have outright abolition of this proposed stopping of school milk for these children? I ask the Government to think again about this matter. They have not had any advice about the nutritional damage that might result to these children. They are attempting to save money at the expense of those they should be trying to help.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: I shall attempt to deal with the arguments that have been raised, and perhaps I might start by dealing with two of them before coming to the issues raised by this series of new Clauses and Amendments.
      First, I take very seriously, as the House does, any statements made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) on medical matters. I hope very much that he will give the non-political authorities, such as chief medical officers, and so on, all the assistance and evidence he can, as I am sure he will.
      I think that I am entitled to say two things to the hon. Gentleman in at least
      592
      partial reply to what he said, and they were very serious words coming from him. It is fair to say, is it not, that there is in the Bill a provision dealing with a certificate given by a medical officer of health? We are talking about a Bill dealing with school children, and primary school children at that. When we consider the system that we have for medical examinations, which I think overwhelmingly includes a medical examination at the age of 5, and this is to the credit of the medical profession and not of the politicians—we realise that there is in train a system for the detection of disease at an early stage, and I should want to leave no stone unturned—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept my bona fides in this—to ensure the early detection of any medical condition which showed that the child was at risk. The condition may be a combination of medical and social causes—the hon. Gentleman is much better informed on this than I am—and that is the sort of condition for which the Bill would, in all good faith, make provision.
      Dr. Miller: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. If he really feels that that aspect of it could be pursued, he should accept that the general practitioner, the family doctor, is the best person—not the routine examination at school—to detect early signs of any kind of deficiency. What concerns me—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pay some attention to this—is that, as some people have argued, although the giving of a little milk is not the complete answer, the withdrawal of that amount of milk could be the straw which breaks the camel's back. It may be that it is necessary to have that small amount of milk to prevent a disease from developing.
      To revert to the point that I made at the beginning, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the family doctor has the whole history of the patient and of the family before him, he is the best person to decide this?
      Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading carefully the Committee proceedings, where we were able to develop this at considerable length. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the family doctor, in the sort of case that we have in mind, that of a child

      593
      aged 5 showing early symptoms of rickets, will have an important rôle to play, in the same way as, for example—and I do not think that this is contentious—the social worker. All we are saying is that the certificate has to be given by the medical officer of the authority. That does not debar—far from it—the involvement of the family doctor. and I hope that these exchanges may get more prominence than did the Committee proceedings, and that the attention of family doctors will be drawn to the point that I am making.
      The hon. Gentleman will know of the comments made about rickets in the chief medical officer's report on the "State of the Public Health". I think I am right in saying that the last report is that for 1969. While it is highly technical, and I do not have the ability to interpret these things in technical terms, I think I can say that the panel on child nutrition, for example, has given up the practice of asking for the figures because, mercifully, over the years the figures have become very low indeed, and in any case when encountered the case is almost always mild and reversible. I am sure that both sides of the House say "Amen" to that.
      I think that we must be careful not to give the impression of a massive recurrence of this disease. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans), who in all but name moved the Motion, in all good faith in Committee relayed what he believed was accurate information about the recurrence of rickets in Merthyr Tydvil, but with characteristic generosity withdrew the allegation when the Minister of State for Wales rightly and prompty investigated the matter.
      Mr. Fred Evans: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that all the school medical officer had to do was to give a certificate and that social workers could be involved as well as the family doctor, as we advocated in Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously expect school medical officers to accept reports from social workers and other people? Does he really expect social workers and school medical officers to accept the extra work load? Is he not aware that school medical officers have placed on record their views about the criteria to be adopted for
      594
      medical examinations and he said that if they examine six children they will come up with six different answers?
      Mr. van Sfraubenzee: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is making an unnecessary difficulty here. In many schools—alas, not in all—in England and Wales—and doubtless Scotland, too—the partnership between social workers and the medical officer of the authority is very close. That is a good thing. This is merely the extension of an existing cooperation. If the hon. Gentleman asks whether I expect the medical officer of the authority automatically to accept things of a medical nature that he is told by a social welfare officer, the answer is "Certainly not", but I do expect that he will give considerable weight, particularly when he is alerted by somebody of that kind, to the element of medical risk to which the child is subject. That is all I am seeking to say, but I think-that it is a reasonable answer to a great deal of what has been said on the medical side.
      I must correct something that was said—I am sure in all good faith—by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). He said that when his Government abolished the supply of free milk in secondary schools—and he made it clear that he regretted this—they were advised by competent medical authorities that it would be damaging to do that to children in primary schools. With respect, that is not so.
      The then Secretary of State, on 26th February, 1968, at col. 1098, when the appropriate Amendment was being debated, made it absolutely clear that the advice he had received from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy was that there was no evidence to that effect. That advice related to all schools. It is recorded here absolutely clearly. That was the occasion on which hon. Members opposite voted against their own side on this issue.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Hear, hear.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Member says "Hear, hear," but I do not find his distinguished name in col. 1104 of HANSARD for 26th February.

      595
      The first set of Amendments deal with the position in which a percentage of school meals are being taken up, so there has been a drop in the serving of school meals. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said that he thought that I might take this view of a blanket exception, so it will come as no surprise if I say that this would mean that a very large number of children, regardless of their parents' means, would still have free school meals.
      For instance, the May census showed that 143 of the 163 L.E.A.s in England and Wales were providing free meals for more than 10 per cent. of all pupils taking meals. That means that under the new Clause 143 would still be under a duty to provide free school milk for these children.
      Taking another new Clause, I am told that 160 of the 163 L.E.A.s were serving at least 10 per cent. fewer meals in May 1971 as compared with September 1970. There is a number of factors attached to this, of which the price is certainly one. But this census contrasted a May figure with a September figure, which is what the new Clause would tie us to. So I must be consistent and say that that set of Amendments is not at all impressive.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Could the Minister repeat the date of the OFFICIAL REPORT he quoted just now?
      Mr. van Straubenzee: I see that the hon. Member is getting anxious. I am always happy to help him, particularly if this speeds our business. It was the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February, 1968, and he will not find his name in col. 1104.
      The second set of Amendments raises a much more difficult question. I have not heard a more powerful argument against these Amendments than the speech of the hon. Member for Ince. I accept how strongly he feels about identification. However, after the Bill becomes law it will be possible—I hope that it will not happen—for a sohool dealing with children aged between 7 and 11 not to serve any milk at all.
      We know from the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), whose judgment should be heard with respect, that there will
      596
      probably be only a small amount of milk given on medical grounds. The power in the Bill extends to both primary and secondary schools, but in relation to secondary schools it is a power to sell milk. In a fairly prosperous country area, the local authority might decide not to exercise its power and serve no milk to children aged between 7 and 11.
      The Amendments would ask us to identify in the starkest possible terms those who were receiving certain social benefits. The hon. Member for Ince was absolutely right to remind us that over the years successive Governments have sought to make the social service provisions—for example, supplementary benefit—as confidential as possible. I have always been extremely impressed with the argument which centred itself on the actual administration of the means test in certain places in pre-war years. I make it plain that I have never personally experienced the means test in the way the hon. Gentleman explained it, partly because I was too young and partly because I was too fortunate. However, I am conscious that the way in which a person was brought into the public eye was totally unacceptable to reasonable opinion on both sides.
      The hon. Member for Ince is asking that in, say, a prosperous village, where there may be a problem family on which all the efforts of the State in its social service provisions are concentrated, a duty should be laid on the authority to provide milk for the child or children of that family, and this is a genuine difficulty in the providing of free milk when related to social benefits.
      Mr. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman has been trying, I admit in a courteous way, to use my argument to buttress his own. He is doing it cleverly and I trust that he will permit me to use a Lancashire expression which is often applied to a crafty type of person. The hon. Gentleman could "plait sawdust". I was pointing out the need to guard against selectivity and the need to keep school meals and the school welfare services out of the hands of the social security people.
      I pointed out that teachers go to extreme lengths to ensure that the children do not know who among them are receiving free meals and other social benefits. The teachers live with their

      597
      children, as it were, day by day. This cannot be said of the social security people.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure that when I read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the way in which the hon. Gentleman used that Lancashire phrase about me I shall be delighted. Having strong Devonshire connections, I might have used a phrase which is used about me by my friends—"He needs an extra half hour in the oven", they often say of me.
      I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not want to move the provision of school milk and other benefits to the social security system. He will readily concede, I am sure, that nothing in the Bill does that. We are therefore left with a duty, if the Amendment were passed, on local authorities to provide milk to, for example, the children of families on family income supplement and in receipt of supplementary benefit.
      I have not rested my case on the financial problem. I rest my case on exactly the arguments put by the hon. Member for Ince. He is quite right when he says that in innumerable schools teachers show great ingenuity in not revealing to anyone which child is receiving free school meals. I have said it publicly before, and I say it again now, that I hope very much that we can one day move to a system by which we provide these benefits without the identification of the child, but I do not believe that it is possible yet for us to do this——
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: One of the objections of the Bill is that it brings in a second class of identification. We already have those who, under the poverty regulations, have free school meals. The Government now bring in a medical group of children who are to have free school milk. Why could not the Government in Committee have accepted our Amendment, which would have provided free school milk to those getting free school meals? There would then have been only one identification.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: With great respect, this is not so. It is very possible for there to be a primary school, and it is about primary schools that we are talking, where no free school meals are provided, and certainly where no milk is being provided on medical grounds It
      598
      is quite possible to do as suggested, I concede, where the power to sell the milk is being operated, but the House will understand that in a Bill of this kind one cannot differentiate between one school and another.
      I can only give it as my conviction that it goes against all that both sides have been seeking to achieve, which is to eliminate identification as far as we humanly can, if we reverse the trend and accept a series of Amendments which, in certain circumstances, would mean identifying the very children whose identity for this purpose both sides prefer to keep anonymous.
      Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman rejected the last set of Amendments, which would have obviated this problem altogether. He is now rejecting this set of Amendments because he says it would bring in individual identification. How can he square the two rejections.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: Perfectly simply, because there is retained in the Bill—I think, on balance, rightly, though I know that there are hon. Members opposite who have reservations—selectively in the case where it is absolutely important, which is when there is medical evidence to the effect that a child is medically at risk. There is that selectivity, and that is the point where the selectivity becomes effective. I am therefore saying that to make selectivity dependent upon the personal circumstances of the child—in a great many schools, I accept without question, it would go unseen by anyone, but we have to remember a very significant number where it would absolutely positively identify the child—is something which I am quite certain neither side would wish.
      Dr. Miller: The Minister spoke of the case where a child is "medically at risk". Will he please tell me which Clauses uses that term, or even implies it?
      Mr. van Straubenzee: With respect, this is not a major point. Clause 1(1)(b) provides
      "(except in the case of a pupil in attendance at a special school)"—
      for whom there are special arrangements : that is something which the previous Government did in secondary schools—
      "there is for the time being in force in respect of him a certificate given by a medical officer of the authority stating that his health

      599
      requires that he should be provided with milk at school."
      This is part of the partnership which is well understood in the school world. There is frequently a close working between headmasters, the staff, social workers, and the school medical officer. What they will be looking for is evidence of the risk medically to the child which should require the reimposition of the one-third of a pint of free school milk.
      8.45 p.m.
      Dr. Miller: I hate to press this point, but I believe that when a Bill becomes law it is the terms of the Bill when enacted which are binding and not what a Minister says. Nevertheless, I hope that medical officers of health, and indeed family practitioners, will interpret the Clause in the way in which the Under-Secretary has stated it this evening, because that at least will be a little of a benefit if they interpret it in that way.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the ultimate it is only what is written in the Bill that counts rather than any words of mine. It must be remembered that what we are talking about is a certificate stating that a child's
      "health requires that he should be provided with milk at school."
      I am simply saying that it will be within the common knowledge of both sides of the House that this is a matter which is at work at present and it is one of the things of which we can all be proud that there is a watching brief over the health of so many of our children.
      Mr. Gurden: I remind my hon. Friend of what I said earlier. This is what happened for several years very successfully and no problems were thrown up by the medical officer or by schoolteachers or local doctors who wrote to the medical officer.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his support. As the House knows, he speaks with great authority in this matter.
      For the reasons which I have sought to place before the House, I do not believe that either of the two main groups of Amendments are either new Clauses or Amendments which it would be appropriate for the House to agree to.
      Mr. Edward Short: I shall be brief and apply myself to the Amendments and new Clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) was advised to read HANSARD about the advice given to the previous Government. If he will also read the report of the last 15 minutes of the proceedings of the last sitting of the Committee he will see the matter put into correct perspective.
      I return to the Amendments. This is a very large group of Amendments and Clauses any one of which, had the Government accepted it, would have retained free milk for children where there is obvious need. It is profoundly disappointing to us, as it will be to teachers and nutritional experts throughout the country, that the Government have not been able to accept one of them.
      Some of the Amendments would simply have kept free milk for children in receipt of free school dinners. This would have been simple and foolproof, and no additional means test would have been involved. Some of the Amendments would have secured that free milk was retained where the family was in receipt of supplementary benefits or F.I.S., and no additional means tests would have been involved. Some of the Amendments would have retained free milk where the family income was below £5 per head. All this is what the Under-Secretary has just turned down. It cannot be argued that there is not need—indeed, real poverty—in many of these families.
      However, the Under-Secretary rested his case on the fact that these Amendments, if applied, would be invidious and embarrassing to the children. I believe, as a practical teacher—somebody who has been a teacher, as many of my hon. Friends have—that the effect would be exactly the opposite. I will explain why. If we take a typical class in a school anywhere in the country when the Bill comes into operation, there will be a very small number—the Under-Secretary is quite right—in the medical milk category, so to speak, not because more children do not merit it but because the school medical service simply will not be able to deal with all the cases.
      Secondly, some children will buy milk ; the numbers will vary. Thirdly, there will be a category of children who will not have milk because their parents cannot afford to buy it ; that number will

      601
      also vary. If the right hon. Lady's figures about free dinners are anything to go by the proportion of children whose parents cannot afford to buy milk will amount to 50 per cent. in my constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). They will not be having milk of any kind—milk that is paid for, or medical milk. What could be more embarrassing or invidious?
      The Bill will create a category of children who, because of the poverty of their parents, will stick out in their classes and before their comrades like a sore thumb. If they received free milk they would receive it with the ones who paid and the ones who received medical milk. All the children would, in effect, be getting free milk. If the Government say—as the Under-Secretary did when he spelled out his objection in more detail in Committee—that the collection of money from some and not from others would be embarrassing, I would point out that it is not more embarrassing than the situation that occurs in respect of free dinner. There, the practice varies. Many teachers
      show great ingenuity and compassion in trying to avoid invidious distinctions. It is infinitely worse if anything up to 50 per cent. of the children are not having milk because their parents cannot afford the additional 10p a week to buy it.
      What we are proposing seems to me to be the lesser of two evils. As in the case of the regional Amendments which the Government have rejected, we do not mind how the poverty criterion is introduced into the Bill ; we simply suggest the free dinner yardstick because it would be easy and the most humane way of proceeding. But if the Government care anything at all about mitigating the adverse nutritional effects of their economic policy, the Bill should contain a provision for a category based upon need. As the Government have rejected this we shall certainly carry the point to a Division.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time :—
      The House divided : Ayes 229, Noes 247.

      Division No. 427.]

      AYES

      [8.53 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Hamilton, William (Fite, W.)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Hamling, William

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Atkinson, Norman

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Hardy, Peter

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Delargy, H. J.

      Harper, Joseph

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Barnett, Joel

      Dempsey, James

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Doig, Peter

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Horam, John

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Booth, Albert

      Dunnett, Jack

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Eadie, Alex

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

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

      Ellis, Tom

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Buchan, Norman

      English, Michael

      Hunter, Adam

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

      Evans, Fred

      Janner, Greville

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Cant, R. B.

      Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      John, Brynmor

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Foley, Maurice

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

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Foot, Michael

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Ford, Ben

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Forrester, John

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Coleman, Donald

      Freeson, Reginald

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Conlan, Bernard

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Kelley, Richard

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Ginsburg, David

      Kerr, Russell

      Kinnock, Neil

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Golding, John

      Lambie, David

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Lamond, James

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Gourlay, Harry

      Latham, Arthur

      Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Lawson, George

      Dalyell. Tam

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Davidson, Arthur

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Leonard, Dick

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Lester, Miss Joan

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ogden, Eric

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Lipton, Marcus

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Stallard, A. W.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      O'Malley, Brian

      Steel, David

      Loughlin, Charles

      Oram, Bert

      Stewart, Rt. Hn, Michael (Fulham)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Orme, Stanley

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Paget, R. T.

      Strang, Gavin

      McBride, Neil

      Palmer, Arthur

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      McCann, John

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Taverne, Dick

      McCartney, Hugh

      Pardoe, John

      Thomas. Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

      McElhone, Frank

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      McGuine, Michael

      Pendry, Tom

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Mackie, John

      Pentland, Norman

      Tinn, James

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Tomney, Frank

      Maclennan, Robert

      Prescott, John

      Torney, Tom

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Tuck, Raphael

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Probert, Arthur

      Varley, Eric G.

      Mallalieu, E. L, (Brigg)

      Rankin, John

      Wainwright, Edwin

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

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wallace, George

      Marquand, David

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Watkins, David

      Marsden, F.

      Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

      Weitzman, David

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Roper, John

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Meacher, Michael

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Sandelson, Neville

      Whitlock, William

      Mendelson, John

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Millan, Bruce

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamllton)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Sillars, James

      Woof, Robert

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Silverman, Julius

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Skinner, Dennis

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Moyle, Roland

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. James A. Dunn.

      Murray, Ronald King

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cooper, A. E.

      Grieve, Percy

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Cordle, John

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Costain, A. P.

      Gurden, Harold

      Astor, John

      Critchley, Julian

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Curran, Charles

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Awdry, Daniel

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Balniel, Lord

      Dean, Paul

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Batsford, Brian

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Bell, Ronald

      Dixon, Piers

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Benyon, W.

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Hastings, Stephen

      Berry, Hon. Anthony

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Havers, Michael

      Biffen, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hawkins, Paul

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Eden, Sir John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hicks, Robert

      Body, Richard

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Boscawen, Robert

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

      Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Emery, Peter

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Holland, Philip

      Bray, Ronald

      Farr, John

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Fell, Anthony

      Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fidler, Michael

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Bruce-Cardyne, J.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Hunt, John

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Foster, Sir John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Burden, F. A.

      Fowler, Norman

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Fox, Marcus

      James, David

      Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&Nairn)

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

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Fry, Peter

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Channon, Paul

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Jopling, Michael

      Churchill, W. S.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Clark, William (Surrey, East)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gorst, John

      Kilfedder, James

      Clegg, Walter

      Gower, Raymond

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Cooke, Robert

      Gray, Hamish

      Kirk, Peter

      Coombs, Derek

      Green, Alan

      Kitson, Timothy

      Knox, David

      Lane, David

      Orr, Capt. L, P. S.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Osborn, John

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Longden, Gilbert

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Stokes, John

      Luce, R. N.

      Peel, John

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Percival, Ian

      Sutcliffe, John

      MacArthur, Ian

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

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

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Tebbit, Norman

      McLaren, Martin

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Temple, John M.

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      McMaster, Stanley

      Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Tilney, John

      Maginnis, John E.

      Raison, Timothy

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Marten, Neil

      Redmond, Robert

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Mather, Carol

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      van Straubenzee, W R.

      Maude, Angus

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Waddington, David

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Wall, Patrick

      Moate, Roger

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Molyneaux, James

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Money, Ernle

      Rost, Peter

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Monro, Hector

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Sharples, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Mudd, David

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Murton, Oscar

      Simeons, Charles

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Worsley, Marcus

      Neave, Airey

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

      Younger, Hn. George

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Soref, Harold

      Normanton, Tom

      Speed, Keith

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

      Nott, John

      Spence, John

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stainton, Keith

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    New Clause 14

      ANNUAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
      There shall, as soon as may be after the end of each school year after the passing of this Act, be presented to Parliament, separately in respect of England, Wales and Scotland, reports generally upon the operation of this Act and in particular containing detailed information upon the following matters pertaining to such school year—

      (a) the financial savings achieved by this Act, their equivalent in terms of the average cost of construction (including land costs and compensation) of primary schools and the number of primary schools the building of which has been commenced in such school year and which. but for such savings, would not have been commenced ;

      (b) the number of pupils who, but for this Act, would have been entitled to the provision of school milk free of charge and the number of pupils so entitled under this Act, in each case by ages and classes of school ;

      (c) the number of pupils for whom by virtue of this Act milk may be provided on payment and the number of pupils for whom milk was so provided, in each case by ages and classes of school ; and

      (d) the opinions of the medical officers of local education authorities as to the
      606
      effect of the operation of this Act upon the health of pupils attending each class of school within the areas of those authorities—[Mr. Buchan.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with it new Clause I—Annual Reports.
      Mr. Kinnock: On Second Reading, repeatedly in Committee, and earlier this afternoon, on grounds of the dangers of malnutrition, on grounds of poverty, on the grounds that certain areas are likely to encounter poverty more than others, on the grounds that general practitioners are better qualified to certify medical need for children than are the medical officers of health, on the grounds that all children receiving free school meals should receive milk, by the definition already laid down in the Statutes pertaining to free school meals, we have

      607
      asked for exceptions to the Bill. On every occasion, often without a great deal of force of logic, the Government have, in various ways, turned down our suggestions.
      We had the abrasive and robust manner of the Minister of State for Wales, the rather sweet refusal from the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, and the jaunty attitude of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. All of them have employed the peculiar, disingenuous piety that Conservatives reserve for occasions when they are saying from the heartstrings that they desperately desire to see universal benefits, and to see that everyone is all right, but suggest that the sums do not add up, that we must have selectivity, and that therefore there is a reason for taking away £9 million-worth of free school milk from schoolchildren, in order, so we are told, that we may have some addition to the stock of primary school buildings.
      New Clause 14 is specific and reasonable. In my usual manner, being a still, small, calm voice, I ask the Government to consider seriously the four subparagraphs. They are asked to give an undertaking to report annually to Parliament. There is good reason for that. There are two Early Day Motions on the Order Paper. The first calls attention to the mean act of the Government in depriving children of free school milk and has 170 signatures attached to it—a substantial proportion of hon. Members by any reckoning. The second asks the Government to establish a national advisory council on child nutrition. The 130 signatures attached to that are headed by the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans). Both Motions are a reflection of the widespread concern among hon. Members about the results of this Bill.
      There is a widespread desire that those prosecuting the Bill should be accountable annually for its effects. In as much as the Government are prepared to examine children, to put sick children, for instance, through the tortuous hoop of identifying their sickness, what is good for the children must obviously be good for the Government as well, and the Government should therefore at least be made
      608
      to show the effects, good, bad or indifferent, of introducing this mean and petty Bill which has caused so much resentment among all classes of society and in all areas of the country, including among people who traditionally support the Conservative cause. So we have a great deal of support for our point of view in asking the Government to make themselves accountable annually to Parliament for the results of the Bill.
      Sub-paragraph (a) of new Clause 14 reads : "the financial savings achieved by this Act, their equivalent in terms of the average cost of construction (including land costs and compensation) of primary schools and the number of primary schools the building of which has been commenced in such school year and which, but for such savings, would not have been commenced ".
      The reason is obvious. The Government first gave notice of their intention to introduce the Bill last October, and since Second Reading the right hon. Lady has spoken at the conference of the Association of Education Committees—probably the most authoritative collective body of educational interests gathered at any one time and any one place. She told the conference that the improvements programme was the other side of the milk equation. There had been no pretence up to then that the £9 million saving was a direct contribution to the improvement of schools, even though, both in questions and debates, had been told that it was impossible for us to attribute the Government's desire to have £9 million to their simultaneous desire to give a handout to the higher taxpayers.
      The Government were saying they could not accept a hypothecation when it was attributed to them by the Opposition, but the Secretary of State said in Eastbourne on 25th June that hypothecation was entirely possible as long as she was saying where the money was going. Of course, what she said at the conference has since been withdrawn. We have been told that it was an intellectual exercise, just as the Minister of Agriculture has told us that right hon. Members opposite did not really mean it when they told housewives last year that they would cut prices.
      We are getting used to withdrawals from the present Government, but withdrawals as retrospective actions are not much use in terms of political credibility,

      609
      and the time will come when nobody will believe anything that the Conservative Government say. We shall then have reached a level of political understanding which is desirable, but in the meantime, as long as the Government can get away with the half-lie and the indication and the implication that their actions will save money for the taxpayer, or the ratepayer, or somebody else, they ought to be open to challenge so that they cannot get away with saying that it was only a figment of the imagination, or an intellectual exercise, or that they did not mean it, or that housewives were too intelligent to believe what the man who is now Prime Minister said last June.
      It is important to keep a constant watch on their activities, not just in general terms in the sense of examining the policies of the Executive, but in the sense of examining these repeated instances of members of the Cabinet making statements which later turn out to be somewhat less meaningful than was originally supposed. It is important for hon. Members to conduct that exercise regardless of party. The credibility of the Government is in question and there should be a recurrent opportunity to examine their policies closely.
      It is false to argue that there is a choice between free school milk and adequate primary schools, quite apart from the technicalities of financing. No one in his right mind would seriously believe that the alternatives were between free milk in the stomachs of school children and the massive expenditure required to transform the school building programme, but it is a handy propaganda weapon.
      It has the same kind of logic as is employed by the Government when they say that unemployment is high because wages are high and, simultaneously, that if it were not for high wages, there would be more unemployment. When they say that we can have school meals or primary schools, and not as many primary schools if we have free school milk, they are showing the kind of logic which is employed in the argument that if we had more constipation, we could have more public lavatories, because they would not be used so much and more resources would be made available for the building of those assets.
      610
      Paragraph (d) of the new Clause asks the Government to tell Parliament the total number of children between 7 and 11 and those in special schools with medical requirements ; in other words, those children who, but for the Bill, would have had free school milk and those who, because of the Bill, will continue to receive it. This is the gap between the children generally deemed to be fit by an inefficient and inaccurate system of medical screening—and even Ministers will acknowledge the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the occasional screening in schools—and those deemed to be sufficiently sickly to have a medical need for milk.
      Evidence has been adduced by those outside Parliament who are brilliantly qualified to give evidence about malnutrition, and we fear that there will be a closing of this gap. In many ways, the Government have us over a barrel. We want more and more children to have free school milk, but if, because of that, more and more school children are identified as having a medical need, it will be a terrible price to pay.
      9.15 p.m.
      I fear that there will be a terrible inevitability about the closing of the gap between those children who will be currently entitled to free school milk because of the medical need provision and those who will not receive free school milk because they do not qualify. In those circumstances it is only fair to ask the Government to tell us how many children in Britain between 7 and 11 are in school and how many are deemed to be sick. Year by year we should be able to see whether this gap widens or narrows, so that the arguments adduced from both sides can be tested. If the Government are confident that this Measure will not have an adverse effect on the health of the 7 to 11 age group they should have the courage of their convictions, accept the Amendment and be prepared to publish the figures.
      The same reasoning applies to subparagraph (c) in which we ask for the Government to give us the total school population and the total take-up of purchased milk. This is a method of identifying the importance of a parent's place in the purchase of milk. It may be that the children of poor parents will

      611
      not purchase the milk because they cannot afford it, and will take up the dubious benefits offered in the Bill. It may be that the more affluent parents, knowing that they can provide milk in the home—and no one on this side has said that this will not happen—will say that as they now have to pay for milk at school they will ensure that their child has more milk at home. That is an acceptable, reasonable exercise of parental responsibility.
      The trouble is that few children will have the opportunity, on a cold winter's morning, or a warm summer morning for that matter, of visiting their home at 11 o'clock and drinking a third of a pint of milk. We are talking not in terms of general malnutrition but in terms of the discomfort that comes from rumbling tummies. That is what it boils down to. While it may be easy for me, at my age, to remember what it felt like at 11 o'clock to have a very welcome third of a pint of milk——
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that in some cases where it can be argued that parents could afford to pay for the milk, these children do not have much of a taste for milk and do not really need it, whereas we are told that in the environment of the school children are likely to get into the habit of taking it?
      Mr. Kinnock: That is true. We have discussed at length another aspect of this point, the development of the milk-drinking habit. The deprivation of free school milk, the breaking of the milk habit at this early age, might have a long-term effect in that we shall have a generation which has not got used to regularly partaking of milk.
      We can judge whether there is a take-up of the legislative rights in the Bill to purchase milk. We can use that to gauge whether the cost of providing purchasable milk has risen. We know that this has happened with school meals. A consequence of the drop in those taking school meals has been that the cost of providing them has risen by one penny in the last 12 months. That is a result of the fall in take-up, and that comes from a reply to a Parliamentary Question answered by the right hon.
      612
      Lady. The same thing will happen to milk, it is just a matter of economy of scale and demand. These are things which hon. Gentlemen opposite consider they know more about than we do. I ask them to accept that consequence of their alleged expertise.
      We would also like an annual report from medical officers of health to be brought before Parliament so that we can make some assessment of the medical and physical effects of the withdrawal of free school milk. The Government say that there will be no detrimental effect. It would be a minor exercise, therefore, to accept this part of the Clause and to say that they are prepared to bring this information before Parliament. We used to hear a great deal about honest Government a year ago. Let them provide this information and say that they can prove on the basis of the evidence provided by medical officers that there has been no decline in the health of British schoolchildren.
      The medical officers of health have been very critical. Their favourite word in discussing the Government's proposal has been "retrograde". It has appeared in the headlines of the educational and general Press time and again. A whole section of moderate opinion people who have no political axe to grind have expressed their disapproval. [AN HON. MEMBER : "Like Sir William Alexander."] There is a "Red" for you! Some terrible, divisive, Kremlinlike organisations like the Association of Education Committees and the Association of Municipal Corporations—[HON. MEMBERS : "Tory controlled".] Tories work in mysterious ways. We never know how their logic works. I am sorry that I am inviting heckling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is a matter——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps invite something else if he attempts to make a Second Reading speech on a relatively narrow Clause.
      Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was under the distinct impression that I had kept strictly to the terms of the new Clause.
      I ask the Government to give favourable consideration to our reasonable request that they should annually prove

      613
      or fail to prove to the House that the effects of the Bill have been as black as we forecast or as shiny white as they forecast. This is a fair challenge which is made on the basis of logic, common sense and accountability to Parliament, which is a very important consideration. I ask the Government to accept the new Clause.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). Earlier the Minister said that he rested his case on the belief that a great deal of harm would be caused to children as a result of embarrassment if there was a further extension of selectivity. He seemed to believe that far more children would be embarrassed if any extension were allowed than would be harmed by the deprivation on which the Government seem to be determined to embark.
      If the Government accept our proposal and in a year or two we find that there is no evidence that the deprivation has resulted in deterioration in children's physical condition, the Government could with some complacency and perhaps satisfaction say "We told you so."
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: They will not be in office then.
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend may be right, but I am not as optimistic as he is. It is reasonable to suggest that the Government should accept our proposal and be prepared to accept the challenge and prove that the step that they are taking has not been injurious to children's health. If they refuse to accept the challenge, they are in effect saying that the assumption of the Under-Secretary of State must stand, regardless of fact and experience. I suggest that the Governernment should think very carefully before they reject the new clause. It is a perfectly reasonable one, and it is one which the teaching profession, educationists and all men of good will will support.
      There is no reason for the Government to refuse to accept invigilation on this matter, and I strongly urge the Under-Secretary of State to reconsider the position. If the Government are not prepared to think again and to put their decision to examination in a year or two's time, they are adopting a divisive and arrogant approach, whether they are proved right
      614
      or not. They are saying that they are prepared to return to the kind of society which in the nineteenth century produced the workhouse rather than a society which is interested in the health and vigour of our children.
      Mr. Wiiliam Hamilton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will notice the care with which we have drafted new Clause 1, compared with the legal jargon in new Clause 14, the one obviously drafted by a lawyer and the other by lay Scots Members. It is none the worse for that. I believe in brevity and in bluntness. We make the simple proposition to the Government in new Clause 1: be honest. That is the basis upon which the Government were elected. They promised honest, open government.
      The Government have taken a decision which may have very serious consequences. Earlier I referred to the significantly increased incidence of rickets in Scotland in the last decade. I should like the Under-Secretary to confirm or deny the figures that I quoted from the E.I.S. journal, which is a responsible publication. It shows clearly the effect of the withdrawal of welfare foods and the rest of it over the past decade.
      Long term, the Government's proposal could have adverse nutritional effects. I put it no higher than that. On Second Reading, it was interesting that in no speech from the benches opposite was the point made ; that is, until the Under-Secretary of State was goaded into it by speeches from this side of the House. When the Secretary of State opened the debate, at no time did she suggest that there would be adverse nutritional effects on children. She did not suggest that pilot surveys would be conducted. It was only in the winding-up speech of the Under-Secretary that that undertaking was given.
      The hon. Gentleman was replying to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown). He said :
      "The Sub-Committee on Nutritional Surveillance is to form views on the withdrawal of milk by conducting a survey in five areas. One will be in Scotland, one in Wales, and three in England."
      I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us where in Scotland it will be conducted. I thought that we were to get some honest, open government. The hon. Gentleman is

      615
      shaking his head like a Freemason. He must tell us where the one in Scotland is to take place. He might come fiddling about in my constituency. I want to know what he is up to. He had better get my permission before he comes. It is not sufficient to say that there will be one in Scotland. In any event, why only one in Scotland? Why not have three, one in the central belt, one in the Highlands and one in the Lowlands, providing a cross-section of the community?
      There is no sense in figures of this sort. They are purely arbitrary. The hon. Gentleman went on :
      "… we shall have the general study of children's health, which will be conducted in Scotland on the basis of three ad hoc special studies being carried on in England."
      What are these special studies? It may be that I missed something on Second Reading or in Committee. It may be that hon. Members who served on the Committee will tell me what they are and how ad hoc they are.
      "One, which is being carried out in Kent, is a fairly large-scale study of children's health."
      How large-scale? When will it report? To whom will it report—to Parliament or to the Kent County Council? For what purpose will it be used? Will it have an effect on Government policy in respect of child health matters?
      "One to be conducted in Newcastle-upon-Tyne will be a study of the health of poverty childen."
      9.30 p.m.
      How is a "poverty" child defined? How are the Government seeking out the poverty children in Newcastle-upon-Tyne? I do not know. My mind boggles at how one defines a "poverty" child. I reckon that the Minister was a poverty child at one time. He is one of these working-class Tories—one of the worst species of the human race. There are poverty children in what are called high social class areas. They might be mentally poverty stricken. This is what I am getting at. "Poverty children" does not necessarily mean physical poverty ; it could mean mental poverty.
      Mr. Keith Stainton: And meanness of mental spirit in you.
      Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has just declared his interest. The Minister went on :
      616
      "One to be conducted in Birmingham will be a study of the general nutritional level of children aged 14 and 15."
      They will be marvellous research studies in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Birmingham, Kent, and one in Scotland somewhere. Why one in Kent in England and only one in Scotland, as if it were a county council? There is no indication about the one in Wales.
      The hon. Gentleman continued :
      "We believe that on the basis of the Scottish survey we can come to a quicker decision or a quicker opinion on information which comes forward, and this general up-dating of data will enable a better picture to be arrived at sooner. … if the surveys produced an adverse result, we would reconsider the whole situation, first, to identify whether any such deterioration had occurred and, second, to ascertain whether this deterioration was attributable to the withdrawal of free milk. If we found that out, the whole policy would have to be considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1971 ; Vol. 819, c. 155–6.]
      We want to know what time scale is involved. These studies are going on. I do not know when they started or when they are likely to be concluded. I do not know—I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends know—whether the reports will be presented to this House or whether they are just for the Department's interest and concern. If so, how are we to debate the policy implications of the results of those surveys? Does the Minister think that this time next year, or a year from the Bill coming into effect, he will have any meaningful figures which can go into an annual report which we are suggesting? The nutritional side of this matter is the most serious aspect.
      The other is rubbing the right hon. Lady's nose in her own dishonesty. I always quote from these Left-wing journals. In The Teacher of 2nd July there is an article headed,
      "There's a hole in my racket."
      It is a big enough racket. It is a £9 million racket which we are discussing, but there is a hole in it. The article states :
      "Mrs. Thatcher served a sizzler straight into the net at the Association of Education Committees' Conference at Eastbourne last weekend because she insisted upon using once again that tired old argument about the savings on school milk being used to rebuild primary schools.
      It went over the heads of most delegates"—

      617
      I am not surprised at that—
      "but in the press conference afterwards, Tudor David, editor of Education, was right up to the net. 'Does this mean the Treasury now admits the principle of hypothecation?' he asked.
      Mrs. Thatcher, as a former pensions Minister could hardly plead ignorance. Indeed she knows well that the Treasury has always strongly resisted the idea that ministers could trade in a saving under one heading to obtain extra expenditure under another ; as she had to admit.
      'It's just an intellectual argument to run when you haven't anything else to say' she added with a fairly shimmering smile."
      The right hon. Lady can smile shimmeringly, especially when she is taking milk out of the mouths of children. She does it with a brilliant smile on her face. "£9 million from the kids. This is how I like it. This is what I am a Tory Minister for. I am doing what I like—taking milk away from the kids." That is exactly what the right hon. Lady is doing.
      Mr. A. E. Cooper: Stupid.
      Mr. Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman would get back to the bar the debate would proceed at a more leisurely pace than it is doing now. He must not try to lecture me from a sitting position, showing his belly full of beer, I think, rather than milk.
      We are discussing a very important social measure for working class children, and we are not beating about the bush. We want to know the facts about the effects of the policy, and we want them annually if they can possibly be produced. We know that they cannot be produced on the school building programme side, but we want to show the deceit practised by the right hon. Lady when she made that remark at Eastbourne. She ought to get up and say that it was a deceit, that she did not mean it.
      Mrs. Thatcher: Dare I repeat the words used at the time the strategy was announced on 27th October, 1970, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said :
      "I come now to the other half of our policy for the social services. As I said earlier, having achieved savings by transferring more of the cost to those users of the services who can afford it. we intend to switch part of these savings, first, to giving more help to those who
      618
      need it, for example through higher remission limits, and, second, to improving the services themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October 1970 ; Vol. 805, c. 45.]
      We made the savings. We switched some of the savings to higher remission scales for school meals. Some of the others have been switched to a very much better primary school building programme than hon. Gentlemen opposite ever contemplated.
      Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Lady chants like a female computer. Did she, or did she not, use the words quoted :
      "It's just an intellectual argument to run when you haven't anything else to say."
      Did she, or did she not, use that phrase?
      Mrs. Thatcher: A questioner asked me whether it was true that the Treasury admitted the argument of hypothecation. I said, "No, of course it is not ". That does not mean that it does not take the argument in the Chancellor's own speech, when he said that there had to be a certain amount of switching of resources. That is what we have done, and we have done it very successfully.
      Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Lady can look at the by-election results and at the local election results to see what people think about what she and her hon. Friends are doing. Ask the housewives. Ask the women whose kids at school are having the milk taken away from them, and who have to pay increased school meal charges at a time when their husbands are probably out of work. Ask them what has happened during the last 12 months. Ask them whether they are proud of what the Government have been doing, of which this Measure is the crystallisation. An intellectual exercise—my word! The right hon. Lady comes her dressed up like a pirate of Penzance. We are talking about £9 million. The right hon. Lady is taking advice from the brewer behind her. He has had his whack. The brewers have had their whack. Now it is the schoolchildren who are to pay for that. It makes me almost speechless with despair that the Government—[Interruption.] Yes, we Scottish Members are never short of words.
      We are asking the Government a very simple question. They do not know what the effects of their policy will be either on the school building programme or, more important, on the nutritional side.

      619
      We are asking for regular supplies of information. This is not too much to ask. It will not cost them any of the money that they got from the brewers to publish this report. This is not an extravagant request, and I hope the Government will accept it.
      Mr. Edward Taylor: Once again, for the third time, the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has introduced a disagreeable note into an interesting and helpful discussion. When I listened to his comments and accusations about promises allegedly broken by this Government, I thought back to my first years in the House when the only promise which that Government kept was the one made by the former Member for Belper who, speaking at Grantham in October, 1964, said, "Vote for the Labour Party and I promise you will be mightily surprised by Christmas ".
      Let us come to the meat of what has been said—[Interruption.] I can assure the right hon. Member that if he will look in a mirror he will learn a great deal.
      The hon. Member for Fife, West deplored the substantial increase in rickets in Scotland. I have been fortunate enough, at very short notice, to get the figures for children under 15 discharged from hospital after in-patient treatment. In 1964, the figure for Scotland was 60 cases of rickets ; in 1965, it was 46 ; in 1966, it was 44 ; in 1967, it was 28 ; in 1968, it was 22 ; and in 1969, it was 19. That was the last year for which figures are available. Over these six years, then, we see not an astonishing increase but a reduction every year. But if the hon. Member has any figures showing a massive increase, a substantial increase or any increase at all over these years, I hope that he will make them available to me and my Department, in his usual delightful way, and we will be only too glad to look into them.
      The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) drew our attention to the Early Day Motion calling for the establishment of a national advisory council on child nutrition. There already exists national advisory machinery on child nutrition, since the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, which advises the Government through the Chief Medical Officer, has a special panel on child
      620
      nutrition. A section of the C.M.O.'s Annual Report on the state of public health is devoted to the work of C.O.M.A. and contains a section on the work of the panel.
      Mr. Fred Evans: As it is an Early Day Motion in my name, may I point out that the object of that Motion is to set up a much wider organisation than C.O.M.A., which is merely a Government Department in its attitudes, and to unite organisations like the Child Poverty Action Group, the people researching into nutrition all over the country and local authorities into a very broadly based body. The hon. Member probably knows from the Committee Reports that the most affluent country in the world—America—has a national advisory council on child nutrition, which has already found evidence of wrong feeding, caused by the problems of the affluent society. As a result, they have expanded their provision of free milk to the tune of £120 million. America is now providing 25 million dollars' worth of school breakfasts and there has been a vast expansion of the American school meals system.
      When I referred to this matter in Committee I had the relevant Senate Committee records with me. All this is happening in the United States at the very time when Britain, under a Tory Government, is going back to the pre-Welfare State era in the treatment of its children.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Taylor: Hon. Members will have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks and will wish to study his Early Day Motion. I was merely saying that while some people thought that there was a total absence of a body looking into this matter, the issue is, in fact, being thoroughly examined.
      Hon. Members questioned the surveys that have been undertaken. Under the auspices of C.O.M.A., we have general surveys in Kent, begun in 1968 ; in Newcastle, begun in 1968 ; and in the Birmingham area, begun in 1969. These deal with specific aspects of the problem, aspects which were in turn dealt with by C.O.M.A. From the point of view of general monitoring, no area has yet been selected for this purpose and to ensure that monitoring takes place as objectively as possible, any area selected

      621
      will not be revealed until after the monitoring has been completed.
      The hon. Member for Fife, West usually succeeds best when he is attacking people who are not in a position to protect themselves or to reply to the case made against them. Tonight he tried to attack my right hon. Friend, and we had the pleasure of seeing his words being demolished most effectively. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman hopes to get anywhere, he should stick to attacking people who are not in a position to speak for themselves in reply.
      So much for new Clause 1. New Clause 14 would require the Secretaries of State to publish special annual reports. My case is that such separate reports are unnecessary, since the information which is sought will be available in other reports, notably in the documents produced by the D.E.S., not to mention the reports produced by chief medical officers on the health of the school child and the Scottish equivalents. The Scottish Education Department publishes an annual report, and there are statistics on the health services in Scotland from this point of view.
      Mr. Kinnock: I suppose that one can always rely on the old adage, "If in doubt, form a committee ". Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members will need to have access to a whole library of scattered facts? We are asking for this information to be made available in a readily digestible fashion.
      Mr. Taylor: It seems that the hon. Gentleman wants one document to cover the whole subject and all aspects of it. There are three such documents for England and Wales and three for Scotland. In all, they give the information and it will be necessary to look at the facts contained in those documents to have a complete picture of the position. In addition, all local authority medical officers publish reports relating to their areas.
      We are asked to provide details by class and age of those who buy milk. How could this be done without a great deal of administrative inconvenience? A local authority might instal a milk vending machine. How would it be possible to provide full details of the number of pupils who purchase milk, with the classes they are in and the days on
      622
      which they purchase it? This would place an impossible burden on the authorities.
      In so far as the new milk arrangements create new categories for which it would be right and proper to collect statistics, the Department will ask local education authorities to furnish details of the number of pupils receiving milk on health grounds under the Bill.
      Mr. Kenneth Marks: If, as it seems from what the Minister is saying, the Bill could result in harm being done to the health of children, should not the relevant facts be published so that we may have a chance of debating them?
      Mr. Taylor: I am saying nothing of the sort. We are providing a great deal of information. We have the annual reports of the medical officers and we have three departmental reports. We have three special surveys. We are having monitoring. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that we cannot come to a conclusion unless we have full details of the numbers and classes of children who buy from vending machines at every school throughout the country—[Interruption.] That is what the new Clause suggests.
      I say that we will get additional information which will give full details of the numbers of children who get milk under the special arrangements provided by the Bill. We will have full details from the local authorities. We think that this, in addition to all the information which is available, supplemented by the monitoring and the surveys that are being undertaken, will be adequate, and that the House and the nation will be fully aware of what is happening and the reasons for it.
      Mr. Spearing: We have had three speeches from this side and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, has summed up, but I hope to demonstrate that he has not passed the test. We have said to the Government, "You make a proposal based on a number of claims that certain things are being done for certain reasons. You say that the proposal will not be harmful, that monitoring will take place, advice taken, and so on. We disagree with the Measure but, if you wish to pursue it, be responsible to Parliament

      623
      as an Executive, and present a report of your stewardship."
      The hon. Gentleman has not said that the Government will do as they propose in a comprehensive way. He has mentioned a number of separate reports. No doubt we could get them from the Library if we dug them up. They are no doubt to be found in many different places. But it would be difficult for the Opposition to get the figures and have a proper comprehensive debate on the effect of the Bill in, say, two years.
      The hon. Member criticised some of the paragraphs in new Clause 14, but he could have told us that the provision about vending machines made the Clause difficult to accept but that the Government would guarantee to bring in a Command Paper covering all the other points in it. He has not said that, and I am not surprised.
      Then there is choice in expenditure—the argument about hypothecation. The right hon. Lady tries to put the blame—or use as a reason or justification—for what she said at Eastbourne on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have no doubt that she does so for reasons known to all Ministers. Obviously the Cabinet has a choice in the matter, and that is that. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not increase expenditure on education, or even hold it where it was. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) said at the beginning of the debate—and it has not been challenged—the White Paper "New Policies for Public Spending" showed a reduction of £22 million in expenditure on education. The £9 million about which we are now talking amounts to nearly half that sum, so the Government are meeting half of the educational expenditure by taking away free milk from children between the ages of 7 and 11.
      The point about primary school building is "all my eye and Betty Martin"——
      Mrs. Thatcher: It is bricks and mortar.
      Mr. Spearing: I agree, as a publicity execise, and that is what the right hon. Lady is engaged in, as is her very efficient Press relations department. Until this evening, quite a lot of hon. Members opposite thought that that was the object
      624
      of the exercise. We know that it has been but a smokescreen and a publicity front, at which the present Government are very skilful.
      Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. If his party had not left 6,000 pre-1903 primary schools I would not have had such a difficult job of trying to get the extra money for replacing them as I have.
      Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Lady is making a party point which I understand she has to make. However, speaking as a teacher, and as a teacher with three children in a primary school built in 1870, I know something about it. If the right hon. Lady is so keen on this, why not have the extra £11 million which we are down on doing a little more?
      We have heard about the right hon. Lady's famous speech at Eastbourne to the Association of Education Committees and of the even more famous Press conference before or after it. We read in the Press that there was to be an extra £4 million for primary schools. This disclosure occurred right in the middle of Committee proceedings. On the next available occasion in Committee I asked the Under-Secretary whether this meant that this was an additional £4 million for primary school building per year. It was not denied. I asked for a comment on it in Committee. I asked whether it was an extra allocation to the total school building grant or whether it meant that there would be £4 million less for other projects, possibly improvements to secondary schools, of which many are in need.
      Although there is a welcome drive for primary schools, people forget that the increase in primary school population is 4 per cent. between 1970 and 1975 and the increase in secondary schools 24 per cent., six times as much. There has been no reply from the Government on this point. At least the newspapers made out after the right hon. Lady's Eastbourne speech that another £4 million was to be spent.
      I go on to the matter of the effects on nutrition. The Scottish Under-Secretary quoted some figures for the increase of rickets in Scotland.
      Mr. Edward Taylor: Decrease.
      Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman will understand later why the slip of the tongue occurred. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have been here earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) gave some other figures for Glasgow, where there was an increase over a 10-year period from two cases to 24 cases.
      Mr. Taylor: I have got the Glasgow figures, too. Over the period I mentioned—1964 to 1969—the figures go down from 45 to 15.
      Mr. Spearing: I will not argue these figures tonight, because I am speaking only from the memory of my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove. The very fact that we are having this disagreement or that in this place we are arguing about the figures shows that there is cause for doubt, particularly in Scotland.
      Mr. Taylor: These are official figures. The figures are readily available. They are for children under 15 discharged from hospital after in-patient treatment recorded as having rickets—not recorded by us. These are the official figures. For Scotland generally the number fell from 60 to 19. In Glasgow the figure fell from 45 to 15. This is for the years 1964 to 1969. The latest information we have shows no upsurge in the figures since then.
      Mr. Spearing: I do not for a moment deny that the figures which the hon. Gentleman has may be perfectly accurate, because he has said that these are figures of people discharged from hospital. We all know that figures can be quoted and they must be the exact criteria. I cannot pursue this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove is a medical man from Glasgow. I just leave it there by saying that there is this disagreement. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be giving the figures later.
      Whatever the figures be, the matter of monitoring and the matter of testing is clouded in obscurity. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William
      Hamilton) showed that the question of the actual tests, what they were, and where they would be held was not clear. The hon. Gentleman in the speech he made on Second Reading did not make the matter clear, nor did he make it clear today. The right hon. Lady, in her speech on Second Reading, made the matter more obscure, because she said this :
      "The general monitoring will take place widely. There is a special survey in selected schools … one of which—Sheffield—was chosen, fairly far north."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th June, 1971 ; Vol. 819, c. 45.]
      I wonder what somebody in the North of England thinks about Sheffield, or what people think in Inverness or West Fife. I suggest that if that is the best that the Government can do—in respect of the intention of these tests—before the Bill is introduced, we are right to ask for the sort of reports that we have asked for.
      10.0 p.m.
      The Government were challenged earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). The Government having made claims to submit themselves to the test, it is clear that the Minister is not willing to do so. It is also clear from the exchanges that we have had in the Second Reading debate, in Committee and now on Report that there is some confusion of thought. Perhaps it can be cleared up in another place, where this question can be brought up again.
      Despite the Government's saying that they would take advice on matters concerning legislation, they have not done so, and they are now saying that they refuse to be accountable to the House for the claims they are making for putting this legislation through. I therefore advise my hon. Friends to press the Clause. There must be a statutory responsibility and accountability of the Executive to this House.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time :—
      The House divided : Ayes 227, Noes 252.

      Division No. 428.]

      AYES

      [10.1 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Albu, Austen

      Barnett, Joel

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Booth, Albert

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Ashton, Joe

      Bidwell, Sydney

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

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bishop, E. S.

      Buchan, Norman

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Cant, R. B.

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Oram, Bert

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Orme, Stanley

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hunter, Adam

      Paget, R. T.

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Janner, Greville

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pardoe, John

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Pendry, Tom

      Concannon, J. D.

      John, Brynmor

      Pentland, Norman

      Conlan, Bernard

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Prescott, John

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rankin, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jones, T. Alee (Rhondda, W.)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

      Davies, Ifor (Gowcr)

      Kerr, Russell

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roper, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Lambie, David

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Lamond, James

      Sanderson, Neville

      Deakins, Eric

      Latham, Arthur

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lawson, George

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      Dell, Rt. Hn, Edmund

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'bampton, N. E.)

      Dempsey, James

      Leonard, Dick

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Doig, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Sillars, James

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Silverman, Julius

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lipton, Marcus

      Spearing, Nigel

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dunn, James A.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Staclard, A. W.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Steel, David

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Ellis, Tom

      McBride, Neil

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      English, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Strang, Gavin

      Evans, Fred

      McElhone, Frank

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Faulds, Andrew

      McGuire, Michael

      Taverne, Dick

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Mackie, John

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

      Fisher. Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Tinn, James

      Foley, Maurice

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Tomney, Frank

      Foot, Michael

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Torney, Tom

      Ford, Ben

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Forrester, John

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

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Varley, Eric G.

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Marquand, David

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Marsden, F.

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Ginsburg, David

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Wallace, George

      Golding, John

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Watkins, David

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Meacher, Michael

      Weitzman, David

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Wellbeloved, James

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mendelson, John

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Millan, Bruce

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Whitlock, William

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Hamling, William

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Harper, Joseph

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Moyle, Roland

      Woof, Robert

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

      Hefter, Eric S.

      Murray, Ronald King

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Ogden, Eric

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Horam, John

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Benyon, W.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Braine, Bernard

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Biffen, John

      Bray, Ronald

      Astor, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Blaker, Peter

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Batsford, Brian

      Boscawen, Robert

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Beamish, Ctrl. Sir Tufton

      Bossom, Sir Clive

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

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hicks, Robert

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Burden, F. A.

      Hiley, Joseph

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&Nairn)

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Carlisle, Mark

      Holland, Philip

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Channon, Paul

      Hornsby-smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Raison, Timothy

      Churchill, W. S.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Redmond, Robert

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, John

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Clegg, Walter

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rhys William, Sir Brandon

      Cockeram, Eric

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Cooke, Robert

      James, David

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Coombs, Derek

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Cooper, A. E.

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Corfield, Rt, Hn. Frederick

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Costain, A. P.

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)

      Critchley, Julian

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rost, Peter

      Curran, Charles

      Kilfedder, James

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. James

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Dean, Paul

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Kirk, Peter

      Sharples, Richard

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Kitson, Timothy

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

      Dixon. Piers

      Knox, David

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Lane, David

      Simeons, Charles

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sheet, T. H. H.

      Eden, Sir John

      Lloyd, Ian (p'tsm'th, Langstone)

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

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Longden, Gilbert

      Soref, Harold

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Luce, R. N.

      Spence, John

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

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Sproat, lain

      Emery, Peter

      MacArthur, Ian

      Stainton, Keith

      Eyre, Reginald

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Farr, John

      McLaren, Martin

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Fell, Anthony

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      McMaster, Stanley

      Stokes, John

      Fidler, Michael

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Sutcliffe, John

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Taylor, EdwardM.(G'gow, Cathcart)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maginnis, John E.

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Mather, Carol

      Tebbit, Norman

      Foster, Sir John

      Maude, Angus

      Temple, John M.

      Fowler, Norman

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Fox, Marcus

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

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

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

      Fry, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Gardner, Edward

      Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)

      Tilney, John

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Moate, Roger

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Molyneaux, James

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Goodhart, Philip

      Money, Ernie

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Coodhew, Victor

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Gorst, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Gower, Raymond

      More, Jasper

      Waddington, David

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gray, Hamish

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Woreester)

      Green, Alan

      Mudd, David

      Wall, Patrick

      Grieve, Percy

      Murton, Oscar

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Warren, Kenneth

      Grylls, Michael

      Neave, Airey

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Gurden, Harold

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Normanton, Tom

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Nott, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Osborn, John

      Worsley, Marcus

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

      Havers, Michael

      Peel, John

      Mr. Hector Monro and

      Hawkins, Paul

      Percival, Ian

      Mr. Keith Speed.

      Hayhoe, Barney

    New Clause 17

      PROVISION OF FREE MILK AFTER REFERENDUM
      Any local education authority may, after securing approval from a local referendum, seek authority from the Secretary of State to provide free milk to any pupil at educational establishments maintained by them within its area from its own financial resources and such expenditure shall not count as relevant expenditure for purposes of rate support grant.—[Mr. Buchan.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The Clause is not only of great importance to the House but of immense concern to local authorities throughout the country. Its purpose is fairly simple—to try to give local authorities the option to provide milk for the children in their area. It goes as far out of its way as possible to make it easy for the Government to do that, because it puts the charges upon the local authority.
      We have still received no evidence from the Government of which groups, if any, wanted the Bill. We are told about acceptance from their own medical officers after the decision was announced, but there is no sign of any pressure or request from any local authority. That means that virtually every local authority has deplored the Bill, and many of them are looking for possible ways out. Some feel so strongly about the issue that they say that, despite the Bill, they will put the matter to the test by providing milk for their children. Some say that it is obviously reasonable that once the matter has been aired in the House the Government should at least give them discretion to provide milk.
      In Scotland, within two or three days, of being asked, 11 local authorities came together in Glasgow. They represented an area stretching from Banff in the north to Wigtownshire in the south, and they were not mainly Labour-controlled but were mainly Conservative or Independent councils. They were united in one thing, their opposition to the Bill, because they realised the medical and nutritional necessity for milk for their children. They recognised their responsibility to protect their children against bad legislation,
      632
      which they saw the Bill to be, and the administrative difficulties it would create. Above all, many of the rural areas were worried about getting any milk for their schools when such a large proportion was cut out.
      10.15 p.m.
      I want to refer to one or two of the counties in particular. I am surprised at the two Members for Perthshire, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, because they have been prompted sufficiently by their county on the difficulty it faces. The county was one of the 11, and it has asked me to bring this forward, which I am glad to do.
      It is told that suppliers are ceasing to tender in some of the country areas. It states that the milk suppliers
      "… in the Central District of the County during the past session have indicated that they will not be tendering for next session on the ground that it is not worth their while financially if milk is to be restricted only to pupils up to seven years of age. Other smaller suppliers have sent in similar intimations and it is already becoming clear that in parts of the County it will not be a question of providing milk for those up to seven and no milk for those over seven but of providing no milk at all for any pupil simply because nobody will contract to supply it.
      Both the County and City Medical Officers of Health are quite convinced that there are many primary pupils over seven years of age who ought to continue to receive milk … and their fear, shared by the Sub-Committee, is that, if it is not provided free, it is unlikely to be provided at all in many cases."
      The answer given by the Scottish Education Department to that yesterday was :
      "Education authorities in some parts of the Highlands may have to give primary schoolchildren reconstituted milk, powdered or 'long-life' milk instead of fresh milk."
      That was the Department's answer to Scottish county councils which had complained that they were having difficulty in getting milk from suppliers following the Government's decision. Is that the answer which the hon. Gentleman really wants to give?
      It is all the more shocking not only that this sort of thing should be said in the Scottish Office but that it should come from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). I hope he repudiates that statement in view of all we have heard from him

      633
      about the freedom of local authorities. Not only did the Conservative Party manifesto in England and Wales refer to giving freedom to local authorities, but the very first Measure which the Government introduced for Scotland was the Education (Scotland) Act, restoring freedom to local authorities to charge school fees. It was a Measure of educational apartheid. Throughout the protracted discussion of that Act, no arguments were advanced by the Government on the merits. The argument throughout was that it had been introduced in order to restore freedom to local authorities.
      On Second Reading the Secretary of State said :
      "This illustrates a fundamental difference between the philosophy of the Government and their predecessor. We believe that in running their own affairs people should have some freedom to choose what they consider to be the best. The Socialists seem to believe that people should get only what the Government think good for them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November. 1970; Vol. 806, c. 415.]
      That is what we were told when it was a matter of allowing local authorities to charge fees for education, but no freedom is to be given to local authorities when it is a matter of depriving children of free milk. But then, of course, the Act concerns a privileged élite while this Bill affects most of our children. A strange word, freedom. What sins are committed in its name! If the Government were to stick to their manifesto, their boastings and their arguments, which we heard during the long proceedings of the Education (Scotland) Act, they would be granting freedom now to local authorities at their own expense to provide milk to children.
      We were told that the Act was brought in because it was requested by the two city authorities which have a direct interest in the preservation of fee-paying schools. Which local authority has asked for this Bill. Have any? The Under-Secretary of State accused me of being a Big Brother for suggesting that we should not give freedom to local authorities to charge fees for these schools. Who is Big Brother now? It is no wonder that Conservative councils in Scotland, such as Perthshire, are up in arms about the behaviour of the Government.
      634
      We have been getting answers about dried milk, but no answer has been given to those rural authorities which say that they can no longer guarantee supplies. No answer has been given to those local authorities which say that they are being pushed into further expenditure—for example, Dunbartonshire—councils which say that they will have to pay an average surcharge of about 10 per cent. because of reduced supplies.
      Then there are those authorities and hon. Members who say that, despite what the Government do, this legislation is so evil that they will oppose it. Today's Glasgow Herald says :
      "Ayrshire education committee are to defy the Government's planned restrictions on the supply of free milk for school children over seven. They decided yesterday, by 19 votes to five, to tell the Secretary of State for Scotland that they will continue to supply free milk to all primary children in spite of the terms of the Education (Milk) Bill."
      What will the Secretary of State tell the Ayrshire Council, which thinks that children should be provided with free milk? Ayrshire is a tough county. It is the county from which Rabbie Burns came, and the Under-Secretary will have a fight on his hands. We should like to know what he will do about that. Those are the options open to the Government if they push the Bill to the furthermost limits.
      We have made it easy for them. We have offered a Clause which tells the Government that if they do not want to give freedom to local authorities, despite what they have been saying about giving them freedom—if they did not mean it, if, like the right hon. Lady, they were engaged only in an intellectual argument which they run when they have nothing else to say—they need not pursue the matter. It discards the rate support grant and suggests that we check whether the people want the Government's proposal.
      There is much talk in the air of referenda, but it is to do with the Common Market. We accept parliamentary democracy and local democracy, but the Government are resisting it, and we can well understand why. We are putting them to the test and suggesting that we ask parents and ratepayers whether they are willing to end the supply of free milk, or give local authorities power to

      635
      provide it. [interruption.] If the Under-Secretary wants to mutter, I prefer him to get to his feet and mutter.
      The Bill is evil, and local authorities want to mitigate its evil effects. They want freedom to save some of the children in their areas. We hope that the Government will withdraw from their intransigent attitude, will stop acting like Big Brother and will allow democratically-elected local authorities to protect the welfare of children.
      Mr. William Hamilton: This is a new Clause which the Government must accept, if only because there is a precedent in Scotland and, I think, in Wales. We have what is called a local veto, and I think that there is a similar provision in Wales, in the licensing laws. We have "dry" areas in Scotland which are decided by local poll. All we are saying here is that that kind of procedure should be applied to decide whether an education authority is entitled to provide free milk for its children if it so desires and if its ratepayers so desire.
      On Second Reading the right hon. Lady said that it was impossible to give education authorities the freedom which she was so willing to give them, almost on assuming office, to go comprehensive or not as they thought fit. On matters involving public expenditure the right hon. Lady said they could not have this right because it was just increasing public expenditure and would therefore defeat the object of the exercise.
      This was the gist of the right hon. Lady's argument against giving local authorities the freedom that we are asking for in this Clause. But this does not increase public expenditure, it is a transfer of payment within a local authority area. It is certainly not increasing central Government expenditure. All that the local authority would be asking its ratepayers is : "Are you prepared to foot the bill to enable our primary schoolchildren to get the free milk of which the Government have deprived them?"
      Nothing could be more democratic than that. If we want to decentralise decisionmaking this is a good way of doing it. It would be an earnest of the Government's good intentions to get people to stand on their own feet. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr.
      636
      Dormand) here. He is a distinguished servant of Durham County Council and a friend of my family. He knows what local participation means. If the ratepayers in Durham County say "We have got a wicked Tory Government who have taken the milk from the sons and daughters of miners, but we are prepared to foot the bill", why should the Government not say, "All right, if you are foolish enough and uncivilised enough even to think about the wickedness of putting milk into children's mouths, then so be it. Let your sins be on your own head. It is your problem." There is nothing sinister or wrong about that. This would be a case of Durham taking a decision, paid for by Durham, and benefiting the children of Durham. The same would apply to Fife, or any other local education authority. It would not cost the Government a penny. It would be borne by the ratepayers in the knowledge that only their people were benefiting. Surely this would be local government at its best? We should accept it with alacrity and get on with the Bill.
      Mr. Marks: We cannot over-emphasise the importance of this Clause and its relationship to the co-ordination of local government and central Government. There is a wide division of opinion in the Tory Party about this. A great many councillors, Labour and Conservative, disagree with the Secretary of State. The Association of Education Committees, which still has a Tory majority, this year at any rate, has opposed the Minister. It is true that three years ago the then Labour Government stopped milk in secondary schools. I voted against that, but I had no letters from parents or teachers and neither did the Government receive letters from councils or from the Association of Education Committees. There was no real opposition to that action. Some of my former colleagues thought that I went a bit too far.
      Dr. Tom Stuttaford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that if milk goes into a milk drink such as Horlicks or Bournvita the ratepayer can pay for it.
      Mr. Marks: We have already had the argument from the other side about giving breakfast without school milk. In the City of Manchester an election was fought with this as a major issue. The

      637
      Manchester City Corporation now has 180 Labour members and 24 Conservative members. The 24 Conservative members have been converted to the view that the local authority should provide for milk from the rates.
      10.30 p.m.
      I remind the Secretary of State of what is said in her party's election manifesto :
      "The independence of local authorities has been seriously eroded by Labour Ministers. On many issues, particularly in education and housing, they have deliberately overridden the views of elected councillors."
      What the Labour Government had done had stopped Tory councils raising rents by as much as 30s. or £2 in a year, and they had started the machinery to implement a Bill for making plans for comprehensive education.
      The Tory Party manifesto went on to say :
      "We think it wrong that the balance of power between central and local government should have been distorted, and we will redress the balance and increase the independence of local authorities.
      Conservative authorities do not think she is doing it. The reputation of the Government is in shreds anyway, and if this Amendment is not accepted there will be hardly any shreds left.
      The Secretary of State argued on Second Reading that it was not possible to have councils providing for milk out of their rates ; it would affect the rate support grant, whether they liked it or not. But the Department of the Environment does not agree with her. I asked the Prime Minister on Tuesday whether he was satisfied with the co-ordination between the two Departments and he said that he was. But in February my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment
      if he will seek powers to allow expenditure by local authorities on consessionary bus fares for retirement pensioners … to be eligible for rate support grant."
      —in other words, to allow local authorities to decide to pay money out of their rates to the local transport undertaking. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said, "No, Sir". My hon. Friend went on to put the case for small local authorities and received the reply :
      "This is a matter for local authorities to decide for themselves. They are spending their own money, and they can make the best judgment of the local needs of their own people."
      638
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) asked a supplementary question and received the reply :
      "I repeat that it is for local authorities to decide what best to do with their own money for their own people."
      When my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) asked him to start to talk to town hall Tories and encourage them to give this facility for old-age pensioners, the hon. Gentleman replied :
      "The difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself is that we on this side of the House believe that local authorities should make their own judgment about the expenditure of their own money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1971 ; Vol. 811, c. 1833.]
      The Department of the Environment and the Department of Education and Science apparently do not agree.
      If the Secretary of State has been told by the Cabinet and by the Treasury that there is a global sum available and she can move the amounts around as she likes and she has chosen this £9 million cut herself, she should be thoroughly ashamed. Since this is her first Bill as Secretary of State, she should be doubly ashamed. If it is a Cabinet decision and she has not fought it and won it, she should resign. She has no support in her own party for this Measure. We heard on Second Reading long-winded speeches from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and one or two others. The education group of the Conservative Party was entirely missing on that occasion, as it has been for most of this debate, and it was not represented in Committee.
      I remind the Secretary of State that her majorities tonight have been extremely low—as low as 18. Although there may have been no ostentatious abstentions, she should have worries. I urge her at this late stage to think again about giving local authorities the right to do what the Government said they would be allowed to do—to decide what is best for their own people.
      Mr. David Clark: It has become increasingly clear during the period that the Bill has been in Committee that the Government's case is almost indefensible. It has been criticised in all the education journals and in almost all education circles.

      639
      Tonight, we have been trying to rescue the Government, to get them off the hook, because they have got themselves into a very difficult situation. In the Clause, we are offering them the kindest lifeline for which they could hope. We are suggesting a way out, on their own criteria.
      Consistently in Conservative pronouncements over the past few years we have heard the word "freedom". The previous Administration were criticised for not giving freedom. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) quoted some words of the Secretary of State. To show that there is no split in her Department, perhaps I might quote from the speech of the Under-Secretary on the occasion of the Swindon by-election in October, 1969. The hon. Gentleman criticised us for not giving freedom, and he went on :
      "A Tory, on the other hand, believes in meaningful local government, and 'meaningful' in this context includes meaningful decisions on the biggest item in the local authority budget."
      Mr. William Hamilton: That was one of his jokes.
      Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman may have been joking. Perhaps I was a little foolish to take his words seriously. But certainly it has been the consistent line of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. By offering the Government this local option, we are letting them off the hook, on their own terms.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, pointed out, the argument used by the right hon. Lady on Second Reading does not stand up to examination. She said that the rate support grant does not cover concessionary fares for old persons, and, therefore, that there is no need for it to apply in this case——
      Mrs. Thatcher: There may be a little confusion. Concessionary fares are not relevant expenditure for the purposes of rate support grant. They are actual expenditure for the purposes of distributing the rate support grant according to the resources of the local authority.
      Mr. Clark: I maintain that the main point is one of need, and I think that that covers the right hon. Lady's point on Second Reading.
      Then I take matters a stage further. I look for precedents, because I know how
      640
      right hon. and hon. Members opposite dislike doing anything for the first time. We have heard of cases in Wales and in Scotland. Even in England there is provision in local government legislation for referenda to be held. I recall two instances in Manchester where the city council has consulted its inhabitants. The first was to decide whether to build houses in a public park. The second was whether to promote an iniquitous lottery. There are precedents.
      Mr. Robert Adley: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with some interest. What proportion of the people taking part in a referendum does the hon. Gentleman consider to be meaningful? A local paper in Bristol has conducted three referenda quite recently. The first concerned British Standard Time, the second whether the s.s. "Great Britain" should remain in Bristol, and the third whether there should be a referendum on the Common Market. The last one attracted 1,700 replies, the one on British Standard Time about 3,600, and the one on the s.s. "Great Britain" about 6,000. What proportion of the population should take part to make a referendum meaningful?
      Mr. Clark: Obviously the response rate in a referendum depends on the topic. This is a burning issue in many parts of the country—I do not say all—and certainly in parts of my constituency. We had a referendum in one part of my constituency on local government reform, and the response rate was about 60 per cent. I believe that in certain parts of the country there would be an extremely high poll on a referendum on this subject.
      Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to appreciate how much people feel about the need for the provision of free school milk. I feel sure that in certain parts of the country there would be a fairly high poll on this issue.
      All that we are asking is that where there are these pockets of poverty, if the local authorities in those areas—Sheffield, Manchester, the Rhondda, or wherever it may be—are prepared to back their judgment, after getting local support, by putting in their own money—that is essentially what it is—then we should give them the go ahead. Lastly, if these areas, which are not rich, but areas of low rateable values, are prepared to spend their

      641
      money in this way, I believe that the right hon. Lady should give them a concession.
      Dr. Miller: On this occasion I appeal to the Government's sense of commitment to education. My local authority would be delighted if the new Clause were accepted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) pointed out, we in Scotland have provisions for referenda of this nature. In asking the Government to make a commitment to education I want them to consider a point which they do not appear to have considered. We should provide milk not only from the medical and nutritional point of view but from the educational point of view.
      Children, especially young children up to secondary school age, ought to be educated in an atmosphere of pleasant experiences. It should not be a matter of going to school to have the three Rs inculcated into them. There is much more involved in teaching, as I am sure the right hon. Lady will concede. I suggest that it is a long time since many hon. Members opposite visited primary schools to see what goes on.
      When I suggest that teaching should be associated with pleasant experiences, I am perhaps delving into the philosophy and the ideological concept of teaching. But what could be better in the break up of the school day than the break for milk? [Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman may "haw-haw" at this, but psychologically it is an important aspect. Children should learn by playing ; they should not learn by having facts and figures rammed down their throats. I submit that this break which occurs in the school day is an ideal way of teaching children to get together to drink milk. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can do it in their clubs. It makes an excellent break as far as they are concerned.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick to the terms of the new Clause.
      Dr. Miller: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot see this, then clearly they do not know anything about the psychological or even the ideological concept of education.
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. Edward Taylor: I cannot recomment to the House that we should accept the Clause, and I shall say why.
      The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I had a meeting with my local authority on this subject. I explained the Government's policy, and my authority appeared to be reasonably satisfied with the assurances that I was able to give
      The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said that this was an evil Bill, and that we had to treat the matter with the greatest seriousness. When the previous Government abolished the provision of free milk for all children at secondary schools there was no suggestion of giving power to local authorities to provide free milk if they wish to do so. There was no suggestion of a referendum. The previous Government did not give this power to local authorities for the same reason that we cannot accept the Clause. It is because at the end of the day the Government must have control of total public expenditure.
      It would be inconceivable to allow local authorities to decide whether to spend the money in this instance, and not allow them to make that decision on other occasions. All Governments have accepted that control over total public expenditure must be retained by the central Government.
      The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said that if the Clause were accepted it would not cost the Government a penny. This is an argument about rate support grant, and so on. But, even if we were to accept that, it would lead to increased public spending, and it is over that that Governments have always accepted they must retain control.
      The hon. Member for Renfrew, West talked about supply difficulties. I accept that there have been reports of difficulties being experienced by local authorities in getting adequate supplies, but I am sure that the difficulties would have been greater and the total reduction in quantity relatively greater if we had not granted the power to sell milk in secondary schools. It is my hope that the difficulties will be overcome before the new term begins, but I shall look into any special problems that are raised to see what can be done to help.

      643
      The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of dried milk and said that there had been a monstrous new policy introduced by an anonymous spokesman at the Scottish Education Department. My information is that the provision of reconstituted dried milk or milk tablets has been permissible for many years—since 1953 at least.
      The Clause does not just give power to local authorities, subject to a referendum and the approval of the Secretary of State, to provide free milk to primary school children. If the Clause were accepted, and I think that this is the hon. Gentleman's intention, local authorities would have power to provide free milk in primary schools, in secondary schools and also—and this has never been suggested before—in further education colleges, certainly in Scotland. It would give them total freedom to provide milk in the educational establishments concerned.
      The arguments have been well gone over. We think, as the previous Government did, that it is essential for the Government to contain and restrain total public expenditure. For that reason, although I accept——
      Mr. J. D. Dormand: At long last the Government have said that the criterion adopted in deciding whether to devolve authority on local authorities is whether it would take away from the Government the control of total public expenditure. Surely every penny spent by local authorities is public expenditure? That being so, will the hon. Gentleman explain why since June of last year the Government have repeatedly said that they will encourage local authorities to decide their own priorities for spending money? Will he explain how the Government's policy will work, because all spending is public expenditure?
      Mr. Taylor: It is over total public expenditure that the Government must retain control. Of course we believe in the maximum possible freedom for local authorities. [Laughter.] Hon. Members must know that one of the first actions of my right hon. Friends on coming into office was to remove local authorities from the straitjacket in which the Labour Party had placed them by saying that, irrespective of their own views, they had
      644
      to develop their education along comprehensive lines.
      Mr. Marks: Is the Under-Secretary saying that it is wrong, and that the Government will interfere, if a local authority spends money on milk for children, but that the Government will not interfere if that authority decides to spend exactly the same amount on more mayoral receptions or something like that? Where does this control start and end?
      Mr. Taylor: We have made the position clear—that, by giving this freedom, we would be creating a situation in which it would not be possible for the Government to retain what we regard as the proper control of total public expenditure. The previous Government accepted this argument. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask himself why the previous Government did not do this when they abolished free milk in secondary schools.
      The logic of the argument is that we should go the whole way and give home rule to local authorities and total freedom to spend any money. We do not accept that, and we do not accept that it can be right for any Government to do this, because it would be taking away our power to control total public expenditure.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Rumour has it that somewhere in a basement room in Conservative Central Office there is a little man whose full-time job is to "reinterpret the Conservative election manifesto in the light of changed circumstances"—in other words, in plain English, to explain why the Government have broken one election promise after another. We all know that over the last few months this little man has been working overtime.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) quoted from the Conservative manifesto. I will quote it again because it should be engraved on the hearts of the Government Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS : "They do not have hearts."] :
      "The independence of local authorities has been seriously eroded by Labour Ministers."
      Not a "Hear, hear"?
      "In many areas, particularly in education and housing, they have deliberately over-ridden the views of elected councillors."
      Shades of Barnet.
      "We think it is wrong that the balance of power between central and local government

      645
      should have been distorted. We will redress the balance and increase the independence of local authorities."
      In two successive days Conservative Ministers have made a complete mockery of that election promise. Yesterday the Secretary of State for the Environment told us that he will compel local authorities, whether they want to or not, to have a rent rebate scheme——
      Mr. Armstrong: And to put rents up.
      Mr. Mitchell: Today Ministers tell us that they will refuse any request from local authorities to pay for milk for children in schools who would normally have it free.
      Mr. Edward Taylor: Do hon. Members believe that local authorities should also have the freedom to withdraw all milk from all children in their schools if the local people decided on this?
      Hon. Members: Yes!
      Mr. Mitchell: I will come to that point in conjunction with another, in a moment.
      Local authorities throughout the country have protested strongly against this action. Merthyr has added £5,000 to its current estimates in the hope that it will be allowed to provide free milk to children—and if it is not given permission to do so, it has threatened to do it anyway. Protests have come from Inner London, Manchester, Brent, Islington, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields and a string of others. I could give a list a mile long—all proving that authorities all over the country condemn this Government action outright.
      Sir William Alexander, not a well-known Socialist but a very capable man, has written :
      "Leaving aside for a moment the issues of health and the merits or demerits of providing milk free for children between the ages of seven and 11, there is another issue which must make it a matter of regret that the Government have resisted any change to this Bill. That issue is basically the relationship between central and local government. As I have said in an earlier note, it is difficult to argue against the right of the Government to decide that they are not prepared to provide moneys for any given purpose and therefore it is perfectly right for them to decide that they are not prepared to provide moneys from the Government for provision of milk without charge to all primary school children ; but surely it is no less right for the ratepayers in the area of a local education authority, through their elected representatives on that authority, to be able to decide that
      646
      they will spend money—their money—on such a provision if they think it desirable to do so. The Government are entrusted with the taxpayers' money ; the local authority is entrusted with the ratepayers' money."
      That is the view of the local authorities, and the A.M.C. has expressed similar views.
      I would be the last to claim complete autonomy for local authorities. I recall criticising the Labour Government for not taking a tougher line over comprehensive education, and at that time the Under-Secretary, from the opposition back benches, chided me and asked me to agree that the local authorities knew best. He will remember how I criticised my party at that time ; but he has changed his mind radically since then.
      Throughout our debates on the Bill the Government have consistently refused to include a provision covering hardship, which is very much a regional problem, as is unemployment. Poverty tends, therefore, to be greater in one region than in another. It follows that the local authorities in those areas of greater poverty or unemployment have a bigger reason to want to provide school milk out of their own funds.
      It is interesting to consider in this connection some figures given in a Parliamentary Answer about the provision of free school meals in certain areas. For example, 26.7 per cent. of all Durham school children get free meals compared with 6.8 per cent. in Buckinghamshire. The percentage in South Shields is 49.5 as against 5 per cent. in Solihull. While it is 30 per cent. in the I.L.E.A. area, in Bexley it is only 6.9 per cent. In Wales there are variations, from 39 per cent. in Merthyr Tydvil to 11 per cent. in Montgomery.
      A great many authorities are prepared to provide their own funds for school milk, yet the Under-Secrerary of State for Education keeps trotting out the same argument. He argues that part of the Government's policy was to reduce public expenditure and, therefore, if we allowed local authorities to spend the £9 million, that would defeat the Government's purpose.
      11.0 p.m.
      That is a justifiable argument if the purpose of the reduction in public expenditure was to reduce overall demand, but it was not. The package deal was intended not to reduce overall demand

      647
      but to effect a redistribution of income between the poor and the rich, to take away £9 million from school milk and give it to surtax-payers. The aim was not to reduce overall demand, which was the aim of previous Governments, but to have a redistributive effect within the economy. On that basis, the whole exercise falls down.
      I get rather worried at some of the speeches that the Secretary of State is reported in the Press as making. The right hon. Lady tends to give the impression of not understanding what it is like to be poor and what poverty is all about. She gives the impression of not understanding how the other half of the world lives.
      The Secretary of State is in danger of becoming the cartoonist's caricature of the typical Tory suburban lady sitting at a party conference wearing a wide-brimmed hat, baying for blood on the one hand and booing Lord Boyle on
      the other hand. I am sorry to say it, but that is the impression that the right hon. Lady gives, although I do not think it is the reality. I wish she would have a talk with her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because I am sure he understands these things. I wish he would take the right hon. Lady into the corner sometime and explain them to her.
      There has been much play about a referendum. In Committee we tried to make it a straight issue of giving the option to local authorities. I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends would not vote on the Amendment but would agree to withdraw it if we could tonight get a firm undertaking from the Government Front Bench that in another place they will move an Amendment to restore local option in this matter.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time :—
      The House divided : Ayes 203. Noes 227.

      Division No. 429.]

      AYES

      [11.4 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Albu, Austen

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      John, Brynmor

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Driberg, Tom

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Ashton, Joe

      Duffy, A. E. P.

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

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dunnett, Jack

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Eadie, Alex

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Barnes, Michael

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Ellis, Tom

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      English, Michael

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Bishop, E. S.

      Evans, Fred

      Kerr, Russell

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Faulds, Andrew

      Kinnock, Neil

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Lambie, David

      Booth, Albert

      Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'hamLadywood)

      Lamond, James

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Latham, Arthur

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

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lawson, George

      Foley, Maurice

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Buchan, Norman

      Foot, Michael

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Ford, Ben

      Leonard, Dick

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Forrester, John

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Cant, R. B.

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Haim, N.)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Loughlin, Charles

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Ginsburg, David

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Golding, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Gourlay, Harry

      McBride, Neil

      Cohen, Stanley

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Coleman, Donald

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      McElhone, Frank

      Concannon, J. D.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      McGuire, Michael

      Conlan, Bernard

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mackie, John

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hamling, William

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

      Hardy, Peter

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Harper, Joseph

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Hattersley, Roy

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

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Horam, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Marquand, David

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Marsden, F.

      Deakins, Eric

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn Sir Geoffrey

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Hunter, Adam

      Meacher, Michael

      Dempsey, James

      Janner, Greville

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Doig, Peter

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Mendelson, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tinn, James

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Torney, Tom

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Roper, John

      Varley, Eric G.

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Moyle, Roland

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Wallace, George

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Watkins, David

      Murray, Ronald King

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

      Weitzman, David

      Ogden, Eric

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wellbeloved, James

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Silkins, James

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Oram, Bert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Whitlock, William

      Orme, Stanley

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Stallard, A. W.

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Paget, R. T.

      Steel, David

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Woof, Robert

      Pentland, Norman

      Strang, Gavin

      Prescott, John

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Taverne, Dick

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff. W.)

      Mr. James A. Dunn.

      Probert, Arthur

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Emery, Peter

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Farr, John

      Kilfedder, James

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Fell, Anthony

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Astor, John

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Fidler, Michael

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Awdry, Daniel

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Kirk, Peter

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Kitson, Timothy

      Balniel, Lord

      Fortescue, Tim

      Knox, David

      Batsford, Brian

      Foster, Sir John

      Lane, David

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Fowler, Norman

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Fox, Marcus

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Benyon, W.

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

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Fry, Peter

      Longden, Gilbert

      Biffen, John

      Gardner, Edward

      Luce, R. N.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Blaker, Peter

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Goodhart, Philip

      McLaren, Martin

      Boscawen, Robert

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Gorst, John

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Cower, Raymond

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Green, Alan

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Bray, Ronald

      Grieve, Percy

      Madel, David

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mather, Carol

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Grylls, Michael

      Maude, Angus

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Bruoe-Gardyne, J.

      Gurden, Harold

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Burden, F. A.

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Moate, Roger

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Molyneaux, James

      Churchill, W. S.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Money, Ernie

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Haserlhurst, Alan

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hastings, Stephen

      Monro, Hector

      Cooke, Robert

      Havers, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Cooper, A. E.

      Hawkins, Paul

      More, Jasper

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hicks, Robert

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Costain, A. P.

      Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

      Mudd, David

      Critchley, Julian

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Murton, Oscar

      Curran, Charles

      Holland, Philip

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Neave, Airey

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Nicholls, Sir Harman

      d'Avigtlor-Goldsmith. Maj.-Gen. James

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Normanton, Tom

      Dean, Paul

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Nott, John

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Dixon, Piers

      Hunt, John

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Osborn, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      James, David

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Eden, Sir John

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Jennings, J, C. (Burton)

      Peel, John

      Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton)

      Jessel, Toby

      Percival, Ian

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

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Soref, Harold

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Speed, Keith

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Raison, Timothy

      Spence, John

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Redmond, Robert

      Sproat, lain

      Waddington, David

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Staintont, Keith

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Belper)

      Wall, Patrick

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Warren, Kenneth

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Stokes, John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Sutcliffe, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rost, Peter

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

      Wilkinson, John

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Tebbit, Norman

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Scott, Nicholas

      Temple, John M.

      Worsley, Marcus

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Sharples, Richard

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

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

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Trafford, Dr Anthony

      Mr. Walter Clegg.

      Simeons, Charles

    Clause 1

      SCHOOL MILK FOR PUPILS IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'not'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to discuss at the same time Amendments No. 4, in line 9, leave out 'unless' and insert 'only if'.
      No. 5, in line 10, leave out
      'in attendance at a special school or'.
      No. 6, in line 17, leave out from 'school")' to 'for' in line 19 and insert :
      'and in any such case there is not'.
      No. 14, in line 21, leave out 'requires' and insert 'does not require'.
      No. 15, in line 22, at end insert :
      'or (c) he is in attendance at a special school'.
      No. 33, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'no longer' and insert 'continue to'.
      No. 34, in line 23, after 'pupil', insert :
      'other than a pupil receiving special education'.
      No. 36, in line 25, leave out 'unless' and insert 'only if'.
      No. 37, in line 28, after 'is' insert 'not'.
      No. 39, in line 30, leave out 'requires' and insert 'does not require'.
      Mr. Spearing: I shall move the Amendment briefly. [HON. MEMBERS : "Hear, hear! "] I wish to do so in a non-controversial way. The basis of this group of Amendments is to make the process
      652
      of giving a certificate rather different from what it is in the Bill. As it is written in the Bill, a medical officer of the authority has to state that the pupil's
      "health requires that he should be provided with milk at school.",
      The key Amendments are No. 14 for England and Wales and No. 39 for Scotland. Both of these would re-word those lines to say
      "a medical officer of the authority stating that his health does not require that he should be provided with milk at school."
      In other words, this is a simple administrative inversion.
      The Amendment is moved basically for two reasons. First, the Scottish Under-Secretary has indicated that there is a slight change in the amount of guidance that the Government are willing to give local authorities. Second, it meets the case which was put in Committee by the Minister, that he recognised that, as written, the medical certification procedure could lead to some difficulties.
      In the Glasgow Herald of 10th July there was a report on a deputation to the Scottish Under-Secretary. The report states that the hon. Gentleman :
      "also assured the deputation that school medical officers would have 'a pretty wide power' in giving certificates for individual children to obtain milk. This could take into account the preventive aspect as well as any question of malnutrition. Mr. Taylor added that the deputation had felt that medical officers would only be able to give certificates if a child was suffering from malnutrition or a disease. Dr. Daniel Docherty. convenor of Glasgow Education Committee, said the delegation had left the meeting feeling a bit happier about certification. It appeared to be less strict than had been set out in the Bill."

      653
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House probably agree that prevention is better than cure. The same medical officer has to examine the same child and has to make broadly the same decision.
      11.15 p.m.
      We suggest that by making the medical officer sign a certificate stating that the pupil does not require milk at school for the sake of his health we would cover the point made by the hon. Member in the Glasgow deputation case. It would get over the question of the difficulties of implementation—a point raised in Committee, when the Under-Secretary asked us to consider moving Amendments on this point. The difficulties of implementation arise largely from the relationships between the school and the family. If at school a child is certified as being in need of milk it marks him out as a separate pupil among his fellows ; it is possibly taken as an aspersion upon the parents, who may feel that the school thinks that they are not providing the right sort of nutrition, even though they may be doing so, and that it is nothing to do with them. There could be difficulties with general practitioners, and the human implementation of such certification would be difficult ; but if certification was the other way round I suggest that those difficulties would not arise.
      The Government have said that they will consider advice from all quarters. We hope that they will accept this Amendment, because it is an administrative Amendment ; it does not attack the main purpose of the Bill. We hope that it will give greater effect to the preventive aspect, with which we all agree. Secondly, it might avoid some of the human difficulties which would arise from the Bill as drafted.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) has moved the Amendment so briefly that I am sure that it would meet the general convenience of the House if I were equally short. I hope that I shall not be discourteous to the hon. Member by being so.
      I have written out the full effect of the complicated series of Amendments with which we are dealing so that I may be sure that I understand them. We might find ourselves in this amount of agreement, at any rate : that if those hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee had been able to
      654
      hear what I said then—to which the hon. Member made a kindly reference—and what my hon. Friend the Scottish Under-Secretary also said, about the effect of a medical certificate, many anxieties might not have been voiced as they were
      I simply say I do not think that the hon. Member has met his own point. He will remember that his anxiety was that a child who is given a medical certificate is therefore "marked out as a separate pupil". But the effect of his own Amendment would be to do precisely the same thing. It would mean that a large number of fit children would have to be examined to make sure that they should not have the milk, and that would mean that there would be a certain residue of children who for medical reasons were certified as requiring milk. They would be just as marked out that way as they would be the other way.
      If the hon. Member's object was to get rid of his own anxieties about identifying children I do not think he achieved anything. We should end with a situation in which the hard-pressed members of the medical service—who do wonderful work, in a sense that hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledge—would have to examine a great number of children who they know before they start are quite fit in order to detect out of that large number, the small number for whom, for some reason or other, it would be appropriate to order the supply of free milk.
      Mr. Spearing: I was brief, and that is why I left out the point that the hon. Member is now making. I suggest that if the Bill becomes law as it stands most local authorities and, indeed, public opinion and parental opinion will demand that there is a medical examination of each child. If the hon. Member is saying—as his hon. Friend said in Committee—that there is an administrative case against this in that it would be more expensive, will he give us an assurance that if it can be shown that it would not the Government will accept the Amendment in another place?
      Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not think I ever rested my case on expenditure. I have said earlier that there is a continuing process, very often by way of a partnership between medical services,

      655
      welfare services, teachers and the rest. But the hon. Gentleman is proposing that there should be an inspection at one moment of time, so that this hard-pressed service will have to examine a large number of children in order to detect a very small number for whom medically it is appropriate to provide milk.
      I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will see that that is not an appropriate way of going about it. The positive procedure in the Bill is, surely, preferable. I have put the argument shortly in deference to the wish of the House.
      Mr. Buchan: I find that reply as surprising now as it was when we heard it in Committee. Either the Government intend to have children examined to see who require the milk or they do not. Their method of examining to find out which children should have it requires an examination of all children. By our method also all children would be examined. There is no difference in the administrative problem.
      What concerns me is the implication behind what the Under-Secretary of State has said. Emerging from his rejection of the Amendment is the clear implication that the Government have no intention of examining children at all to see who requires milk. They will wait for the harm to show itself before taking action. This is the effect of it. But malnutrition is deep-seated, and it takes a long time to rectify. That is what the Hon. Gentleman is saying, is it not? He will wait for the harmful effects of the lack of milk to show before he acts. The way out is simple : accept our proposal. If he really means there to be an examination, very well. If children do not need milk, do not give them milk.
      The hon. Gentleman rejected the Amendment on the ground of administrative difficulty, and we were told that it was easy to find the few who would require the milk. But the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said exactly the opposite. Indeed, he drew attention to this matter in the last debate, only minutes ago. He said that he left a happier impression with the deputation in Glasgow. Why did it feel happier? ___either because the Government offered
      656
      what they had intended all the time under the Bill, or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland talked far too freely and glibly, as he so often does. Either the Government intend to alter the Bill in the other place along the lines of our proposal, or the hon. Gentleman "conned" that deputation.
      This is how the matter was reported in the Glasgow Herald of 10th July :
      "Mr. Taylor said he had the impression that the deputation was reassured …"
      It was reassured because this is what he told it :
      "He had also assured the deputation that school medical officers would have 'a pretty wide power' in giving certificates for individual children to obtain milk."
      What would that wide power be, and to what would it extend? We have not been told. The report goes on with the hon. Gentleman's assurance :
      "This could take into account the preventive aspect as well as any question of malnutrition."
      So this examination, which, we are told, cannot be done because it is administratively difficult, is to take on wider significance. Not only do we have to wait until malnutrition shows itself, but we have to be able to take preventive action before it shows itself. Is that it?
      Mr. Edward Taylor: What I said was quite clear. Glasgow was under the impression——
      Mr. Buchan: I want an answer to this.
      Mr. Taylor: I will give the hon. Gentleman a straight answer—exactly the same answer as I gave the deputation. I say the same thing irrespective of where I am. The deputation was under the impression that the Bill allowed milk to be given only in cases where the children were suffering from malnutrition or some other disease, and I expressed the view, which my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend fully support, that the Bill is by no means so restrictive.
      Mr. Buchan: The report says that school medical officers
      "could take into account the preventive aspects …"
      How do people know whether a child might get malnutrition? Are doctors to examine the children and say that child A might get malnutrition? That is what preventive action means—preventing

      657
      illness. Curative action is the action the Government need to undertake once the children have malnutrition. How can they prevent it? What medical officer will say "Child A. without milk, will suffer malnutrition"?
      The hon. Gentleman "conned" the deputation disgracefully. The only way to secure the preventive aspect is to ensure that all children receive milk, and that is the impression the deputation took from him. The Convenor of the Education Committee is not a layman but a general practitioner in Glasgow, Dr. Daniel Docherty. That is why I am so impressed. He said that certification appeared to be less strict than had been set out in the Bill. What did the hon. Gentleman tell that deputation? He went further than the Bill, and the Government had better make up their mind on the matter. Dr. Docherty also said :
      "This makes me. as a family doctor, a bit happier as well, because there are certain complete districts in Glasgow where most of the children require a supply of milk."
      Earlier today Amendments to provide the milk in certain areas were rejected, but now we learn that a medical doctor, the Convener of the Education Committee, was assured by the Under-Secretary that complete districts of Glasgow, not individual children, after examination, will be entitled to free milk. Did the hon. Gentleman assure the deputation of that? Where did that impression come from? It is time the hon. Gentleman apologised to his constituents.
      Mr. Edward Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to try to bring this matter to a conclusion. If he speaks to Dr. Docherty, who is an honourable and straight man, he will accept that what I said to him was clear, and we both understood it. Before going on with this, the hon. Gentleman should speak to Dr. Docherty and the whole deputation.
      Mr. Buchan: I have no doubts about the clarity of what was said. The Under-Secretary was obviously perfectly clear. That is why the deputation believed something different from the Bill. What I am worried about is the content of what the hon. Gentleman said, not the clarity.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke of preventive measures. That means that all children will get milk, because that is the only means of preventive application here. It
      658
      is not possible to wait until the individual child has malnutrition. The right hon. Lady or the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science should repudiate the hon. Gentleman, or he should repudiate himself, which might be more honourable, because the people I am talking about are his constituents.
      The more sensible thing would be for the Government to accept the lifeline we are offering them. Let them take the alternative procedure. Instead of saying that only children with a medical certificate shall receive milk, let them say that they will not supply milk to those children who the medical officer says do not require it, because that will involve a proper medical check and preventive action. That is the simple way forward, and the Government's honesty will depend on their accepting it.
      The entire Government are in greater trouble than they think over this matter, and not just the hon. Gentleman. We all know him ; he talks a bit too much. I want to give the Government a further lifeline. I have no intention of putting the Amendment to a vote. The Government should reconsider the whole question and bring forward their own Amendments in another place to deal with the problem. I give them that chance.
      Amendment negatived.
      11.30 p.m.
      Mr. Angus Maude: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      It is obviously with a high sense of occasion that I move the Amendment, since it is the only Amendment from this side of the House to be tabled to the Bill. It will be seen from its terms that, compared with what we have been discussing, it is not highly controversial. It is an Amendment of principle rather than of substance and that it is not controversial is shown by the fact that a similar Amendment was put down in standing Committee by the Opposition but was not moved because, I believe, it was taken in conjunction with another Amendment which was held by the Chair to be out of order.
      I believe that this is an Amendment of principle. I have moved a similar Amendment to another Bill in this session which was accepted by the Government. The

      659
      problem of delegated legislation is a serious one, obviously, at a time when many orders and statutory instruments are not getting debated even when they are prayed against. I do not believe in these circumstances that it is right for the Executive to try and keep their options open without allowing Parliament to discuss what it is that they are trying to do.
      I have do doubt that the Government intend to lay regulations to the same effect as is shown in this Clause. In that case, there is not the slightest reason why they should not say so. If they do not intend to or are in doubt as to whether they are going to do it, they have no right to come to Parliament leaving open the question of whether they will do it or not. I believe that Parliament has a right to expect that, where there is a question of delegated legislation being laid as a result of an enabling Bill, Parliament shall be able to discuss in fairly minute detail what it is that it is intended to do. The habit is growing, and needs to be suppressed, of Departments and parliamentary draftsmen trying to leave all their options open in respect of delegated legislation, and I believe that Parliament should prevent it where possible. I believe that a Bill, if it means that orders are going to be laid, should state what the orders are going to be and that the orders will be laid. I believe that this Bill would be improved and that parliamentary control would be further enhanced by the Amendment.
      However, I understand, from having looked at these things a little carefully, that the substitution of one short monosyllable for another word is likely to throw the entire legislative and Executive machinery of the country into total confusion for the rest of the session, and if my hon. Friend finds himself in a position where he cannot for technical reasons accept the Amendment, I tell him now that I would be prepared to withdraw it in response to two assurances.
      The first assurance is that the Government intend to lay these orders in the sense in which the Clause states that they will be laid. I am sure that my hon. Friend is prepared to give such an assurance. The second assurance is that in future his Department—and I hope that this will be a lesson taken to heart
      660
      by others—will not produce enabling legislation in this open, ambiguous and slipshod form, which attempts to commit Parliament to things which it should either discuss in detail or not be bothered with at all.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: In a way, this is a case of a poacher turned game keeper, because there was a time when I spent a great deal of time watching delegated legislation and all that goes with it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) is very perceptive. What looks like a simple Amendment, I have to advise the House, would require some consequential Amendments further down in the Clause. Perhaps at this late hour there is no need for me to develop the point at length, although I am willing to do so if required. But this is a rather more fundamental question than perhaps my hon. Friend has appreciated.
      I readily give my hon. Friend the two assurances for which he asked. First, I make it expressly clear that regulations will be laid—in fact, they will be laid on or before 1st September. Secondly, he may feel it salutary that this Amendment has certainly drawn the point to my attention very sharply. So long as I have any responsibility for these matters, I am not likely to forget it. I assure my hon. Friend that in the Department the force of what he has said, with great validity, will be noted in future. Perhaps on that basis he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
      Mr. Maude: In view of those two assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      PROVISION OF MILK IN SCOTLAND
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 2, line 31, at end insert :
      or
      (c) is a pupil receiving primary school education who lives more than three miles from the school'.
      This is a last attempt to get a little compassion out of the Conservative

      661
      Party. It concerns primary school children who live more than three miles from school. They are mainly in the rural areas where there has been difficulty about supplying milk. The fact that the children are stuck at school all day—almost every child would be in that difficulty—is all the more reason for accepting the Amendment, and I am confident that at this late hour the Government will accept it.
      Mr. Edward Taylor: Much as I should like to accommodate the hon. Gentleman, I have to resist the Amendment. If he studies it carefully, he will himself be less keen on adopting it. It would do two things. First, those who travel to school by bus four, five, or six miles, or more, would get free milk, but not those who had to walk two miles to school. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has said that the main problem of malnutrition or potential malnutrition is in the cities, but if the Amendment were accepted, those within the cities who would get free milk would be not the children attending the local primary school, but largely those attending the selective, fee-paying schools.
      In Edinburgh, for example, children attending the Royal High School would benefit, but those at Pilton or Clermiston would not. In view of that result, the hon. Member may wish to consider withdrawing the Amendment.
      A mendment negatived.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 3, line 13, at end insert :
      (7) The restriction imposed by this section on the duty of local education authorities to provide milk at educational establishments under their management shall not apply to any such authority in whose area the percentage of married women working and with children under twelve exceeds 10 per cent. of the total number registered as employed within the relevant employment exchange areas ; but section 3 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (in so far as it applies to Scotland) shall continue to apply.
      Although I was not encouraged by the response to my being brief on the last Amendment, I shall be brief on this, too.
      It deals again with social conditions, with the kind of problems which have been discussed all afternoon and evening. It concerns those areas where a high proportion of married women go out to work and have children under 12, that
      662
      is, at primary school, and where, therefore, the nutritional aspects of the matter become all the more important.
      I understand the problem of selectivity, which, to do him honour, the Under-Secretary has argued throughout, but if the Bill had not been introduced, he need not have made that argument. At least the Amendment would help those areas, and I hope that he will accept it.
      Mr. Edward Taylor: Once again I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being able to accept his Amendment. First of all he is saying that in an authority with more than 10 per cent. of "working mums" there should be free milk. This would mean that the concession would be given to everyone and not just to the 10 per cent. Apart from that, the Amendment refers only to married women. It is doubtful whether, under the Amendment, widows would qualify and certainly unmarried mothers would not.
      The third point is that there is no evidence to show beyond any doubt that children from working homes are less well nourished or have fewer resources. I am not aware of any such information and rather than cast any slur on the working mums of Britain it would be preferable to withdraw the Amendment.
      A mendment negatived.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I moved the Motion formally.
      11.43 p.m.
      Mr. Edward Short: Before I speak about the Bill, I would like to register a protest about the silence of the Secretary of State. She chose not to serve on the Committee. We are glad that she has sat through the whole of Report Stage. She brightens our rather sombre surroundings, but we need something more than a decorative Secretary of State. It is her Bill and we protest that she sat there in silence while these very important issues were discussed.
      The Bill has run its course in the House and now comes to an end. It is a shameful, hateful, Bill at the end as it was at the beginning, and one which will

      663
      forever blacken the already black record of this Government. It takes milk from our youngest children to give large tax reliefs to well-off people. Throughout Committee and Report stages the Government have stubbornly refused to accept Amendments to retain milk for children from needy homes. They have stubbornly refused to accept Amendments which would allow L.E.A.s to pay for it from the rates. They have refused to accept Amendments enabling G.P.s to to certify medical need, and all other Amendments tabled by us have been denied.
      The result is a thoroughly squalid Bill which will create a new, invidious category of children in our schools in the development areas, and the old industrial areas in the North—the category which does not have milk because it cannot -afford it. If that does not identify the
      category I do not know what does. I would hazard a guess that this Bill will do the Conservative Party more electoral harm than any other thing it has done—and I do not complain about that.
      What I do complain about is that a Government which has deliberately created unemployment, encouraged price rises—and we have been talking about them tonight—which has depressed living standards in their first year of office, now takes free milk from our youngest children. It is a thoroughly disreputable Bill from a thoroughly disreputable Government and I advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against it.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time :—
      The House divided : Ayes 211, Noes 188.

      Division No. 430.]

      AYES

      [11.44 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      James, David

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Emery, Peter

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Astor, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Jessel, Toby

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Fell, Anthony

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Awdry, Daniel

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fidler, Michael

      Kilfedder, James

      Balniel, Lord

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Batsford, Brian

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Benyon, W.

      Foster, Sir John

      Kirk, Peter

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Fowler, Norman

      Kitson, Timothy

      Biffen, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Knox, David

      Biggs-Davison, John

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

      Lane, David

      Blaker, Peter

      Gardner, Edward

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Boscawen, Robert

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Goodhart, Philip

      Longden, Gilbert

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gorst, John

      Luce, R. N.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Gower, Raymond

      MacArthur, Ian

      Bray, Ronald

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Green, Alan

      McLaren, Martin

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Grieve, Percy

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Burden, F. A.

      Grylls, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Madel, David

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gurden, Harold

      Mather, Carol

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Maude, Angus

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Clegg, Walter

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Cockeram, Eric

      Harrison, Col. Si Harwood (Eye)

      Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)

      Cooke, Robert

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Cooner, A. E.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Moate, Roger

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Havers, Michael

      Molyneaux, James

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hawkins, Paul

      Money, Ernie

      Critchley, Julian

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Curran, Charles

      Hicks, Robert

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

      More, Jasper

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmidi, Maj.-Gen. James

      Holland. Philip

      Mudd, David

      Dean, Paul

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Murton, Oscar

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Dixon, Piers

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Neave, Airey

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Dykes, Hugh

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Normanton, Tom

      Eden, Sir John

      Hunt, John

      Nott, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Onslow, Cranley

      Osborn, John

      Shetton, William (Clapham)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Simeons, Charles

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Peel, John

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

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Percival, lan

      Soref, Harold

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Speed, Keith

      Waddington, David

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Spence, John

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Sproat, lain

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Stainton, Keith

      Wall, Patrick

      Raison, Timothy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Redmond, Robert

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Herd, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stokes, John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Sutcliffe, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Ridsdale, Julian

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

      Wilkinson, John

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Temple, John M.

      Worsley, Marcus

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

      Mr. Hector Monro and

      Sharples, Richard

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Mr. Victor Goodhew.

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

      Trafford, Dr Anthony

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Foot, Michael

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

      Allaum, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Ford, Ben

      Marks, Kenneth

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Forrester, John

      Marquand, David

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Marsden, F.

      Ashton, Joe

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Atkinson, Norman

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Ginsburg, David

      Meacher, Michael

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Golding, John

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mendelson, John

      Bishop, E. S.

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Miilan, Bruce

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Booth, Albert

      Hardy, Peter

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Harper, Joseph

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hattersley, Roy

      Morris, Charles R. (Opemshaw)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Horam, John

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Cant, R. B.

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Moylle, Roland

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Carter, Ray (Binmingh'm, Northfield)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hunter, Adam

      Ogden, Eric

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Janner, Greville

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      O'Malley, Brian

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Oram, Bert

      Coleman, Donald

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Orme, Stanley

      Concannon, J. D.

      John, Brynmor

      Oswald, Thomas

      Conlan, Bernard

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Paget, R. T.

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

      Palmer, Arthur

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Cunningham, C. (Islington, S. W.)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Prescott, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Kerr, Russell

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Lamond, James

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Latham, Arthur

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lawson, George

      Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Roper, John

      Dempsey, James

      Leonard, Dick

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Doig, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

      Driberg, Tom

      Loughlin, Charles

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Sillars, James

      Dunn, James A.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunnett, Jack

      McBride, Neil

      Spearing, Nigel

      Eadie, Alex

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McElhone, Frank

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ellis, Tom

      McGuire, Michael

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      English, Michael

      Mackie, John

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Evans, Fred

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Strang, Gavin

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sumrmerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C)

      Taverne, Dick

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Tinn, James

      Foley, Maurice

      Torney, Tom

      Watkins, David

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Weitzman, David

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wellbelovrd, James

      Woof, Robert

      Varley, Eric G.

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Whitehead, Phillip

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

      Waiden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

      Whitlock, William

      Mr. William Hamling and

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Wallace, George

      Williams, Mrs, Shirley (Hitchin)

      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [Lords]
    Clause 3

      CONSTRUCTION AND SURVEY REGULATIONS FOR OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS
      11.50 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 33, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager".
      I hope that it will be acceptable to the House if I suggest taking together all the Amendments dealing with the leaving out the word "master" and the insertion of "installation manager". They all arise out of an undertaking which I gave in Committee to reconsider the use of the word "master", and it was with the general agreement of the Committee that the words "installation manager" were suggested. I hope that the Amendments will find favour with the House.
      Mr. Eric Ogden: Certainly it is the view of this side that it will be for the convenience of the House to take all these Amendments together, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for them. As he said, they fulfil his undertaking in Committee.
      It was not that we objected to the word "master" as such, but that the use of the word in the Bill underlined the original intention of the draftsman that it was a piece of merchant navy legislation. It was the intention of both sides of the Committee to get away from the fact that it was a piece of merchant navy legislation and to make it clear that it was a piece of industrial legislation. The objections and difficulties came when we tried to find another word, and there
      668
      were some rather exotic suggestions about what should take its place.
      The Minister gave careful consideration to this matter. We are grateful to him and to his colleagues not only for accepting this suggestion on its merits, but for bringing forward proposals which we suggested in Committee which were supported on both sides. We thank the hon. Gentleman for fulfilling his undertaking by bringing forward the proposals in this way.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made : No. 2, in page 3, line 38, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager".

    Clause 4

      MASTERS OF OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS
      Amendments made :
      No. 3, in page 4, line 1, leave out 'master' and insert 'manager'.
      No. 4, in line 2, leave out 'master 'and insert 'installation manager'.
      No. 5, in line 7, leave out 'master' and insert 'installation manager'.
      No. 6, in line 12, leave out 'a master' and insert 'an installation manager'.
      No. 7, in line 16, leave out first 'masters' and insert 'managers'.
      No. 8, in line 16, leave out second 'masters' and insert 'managers'.
      No. 9, in line 18, leave out 'masters' and insert 'managers'.
      No. 10, in line 21, leave out 'masters' and insert 'managers'.
      No. 11, in line 24, leave out 'a master' and insert 'an installation manager'.
      No. 12, in line 30, leave out 'a master' and insect 'an installation manager'.
      No. 13, in line 43, leave out 'master' and insert 'manager'.
      No. 14, in line 44, after 'installation', insert 'or to an installation manager'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Clause 5

      MASTERS OF OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS, FURTHER PROVISIONS
      Amendments made :
      No. 15, in page 5, line 1, leave out 'master' and insert 'manager'.
      No. 16, in line 8, leave out 'master' and insert 'manager'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 10, after second 'or', insert
      'where connected with safety, health or welfare'.
      This Amendment, too, is designed to meet the views of the Opposition who considered that it was not entirely clear whether the powers in the Bill were concerned only with safety, health and welfare or with discipline of an industrial nature. We have found it possible to clarify the Bill, although the intention was always that which the Opposition understood and shared with the Government. Both this Amendment and Amendment No. 34 to the Schedule are intended to clarify what was always our intention, namely, that the provisions of the Bill should relate only to matters dealing with safety, health and welfare. I hope that these Amendments will meet with the approval of the Opposition and that I need not argue the case further.
      Mr. John Prescott: We welcome the Amendment, as we pressed for this point in Committee. We wish to make it absolutely clear that where responsibility is to be placed upon a certain person, now to be known as the installation manager, that responsibility and authority vested in him shall be concerned solely with the safety of the installation itself. The Amendment now makes that clear.
      However, it is fair to point out, even at this late stage, that there are certain circumstances which must be taken into consideration with the Amendment. We feel that the Amendment now makes it clear that where the Clause refers to maintenance of order and discipline, it refers particularly to those matters which threaten the safety, health or welfare of people on board installations. However, it cannot be entirely divorced from other parts of the Clause—for example,
      670
      subsection (3). The Under-Secretary will be aware of our very strong objection to the Clause, which makes it a statutory offence to disobey a lawful command with a fine of up to £50. This is ominous and very much reminiscent of the Captain Bligh kind of situation.
      The Amendment now makes it clear that the responsibility vested in the manager of the installation is solely for the maintenance of order and discipline in matters connected with safety, health or welfare. The Clause will now read :
      "Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the master of an installation shall have in relation to it general responsibility for matters affecting safety, health or welfare or where connected with safety, health or welfare the maintenance of order and discipline, and for the discharge of that responsibility shall exercise authority over all persons in or about the installation".
      It now makes it clear that the maintenance of order and discipline is related solely to matters concerned with the safety, health and welfare of those on board the installation. We therefore welcome the Amendment.
      Amendment No. 34 amends the Schedule, and again makes it clear that we are concerned in this legislation about the safety of these installations.
      12 midnight
      It appears that there is a conflict in the Clause. Having amended it to make it clear that we are concerned solely with safety matters, subsection (3) provides that anyone who disobeys a lawful command commits an offence. It does not refer to the order being given in the interests of safety and welfare. It merely says that if he disobeys a lawful command he will commit a statutory offence and face the penalty of a fine of up to £50.
      A lawful command is not defined. It refers simply to an order given by the installation manager. It does not necessarily mean that the order has to be related to the safety, health and welfare of the installation. This is reminiscent of the merchant shipping legislation, a large part of which was incorporated in the Bill when it was drafted. We feel that there is a conflict between placing responsibility on the manager to look after safety, health and welfare matters, and giving him the authority to see

      671
      that his orders are obeyed, with the possibility of a legal sanction if they are not.
      I suggest that the Bill goes further than the Merchant Shipping Acts, because Section 29 of the 1930 Act says that anyone disobeying certain commands appertaining to the operation of the ship or its equipment shall face a possible fine of £50. The 1930 Act is very much resented by seamen, and they are fighting to get that provision removed.
      On 24th July I asked the Minister for Trade
      "if he will review within a three-year period the penal clauses contained in the Shipping Act, 1970",
      to which the right hon. Gentleman replied :
      "Yes, We shall review the provision. Should we then feel that these provisions remain necessary to preserve safety at sea we should not propose any change in them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 298.]
      Here we are concerned solely with a lawful command, and after 10 years at sea I am only too well aware of what a lawful command can mean. In many instances it can have nothing to do with the safety of installations. There is a contradiction here. We are glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought in the Amendment to make it clear that this refers to safety and welfare, but in leaving in the other provision about being a lawful command he is creating a contradiction. We feel that he should have gone further and corrected that, as we asked in Committee, and made it clear that it must be the disobeying of a lawful command given in the interests of the safety of the vessel.
      The industry does not want the Draconian powers of the Clause. People in the industry do not want them. A number of people who have had seafaring experience on oil installations say that it is not necessary, in the conditions envisaged by the Bill, to have these penal sanctions. The Government have not proved their case. They have partly accepted our argument. I know that it is late in the day to expect changes in the Bill, but this provision will be detrimental to good industrial relations on these installations where co-operation is so necessary.
      Mr. Ridley: With leave of the House, I would not wish to enter into an argument about merchant shipping matters,
      672
      but I must point out that the hon. Member's interpretation of subsection (3) is wrong. The words "that authority" refer to subsection (2), which is limited to matters of safety, health and welfare. So subsection (3) is similarly limited, and does not take the matters wider than the issues on which we are all agreed—that the installation manager has every right to exercise authority and, therefore. ultimately, discipline.
      There is no difference of intention between us, but the hon. Members interpretation is wrong : the subsection does not smack of Captain Bligh. It is limited to the purpose on which both sides are agreed.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made : No. 18, in page 5, line 17, leave out 'master' and insert 'manager'.
      No. 19, in line 19 leave out 'master and insert 'manager'.
      No. 20, in line 21, leave out 'master' and insert 'manager'.
      No. 21, in line 28, leave out 'master and insert 'installation manager'.
      No. 22, in line 29, leave out 'a master and insert 'an installation manager '
      No. 23, in line 38, leave out 'master and insert 'installation manager'.
      No. 24, in line 43, leave out 'master and insert 'installation manager'.
      No. 25, in line 46, leave out 'master and insert 'installation manager'.
      No. 26, page 6, line 4, leave out 'master' and insert 'installation manager'.
      No. 27, in line 6, leave out 'master' and insert 'installation manager'.
      No. 28, in line 8, leave out 'master and insert 'installation manager'.
      No. 29, in line 22, leave out 'master and insert 'manager'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Clause 7

      REGULATIONS : GENERAL PROVISIONS
      Mr. Ogden: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 7, line 26, after 'offences', insert :
      whereby the safety of persons on or near the installation, or of the installation itself, is endangered'.
      The whole Bill is concerned with the safety of persons on the oil rigs and of

      673
      the rigs themselves, their construction and certification. It is a safety Bill. The Under-Secretary has accepted the feelings of hon. Members and has emphasised that the master's powers are concerned with the safety of the rig. These matters were not put to the vote in Committee, and I do not think that we want to put them to a vote tonight, but we want the Minister to make it clear that the reference in subsection (2) to
      "… the creation of offences and … their punishment on summary conviction or conviction on indictment …"
      means offences against safety. He may say that these words will underline what is already there, but this will give him the opportunity to say publicly what he said in Committee.
      Mr. Ridley: I am sensitive to the substance of the argument which the hon. Gentleman has adduced, but I must advise hon. Members that the Amendment is not necessary because the provisions of Clause 7(2)(a) are already limited to the creation of offences only for those matters about which regulations may be made under the Bill. Clause 6(1) in particular, which gives power to make regulations on various operational matters, is limited to
      "regulations for the safety, health and welfare of persons on offshore installations … and for the safety of such installations and the prevention of accidents on or near them."
      The power under Clause 7(2) to create offences will be used to provide a necessary means of enforcement for the regulation provisions about these matters. Additionally, however, as regulations under the Bill may also deal with other matters, such as registration and certification of installations, inquiries into casualties and accidents and so on, the power to create offences will extend to offences in connection with these matters also, and it is equally essential to provide a means of enforcement for these matters.
      If the Amendment were made it might throw into doubt the appropriateness of creating criminal offences in regulations for matters not directly or obviously connected with endangering the safety of persons on or near the installation or of the installation itself, but which it would be none the less important to enforce in the general interests of safety, health and welfare—that is, registration of an installation, taking of evidence at an inquiry
      674
      and so on. It would also prevent the creation of any offences on health and welfare matters, which would be very much against the interests of the men working on board. The Amendment is, therefore, undesirable as well as unnecessary.
      Perhaps I should take this opportunity to comment on the explosion which took place on the fixed Platform A on B.P.'s West Sole Gasfield, some 45 miles east of the Humber, on Monday, 7th June. I undertook to speak about this in Committee, but unfortunately an opportunity did not present itself. As the Amendment is concerned with safety, it might be convenient for me to comment on the subject now.
      The platform consists of two unmanned structures linked by a footbridge. The larger of the two structures was originally used for drilling the wells and now carries a helicopter deck and living accommodation for maintenance crews. The smaller, or adjunct, structure carries all the production equipment and it is from here that the gas enters the pipeline to the shore.
      The explosion occurred on the adjunct structure and the resultant drop in the gas pressure caused automatic safety devices to operate and shut off the supply of gas from all the wells in the field. The fire which followed the explosion was maintained for some hours by gas in the pipeline system, but by 11.30 all this gas had been burnt and the fire died out. A number of secondary fires which broke out in the living accommodation on the drilling structure were extinguished by the automatic sprinkler system.
      Production from the field was suspended until Saturday, 12th June, when B.P. engineers had isolated the damaged platform from the pipeline to the shore so that production from the unaffected platforms could be resumed. B.P. are making a full investigation of the occurrence and have been formally asked to furnish a written report to the Secretary of State. Its investigation is not yet complete.
      Under the powers contained in Clause 6, safety regulations could deal with all aspects of this or other dangerous occurrences on an installation, whether unmanned, as in this instance, or manned. For example, under paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Schedule, regulations can be made

      675
      as to the general safety of the installation and the safety of places on it where people may be working. Under paragraph 4, the regulations can specify safety requirements for the equipment to be installed on the platform.
      I hope that this gives hon. Members the information they wanted on this subject. I also hope that they will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment, for the reasons I have given.
      Mr. Albert Booth: When we discussed this part of the Bill in Committee, concern was indicated by Opposition Members about the nature of the regulations which would affect working on the sea bed in the vicinity of the installations and whether the regulations would extend to diving.
      Since then, I have had an opportunity, with one of my hon. Friends, to study this matter rather more deeply, and what we have learned has led us to be more apprehensive. It appears that there are now some highly advanced diving techniques which can require men to be under a state of compression for periods of up to eight days, so that work can be done on the sea bed at the depth at which the deepest of the offshore installations are now working.
      12.15 a.m.
      In the light of the very specialised techniques, it would appear that if regulations are to be made, as I think they should, it would be necessary to have highly detailed consultations with those who have the most advanced knowledge in these matters. It would, therefore, be desirable if the Minister could indicate, preferably tonight, what procedure he envisages for making regulations of this nature and whether I am correct in assuming that, ultimately, he will be making regulations concerning diving in the vicinity of the installations.
      Mr. Prescott: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I thank the Under-Secretary for his reply concerning the B.P. gas fire blow-out, about which I wrote to him and asked whether he could furnish information about the fire.
      I should like to put on record that although, at that time, a number of hon. Members expressed concern about gas blow-outs, this does not necessarily mean
      676
      that we are convinced that accidents can be avoided. These are extremely dangerous exploration projects and there will be a considerable number of them in the future. Most of us have, however, been extremely impressed by the safety procedures and standards adopted by the industry. My purpose in asking for information about the fire was so that we could consider what we might be able to do. The sort of reply that we have had reprsents a vote of confidence in the industry.
      I would like to know what the Minister means wher he refers to the health and welfare regulations and the offences that are referred to. Does he mean that the Government will specify standards, for example, concerning the provision of medical facilities on installatons and also, perhaps, about accommodation facilities to be provided on them?
      From my seafaring experience, I recall people living 16 or 18 to a room, which caused a great deal of tuberculosis in the Merchant Service. I have noticed that some of the oil installations have as many as 12 or 14 men in one room, occupying three-tier bunks. I wonder, therefore, whether the Under-Secretary contemplates, as in the Merchant Shipping Acts, specifying standards in this respect.
      Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, my reply to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is that, as I said in Committee, we will make regulations concerning diving but we will have to consult widely experts in diving and it may be some time before we are able to devise regulations which are wholly acceptable to all interests. I entirely take the point that it is necessary to do this. On the other hand, the hon. Member will, I am sure, agree that it is necessary to get the regulations right in this rather complicated and advanced sector of technology.
      In reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), regulations can certainly be made which will deal with medical and other matters relating to health and welfare, including accommodation standards. Under the Bill, it will be possible to make regulations, if necessary, on any of these matters.
      The hon. Member will, I think, agree that it is not always necessary to make

      677
      regulations until there is a need for them. The power will exist to make regulations, however, and if at any stage the accommodation or medical provision should deteriorate, there will be nothing to stop the Government making regulations at that time. However, I confirm that it is our intention to investigate these matters with a view to making recommendations as soon as possible.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 10

      PROSECUTIONS
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 10, line 25, at end insert :
      (b) the Customs and Excise Act 1952, or any enactment to be construed as one with that Act, or
      This Amendment is necessary because at the moment the Bill requires that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions be obtained before any proceedings can be instituted for offences under the Customs Acts committed at or near any of the installations. The Customs normally do not require the consent of the Director to prosecute for any offences against Customs and Excise Regulations, and it is therefore thought desirable that they should not be required to have the Director's consent in relation to any offences committed on an installation. I hope that the House will feel that the Amendment should be made : it arises out of an oversight in putting the matter right earlier.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12
      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made : No. 32, in page 12, line 15, leave out ' "master" 'and insert' "installation manager" '.—[Mr. Ridley.]
    Schedule

      SUBJECT MATTER OF REGULATIONS
      Amendments made : No. 33, in page 14, line 26, at beginning insert :
      (1) Limits on hours of employment in any specified operation or in any specified circumstances.
      No. 34, in line 29, leave out 'and discipline'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
      Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified]
      Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      12.22 a.m.
      Mr. Ogden: The appearance of such a Motion as this on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friends and myself would normally be a reasonable precaution by the Opposition. It is certainly not our intention to take any great time over this stage, but I believe that the Bill should have more than a formal third reading.
      This is a very useful Bill. It was prepared by the former Administration and was rightly taken over by this Government. At one and the same time the Bill is a memorial to the past, for it came to the of the tragic loss of life in December, 1965, when the Sea Gem collapsed and sank into the North Sea, and to those who then lost their lives. The Bill is a tribute to those who took part in the inquiry and to those who drafted the Bill. It shows that Parliament can react to tragedy, and produce something of value. It means hope for the future, for it is a Bill which provides opportunity. Those who took part in its presentation are entitled to some quite pride in the Bill. Above all, the Bill has changed in its progress from a piece of merchant navy legislation, valid for a time only, to a piece of industrial legislation valid for the next 50 or 100 years. We wish it success, and we will watch for the regulations made after consultation with the industry.
      This is a good Bill, improved in Committee by both sides and by those who helped to draft it. We take the opportunity to thank the industry, and particularly the Shell Company and the B.P. Company, for affording Members an opportunity to visit the installations and see the work done. We met many who came forward and helped us in our deliberations. We take the opportunity to wish success to all who take part in this industry off our coasts.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  NORTHERN REGION (EMPLOYMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  12.24 a.m.
  Mr. T. W. Urwin: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this vitally important subject of employment opportunities for young people in the Northern Region. When we look at the question, it is well to recall as Members of Parliament the very deep and abiding interest that many people have in it. I am sure I speak for every one of my colleagues in the Northern Region when I say that we have been extensively lobbied by authorities such as the Durham County Council, educationists and others who never cease in their exhortations to us to attempt to do something in Parliament to remedy the present appalling situation. It is a situation which responsible commentators, including the National Association of Career Teachers, have stated is as bad as, if not worse than, any since the war.
  Despite the present difficulties, within the next few days the already grossly swollen ranks of unemployed youngsters will be unhappily augmented on a national basis by the decanting of 700,000 school leavers on to the intensely competitive labour market. It is by this time a well-known fact that all the development areas are heavily hit by the economic recession which has been with us for far too long. This is especially applicable to the Northern Region.
  It is rather tragic that under existing regional policies industrial development is being seriously retarded. The pace of new job generation has slowed very considerably. Worse still is the fact that numerous well-established firms in the North have discarded labour. A recent Department of Employment statement indicates that almost 10,000 jobs—indeed, it may be more than 10,000 by this time, as the Written Answer is now a few weeks old—have been lost since June, 1970 due to this factor.
  One can readily understand that the spectre of unemployment haunts thousands more people in the Northern
  680
  Region at present in work. The vulnerability to unemployment and long inestimable period of inactivity by people of all ages has been clearly and ruthlessly exposed. In shipbuilding and allied industries, in engineering, in construction, many youngsters have had to accept the inevitability of termination of apprenticeships, in many cases without hope of transfer to another employer and often at an age when it is too late to take up an apprenticeship in another craft.
  It is against this background of seeming hopelessness amounting to almost black despair that thousands more youngsters will join their 4,785 cousins chasing all too few jobs in the Northern Region within the next few days, many of them facing the ignominy already felt by an unemployed parent or a relative. There are many families in the region and in other development areas where unemployment is not singular to one member of a family. Indeed, in the County of Durham, with already over 20 per cent. of the region's youth unemployed, 1,080 boys and girls were registered in June, representing 54·73 per cent. more than in June, 1970. This is a staggering increase by any standards, but much worse in Durham by the imminent discharge of over 5,000 school leavers, all competing for a mere 530 notified vacancies.
  I turn briefly to my own constituency. In the careers office in Houghton-Ie-Spring 87 boys and 41 girls are currently unemployed. A further 281 boys and 287 girls are due to leave school this week. The gross totals, therefore, are 368 boys—who will find themselves in the hopeless position of chasing 15 notified vacancies—and 328 girls—who will be competing for 31 notified vacancies. That is an appalling situation for those young people.
  Throughout the region the story is very much the same. From the heavily industrialised areas of Wear, Tyne and Tees to the urban and rural districts of Durham and Northumberland the outlook for young people is decidedly black. Careers officers, performing a valuable but unenviable service, have circulated employers throughout Durham in recent weeks, but with very little success. From the replies—indeed, a number of firms have not deigned to reply—it becomes clear that opportunities in the construction industry are greatly reduced. Craft

  681
  apprenticeships, including those in the engineering industry, are down ; in banking, one of the Big Five banks has only 20 vacancies this year, as opposed to 200 last year, and factory vacancies have been considerably reduced, in this case to a greater extent for boys than for girls.
  Placing difficulties are being experienced at all academic levels. It now emerges that academic ability is no guarantee of employment on leaving school. I submit that millions of pounds have been properly invested upon the education of these young people, but tragically more millions of pounds are being expended in unemployment and supplementary benefits payments.
  This situation creates and encourages a serious social problem as idleness and sheer boredom arising from unemployment themselves foster unworthy thoughts and equally unpraiseworthy actions. I ask the Minister what the Government propose to do to harness these valuable assets of young people ; to provide the jobs which they have a right to expect to ensure their respect as responsible members of the community, playing their full part in the drive towards the increased productivity that this nation so badly needs.
  What must now be done is to ensure a greater share of Government office dispersal in the North. We have been concerned recently about the decision to allocate the headquarters of the value-added tax administrative establishment to Southend rather than to a development area. We have lost that battle, but surely it is not too late for the Minister and the Department of Employment to put their weight behind the effort to ensure that the P.A.Y.E. computer centre, which was allocated by a Labour Government to Washington, is not lost for all time. If there are to be. reductions in the numbers of centres I hope that they will try to ensure that Washington is not left out on this occasion. A project of that kind guaranteeing about 2,500 to 3,000 jobs, and ensuring a steady flow of new jobs for a number of schoolchildren with fairly minimal academic attainments, is an absolute necessity for the Northern Region.
  Members of the Northern Region group this afternoon met the Secretary of State
  682
  for the Environment, and this was one of the questions raised with him. I urge the Under-Secretary of State to use his good offices and his influence to ensure that the North is not left behind in the race.
  The hon. Gentleman could usefully spend some of his time, busy though he undoubtedly is, in trying to encourage the Government to give new stimulus to the economy. It is frequently said that reflation can be the salvation of the development areas. I myself do not wholly agree with that premise, for it is well known that, even in times of reflation, it is the poorer areas of the country, the development areas, which benefit last of all. But, clearly, we should be grateful for an expansion of the kind which is now required. Such expansion would definitely encourage industrialists to recruit more apprentices, more trainees and more young people generally.
  The evidence presented to the Government so far on their regional policy shows a dramatic slow-down in the generation of new employment opportunities. They should abandon their political dogma on the subject of investment grants. I plead with the hon. Gentleman to use his influence with his colleagues in the Government so that we revert to the system which I have frequently called the linchpin of the incentive policies for the development areas instead of replacing it by tax allowances. I have no doubt that this would materially assist the resumption of the inflow of new industry into the development areas.
  I put it to the hon. Gentleman, also, that the Government could consider utilisation of the resources of the industrial training boards to establish off-the-job training facilities for suitable school leavers. They might, in addition, consider developing the use of Government training centres—this certainly would be an innovation—for people under the age of 18, and preferably, of course, after consultation with the trade unions, concerned, even though it might well mean providing training facilities for people some time in advance of an employment opportunity occurring.
  The Department ought to encourage employers to recruit more than their requiremen of young people, starting now, as an insurance against the raising of the school leaving age in 1973. At that time,

  683
  it will be increasingly difficult for employers to recruit the requisite number of young people for the jobs which will then be available to them. This, surely, is within the province of the Department of Employment, and the Minister could talk to employers and try to persuade them to accept that principle.
  Every conceivable effort ought now to be made to ensure that careers officers themselves, valuable as their services are to youngsters about to leave school, do not have to spend the greater part of their time counselling young people on the problems of unemployment.
  12.40 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) has rightly expressed his concern about the employment position facing young people in the Northern Region. I assure him and all hon. Members representing Northern constituencies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I fully share their concern.
  As my right hon. Friend said on 28th June,
  "… the Government are absolutely determined to halt and then reverse the upward trend in unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1971 ; Vol. 820, c. 154.]
  He went on to say that the unemployment was least tolerable in those areas where levels of unemployment were higher than the national average, as in the Northern Region.
  There can be no doubt that unemployment among young people in the Northern Region is a serious problem. In June, 4,700 of them were registered as unemployed. That was slightly less than the May figure, but it was much higher than the figure for June last year. Indeed, it was the highest June figure since 1963. Unemployment is higher in all parts of the region, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us.
  In June there were 2,400 vacancies. That is considerably less than a year ago, but the drop may be partially explained by a change in procedure whereby the June figures do not include vacancies for summer leavers. The ratio of notified vacancies to unemployed young people is distinctly less favourable in the Northern Region than in the country as a
  684
  whole, particularly for boys. There is only one notified vacancy for every three unemployed boys in the region.
  As to the position of school-leavers, at a rough estimate we expect about 27,000 young people to leave school in the Northern Region at the end of this summer term, which the hon. Gentleman has told us is a matter of days. That is about the same number of young people as last year. Reports from careers officers suggest that placing them will be more difficult than last year, and it will take longer. In 1970 the bulk of summer leavers were absorbed into employment by mid-September, and only 5 per cent. had not entered their first jobs by mid-October. Reports from careers officers suggest that this year the school-leavers will get jobs more slowly. Even so, and despite what the hon. Gentleman said—I know that he said it with great sincerity—I hope that the majority will obtain work within a reasonable period of leaving school. The greatest difficulties will inevitably be experienced by those who are less able and have fewer qualifications.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what we shall do to improve the position. I turn first to the action being taken within my own Department's field of responsibility. First, careers officers are making strenuous efforts to canvass employers for additional vacancies. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of the careers officers in an admittedly difficult situation. They are trying extremely hard and they have made progress.
  Second, my right hon. Friend has agreed to grant-aid five additional careers officer posts in the Northern Region to see whether, by giving more professional time for interviews with young people and employers, unemployment can be reduced. That is over and above the other additional posts being provided in the region for expansion and development of the Youth Employment Service. Five additional careers officers may not sound very many, but the national figure is only about 20, so we can see that the percentage increase for the Northern Region is considerable.
  Third, where appropriate, careers officers are encouraging young people to stay on at school. It is disturbing that despite its unemployment problem the

  685
  Northern Region has a significantly larger percentage of young people leaving school at 15 than the country as a whole. I sympathise with those in the North-East who are trying to rectify that position even before the raising of the school-leaving age, which is due in 1972–73
  Fourth, my right hon. Friend believes that there may be a need for special provision for training unemployed young people—the hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about this—particularly the 16 and 17 year olds who have already had one or two jobs. There are not enough opportunities for these young people and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that my Department has agreed as an experiment to pay for training courses in semi-skilled workshop practice at three technical colleges in the North-East—on Tyneside, at Sunderland and on Teesside. It is hoped that these courses will start in September. I believe that it will be beneficial to see what results come from the experiment.
  Finally, following approaches from a number of local authorities in the North-East, which the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows about, arrangements have been made for a meeting in Newcastle next week between these authorities and representatives of the Government Departments concerned to discuss questions relating to employment, education and training of young people. The meeting will be chaired by the Chairman of the Central Youth Employment Executive and serious consideration will naturally be given to the views put forward by the authorities and the experts who will be there.
  I should like now to deal with the more general problems of the area, of which the employment problems of young people are a part. The first, indeed the major priority, as the hon. Gentleman himself suggested, is more jobs. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the contribution which the dispersal of Government offices can make by providing job and career opportunities for young people. At the end of last year, in our White Paper on the machinery of Government, we announced a searching review of dispersal policy. This is well under way. It is our intention to get as much Civil Service activity away from
  686
  London as we can, consistent with the efficient operation of the public service. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in looking at this matter, we have the needs of the Northern Region and the other development areas very much in mind.
  Mr. Urwin: Can the hon. Gentleman give an indication as to the completion dale of the review, which has been going on for some time?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not the responsibility of my Department but I will write to him if I can get any further information. Without notice, I cannot tell him the completion date.
  The hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience in office that the operational requirements of the public service must sometimes conflict with regional objectives. In the case of the value-added tax centre, it would not have been possible to meet the date for introducing the tax if we had tried to locate the central control centre anywhere else than Southend, where much of the skilled customs staff is already located, but 75 per cent. of the staff will be located in other parts of the country and there will, of course, be local offices in the North-East. Of course, we recognise the disappointment that this decision, coupled with the rundown of the Land Commission and the investment grant office at Billing-ham, may cause, but we are determined to pursue a vigorous dispersal policy. We are extremely sorry about the disappointment caused.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the P.A.Y.E. centre. As he will appreciate, he cannot expect me to give an answer on that, but I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take due note of his views and those of other hon. Members, and that applies also to the question of reflation and changes in economic policy. I have said that the first priority is clearly more jobs. Regional incentives to industry are the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, but I should like to refer to them briefly, because they are part and parcel of the difficulty which we are experiencing in the North. They have an important part to play in helping to solve the problem.
  The Government announced last October improved assistance, under the

  687
  Local Employment Acts, tied to the provision of new employment—a 10 percentage point increase in building grants, more flexible use of loan powers, and there will be additional expenditure on grants for the provision of basic services and the clearance of derelict land. Also in October the Government announced that investment grants for plant and machinery would be replaced by accelerated depreciation allowances for tax purposes. In development areas, firms may write off for tax purposes the whole of the cost of eligible assets in the year in which the expenditure is incurred.
  In February, we announced the new special development areas, which include Tyneside and Wearside, and increased the rate of operational grants from 20 to 30 per cent. In the Northern Region there are now 45 per cent. of the insured population in the special development areas as compared with 19 per cent. before the change. That is significant and important.
  The Government believe that the new package is directly relevant to the needs of the less prosperous areas. It deliberately shifts the emphasis away from indiscriminate subsidies, such as investment grants and R.E.P., and puts greater weight on assistance geared to the provision of new employment and incentives designed to encourage profitable and efficient investment.
  688
  The Government have decided to make, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, a grant in aid of £20,000 to the North-East Development Council. Under the last Administration, it was decided to end the council's £10,000 a year grant, but, in view of the importance which we attach to its promotional work, we looked at the position again, and this is the result.
  In conclusion, I say to any Northern M.P. who is troubled, as we all are, about unemployment among the young—for great humanitarian principles are involved—that the Government are genuinely concerned about the present level of unemployment among young people in the Northern Region. Various ideas about curing it have been put forward from both sides of the House. It is a matter constantly under review by the Ministers concerned.
  I have described the measures which the Government are taking and I believe that in time they will bring about a much needed improvement in the situation. Indeed, I am confident that an improvement will take place. In the meantime, my Department will do everything it can to alleviate the position of these young people who find themselves, unfortunately, without employment when they leave school.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Employment
  Employment
  Primary School Children (Part-time Education)
  Primary School Children (Part-time Education)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  New Factories
  New Factories
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Portobello Power Station (Fuelling)
  Portobello Power Station (Fuelling)
  Rates
  Rates
  Communications
  Communications
  Paper and Board Industry
  Paper and Board Industry
  Village Halls
  Village Halls
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Closures of Firms
  Closures of Firms
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  Handicapped Children (Schools)
  Handicapped Children (Schools)
  Corsbie Hall School, Fife
  Corsbie Hall School, Fife
  Primary Schools (Increased Provision)
  Primary Schools (Increased Provision)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Local Government Finance (Green Paper)
  Local Government Finance (Green Paper)
  Local Government (Central Control)
  Local Government (Central Control)
  Economy (Toothill Recommendations)
  Economy (Toothill Recommendations)
  Mr. Jack Malloch
  Mr. Jack Malloch
CIVIL SERVICE
  Premature Retirement (Compensation)
  Premature Retirement (Compensation)
  Offices (Dispersal)
  Offices (Dispersal)
  Press Officers
  Press Officers
  Scientists (Pay)
  Scientists (Pay)
  Pensions (Unestablished Service)
  Pensions (Unestablished Service)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1926
  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1926
ENVIRONMENT
  Scunthorpe-Grimsby Trunk Route
  Scunthorpe-Grimsby Trunk Route
  Local Government Employees
  Local Government Employees
  Research
  Research
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Falmouth (Container Terminal)
  Falmouth (Container Terminal)
  Public Buildings (Opening Hours)
  Public Buildings (Opening Hours)
  M6 (Accidents)
  M6 (Accidents)
  National Ports Council (Membership)
  National Ports Council (Membership)
  Royal Investiture, Caernarvon Castle (Surplus Cushions)
  Royal Investiture, Caernarvon Castle (Surplus Cushions)
  Grace-and-Favour Residences
  Grace-and-Favour Residences
  Royal Palaces (Expenditure)
  Royal Palaces (Expenditure)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  New Jobs (Scotland)
  New Jobs (Scotland)
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Scotland (Air Communications)
  Scotland (Air Communications)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Sale of Goods (Law Commission's Recommendations)
  Sale of Goods (Law Commission's Recommendations)
  Local Employment Acts (Financial Assistance)
  Local Employment Acts (Financial Assistance)
  Employment (Scotland)
  Employment (Scotland)
  Steel Complex, Hunterston
  Steel Complex, Hunterston
  New Zealand Lamb
  New Zealand Lamb
  Public Corporation Employees (Political Activities)
  Public Corporation Employees (Political Activities)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Overseas Posts (Recruitment)
  Overseas Posts (Recruitment)
  Research
  Research
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Scottish Economy
  Scottish Economy
  Gross National Product (Growth Forecasts)
  Gross National Product (Growth Forecasts)
  Selective Employment Tax (Price Reductions)
  Selective Employment Tax (Price Reductions)
  Voluntary Public Service (Allowances)
  Voluntary Public Service (Allowances)
EMPLOYMENT
  Hotels, Scotland (Service Charges and Tipping)
  Hotels, Scotland (Service Charges and Tipping)
  British Ships (Irish-born Personnel)
  British Ships (Irish-born Personnel)
  International Apprenticeship Competition
  International Apprenticeship Competition
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Education (Milk) Bill
  Education (Milk) Bill
  Research
  Research
  St. Richard's Parish, Bootle (Primary School)
  St. Richard's Parish, Bootle (Primary School)
  Open University (Assistance to Students)
  Open University (Assistance to Students)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Deaths from Drowning
  Deaths from Drowning
  London Teaching Hospitals (Private Patients)
  London Teaching Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Long-Stay Patients (After-care Services)
  Long-Stay Patients (After-care Services)
  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Vasectomy
  Vasectomy
  Price Increases (Small Incomes)
  Price Increases (Small Incomes)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Venezuelan Equine Encephalomyelitis
  Venezuelan Equine Encephalomyelitis
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Parole)
  Prisoners (Parole)
  Murderers (Release on Licence)
  Murderers (Release on Licence)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Baths
  Baths
WALES
  Forestry Commission (Staff)
  Forestry Commission (Staff)
  Trade Missions (Promotion of Welsh Manufactures)
  Trade Missions (Promotion of Welsh Manufactures)

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

READING"POP"FESTIVAL AND DRUG SEARCHES BY POLICE
BARONES WOOTTON OF ABINGER: 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 it is a fact (as broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation) that the police have been making random searches for drugs of persons arriving by car or by rail at the recent"pop "-music festival at Reading; and, if so, how is this consistent with the statutory requirement that searches can only be made where a police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect illegal possession of drugs.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police has said that he has no information to substantiate the allegation that random searches were made. He is satisfied from his own inquiries that police officers had reasonable grounds for suspecting offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act or Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act before any action was taken.
BARONES WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask him one or two supplementaries? First of all, is he aware that searches at Reading included local residents, whether or not they were going to the"pop"festival, and that these searches involved feeling inside women's brassieres and asking them to let down their trousers, if they were wearing these? Secondly, can he explain the difference between searching for drugs every passenger on a coach arriving at a particular destination, as I
342
understand happened at Reading, or a proportion of passengers coming off a train, and spot checks for excess alcohol on motorists driving on a particular road? Or are we to conclude that spot checks which were emphatically rejected by Parliament in connection with the Road Safety Act are to be legal in connection with the Dangerous Drugs Act?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not familiar with the nature of the searches carried out by the Thames Valley Police. All I can say is that the Chief Constable has assured us, having made inquiries, that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting offences under the drugs legislation. Nobody knows better than the noble Baroness does the very great difficulty of defining what is meant by"reasonable grounds"in this connection. The previous Government set up an inquiry, of which the noble Baroness was a member, on this exact point of powers of arrest and search in relation to drug offences, and concluded that reasonable grounds have never been defined and that it was not possible to give a definition.
BARONES WOOTTON OF ABINGER: On that last point, my Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government have or have not accepted the unanimous recommendation of the Deedes Committee, to which he has referred, that dress and hair style should not, by themselves or together, be reasonable grounds for search for drugs, and that the police should be asked to accept this principle? Might I also ask the Minister whether he would look further into this matter, because I have a very large volume of disturbing correspondence about the searches that took place?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we accept what the noble Baroness has said about dress and hair style, and my right honourable friend has circularised police forces to this effect. Dress and hair style are not factors which, on their own, should be regarded as constituting"reasonable grounds ". As she will know, however, they are included in the list of 11 criteria which, taken together, are regarded as constituting grounds of a kind which the courts would regard as reasonable. I should certainly like to hear from the noble Baroness. As I say, the Chief Constable has made inquiries,

343
but if the noble Baroness has any information which is not known to us I will certainly arrange for it to be investigated.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, will the Minister look into the matter further to find out how, when passengers are getting off a train, it is possible to discriminate between those who are reasonably to be suspected of illegal possession of drugs and those who are not, unless it is by their appearance?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the police are concerned with all the circumstances of the particular occasion. The fact that a"pop"festival was taking place at Reading was a circumstance which the Chief Constable took into account. Had the passengers been getting off a train at Windsor, presumably they would not have been stopped.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the rather disturbing information my noble friend has put by way of questions this afternoon, may I hope that the noble Lord will make inquiries into this incident? One always has to bear in mind the relationship of the police with the general community. In the light of what was said on the B.B.C. and what the noble Lord has said, that there were not spot checks, it would be for the good of the police that this were made clear. And I think this can arise only as a consequence of an inquiry by the noble Lord.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I hope that I have made myself abundantly clear. We have made inquiries. There were between 30,000 and 50,000 people present at this festival. What I have said is that if the noble Baroness has any information which is new to us, we will certainly investigate it.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will help me. It is quite obvious that it is very difficult—in fact, quite impossible—to produce a general definition of what are reasonable grounds. But is it not possible to tell us what were considered by the police to be reasonable grounds in these cases? Can the House be informed of this in some manner?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords. I would refer the noble Viscount
344
to paragraph 123 of the Report of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence on Powers of Arrest and Search in Relation to Drug Offences. Some criteria are set out there.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that in this case we are getting dangerously near to the theory of guilt by association, and does he think that even the stimulus to police recruiting that this incident might give is likely to be outweighed by the former theory?
LORD WINDLESHAM: No, my Lords; I do not think that. This is a controversial matter on which opinions differ. We discussed the question of police powers of arrest and search at considerable length during the passage of the Misuse of Drugs Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was among those in this House, and was a member of the minority on the Advisory Committee, who argued strongly against these powers. But this House, by an overwhelming majority, came to the conclusion that the powers should be retained in the new legislation.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the number of convictions after this event lead to the supposition that there were reasonable grounds for searching somebody?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, arising out of that, can the Minister say how many searches and how many convictions there were; what drugs were found, and in what quantities?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness what drugs were found and in what quantities. I can tell her that 1,811 people were stopped and searched on the grounds that they were suspected of being in illegal possesion of drugs. Subsequently, 119 were charged and convicted.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask how many police dressed up as"hippies"were searched? The noble Lord need not answer that.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, cannot the Minister discourage—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: May I ask one more question, my Lords? Cannot the Minister discourage the very disagreeable practice of disguising police officers in the style of dress which they regard as that of"hippies ", in order to get the confidence of people similarly dressed?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, perhaps we ought to try to make this question the last on this exchange. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has a further question to-day on the same festival. This is a difficult matter. Clearly, the police officers attending festivals of this sort must do so in plain clothes. If they went in uniform it would be totally impossible for them to enforce the law. The style of plain clothes that is adopted must be left to the police.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: One last question, my Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham said that a certain number had been searched and convicted. Is he aware that the proportion of those convicted works out at about one in twelve? Does he consider that it was right to search 12 people, of whom eleven were found to be innocent, in order to convict one? Is that a right proportion?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, these statistics can be read in different ways, but for a festival of this sort the proportion is not unusual.

POSTAL RATE FOR CHRISTMAS CARDS
2.46 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have now given further consideration to a special postal rate for Christmas cards.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is for the Post Office to consider this matter
346
and I understand that it is doing so in consultation with the Post Office Users' National Council.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the Minister concerned, and ask him to tell the Post Office, that this would be a very good way whereby the Post Office could give a little Christmas present to its many customers?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I do not think that for me to tell my right honourable friend and for my right honourable friend to tell the Post Office would be a proper means of communicating the noble Lord's wishes on this subject. But I have no doubt that the Post Office will get to know of the noble Lord's point.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, before my noble friend offers any advice of that sort to the Post Office, will he urge them, first, to ensure that letters bearing the normal 3p stamp reach their destination in this country the next day, which we were led to believe by noble Lords opposite when they were in power would in fact happen, but which very frequently does not?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, that, also, is a matter for the Post Office and, I might say, a rather different matter from the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in February, 1969, this House was informed at Question Time that the increase in the charge for Christmas cards from the old 3d. rate to the old 4d. rate had led to a reduction of 18 per cent. in the number of Christmas cards posted? If we are now to have a further 50 per cent. increase, from last year's old 4d. rate to this year's new 2½p rate, this will surely have a profound effect upon the number of Christmas cards posted and there will be a very considerable reduction.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, these statistics are really a matter for the Post Office.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in 1969 postcards were sent in an open envelope, whereas they are now sent in a sealed envelope and are treated as first-class mail?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Slater. One further point which I would make to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is that at the beginning of 1969 such matters were the responsibility of the then Minister, whereas under the Post Office Act they are now matters for the day-to-day running of the Post Office.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, since we have a Minister for Posts and Telecommunications, may we have some sort of guidance as to what are, and what are not, proper questions regarding the Post Office to be directed to Her Majesty's Government?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to put down a Question, perhaps for Written Answer, I will certainly try to give him such a list.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that if a special postal rate is introduced for Christmas cards it will be in a downward and not in an upward direction?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords, I cannot give any assurance on this matter at all.

READING"POP"FESTIVAL: COST OF POLICE DUTY
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many policemen were on duty, and for how long, at the recent Reading"pop"festival, including the number required for extra traffic control; and who paid the cost.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, 557 police officers were on duty at this festival, about 400 of whom were deployed from outside the Reading area. Forty-eight of these officers were engaged on traffic control duties, 25 of whom would not normally have been on duty in Reading. Every officer worked a 12-hour shift for each of the three days.
348
The cost was borne by the Thames Valley Police Authority.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, seeing that a"pop"festival is put on to please the"pop"fans or to make money for the suppliers of food and drink and music, is there any particular reason why, following the admirable practice in Britain of trying to get people to pay for what they have, the"pop"fans and the profit-making suppliers should not pay 5 or 10 old shillings, or whatever these new pence are, on top of their ticket for this service? Why should we, the taxpayers and the ratepayers, pay for their pleasure and profit?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Government are keeping close watch over these festivals to see whether general legislation is needed. The imposition of a requirement on festival organisers to pay for the police presence inside and outside festival sites would be a new departure that would call for careful consideration.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what the general practice is with regard, for instance, to Ascot, Henley or Wimbledon? Is he able to tell us how many policemen are on traffic duty, and elsewhere, on such occasions, and who pays for them?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that goes a little wider than the Question on the Order Paper.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps I may be allowed to comment. The practice at football grounds is that, very often by agreement, the club makes a payment to the police authority for those police officers who are on duty inside the ground. This does not apply to police on duty outside the ground who are engaged on traffic control and duties of that sort. Nor, I understand, does it apply to extra police who may be brought in on a particular occasion, such as when it is thought there may be a demonstration of some sort. If the chief constable decides he must bring in extra police, their cost is not met by the club. This is information that I think may be of interest to the House, but I cannot give information on race meetings and other sporting events, without notice.

CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAUX
2.54 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: 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, having regard to the grant from public funds made to the National Council of Social Service towards the cost of the Citizens Advice Bureaux service, they are aware of the dispute between those two bodies which could have a damaging effect on the value of the service to the community of the Citizens Advice Bureaux.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY or STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, before answering this Question perhaps I should tell your Lordships that before joining the Government I was a member of the Executive of the National Council of Social Service and chairman of one of its associated groups. Her Majesty's Government are aware that there have been some differences between the National Council of Social Service and the Council of the Citizens Advice Bureaux, but have taken the view that the way in which the National Council of Social Service and the Citizens Advice Bureaux Council arrange their internal affairs is a matter entirely for them. I cannot say whether the dispute will have any damaging effect on the value of the Citizens Advice Bureaux. It would certainly be wrong to assume that it will.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether he really feels that, when a voluntary organisation is receiving something like £200,000 per annum by way of Exchequer grants, how that money is spent is not a matter for the Government to interest themselves in, to see that that money is spent in the best possible way? Does he not feel that if there is internal friction which might affect one of their most valuable services to the community it should be the Government's concern?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The service provided by the Citizens Advice Bureaux is,
350
of course, of very great and direct concern when it comes to allocating grant, but it is not the service which is at stake at the moment. There have been some changes in personality and disagreements about structure.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is not aware that the value of the contribution of the citizens advice service to this country, which is well-known, could easily be threatened because within the Citizens Advice Bureaux at the present moment there is a good deal of unhappiness at the arbitrary way in which the National Council of Social Service has sacked the Secretary, and that could well affect the service?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is just possible that the service might be affected, but organisations surmount these difficulties and there is no reason at the moment to suppose that this difficulty will not be overcome.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, in view of the Minister's experience and the work that he himself has done in this field, as some of us know, will he do his utmost to see that in these organisations, if possible, differences of personality are eradicated? Many of us are grateful for the work of the Citizens Advice Bureaux and the National Council of Social Service. It has given comfort, succour and help in moments of need to hundreds of thousands of people in this country. It is essential that we eradicate differences, and I hope the Minister will try to help.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to receive from the noble Lord his tribute to the work and the service to the community rendered by the Citizens Advice Bureaux. I remain confident that these difficulties are being overcome.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on the Common Market at a convenient moment after half-past three. This will be followed by a Statement on housing finance in Scotland by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, and then one by my noble friend Lord Sandford on infrastructure works.
HUMBER BRIDGE BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
KESTEVEN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HOUSING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

POOL COMPETITIONS BILL
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Windleshani.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
2.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 138 [Application to Industrial Court with a view to discontinuing or deferring industrial action]:
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 99, line 37, after (" may ") insert (" in pursuance of a resolution of each House of Parliament ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the commencement of our proceedings in Committee on the emergency procedures of the Bill, I said that I agreed that it is desirable as far as possible to prevent any sort of industrial action that, in the words of Clause 138, is likely,
352
" (a) to be gravely injurious to the national economy, to imperil national security or to create a serious risk of public disorder, or
(b) to endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons, or to expose a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury."
That being the area of agreement, the question arises as to whether these clauses will achieve that purpose and whether in their operation they will be fair to the worker involved in the industrial action contemplated or actually begun. We are of the opinion that this and subsequent clauses in this Part of the Bill will not achieve these purposes; and we have voted against the clause in Committee.
Our objection to this clause is not mainly that we have doubts about its practicability. We object strongly to so much power being put into the hands of the Secretary of State and then into the hands of the Industrial Court. This power is of the sort that, under the Emergency Powers Acts 1920 and 1964, resides in the Sovereign and is controlled by Parliament. The operative words of the Act of 1920, as slightly amended by the Act of 1964, are:
" If at any time it appears to His Majesty there have occurred, or are about to occur, events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by proclamation,…declare that a state of emergency exists.
No such proclamation shall be in force for more than one month, without prejudice to the issue of another proclamation at or before the end of that period."
The Act of 1920 and that of 1964, also make provision for the fact of such a proclamation being forthwith communicated to Parliament, and if Parliament is not sitting to recall it within five days. There is throughout the principal Act a proper and very meticulous regard for Parliamentary control. For example, in addition to providing for Parliament's recall where necessary, any regulations made by the Government had to be laid before Parliament as soon as may be and could not remain in force after the expiration of seven days unless a Resolution was passed by both Houses of Parliament. Incidentally, a proviso said that there could not be made under the

353
Act any regulations making it an offence for any persons to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade any other person to take part in a strike.
Contrast those powers, my Lords, which have been very rarely used, with those in the Bill. Under this Bill the Secretary of State may, without reference to anyone else or even having to communicate the fact to Parliament, apply to the Industrial Court for an order. The Industrial Court, a free and independent Court, not answerable to anyone, and certainly not to Parliament, may issue an order prohibiting a person or persons from"calling, organising, procuring or financing"a strike or threatening to do so or from organising, procuring or financing"any irregular industrial action short of a strike"or from threatening to do so. Those are pretty considerable powers for a court to exercise, and althought it does not seem certain that the order may prohibit a person taking part in a strike, it will prohibit a person peacefully persuading another to take part in a strike.
This is well beyond the powers in the Emergency Powers Acts in relation to that part of it. The period of the order may be up to 60 days and the provisions of subsection (6), together with those of subsection (4), seem to me to amount to a prohibition to strike; for if one cannot be"called, organised, procured or financed ", it is absolutely tantamount to a prohibition—not upon the individual as a striker but upon any body of workers doing so in an organised fashion. All this—and it is an important"all this "—without the court being in any way answerable to Parliament, and also without the Secretary of State being answerable to Parliament excepting in so far as every Minister is answerable to Parliament through the ordinary procedures and processes of Parliamentary Question and Parliamentary debate. In the event of his making an application to the Court for an order at the beginning of the Long Recess, it may be that some 80 days will have passed before Parliament has the opportunity to express its opinion in any way. That is 20 days longer than the Court is empowered to permit its order to run. We say that this is just not good enough; that it is by-passing Parliament in a wholly unjustifiable manner in a matter which, according to the Bill, is
354
one which might imperil national security or create a risk of public disorder.
The sense of the Amendment is clear. The Secretary of State should be empowered to act under this clause only if he has obtained the assent of Parliament. I make no pretence that the Amendment is word perfect. Nor does it make provision for the recall of Parliament as, clearly on a consequential Amendment, it ought to do. But it seeks to give to Parliament its rightful place in a matter adjudged to be vital to the life of the nation. If the situation is as grave as the Secretary of State will have to represent it to be when applying to the Court for an order, the fact ought to be hammered home by a decision of Parliament and by its recall if it happens to be in Recess at the time.
I must say that I was shocked when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, say in Committee:
" On the point of responsibility to Parliament, the Secretary of State is always responsible to Parliament for his conduct of industrial relations. In the normal way he does not have to go to Parliament to be authorised to take the steps that he takes in the course of industrial relations. He reports what he is doing; he does not need any kind of formal authorisation. It is only in regard to the Emergency Powers Act that confirmation is required. So that in this case he will be in exactly the same position as in any other case in relation to the conduct of industrial relations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/7/71; col. 219.]
That may be so, so far as the normal duties of the Secretary of State in relation to industrial disputes are concerned; but the procedure under these emergency clauses is not a case of the sort of thing that the Secretary of State is normally expected to do when dealing with industrial disputes. In the normal way, in the case of a serious industrial dispute, if his conciliation fails he sets up a court of inquiry and appeals to the unions involved to call off the strike pending the report of the court of inquiry. This has happened in many cases recently. We know what happens. He then reports that fact to Parliament.
Under these clauses the Secretary of State is embarking upon a procedure which may well result in a formal order by a body answerable to no one, involving what is virtually a prohibition of a strike for 60 days, an order which will place

355
a large number of citizens at risk of considerable penalties if they step slightly out of line, which might well involve a trade union or organisation of workers in considerable financial penalties for contempt of court if mandatory restraint orders are disobeyed.
One of the leading lights of the Conservative Party has said of the Conservative Party approach to change that they admit that the times involve us in one radical change after another, but they consider it proved by experience that such change can be safely effected only within the framework of a constitution sanctified by traditional authority and institutions. That must be the effect in a manner conformable to proper methods of procedure, and it can best be effected by a group of men known to be devoted to the traditions of their country in an atmosphere where people are confident of the ability of the constitutional procedure to achieve reform and the willingness of all classes to accept it when fairly enacted.
I can imagine that most noble Lords opposite would completely accept that as a statement by someone whom I regard as an authority on the Conservative approach to change. I myself accept that as a precept for change in a society that accepts the rules and restraints of parliamentary democracy. What I would say of the proposals in this clause and some of the subsequent clauses is that they do not conform to traditional methods of procedure. A traditional and accepted procedure in an emergency situation is that parliamentary control, as in the case of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, is exercised by Parliament. Neither are these proposals such that all classes will accept them as fairly enacted, for most classes, or certain parts of classes, in this country object strongly to this Bill and would not regard these proposals as being fairly enacted by Parliament at this time under Conservative control.
The danger here is that the law will be brought into contempt by orders of the court being understandably disobeyed in the sort of circumstances in which Parliament is by-passed by the Secretary of State and by the Court. The law is brought into contempt, as it was in the case of the Kent miners during the war years, when it is flagrantly disobeyed and the outcome is a matter for laughter
356
rather than anything else. That is the last thing I wish to see. I do not like to see the law flagrantly disobeyed. If the law is disobeyed, sanctions ought to ensure that those who disobey it are punished; but we have seen so many cases recently when the law has been flagrantly disobeyed and nothing has happened, nothing has flowed from it. We saw it certainly in the case of the Kent miners, which brought about a situation which was laughable rather than anything else. That is not a good thing for this country; it is not a good thing for the law of a democratic society.
I would strongly advise the Government to accept my Amendment and to continue to deal with anything approaching emergencies in the way which is now traditional and generally accepted and within the province of close parliamentary control. What my Amendment does is clear. It would permit the Secretary of State to make his application to the Industrial Court, but only if he had obviously by resolution obtained the consent of both Houses of Parliament. Surely this is the sort of thing that ought to be done in the sort of emergency situation postulated in these clauses, and certainly in this clause which this Amendment is designed to change. I beg to move.
3.17 p.m.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I support the Amendment put forward so clearly by my noble friend Lord Champion. I think the implications of this clause are very important and raise issues which affect Parliament. When Clause 134 (now Clause 138) was discussed in Committee, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, no voices were raised in support of or against it from the Government Benches. This surprised me very much because many noble Lords opposite have had great experience in another place, which I have not, and their opinions would have been valued on this very important issue; but not a voice was raised.
There are three major points in the clause we are discussing. My noble friend Lord Champion, and noble Lords who spoke against this clause in Committee all agree that part of subsection (2)(a), which covers a strike, which would imperil the national security and could be a matter for emergency measures. It is

357
also agreed that there must be a limit to the exercise of the freedom to strike when this involves human lives and human health, which also is covered in subsection (2)(b). I am concerned about the total implications of this clause. Any strike, except the most trifling, could be considered"gravely injurious to the national economy"for it could have some effect on imports and exports, to raise one and lower the other. A railway strike could cause public disorder somewhere. A strike of sewerage men could certainly cause public disorder.
Is it not for Parliament, the elected Legislature, to decide whether a strike is causing or could cause grave injury to the national economy or is creating public disorder, and whether the importance of one or both becomes a matter for emergency measures? My noble friend Lord Champion has quoted what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn said on June 9. He said:
" the Secretary of State is always responsible to Parliament for his conduct of industrial relations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/6/71, col. 219.]
I agree with that in general, but while the matter is being considered by the Industrial Court presided over by a judge, the Secretary of State will be able to avoid answering questions in another place. It seems evident that it would not be proper for Parliament to criticise the Court during those considerations or even after the judgment has been offered. The clause, it seems to me, enables the Secretary of State to free himself of immediate responsibility to Parliament by referring the matter to the Industrial Court.
Although the Industrial Court, according to the Bill, will generally comprise what are called"other members ", the President, an appointed judge, will eventually be responsible for advising on the legal aspects in each case which comes before them. What follows, I suggest, will be a legal definition of the words in the Bill. The clause gives the Court the right to make orders enforceable through"penalties of contempt of Court ", which could finally lead to imprisonment. Its decisions could not be debated in Parliament. My noble friend Lord Champion pointed out that the Government already have powers under the
358
Emergency Powers Act 1964, and that those powers could be used.
On June 9, as reported at column 219 of Hansard, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said:
" The emergency Powers Act 1920 does not give power to order people to go back to work."
That, I understood, was one of his reasons or excuses for the present emergency clause that we are discussing; but this clause does not give the power to order people to go back to work. If that was the reason for using the Emergency Powers Act, because it does not order people to go back to work, why this provision? Given the enormous scope of the emergency provisions, it becomes all the more important that this Government, or any other Government—because the present Government will not always be in power—should be immediately answerable to Parliament for the measures they propose to take, or have taken. Do the Government really need this clause to deal with the emergency they speak of? I do not think so, and I am supported by the Donovan Commission who said in their Report that they did not think that the Government's present powers needed to be increased.
My noble friend Lord Champion said that this clause takes the immediate decision out of the control of Parliament and puts it in the control of the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said he thought the public had more respect—I am not sure about the word"respect "—had more faith, and would more readily accept a decision of the courts than of a Minister. If that is true, there is something wrong with our legislation and a Bill should be passed to make Ministers more responsible than judges for dealing with industrial and human relations matters.
I agree that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, but although Secretaries of State may have wisdom they are short of time. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also said that the Secretary of State has to ask himself two questions. How cosy for him! Not only does he ask the questions, but he has the preconceived answers. Questions cannot be asked of him in Parliament because under this clause a decision made by the Industrial Court cannot be debated in Parliament.

359
Considering the relationship between the Industrial Court and Parliament the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to the Taft-Hartley legislation on which this clause is modelled. But the clause goes much further than the American legislation; though that may not matter, because I think we should forget what is being done in America. The process of law is different in respect of a Presidential Decree and our Parliamentary system, and they are not capable of comparison. I think that we should also forget the Bill another Government proposed in another place. Under other clauses it is provided that the Secretary of State must consult or he said he would consult other persons and bodies before taking action. Nowhere in this clause does it say anything about consulting the T.U.C. or the C.B.I. In answering a point which I raised during the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that the emergency procedure was included because there was little time for consultation. I still think that the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., with the help of the Minister's conciliation officers, could do more to speed up negotiations than could be achieved by calling into action the emergency powers under this clause and leaving the matter to the Industrial Court to settle. I think that this clause is wrong for the country and is wrong for our Parliamentary procedure. It ignores the judgment of the Donovan Commission on this method of dealing with disputes, as the Commission came out against the ideas embodied in this clause. For all these reasons I support the Amendment.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I wish to support what has been said by my noble friends, Lord Champion and Lord Bernstein. In my opinion this is a very important Amendment. If it is not carried one can visualise that it will be difficult for any undertaking connected with the public services or the economy of the country to declare a strike at all. We have often been told that this Bill when it becomes law will not prevent certain strikes from taking place. If we look at subsection (2)(b) it will be apparent that wide scope is given to the Industrial Court. Surely it is understandable that Parliament should be able to debate
360
anything which takes place in the country and which is likely to interfere with our economy or the public services. The Amendment would empower and compel the Secretary of State to come to Parliament so that the matter could be discussed before he gave consent to any recommendation of the Industrial Court. There are two ways in which this might take place: by Affirmative or by Negative Resolution. It is not possible to move Amendments to regulations; they have to be taken as a whole. There may be official strikes and the Secretary of State would be able to prevent an industrial dispute from taking place. Surely that cuts across the terms of the Bill, which is designed to promote good industrial relations. It means that any strike which takes place within the terms of this Clause will be unofficial. It is far too important a matter for the Secretary of State or any member of the Government to be able to authorise regulations and to have the last word. Parliament is supposed to be the overriding authority, and I do not think it is asking too much, if we believe in the need for free trade unions, to require that any regulation should first be debated in Parliament.
3.25 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, may I at this stage put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, which I am sure he will be able to answer, in view of his long and distinguished career as a Member of the other place. We are discussing how far the control of Parliament is removed from the activities of the Secretary of State under this clause; whether it is too far removed, and whether the clause as at present conceived is generally in the public interest. Ordinarily, if a Secretary of State, or any other Minister, takes a step to which Parliament strongly objects, a Question can be put down to him. He may be questioned about it at Question Time in the other place. If his answers are unsatisfactory, a Censure Motion may be put down on him, or on the Government as a whole. In accordance with the procedure in the other place, a Censure Motion on the Government is always allowed precedence over almost any other business. So ordinarily the Secretary of State is very much under the control

361
of Parliament. That is part of our constitutional practice and it is a principle of the utmost importance.
Should I be right in thinking that the effect of the arrangements as set out in these clauses is this? The Secretary of State, let it be supposed, decides to make an application. He forms the view that the conditions specified in Clause 138(2)(a) or (b) are satisfied; for example, that strike action is bound to take place and that it would be gravely injurious to the national economy. Let it be assumed that Parliament as a whole thinks that is an utterly unreasonable view, a most mischievous view, which will conduce to great damage to the public interest. Under the Standing Orders in the other House would not the position be—this is the question I wish to ask—that once he makes his application to the Court, Parliament cannot raise the matter, because Mr. Speaker would be bound to Rule out of order any question or any answer, or other Motion, on the ground that the matter was sub judice? Is that not right? As soon as he approaches the Court, the whole issue is utterly and completely removed from the jurisdiction of Parliament and cannot be considered in any way so long as it is before the Court. The Court has power to prolong the order up to 60 days, so I suppose any debate could not take place for a considerable period of time, if the way in which I understand Mr. Speaker would be obliged to apply the Standing Orders of another place is correct.
At the outset of the debate, we should know exactly where we stand. Not only that, but the Secretary of State is given power in Schedule 3 (page 111) to apply to the Court to make interim orders, so long as he gives notice and satisfies the conditions in the terms of these clauses. That order can be prolonged for 60 days and the whole proceedings from beginning to end cannot form the subject of any question, any discussion or any reference in another place or, I suppose, in this House. I am more familiar with the Standing Orders of another place than with those of your Lordships' House, though I am trying to make myself as familiar with them as possible. This is a question which the noble Lord, partly from his own experience, which is extensive, and partly from the advice which he may receive, will be able to answer.
362
It is a matter of considerable weight in making up our minds in this matter. I should be grateful if he would answer that question.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps it might be convenient if the House were now to allow my noble friend the Marquess of Lothian to make his Statement.

E.E.C. NEGOTIATIONS: BRUSSELS MEETING
3.32 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place. This is the Statement:
" With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the meeting with the European Community which I attended in Brussels on the 12th of July.
" We discussed three issues: harmonisation of capital movements, transitional arrangements in the field of the Common Commercial Policy, and fisheries.
" Our object in negotiation on capital movements was to secure the agreement of the Community to an adequate transitional period which would allow us to make the necessary adjustments to our present exchange control restrictions progressively and in reasonably even stages.
" Our proposals were briefly outlined in paragraph 130 of the recent White Paper.
" I am glad to be able now to report that the Community have accepted our proposals in relation to capital movements in full.
" The main transactions affected, and the stages of the proposed changes, are as follows:
" First, from the date of our accession, restrictions on financial transactions necessary to facilitate the free movement of labour will be removed,

363
and there will also be a substantial relaxation in the rules affecting financing of direct investment, both ways.
" Secondly, remaining restrictions on the financing of direct investment will be removed not later than the end of the second year.
" Thirdly, restrictions on movements of personal capital, among which the most important are those affecting emigrants and those affecting house purchase, will be removed by the middle of the transitional period. The main impact of this change is likely to be a once-for-all cost to our reserves probably spread over about two years.
" Finally, arrangements will be made to cover dealings in quoted foreign currency securities by the end of the transitional period. If circumstances permit, any of these timings may be accelerated at Her Majesty's Government's discretion.
" The negotiation itself has of course been concerned only with this question of transition. Her Majesty's Government have throughout accepted the obligation ultimately as a Member State to conform with the Community's rules regarding capital movements. At the same time, it is worth recalling that the Treaty of Rome itself provides for all Member States important safeguards, particularly Articles 109 and 70(2).
" The directives explicitly leave members free to verify by appropriate exchange control measures the nature and reality of transactions or transfers, for example to ensure that a direct investment in the Community is in truth what it purports to be. This gives protection against the exploitation of freedom within the Community as a channel for movement of funds outside it.
" There is provision also for special action by Member States to take protective measures in the face of any actual or prospective damaging balance of payments situation.
" Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the phased transition which has been negotiated will spread the unavoidable impact on our reserves as evenly as possible and over a period which will delay the
364
main burden until it is likely to be increasingly offset by income return, and an expected growth of inward investment.
" We also reached agreement on a number of transitional measures in the field of the Common Commercial Policy, in particular in relation to anti-dumping and the gradual phasing out of certain import restrictions against state trading countries.
" Finally, fisheries. As I reported to the House on the 24th of June, we have explained fully to the Six the great difficulties that would arise for the United Kingdom, as indeed they would for the other applicants, from the extreme nature of access provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy and the need to modify them to take proper account of the circumstances of an enlarged Community.
" In an attempt to find a permanent solution which would be fair and reasonable for everyone, we proposed that waters within a six-mile limit, measured from the usual base lines, should be reserved for vessels genuinely belonging to the ports from which such waters are now being fished.
" We still consider that our proposal is in all the circumstances a reasonable basis for a common settlement that would be sensible and equitable for all the parties concerned.
" The House will recall that at the Ministerial meeting at Luxembourg between the 21st and the 23rd of June, it was not possible to reach a substantive solution to the problem. But there was an important advance in that the Community put formally on record its recognition that the access provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy would need reconsideration in the different circumstances of the enlarged Community. It was agreed that the matter should be taken up at the Ministerial meeting which has just taken place. Recognising that this is a matter of great political, social and economic concern to all the applicants and that a satisfactory settlement could be therefore worked out only on a multilateral basis, we proposed that the other applicant countries should also be invited to join in these discussions.

365
" In the event it did not prove possible to arrange this. In those circumstances we could not hope to find an effective and equitable way of reconciling the interests of all four applicant countries and the existing Community at the meeting on Monday.
" Against this background and given that there must be agreement regarding the Common Fisheries Policy in the Treaty or Treaties of Accession, I proposed to the Community that we should seek to reach an interim agreement. This would mean that if the negotiating conference was unable in the time available to reach a final agreement satisfactory to all, everyone's legitimate interests would be protected until we had done so.
" Under such an agreement the applicant countries would maintain the status quo pending further reconsideration of the regulations and the achievement of a detailed and definitive agreement after enlargement of the Community. None of the applicant countries would be called upon to give up anything at this stage nor be put at any disadvantage in discussing more permanent arrangements. In particular it would avoid the unacceptable situation in which any of the applicants would be expected to agree unconditionally to a permanent solution for themselves without knowing what the final outcome of the Common Fisheries Policy would involve for the enlarged Community as a whole.
" The Six have taken note of this proposal and have indicated that they now feel the need to study the matter in greater depth.
" We shall take up the question again after the Summer Recess. I am convinced that together we shall be able to find a way through this complex problem to a satisfactory solution.
" This is a matter in which it is more important to get the right answer than the quick one. In the meantime our interests are fully safeguarded."
3.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating this Statement. I think most of us would agree that to deal with an important subject like this by question and answer on the contents of a Statement
366
is very difficult, and particularly this afternoon, when we have two other Statements and a good deal of other business, it is not easy or perhaps right for us to pursue too much in depth the Statement before us. In the past when we have had Statements we could always rely upon having a White Paper at the end which would enable us to consider and review the situation clearly and calmly. Therefore I would ask the noble Marquess whether he would consider on behalf of the Government issuing, not necessarily in White Paper form, some form of Government document setting out the background and the conclusions reached, in order that it may be in the hands of noble Lords before we have our debate in about ten days' time. I hope the noble Marquess will meet us on this matter because it is a very important Statement.
I think it must be a matter of regret that a solution was not found for this vital subject of fisheries. It may be better that we should get a right answer in preference to a quick one, but I hope the noble Marquess will be aware of the deep anxieties within the fishing industry and within the community generally. Therefore one should seek to get a settlement as quickly as possible. I hope the noble Marquess will give the House an assurance that in the mind of Her Majesty's Government the settlement must be on the basis of parity between all the countries involved, and that the suggestions that have already been made by Her Majesty's Government about the six-mile limit will be the minimum acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
The important subject of the Commercial Policy and anti-dumping, I should have thought, was worthy of more than just some six lines in the Statement. I wonder whether the noble Marquess can say whether the existing regulations will continue during the transitional period and, if not, what protection there will be in the event of any dumping by other E.E.C. countries into our markets. As to the transfer of capital, this, clearly, is a most important subject and one that we shall need further time to consider, particularly having in mind the economic situation at present in this country and that, if there is too big a relaxation of the movement of capital, our regional areas might well suffer, especially as we

367
all know that no regional development policy has as yet been agreed upon by the E.E.C. The Statement refers to removing the restrictions on personal capital and suggests that the main impact will fall on our reserves over two years. Can the noble Lord give us any assessment of what effect this particular provision would have on our reserves? My Lords, I will leave my comments on the Statement to be developed more fully when we have our debate.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches likewise very much appreciate and are grateful for the Statement read out by the noble Marquess, which is keeping us posted on the latest phase of the negotiations. It is obvious, we think, that if we do join the European Economic Community we shall have to agree to some measures for harmonising capital movements and that this may naturally place some strain on our balance of payments, at any rate during an initial period. That being so, it seems to us, on a first hearing, that the Government have got the Six to agree to what, on the face of it, appear to be reasonable terms, though we shall naturally, in common with the Labour Opposition, like to have further time to study them before concluding that they are entirely satisfactory.
My Lords, I would just say a word on fisheries. It is not surprising that further time is necessary before we can negotiate a satisfactory settlement. In the meantime, however, could the noble Marquess perhaps answer two questions, one of which I think has been more or less formulated already by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd? In the first place, are we to assume that a settlement satisfactory to us must be reached before we sign the Treaty of Rome, or may we take it that it will be possible to sign the Treaty first and then to negotiate a settlement within the Community, with the aid, naturally, of the Brussels Commission? The second question is, can the noble Marquess say whether the Government believe that we ought not, in any case, to be placed in a less favourable position than Norway, or at any rate in no less favourable position as regards the Shetlands than Norway, always assuming, of course, that Norway becomes a member eventually of the European Economic Community.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I answer the two noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his welcome to the Statement and I will certainly undertake to consider his suggestion that some Government documents of some sort might be issued, although he will realise that I cannot promise that to him to-day. I also entirely agree with him that on the whole we have got to the stage now when these matters are probably best left until our debate in ten days' time. I would assure him that so far as the fisheries question is concerned it is hoped that this matter will be dealt with at the next ministerial meeting, which is towards the end of September—I think on September 21—and certainly it is our aim that parity should be the guiding principle in any agreement that comes out of it. I hope that that to some extent answers the noble Lords.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord used the word"aim "; that may be"intention ". What I ask the noble Marquess is, will this be the standing point of Her Majesty's Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think I can say that it will be. What I cannot tell the noble Lord at the moment is what the reaction of the Six to our proposal is going to be. So far as capital movements are concerned, I am afraid I cannot to-day give him any estimate of the figures for the first two years. All I can say is that it is firmly our conviction that any losses in this period, and indeed over the following few years, will be more than offset by the economic advantages, as the Statement I think has made clear. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised a question about dumping. I would assure him, on the anti-dumping point that was raised, that it was agreed that during the transitional period we should be able to take anti-dumping action against third countries, under our own anti-dumping legislation. I think that I have answered Lord Gladwyn's question about fisheries. We very much hope that we shall get a settlement before we come to the signing of the Treaty. That is the firm purpose of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, the noble Marquess has not really answered my question. Supposing that we cannot

369
get agreement, is it conceivable that we could then negotiate within the Community?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords; it is conceivable. But we hope to get agreement.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not obvious that the euphoria which followed the return of the Chancellor of the Duchy recently and the decision taken by Her Majesty's Government was hardly justified in view of what the noble Marquess has said this afternoon? Therefore I venture to ask three questions. First, having noted that the noble Marquess stated in connection with the balance of payments, et cetera that there would be"a once-for-all cost to the reserves ", may I ask whether he can kindly state what is the estimated cost to our reserves? Or do Her Majesty's Government regard that as a matter of minor importance? Secondly, the noble Marquess spoke about the pending commercial agreements—because apparently there is nothing definitive about the commercial agreements—being offset by increased incomes. Would he be good enough to give us an estimate of the increased incomes? Or is this merely a vague, nebulous statement without any justification? Finally, is it not obvious by now that this fishing impasse is almost insoluble? Would it not be proper, in the circumstances, before any measures are taken, to consult with the countries concerned, and in particular with Norway, who for centuries has been an ally and friend of this country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord's third point, on the need to keep in step with Norway on these matters, and naturally we are consulting them fully about this. Regarding his first two questions, I do not feel that I can this afternoon answer questions which are really in the province of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I have no doubt that the noble Lord will return to this matter during the debate, and I am sure he will not receive the satisfaction that he would like, because I sometimes have the feeling that the noble Lord will not be satisfied on any matter.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I must protest, and I think I am justified in protesting. My opinions are my own, just as those of the noble Marquess are his own. And I am justified in holding opinions, unless somebody in your Lordships' House wants to prevent me from holding opinions—and they had better not try! I want to ask the noble Marquess: is it fair to your Lordships' House that a Statement should be made of the kind that the noble Marquess has made this afternoon, and, when he is asked questions, he passes the buck to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does it not mean that the noble Marquess does not understand the position at all?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies, I hope he will accept that in this House Ministers speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I know it is a difficult task, but that is the situation. I asked the noble Marquess a specific question. I can understand the difficulty of the noble Marquess on the wide range of questions put by my noble friend Lord Shinwell; but here in the Statement we have a special reference to one item against the balance of payments, and a clear statement that the full effect of this will be felt during the first two years. If that is in the Statement, there must be some figures available. If the noble Marquess has not got them, let him be honest and say so, but not, frankly, to dodge the issue.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the last thing I want to do is to dodge the issue, or to question the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, on these matters. I realise that he feels strongly and genuinely about them, as indeed do a great many other noble Lords. Regarding the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I have not got the information with me this afternoon, but I will undertake to procure it. I feel certain that these and a great many other matters will be developed during the course of the debate.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the light of that reply, surely it is clear that we should have a full document available to Members of your Lordships' House in order that we can consider it before we have our debate?
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that any attempt at precision in regard to the matter under discussion would be received with complete incredulity by many of us who realise that precision in these matters is absolutely out of the question?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Marquess come back to the question of fisheries? He used the word"hope"when he said that we hope to get an agreement before signing the Treaty of Rome. Are we to understand from that that a situation might arise in which the Government would invite Parliament to support the signature to the Treaty of Rome in advance of a fisheries agreement?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think I can give the noble Earl a categorical answer to that question. My right honourable friend is striving very hard to get a fisheries agreement, he hopes at the next ministerial meeting. I cannot tell at this stage whether he will be successful or not. Therefore I think the second part of the noble Earl's question must await the result of this next meeting.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Marquess for the Statement, but is he aware that we are not asking for precision, nor are we asking for nebulous statements which no human being can understand in a brief Statement like this one. This House is not even in a position to ask constructive questions about this nebulous Statement. Consequently, will the noble Marquess please see, as my noble friend on the Front Bench requested, that a statement is in the hands of all noble Lords at least 12 hours before the debate? Why all the secrecy about a decision which is the most important in a thousand years of British history? This is a foolish way to discuss such a vital matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I would accept the last part of the noble Lord's remarks. I think that we have reached the stage now where we must discuss this question in the debate in 10 days' time.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that, if it
372
is a question of harmonising capital movement, this may result not only in an outflow of capital, but also in an inflow of capital? It is impossible to say how much; but surely that is possible?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is true, certainly.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, can the noble Marquess say whether or not the agreement on the movement of capital will in any way affect our movement of capital within the Commonwealth?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think so. I cannot give a categorical answer to that question, because the negotiations on Monday were, and the Statement is, entirely concerned with capital movements within the Community.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Marquess clear up one small point about which I am in some doubt; namely, does this relaxation of capital movement mean that if a British millionaire wants to go and live in France or Italy he can take all his capital with him?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is what it will ultimately mean; and it will also ultimately mean that if a French millionaire wants to come and live here, he will be able to bring all his francs with him.

SCOTTISH HOUSING FINANCE
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I should like with the permission of the House, to repeat a Statement that is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place on the reform of housing in Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
" Since our plans were outlined in the House on November 3, I have been discussing them in detail with the Scottish local authority associations. The White Paper which I am to-day presenting to the House sets out the Government's proposals, framed in the light of these discussions. Copies of the

373
White Paper are available in the Vote Office from 4 p.m. "—
and in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House.
" We intend to introduce a national scheme providing rent rebates for all tenants of unfurnished houses who need help to pay a reasonable rent, whether their landlords are public authorities or private individuals. Under this scheme, for example, a married man with three children earning £20 a week who pays a rent of £1·42 a week, which is the average council house rent in Scotland, will have it reduced to 75p a week.
Most of the cost of these rebates will be met by the Government. In addition, we are proposing to replace the existing subsidies for house building by three new subsidies, designed to give special help to those authorities which still need to build substantial numbers of houses and to those which still have slums to clear. The new slum clearance subsidy will meet 75 per cent. of the cost of slum clearance operations, and it will be payable on expenditure incurred in the present financial year.
" We intend to introduce a more rational and uniform system for fixing rents in the public sector. The White Paper proposes that each local authority should be required to increase rents until its income from them, taken together with the new subsidies, meets its total housing expenditure. These rent increases, however, will be limited to an average of 50p a week for any one year, and no individual tenant will have his rent increased for any year by more than 75p a week.
" In the private sector we propose to speed up the conversion of the remaining controlled tenancies to rent regulation. Here again rent rebates will prevent hardship, and the fair rent will be reached by three equal annual increases.
" The changes we now propose will redirect Government help to the tenants and to the areas which most need it, and they will ease the heavy burden of housing expenditure which Scottish ratepayers now bear. They will provide
374
the right framework in which to pursue successfully the policies needed to meet the housing problems of Scotland, now and in the future.
" We intend to introduce a Bill early in the next Session to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I start by thanking the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, for repeating this Statement. In the absence of the White Paper, I have difficulty in commenting on it in detail and the noble Baroness will not expect that, because my remarks to-day are few, they will necessarily continue to be that way once I have seen the White Paper. But I should like to comment on some of the points in the Statement as they arose.
The noble Baroness referred to the man with an income of £20 a week presently paying a rent of £1·42, which is the average in Scotland, and said that this would be reduced to 75p. This, of course, assumes that the man at present is not in receipt of a rent rebate. The noble Baroness will be aware that there will be many people in Scotland at that income level who may well he paying a rent of less than 75p per week because of the existence of the local authority's rebate system, and she will doubtless be aware of the fact that the last Government laid considerable stress on the value of introducing rebate schemes in Scotland to accompany rent increases.
In relation to the fifth paragraph of the Statement, where it says:
" We intend to introduce a more rational and uniform system for fixing rents in the public sector "
may I ask if this is to be by the same method as was referred to in the English Statement yesterday, of importing the fair rents structure? As the Statement goes on, it would seem not to be that, because it seems to indicate that rents are to rise in Scotland until there is no deficit on the housing account. May I therefore ask the noble Baroness to what figure the £1·42 present average will rise when a situation has been reached in which there is no deficit on the housing revenue account after taking into consideration the subsidies? May I also ask

375
the noble Baroness who will undertake the work of rent allowances in the private sector in Scotland? Finally, how many additional employees, either at Government or at local authority level, is it expected that this scheme will require?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. I think the first part was a comment, but I should like specifically to reply to his questions. He is, of course, quite right in saying that in Scotland, in the local authority sector, we are basing these rent rebates on the historic pooled costs, and it is not equivalent to the fair rent system in England. In the private sector we are seeking to introduce into regulated tenancies the remaining controlled tenancies in Scotland, which amount altogether to between 100,000 and 150,000. On the question of who will fix the rent in the private sector, it will be done either by agreement or by the rent officer; and in the public sector it will be fixed, as it is now, by the local authority. Wirth regard to the last question, I cannot at the moment say how many additional staff will be required.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I take the noble Baroness back to the first question? Can she tell me what the average rent is expected to be when the housing account is put in balance?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sorry: I did note it but I could not read my own writing. At present, the average standard rent is £1·42, as I have said. It is very difficult to say exactly what it will be in the future because circumstances differ so much from authority to authority. But, to give an example, if local authorities had balanced their accounts in 1969/1970 the average standard rent would have been about £3·10 a week.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it would be a mistake to pursue this discussion any further until we have the White Paper, but I should like to congratulate the Government on the principles on which it is based. May I ask one question? Will these new financial
376
arrangements apply equally to those houses which have already been built and to future houses which are going to be built, having regard, of course, to any real differences in value in the same way?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Baroness answers, may I say that it is the tradition that the Liberal Benches get a chance to come in before anyone else?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sorry, but I felt that I was not in a position to control the proceedings. No doubt that will be noted. I thank my noble friend for his contribution, and would say that the new arrangements will apply both to existing houses and to new houses.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, I had hoped for a moment that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was going to make a liberal speech for me on this occasion. Our reactions to the noble Baroness's Statement can only be first reactions, and from these Benches they are naturally governed by the unemployment and low-wage situation existing in Scotland at this time. In view of this we shall have to look very carefully at the rent increases as well as the rent rebates outlined by the noble Baroness before we can ask our questions. But the Liberal Party objects as a matter of principle to any additional national means test which this Statement implies may have to come about. We believe that there must be a fairer and more effective method of housing assistance to be considered first.
On housing matters, we like to make a distinction between the house and the household. I mean by that that subsidies given by past Governments for bricks and mortar have not been satisfactory, and in one sense we are not sorry to see them go because they are inefficient. In so far as the household is concerned, in our opinion it would be fairer and more efficient to subsidise by means of fiscal assistance without a means test. The most obvious method would he by tax rebates, using the income tax machinery which is already in existence; and in cases where families pay no income tax—which regrettably

377
is not an uncommon fact in Scotland—we should like the noble Baroness to perhaps consider housing grants. This method has the advantage of tailoring the housing assistance available to the needs of the individual families. We have no further questions until there has been a chance to look at the Statement more fully.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I quite appreciate that it is difficult for any noble Lord to comment on a White Paper which we have tried to make brief, but which will need considerable study. But I would say to the noble Lord that of course we have felt that it is very important to try to redirect subsidies, first of all to the areas where there is greatest need and, secondly, in rent allowances or rent rebates to the people who are in the greatest need. It is these two principles which lie behind the White Paper.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, this is a very complicated Statement. May I ask the noble Baroness to clarify one or two points for me? First, will the landlord get more rent from the tenants in the private sector? Secondly, will the tenants in many cases pay part of this amount? Thirdly, will the taxpayer also pay part? Fourthly, does this not amount to a Government subsidy to private landlords?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first question, the landlord will of course receive more rent but some of these rents—I understand the noble Lord is referring only to the private sector—are very low indeed, the tenancies being controlled. In fact the average is 30p per week, I believe, and landlords have not been able to make the repairs that they would like to make. So in that way this will help them. The second question was as to whether the tenant would pay part. The tenant will pay the rent unless his income is such that he is eligible for a rent rebate. To the third question, as to whether the taxpayer will pay part, the answer is: yes, my
378
Lords, because in these subsidies the Government are paying, for example, 90 per cent. in the first year, 85 per cent. in the second year, 80 per cent. in the third year and thereafter 75 per cent. I think that answers the last question, because the Government are collecting the money on behalf of the taxpayer.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer with more precision? I hesitate to use that word after the last exchange, but my fourth question was, does this not represent a Government subsidy to private landlords?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sorry: the noble Lord asked four questions and I had a little difficulty in following one. It is a subsidy primarily to the tenants because the result of this will be that if the landlord receives a higher rent, fixed by the rent officer, he will be able to carry out repairs and improve these houses on behalf of the tenant.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one question, to avoid any misunderstanding? During the course of her Statement she intimated that the Bill will be introduced early next Session. Are we to understand that this will be a purely Scottish Bill and not joint legislation covering the whole country?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords; I can give that assurance. It will be a Scottish Bill.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, we were discussing the emergency legislation and the provision for the Secretary of State, if need be, to seek an order through the Industrial Court—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I must apologise but I think the position is that clearance had not been received for the third Statement when the noble Lord began to speak. It has now been received, and if it is agreeable to the noble Lord my noble friend Lord Sandford would like to repeat it.

INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS IN DEVELOPMENT AREAS
4.16 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, but I think it would be more convenient, as I now have got clearance, if, with the permission of the House, I were now to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on infrastructure works. The Statement is as follows:
" The Government have decided to authorise increased capital expenditure on infrastructure works in the development and intermediate areas. This will give still further practical support for the improvement of the economic and social infrastructure of these areas and will help to alleviate unemployment, particularly in the construction industry.
" The winter works programmes of the previous Administration did not give local authorities and others involved the time and the scope needed to plan and execute works of lasting benefit. The work under these programmes had to be completed in the winter months—in the least favourable weather conditions for the construction industry as a whole.
" The provision we are making now will, therefore, allow the inclusion of more substantial schemes than was possible in the winter works programmes. The infrastructure works now to be undertaken will be those which can be substantially completed during this and the next financial year—that is, by the end of March, 1973.
" The Departments concerned will now discuss the implementation of the increase in expenditure with the local authorities and others concerned as a matter of urgency.
" We estimate that in England, Scotland and Wales the spending authorities should be able to incur total extra expenditure of about £100 million over 1971–72 and 1972–73. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced yesterday the main arrangement for Scotland and
380
my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Wales is making a similar announcement.
" This £100 million will cover a wide range of projects such as trunk and principal roads, improvement and extention of educational buildings, minor capital works for hospitals and other health and personal social services. There will be provision also for infrastructure works selected by the local authorities within the field of locally determined capital expenditure. It certainly should be possible for a good deal of work to be done during the remainder of this financial year, with larger amounts to follow in 1972–73.
" This expenditure is wholly additional to the estimated £46 million that will be incurred over the next two years under the measures already announced for higher grants for the improvement of older houses in development and intermediate areas.
" These additional sums, totalling an estimated £146 million, should be seen within the framework of the Government's determination to help in bringing about a large improvement of the economic and social infrastructure of the development and intermediate areas. But they will also make their contribution to employment in these areas in the period immediately ahead ".
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, as always we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement to us. While welcoming any help at all for the development and intermediate areas, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that what I regard as a rather timid hotchpotch of panic measures is no substitute for businesslike management of the economy? It will give little comfort to people who are adversely affected by the Government's economic policy, and it will not reassure those of us who apprehend that unemployment may well top the million mark before many months have passed.
Does the noble Lord therefore appreciate that in our view much more radical steps are needed? On the details that the noble Lord has announced, can he tell

381
your Lordships how much of this expenditure is really additional and not just brought forward in a way which will mean that subsequent allocations will be depleted? Can he tell us what proportion of this sum of money will actually be met by the local authorities and not by Her Majesty's Government? Can he further tell us what consultation his Department has had with the local authority associations? Or is this another case where there has been lack of consultation? Finally, having said that, may I express the hope that this, nevertheless, has been a triumph of the moderates in the Government over the doctrinaire"hard-liners ".
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the House will naturally welcome at this time any measure of reflation which the Government can bring forward, but is this the sum total of the measures which are going to be taken? If so, it is totally inadequate. In the hope that it is not the sum total, may I ask what other measures are being studied now, and when the Government will be in a position to make a statement on them?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am interested that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, should describe as a"timid hotch potch"and noble Lord, Lord Byers, as"totally inadequate"a programme which is three times larger than the three programmes of the previous Administration put together, covers a greater geographical area, and is more comprehensive in range and longer in duration. Having dealt with that main point, I confirm that these programmes are additional and not transfers. It is not possible to be precise about the proportion of the expenditure that will he borne by the local authorities, because, as the noble Lord knows, expenditure on trunk roads, for instance, is borne entirely by central Government, but for principal roads 75 per cent. of the cost is met by central Government and 25 per cent. by local authorities. The same applies across the board in varying degrees. It is not possible to be precise because we are now, following this Statement to Parliament, embarking on detailed discussions with the local authorities as to the particular form in which this additional authorisation of expenditure should be taken up.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has not misunderstood
382
the criticisms which have been made from these Benches? The comparison is not how many times greater this expenditure is on winter works programmes, but whether this is the main measure of reflation of the economy. If it is, then it is totally inadequate. If it is merely a winter works programme, it is better than we have had in the past.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, further to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, when the Minister talks about expenditure being so many times higher, will he remember that unemployment is up by a quarter of a million since the last Government went out of office?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would my noble friend say whether we are right in understanding that these public works, irrespective of the benefit resulting from them, are to be located only in development areas, or growth areas; and, secondly, whether, as they must be completed within a year, this excludes the possibility of estuarial land reclamation in areas such as the Tees, Severn-Side and South Wales, where it may help the unemployment situation as well as providing useful infrastructure for the future.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, the noble Earl raised the point of where this money is to be spent, and how it is to be spent. Perhaps it is not a hotch-potch, although I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, is right—it is certainly a panic measure. We know that newspaper stories have been coming out for the past four weeks on this proposal; the Economist had an article about a month ago criticising the Government's proposals. It cannot be businesslike to have a sudden decision of this kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, also asked whether local authorities had been consulted. The answer was rather vague. Have the contractors, whose equipment will be required, been consulted? Can we know how much money is to be spent from September this year to March of next year? Can we have any idea of how many of the unemployed will be employed on these operations? It seems to me that unless we get that information it is a very unbusinesslike project, and I wonder whether this is the result of the famous"Think Tank "

383
which we hear is operating in the back rooms of No. 10 Downing Street.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am answering questions on infrastructure works in the development and intermediate areas. Although I am speaking for the Government as a whole, I am not answering on matters of financial policy, or economics, covering the entire country. I do not think I can add anything more to the Statement in the way of precision, because, as I explained, consultations will now be started with the individual local authorities as to which particular parts of the work are to be undertaken, and until those consultations have proceeded much further, it is not possible to be more precise.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is estuarial land reclamation excluded or included?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is certainly not excluded. But I think the kind of work that my noble friend has in mind is too large in scale, and requires too much preliminary planning, to be embraced to any large extent within this programme.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, further to the noble Earl's previous question, will the Government consider extending the boundaries of some of the intermediate areas to include places like Newton Abbot, which I understand is outside the intermediate area but which, nevertheless, has a very high level of unemployment at the present time?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to take note of that point.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should be a curmudgeon not to thank the noble Lord for his Statement. Nevertheless, in future may I ask the noble Lord not to grasp any figure that comes into his head, or is stuck on his paper by a"Think Tank "? He said that the expenditure is three times greater. Only the other day I drew a chart of a part of our expenditure in some of the areas which reached £1,016 million. Three times more than what? Winter help? We had no need of winter help because we had full em-employment.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would it be in order to press the Government to incorporate in these measures arrangements to include the infrastructure of approach roads to our ports with a view to decreasing the congestion which is now a great embarrassment to our exporters?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is certainly the kind of scheme that can be considered.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's indication in a recent Statement of the importance of by-passing centres of population and historic towns, in his discussions with local authorities will he bear in mind that this is a very important and an accepted matter in the whole pattern of our road system for the future?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, certainly, my Lords. But we must try to distinguish between this Statement, which is concerned with certain relatively minor works to be put in hand and accelerated in the development and intermediate areas within the next eighteen months, and the announcement relating to the next phase of the trunk road programme which was concerned with the whole country and spread over ten years.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, where local authorities are being asked to undertake this additional public work, would the noble Lord say whether the cost involved will be borne by the local ratepayers, or whether there will be an additional sum granted from the central Government to the local authorities in order to meet the cost involved?
LORD SANDFORD: The additional cost, in terms of loan charges, will be taken into account at the next biennial review of the rate support grant. There will be loan charges which have to be faced and taken into consideration. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the scheme runs to March, 1973, and the full cost of the capital programme does not have to be met until then; and so he will see that this burden is not all that large, although I agree with the noble Lord that it has to be reckoned with.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I dislike pressing the noble Earl but he has not answered the questions of my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale,

385
or even the questions I put to him. If his decision is not to answer to-day but to write his reply, I will accept that. Otherwise, I hope there will be an answer at some time to the questions which have been put to him, which no doubt he will be able to read to-morrow in Hansard.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, could the noble Lord say which part of his question I have not answered, and I would be happy to try to do so?
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I will see whether I can read my own writing. One of the questions put was: What would be the expenditure from September until March? What effect will the expenditure have on the unemployment figures? What consultations have there been with the firms who will carry out the work? What consultation has taken place with local authorities? What additional expenditure would there be this winter over that of last winter? I think that those were the questions put co the noble Lord.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am neither a prophet nor an Earl—only a Baron—and with limited powers of clairvoyance. I think I answered the question by explaining that, because we are only just embarking on consultations about the detailed form these programmes will take, it is not possible to answer that kind of question at this stage.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it would have been better to have had some consultation with the local authority associations before this Statement, instead of going into consultation afterwards with a preconceived programme? The local authority associations might have brought forward much better ideas for spending this money than are put forward now.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the details of the programme are not preconceived. We are embarking on consultation with local authorities with an open mind about which items should go to make up the programme.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I always like to be helpful. Does he not think it would be a good idea to bring forward the date for starting the construction of the Foulness
386
airport? Because that would give an enormous amount of employment to the very large number of people who are out of work in that area.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that may be, but I think the date to bring forward now is that for reconsideration of the Industrial Relations Bill.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
4.33 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, after all this time, all I wanted to put was a fairly simple question. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill spoke about the emergency situation, and deplored the authority in the Bill for the Secretary of State to seek an order from the Industrial Court. The questions that were put related to whether, in the event of the Court's giving an order, it would be ultra vires for either House of Parliament to discuss the merit of the situation.
There is another side of this issue which worries me, and about which I should like to put a question, which is this. If an order is given against a trade union to desist from strike action, on the ground of emergency or the question of good health, and the union quite properly feels that the order is unreasonable and disobeys it, as I understand it the only court which could adjudicate on that question, if sanctions were applied against the union, would be the Industrial Court. The point I am raising is the unfairness of the Industrial Court in first of all making a decision and subsequently sitting in judgment against a union which disregards that decision.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is not going to answer that little point directly, I am now going to have mercy on the House, because of the long Statements we have had, and cut my speech down to about a quarter of what it otherwise would have been. I consider this Part of the Bill, with its eight vital clauses which we shall be dealing with, to represent the hinge of British democracy. Here the democratic rights of unions are being tampered with—and I say this quietly, understandingly,

387
and without emotion. I beg noble Lords opposite to study this clause carefully before they push it through, and to consider the situation which would result from its implementation. Having listened to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, who spoke so eloquently, quietly, constructively and cogently, I consider he put forward an unanswerable argument why my noble friend's Amendment should be accepted. We are putting too much power into the hands of individuals.
What have we done in this Bill? What are we doing in Part 8? First, we are putting crippling restrictions on official strikes. Secondly, we are effectively prohibiting sympathetic strikes, and the Minister can invoke Clause 138 without appealing to Parliament if he wishes to take action. Thirdly, we have an effective prohibition on unofficial strikes. Fourthly, we can make illegal all strikes in nationalised industries because we can say that the services concerned are absolutely vital to the safety and security of the nation. Fifthly, we can make illegal all unofficial strikes by action taken under Part 8 and this clause. We can clip the power of shop stewards; we have done it already, and we have clipped the power of local union officials. This is after the whole system has been worked out over a century of trial and error in a particularly British manner.
When I hear noble Lords citing examples from the United States of America it upsets me, because I have been in America when bitter strikes have taken place in Detroit and elsewhere. To ape the industrial systems of the United States of America is a retrogressive step for a nation which gave birth to the British trade union movement. I remember making a speech on Second Reading urging this House not to be panicked into action which it might be sorry about years later. There may be another Government of a different political persuasion. There may be a Government which is more abrasive than the present Government—though that would be difficult—and if it were to make use of these powers I think of the chaos which could he created. I recall what I saw in South Wales in the 1921 strikes and the 1926 strikes when, despite the bitterness, hunger and misery, there were a sense of humour and a sense of understanding
388
between the police and the strikers. We are going to lose all that by trying to put on paper things which can never be satisfactorily put on paper or in a Bill. We are setting up a system of society controlled by civil servants and trade union ballots. Nobody can contradict that statement because that is the general effect of this Bill.
My eighth point is that we are interfering with rules which the unions have built up to discipline people. Civil servants, lawyers, doctors, the B.M.A., have their own internal"club"rules. Why should not the trade union movement have its own internal"club"rules? It has not been venomous, and it has not been built up for victimisation. Again, we are interfering, or trying to interfere, with the closed shop union, and God knows what we have now invented—it is a maverick system of trade unionism—to try to get an answer to the closed shop question. My tenth point is that lawyers, not unions, are now to be called in to control so-called restrictive practices and to solve demarcation problems. The situation will be a bonanza for young lawyers who have just qualified. They will not have a clue what they are talking about as regards industry—I have met them. Later on they may come to this House as noble Lords and as judges; but Heaven forbid that at the beginning of their careers these young men looking for briefs should step in to the virile, bristling, industrial entity that we call the trade union movement in times of strike or in times of differences.
I ask the Minister to listen carefully to the two cogent speeches which have been made by my noble friend on the Front Bench and by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, who put forward his point unemotionally and appealingly. My eleventh point is this—and I have reduced my speech to four minutes. Under this Bill, employers can invent splinter and company unions. Spencerism par excellence can now come into the British system of trade unionism, and those of us who lived through Spencerism and know what it meant, know what a tragedy it was and how it upset industry and the management side. Practical assistance from employers is to be fostered at the expense of democratic unions, and noble Lords on both sides of this House, and

389
directors and others outside are not asking for this venomous, this Draconic legislation—the noble Lord opposite is correcting me—that is being put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, stands there like Horatius on the bridge. He is working very hard, and sometimes, being Etruscan, I can hardly fail to cheer him. Sometimes he needs a few more colleagues to protect the bridge because he has been alone, and I do not want him to throw himself with his armour into the River Tiber. But I am asking him, before he turns us down, to take back this Amendment and think about it, because this matter is the hinge of the democratic movement of the trade unions.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, after the succession of eloquent perorations to which we have listened I venture to put a simple point, because there is no need to go round and round the mulberry bush on this issue. What is it about? The question is whether the Secretary of State, who is mentioned in this clause, apprehending an industrial dispute of a substantial character calculated to disturb the life of the nation, should seek one of two alternatives. The first is to consult his Cabinet colleagues as to whether the Government should ask the consent of Her Majesty to declare a State of Emergency. The second is to consult Parliament if he merely apprehends an industrial dispute of what might be regarded as a normal character—one concerning a particular industry or a sector of industry—before he approaches the Industrial Court with an order to proceed as directed in the clause. That is the issue.
But the further question is: what should be the method of consultation? Should he go to Parliament with an Order in Council which calls for an Affirmative Resolution which obviously cannot be amended? There could be a Motion by the Opposition, or by those who were opposed to the submission made by the Secretary of State, calling for the rejection of the Order, but no amendment could he moved. That is one method that he might employ. The other method is what might be described as of a traditional character; namely, apprehending a dispute, he would go to the other place—and then the matter would come to your Lordships' House, if necessary—to report and indicate that, in his judgment, the matter should go to arbitration or that some other method of
390
conciliation should be adopted, subjecting himself to questions in the other place and having a decision reached by the Government. We have had experience of that, and the experience which I have in mind should be retailed to your Lordships' House.
Not very long ago there was a seamen's dispute which lasted over a period of seven weeks. It disrupted industry to a substantial degree and affected the economy of the country and, indeed, the policy of the Labour Government. The Minister of Labour at the time—I need not mention the name—declined to intervene. The dispute dragged on. Those of us who were concerned because it was a seamen's dispute consulted the Seamen's Union and the employers, the Shipping Federation, with a view to conciliation. We also sought to prevail upon the Minister of Labour at the time that he should intervene, but, over and over again—and this is a point of substance—he declined to intervene, because he said that it was not the business of the Minister of Labour to intervene unless he was asked, and the dispute dragged on with consequences that are familiar to every Member of your Lordships' House.
All we are entitled to ask for is this. If the Secretary of State, in his judgment, considers that a dispute is likely to occur which would disrupt the economy of the country, he should exercise that judgment by asking the Cabinet to use the emergency powers. But he has the alternative of going to the other place, making a submission, subjecting himself to questions, collecting the voices on both sides in the other place, and then taking what action is appropriate. If the noble Lord could answer the questions which have been put by my noble friends with a great wealth of detail and argument, and tell us what is in his mind and what he would expect the Secretary of State to do in the circumstances that we envisage, it would help us to come to a decision.
4.49 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have had a dicussion which has been somewhat interrupted, but which, nevertheless, has been of considerable importance. Reference has been made to the Emergency Powers Acts, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, treated them

391
as an alternative to the present procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, suggested that by these proposals in the Bill we are doing something which is quite different from the Emergency Powers Acts. The first point I should like to make is that the circumstances are certainly not the same. Secondly, we were talking just now about Parliament passing a Bill conferring certain powers on the Secretary of State, and it is perhaps interesting to look back at the powers that were conferred by the original Emergency Powers Act, under which Her Majesty declares that an emergency exists. The original Act conferred on the Government powers to make regulations which would be laid before Parliament. They would not continue in force for more than seven days unless a Resolution of both Houses was made, but they would, of course, come into force at once.
The Proclamation of Emergency itself had to be laid before Parliament, and the Act provided—and the noble Lord agreed that perhaps his Amendment was somewhat defective in this respect—for the summoning of Parliament within five days if it was not in session at the time. I think it is important to recognise the enormous powers that were conferred in that way, because regulations made under the Act could confer or impose on the Secretary of State or other Government Department
" such powers and duties as Her Majesty may deem necessary for the preservation of the peace, for securing and regulating the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light, and other necessities, for maintaining the means of transit or locomotion, and for any other purposes essential to the public safety and the life of the community, and may make such provisions incidental to the powers aforesaid as may appear to Her Majesty to be required for making the exercise of those powers effective."
Then it went on, as the noble Lord quoted:
" Provided also that no such regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike, or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike."
It is important to recognise what the powers under the emergency procedures of the present Bill are. In the first place, the Secretary of State is to apply to the Industrial Court. He is to make an
392
application to the Industrial Court where it appears to him that there is or is likely to be in the near future,
" an industrial dispute, industrial action, consisting of a strike, any irregular industrial action short of a strike ",
and that that strike, if it came about, would be likely
" to be gravely injurious to the national economy, to imperil national security or to create a serious risk of public disorder, or… to endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons, or expose a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury."
Nobody could say that that was not an emergency. The essence of dealing with an emergency, surely, must be speed. The noble Lord asks that this should be done only with a Resolution of Parliament. My Lords, it might be necessary to bring Parliament together again—this is not provided for—but an emergency of this sort of character could only deepen this delay, so that is a very good reason in itself for conferring powers of this character on the Secretary of State and ensuring that they are processed as quickly as possible. But I think I should point out to noble Lords something which has not yet been mentioned, and that is that the Secretary of State is to make this application only if it appears to him
" that, having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute, it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred."
It is for that purpose, with the settlement of a strike in mind, that he has to make his application.
The first point, therefore, is that an emergency situation may be one that is not covered by the Emergency Powers Act because there is no power in that Act to prevent anyone from persuading any person or persons to take part in a strike. So there is a gap there; and this is one way in which the gap could be filled in an emergency situation. In making an application the Secretary of State has to specify the persons
" appearing to the Secretary of State to be responsible for calling, organising, procuring or financing the strike ",
and it is those persons alone that any order can bind. To answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, put to me, there is no question here of sitting in judgment on the trade unions.

393
The order is made on specified persons; and, of course, it is only if they disregard that order that, as always happens when a court order is disregarded, they will come before the court.
My Lords, the second point that I should come to, I think, is this. There is a curious constitutional position which could arise if a Resolution of Parliament were required. Suppose that a Resolution is passed by Parliament authorising the Secretary of State to apply to the Court. There could be an appeal from the Court to the Court of Appeal, and thence to the House of Lords; and if the appeal were against a decision to grant a restraint order, your Lordships here would be in the position, in effect, of adjudicating on a Resolution which your Lordships had made earlier. So this would go full circle.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Is he trying to make a distinction between a Resolution presented to the other place, either by the Government themselves or by the Opposition, and an Order in Council, which is submitted by the Government and, maybe, calls for an Affirmative Resolution without possibility of amendment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not making any distinction at all. I am talking about what happens if, under this Amendment, a Resolution of both Houses were required before an application could be made to the Court: because this is what the Amendment is about. I am simply saying that if that happened the Secretary of State would be authorised to make the application, the Court would decide on that application, there could he an appeal and the thing might come round full circle again to the House of Lords. This may not be a point of very great importance, but it shows the kind of difficulty, the kind of crossing of the wires, that this suggestion would bring about.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, asked me about my experience in Parliament, and I would say this to him. My recollection throughout of the treatment by Parliament of industrial disputes is that it is one of the greatest restraint. If Resolutions of this character were brought forward to the House, what would be the result? I am quite certain that, at a stage like this and under
394
a procedure like this, they would not be appropriate. I believe that it is much more likely that in an emergency there would be pressure from both Houses of Parliament to make use of this procedure, rather than to stop it. This is a matter in which the Secretary of State has responsibility, and the Government have a responsibility, for ensuring the health and the safety of the population and the health of the national economy; and they are answerable for their actions to Parliament.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Will the noble Lord allow me to continue? The noble Lord asked: while the application is before the Court, will it be possible to debate this in Parliament? The issue of whether there is an emergency in this sense and whether the application for an order should be granted could not, I imagine, be debated in Parliament. He asked my personal opinion, and that is it.
But, of course, those are not the only issues. The Secretary of State will also be responsible for deciding whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute, it will be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred. This is not a justiciable issue. This is a matter on which I am sure it will be right for the Secretary of State to be questioned in Parliament. But can anyone imagine that an application will be made without the Secretary of State coming to Parliament?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have vivid recollections on many occasions of the Secretary of State, as Lord Shinwell was saying, gradually being pressured all the time to take some further action. This is what happens. It is quite the reverse of what noble Lords are suggesting in this Amendment. When there is an emergency brewing, Parliament will be aware of it, the Secretary of State will be making statements to Parliament in the ordinary way. Then he will make up his mind to make an application and I have no doubt that he will carry the whole of Parliament with him.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I do not want to be testy and irrascible, but this is the nub of the problem. Parliament will give way; but they will have been presented with a fait accompli. The Minister will have already made his decision and told the Estates-General or the Reichstag, whichever then exists,"I have made the decision." There will be no possibility of changing that decision. Am I right in this? I stand to be corrected.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is no possiblity of changing the decision to make an application to the Court; but it will then be for the Court to look at the circumstances and to give a decision. May I say also that when an Order in Council is made for proclaiming an emergency, again the Government announce this to Parliament and lay it before Parliament. It does not need a Resolution that they should do so. The regulations have to be presented and will lapse unless they are passed within seven days. But that is another matter; that is the counterpart of the matter going before the Court.
My Lords, this is a very reasonable method of proceeding. When there is an emergency the Government are entitled to the support of Parliament to deal with that emergency. In my experience, when crises of this sort arise Governments do get the support of Parliament. It would merely give rise to delay and to some confusion if this Amendment were accepted.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, the assumption behind what the noble Lord has said is that the Industrial Court will be the"Yes-man"for the Secretary of State. Let us assume that the Industrial Court is not the"Yes-man "; let us assume that the Court says,"No, this is not a national emergency." Therefore they will throw it out. Is that decision final? Or will the Secretary of State then go to the Cabinet and say,"I must have emergency powers and get an Emergency Powers resolution because the Industrial Court will not do what I want." If the Industrial Court says,"No! We are not prepared to give an order ", is that the end of the matter?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was trying to explain that the Emergency
396
Powers Act does not cover the whole of the field. There is a gap here. But if the Industrial Court would not make an order, that is certainly the end of that particular case; an order would not be made against the person specified in the application.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord has admitted that these clauses deal with an emergency situation. I say, and I think that those on this side will say, that in any emergency situation Parliament should be consulted straight away; that any matter of this sort should be brought before Parliament without a moment's delay and Parliament should be expected to adjudicate to some extent upon it and make a decision. This would be done under my Amendment but not under the procedure in the Bill. We may have a situation in which the Secretary of State will take his decision to go to the Court on, say, August 7, when Parliament is not sitting. Parliament then will not be sitting to consider the matter until some 80 or 90 days have passed. That is not consulting Parliament. That is not making sure that Parliament is being informed even of what is taking place. I am positive that this is quite the wrong way of setting about this job.
My noble friends asked questions that were not answered. Lord Cooper asked a simple question: if an order were given against a union and the union breached the order, will not the same court impose the sanction? It seems to me that he was entitled to an answer. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the answer is, that it will be the same court operating in both cases.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. I said so.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sorry I did not hear the answer. The other point, which I think deserves some special attention, was, how much of the procedure becomes sub judice and therefore prevents question and answer and decisions in Parliament. For how long would this last? That was the question put; and I am not sure that it was answered clearly.
I am sure that we shall never get together on this. The only thing that we

397
can do is to register our protest against the clause itself and, in particular, against this ignoring of Parliament by the Party opposite in relation to something which, as the noble Lord has admitted, is an emergency situation.
5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 92A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 114.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Popplewell, L.

Airedale, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Raglan, L.

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ardwick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Royle, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bernstein, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

Segal, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Silkin, L.

Brown, L.

Tanner, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kennet, L.

Sorensen, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Carnock, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McLeavy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mais, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Moyle, L.

White, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Platt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Dundee, E.

McFadzean, L.

Albemarle, E.

Dunleath, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Amory, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Atholl, D.

Eccles, V.

Margadale, L.

Balerno, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Masscreene and Ferrard, V.

Barnby, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Essex, E.

Molson, L.

Belstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Monck, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrier, L.

Morrison, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Fortcscue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Boothby, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Boston, L.

Gage, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Bourne, L.

Garner, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brentford, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Oakshott, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Robbins, L.

Burton, L.

Gridley, L.

Roberthall, L.

Camoys, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cawley, L.

Hailes, L.

Rothermere, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rothes, E.

Clwyd, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Coleraine, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Just, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hatherton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Colgrain, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hood, V.

Selkirk, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Sherfield, L.

Courtown, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ilford, L.

Strang, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Davcntry, V.

Kilmany, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Davidson, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

de Clifford, L.

Latymer, L.

Vivian, L.

Dcnham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Windlesham, L.

Digby, L.

Lothian, M.

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.16 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 92F:
Page 100, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) For the purposes of this section, an interruption in the supply of goods or in the provision of services shall not be deemed to be likely to be gravely injurious to the national economy by reason only of the fact that it will cause or is likely to cause substantial loss to or interruption in the activities of any one or more public or private undertakings.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment proceeds upon the footing that it is the Court, and not Parliament, which is called upon to take a critical decision in a situation of this kind. Previously I have ventured to stress what I think is agreed upon on both sides of the House—the importance of not putting a court of law, in particular one over which a High Court Judge presides, in a situation in which it is called upon to undertake functions hardly appropriate for a judicial body. If a judge is asked to decide what comes broadly within the description of matters of public policy, obviously his decision may provoke strong disagreement, and there is always the risk that over a period of time judicial decisions may become misunderstood and, if the worst eventuate, even suspect. That might happen although judges do, as they always do, their uttermost to discharge their judicial duty with complete and absolute impartiality.
The submission I make to the House, which is one I have previously made, is that it is the duty of the Legislature to try to avoid in its legislation any situation which might put the judges in a position of that sort. That consideration, I submit, arises in this particular case, because if one looks at Clauses 138 and 139, what do we find they provide? The Secretary of State is in the first place empowered to decide to make an application to the Industrial Court. The conditions in which he may make that application are set out in subsection (2) of Clause 138—of course also in the preceding subsection, but the critical conditions are those in subsection (2). He must be of the opinion that the situation may be productive of consequences—I summarise—
" gravely injurious to the national economy ", likely
" to imperil national security or to create a serious risk of public disorder ",
400
to quote the condition specified in the former of the two paragraphs of subsection (2).
My Lords, when we were discussing the last Amendment we argued whether that type of decision is one which should ultimately rest with Parliament or whether it should be taken away from Parliament and be transferred to the courts. If it rests with Parliament, the two sides of each House are there to express strong views and to embark on highly controversial ground, and so long as the principles of reasonable discussion and the order of the House are complied with, fullest and most vigorous debate can be centred upon the decision. The Minister can be roundly taken to task and the public can be fully satisfied that there has been a robust and vigorous statement of the position from all points of view. The difficulty in transferring that sort of decision to the courts is obvious. The conditions in which the discussion takes place are wholly different, and the result might be, unhappily, the sort of result I have been trying to describe.
My Lords, in order to try to improve the situation (upon the assumption that your Lordships' House has finally decided that it is to be the Court and not Parliament which is to be entrusted with the making of this decision) we are endeavouring by the drafting which appears in this Amendment to achieve some slightly greater precision as to the conditions which the Court must find present before it can make an order. The Secretary of State makes his application to the Court and under Clause 139 the Court makes an order:
"…subject to its being satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the condition specified in subsection (2) "
of the preceding section
" are fulfilled."
If one looks back at those conditions, or at any rate at the one with which we are immediately concerned, I submit that they are far too vague. They impose a very difficult and invidious task on the judge to whom the application is made and the appointed members of the Court.
I focus simply on the first one:
" To be gravely injurious to the national economy."

401
That is a phrase so wide in its import that in the very nature of things it would be very difficult to give a confident answer,"Yes"or,"No"about whether the consequences of industrial action are likely, in that sense, to be gravely injurious to the national economy. What is the standard that one is to apply? What are the questions which the Secretary of State has to ask the Court, and then the Court must ask itself if he makes an application? In a sense, industrial action does harm even if it is on a very small scale; but it may be counter-productive of very great good if it produces a more equitable situation between management and the workers. Work may progress better and a feeling of injustice may be eliminated. But to what stage has one to go before one can predicate that a given situation brought about by industrial action has become gravely injurious to the national economy?
I do not claim great merit, or indeed any merit, for the drafting of the Amendment. It is designed to suggest to the Government a possible method which—if they think it worth further examination—they might like to consider with their expert advisers. The drafting is designed to say that if all you can say about a situation in which industrial action is taking place, or about to take place, is that its consequence is, or is likely to be, a substantial loss to one or a number of public or private undertakings, and you cannot predicate anything more sinister, of itself that would not be enough to enable either the Secretary of State, in making up his mind, or the Court, when it hears the application, to come to the conclusion that the situation may be productive of consequences gravely injurious to the national economy. I am sure that there are a number of defects in that drafting. As I say, it is designed only to embody a suggestion which I hope the Government may think worthy of further exploration.
I feel confident that all Ministers and your Lordships' House as a whole may agree with me in the objective; that it is extremely important to try to be as precise as one can in the formulation of the criteria which must be observed before the Secretary of State moves and the Court has to form a decision. So
402
I can summarise the argument by saying that my objective is to try to get some clearer idea of the sort of situation which the Secretary of State, and thereafter the Court, must have in mind before a conclusion is reached that the expression,"gravely injurious to the national economy"is brought into operation. The approach is to say that if you look at a given situation and all you can predicate with that situation is that the industrial action will, or may, produce substantial loss to a number of undertakings whether private or public, and you cannot say something more, that is not enough. If you look at that situation—I give an example—against a background of a likely strain on the balance of payments, or some situation of that sort, then you have something additional to the fact that loss is, or may be, occasioned to a number of undertakings. You may then well conclude that the situation is one which is likely to be gravely injurious to the national economy. But you must be able, so the Amendment would provide, to say that that situation is something more than merely that loss is going to be occasioned. There must be some background, some other consequence, which may be brought about and to which you can point which affects the national interest. That is the object of the proposal. It would be presumptuous to think that I have the drafting right. I limit my endeavour to what I hope is an acceptable purpose; namely, to make a suggestion which the Government may think worthy of further consideration.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, would it be in order if at this juncture I asked the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, whether he can furnish an elucidation of the significance that he attaches to the words"or more"in this Amendment? To me,"one or more"means one to infinity. If it means that, it might be a blocking restriction on the procedure of the Court. If it means a few, I can see the point that he is trying to make.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am grateful for that question and I will try to answer it. If you take the words"one or more"literally, they might mean any number, a very large number. I am not suggesting that the Amendment is perfect, but even if you have, 10 or 20 important undertakings which will suffer

403
substantial loss, that, of itself, will not justify you in saying that the words"gravely injurious"are fulfilled. But suppose you had 20 undertakings that were occasioned loss, it is then very likely—this is substantially behind the drafting—that there would be some further consequence to which you could point. Suppose there is that sort of situation; suppose that there is a run on the pound or a strain on our balance of payments; if you had industrial action which occasioned substantial loss to 20, 30 or 40 big undertakings in the country then you could say,"This is imposing a serious burden, and now we are in a position to say that a situation has arisen which is gravely injurious "—and so on.
The critical words in the drafting are:"by reason only of the fact ". If all you can show is a loss, that is not enough. The loss very often produces some ulterior consequence, and if you can point to that, it may well be that the words are satisfied. My Lords, I emphasise that I am not claiming that this is a perfect draft. It is simply thinking. I hope it may suggest a way to something more precise than this indefinite"gravely injurious to the national economy ".
5.30 p.m.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, when listening to my noble friend moving this Amendment, I gathered that he was seeking to remove the responsibility for decision away from this particular Court. One can visualise that the First Secretary within a particular Government Department, who is responsible to his Minister, may have been reading the Press reports regarding certain undertakings operating within the country where there is every possibility of something going amiss, and a likelihood of a stoppage of labour, or a strike, or something of that description. Immediately that occurs, what happens, as many people who have held responsibility within Government know, is that a conference is held with Ministers, and with some of their background people from executive positions. Their advice is sought, and the Minister begins to probe them with questions and to seek answers.
I take it that what he would then seek to do, after he has examined the situation would be to come to certain conclusions. One of those conclusions, probably,
404
would be that he would seek to have an interview with the Prime Minister—not so much with the Cabinet, but with the Prime Minister, as the principal Minister of the Government—to whom he would pass on the information that he had had this inquiry—because the Prime Minister would no doubt be kept informed by his own Department as to the reports that had appeared in the Press to which I have referred. Naturally, with the national Press as it is, circulated throughout the country, there could be types of disturbance originating from those reports. Therefore the Minister has to find some form of solution to try to offset types of criticism which might be ventilated and which could be most damaging to the situation that had been talked so much about within the columns of the national Press. He therefore has this interview with the Prime Minister. He airs his views, and eventually the Prime Minister may say to him:"Well, what do you intend to do? Do you think that this is a case which ought to be referred to the Industrial Court? Ought the Court to take the decision? ". The attitude of the Minister may be that that responsibility ought to be passed on to that Court.
My noble friend, if I understood him aright, said that the Court if forced into the position whereby it must arrive at a decision, would be as impartial as it was possible to be in seeking to arrive at a right and proper decision. But, my Lords, would it be right, in the circumstances, and under this Amendment that has been proposed by my noble and learned friend for such a case to be passed on to that Court? After all, you can pick up newspapers, you can have your journalists, and even they can be well outside the pale when they predict what will happen but never does happen: the situation never comes to the type of fruition they believed it would come to in the circumstances.
5.34 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in moving this Amendment submitted that the Court will be in a difficult position because their decision will be based on subsection (2)(a) and (b) of this clause.

405
But I felt that the noble Lord was rather easily disregarding two factors. The first is the factor which your Lordships have just debated on the last Amendment, that is the Government's stand that speed is vitally necessary in these matters. The Government are submitting (and have secured the agreement of your Lordships on the last Amendment) that that is not a matter for Parliament but a matter which should go directly to the Court.
The second point which I felt that perhaps the noble Lord was to some extent disregarding was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, at the Committee stage of the Bill, that certain stages would have been passed through. I agree with Lord Slater, but I reached a different conclusion; that is, that stages will very likely have been passed through in a matter of this sort; that undoubtedly the matter will have been in the Press, unless it has come out of a clear blue sky; that undoubtedly there will have been, let us trust, negotiations; let us believe that there will have been attempts at conciliation by the officers of the Department; and that indeed a good deal will already have been known about the situation before in fact it goes to the Court. I concede at once to the noble Lord that"gravely injurious to the national economy"is a wide phrase, but I am suggesting to the noble Lord that it will be a situation where undoubtedly certain matters will have been clarified by the time the matter reaches the N.I.R.C.
My Lords, if I may now come specifically to the noble Lord's Amendment, the criteria in Clause 138(2), against which the effects of industrial action are assumed, are stringent, and I admit to your Lordships that they are intended to be stringent. Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed that in fact these criteria make no mention of a substantial loss (which I take from the Amendment to be a financial loss) to any individual undertaking. Once again, it is not the intention of the Bill that the reference should be limited in this way. Whether at some point in time the loss to an individual undertaking may be considered to be gravely injurious to the national economy or would satisfy any of the other criteria, would be a matter for the Industrial Court. That is as may be, but at any rate I submit that one thing is clear; that is, that the emergency criteria could not be involved unless
406
that loss was likely to have one of the effects set out in subsection (2) of Clause 138. Therefore, with respect to the noble Lord, I feel that the use of the words in this Amendment to some extent confuses the intentions of the clause as printed in the Bill. Although I shared the uncertainty of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I did not feel that the explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, gave—which of course was perfectly accurate, as it always is from the noble Lord—none the less took our discussion a great deal further forward.
My Lords, the same argument applies to the reference in the Amendment to interruption of the activities of an undertaking, but quite apart from difficulties of interpretation of the Amendment, there are stronger objections to the inclusion of this proposal. Your Lordships will be aware of a number of undertakings, particularly in the public sector, where interruption of activities on any substantial scale may lead immediately to an emergency situation as we are trying to define in this clause. One can think immediately of all the public undertakings and the various health services, to mention just a few. The noble Lord has referred to the inadequate drafting of the Bill—
LORD STOW HILL: With respect I referred to my own inadequate drafting; not that of the Bill.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sorry. The noble Lord referred to the difficulty of interpreting the drafting of the Bill which his Amendment seeks to improve, but I do not see how the House, looking at the Amendment, can possibly distinguish, in many of these services to which I have just referred, between the effect on the community and the effect on the undertaking when its activities are interrupted. Anyone who has read the opening paragraphs of Mr. Andrew Shonfield's Note of Reservation—I am not talking of his conclusions at all, but his opening paragraphs—would agree that the effects of sudden strike action on services to an increasingly urban population really can be very grave indeed. It is this criterion as it is developed in subsection (2)(a) and (b) which should form the basis of a decision of the Industrial Court, for may I remind your Lordships that the question of whether an emergency situation exists is solely for

407
the discretion of the Industrial Court, and it is for the Court alone to decide whether or not the criteria in subsection (2) of this clause are satisfied. For those reasons, which I hope may have persuaded the noble Lord, I must ask your Lordships if you will to resist this Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. May I say first in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, that my object was not to withdraw the matter from the Court but to try to formulate with some more precision the question which the Court would have to answer. That was my objective.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if I were a learned judge (which I am not) and were called upon to answer the questions about which he would have to be satisfied from the evidence under Clause 139, I should not find myself so worried when asked, Yea or Nay, whether the interruption was"likely to expose a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury ", or if asked whether the interruption would really"endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons ", or"was likely to imperil national security ", or"likely to create a serious risk of public disorder ". On all these questions I would have before me evidence to which I could address myself. But I should be very worried if called upon to answer the question, whether the interruption would be"gravely injurious to the national economy ". I find it difficult to know what evidence I should need to have to answer that general and vague question.
The apprehension which I had in moving this Amendment is that it is most undesirable that judges should be called upon to give answers to a general and highly controversial question of that sort—answers which will be dissected and criticised throughout the country and which, over a period of time, may possibly have the result of undermining confidence in the judges. One of the critically important things in the maintenance of our democracy is that everybody should have the utmost confidence in our Judicial Bench. Therefore, speaking from the Opposition Benches, I felt it
408
my duty to call attention to what I think is a risk, and to suggest to the Government a possible way of making any question submitted to the Court more susceptible to a judicial decision. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, does not commend the Amendment to your Lordships and I do not think I can carry the matter further. Having put my case, I would respectfully ask permission of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we had a very late start and I do not propose to move Amendment No. 92G and the following five Amendments.
Clause 141 [A pplication to Industrial Court for order for ballot relating to industrial action]:
5.45 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 92N:
Page 103, line 23, leave out (" either or ").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that I am calling upon the House again so quickly to listen to my argument: that was because there was a sudden cessation of activity since the last Amendment. The objective in this Amendment is similar to that in the last Amendment, although there are some differences. If it were for the convenience of the House, I would acquaint your Lordships that this Amendment goes closely with Amendments Nos. 92Q, R, S, T and U. In Clause 141 the Secretary of State is empowered to approach the Industrial Court for an order, if there are reasons for doubting whether the workers taking part or expected to take part in a strike, were taking part in it in accordance with their wishes and whether they had had an adequate opportunity of indicating their wishes. If one or other of the conditions specified in subsection (1)(a) and (b) of the clause are satisfied, we are thrown back on the conditions we have just been discussing on Clause 138(1)(a).
When we discussed the previous version of this clause on Committee stage, the point was made that it is for the Secretary of State to make a decision whether there are reasons for doubting that the strikers are in favour or not, and if he makes the decision he can approach the Industrial Court. The Court is not asked to confirm or reverse his decision.

409
Its opinion is not relevant on the question whether there is doubt or not. All the Industrial Court is called upon to decide is whether the conditions, or one of them, set out in Clause 138 is present or not.
Noble Lords on this side pointed out that in a situation in which industrial action has started or is about to start, and there is strong feeling on the part of workers in an undertaking that they are not receiving fair treatment in conditions of remuneration—there may have been negotiations going on for a considerable period of time, perhaps in the view of the workers' negotiators protracted unnecessarily and tempers are running high—the Secretary of State is called upon to make a difficult and crucial decision. That being the situation, he may come down and in effect get from the Court, because he thinks there is doubt as to the attitude of the strikers, a decision that there must be a ballot. The ballot has got to take place, and the clauses later on provide that while the ballot is taking place the strike has got to stop. That is not quite accurate: the clauses provide that those who are organising the strike have got to cease organising it and take steps to try to bring it to an end while the ballot is being taken.
The group of clauses is designed to deal with emergency situations in general. I would have submitted to the House that if, with the best will in the world, a Secretary of State takes it upon himself upon his own judgment to say,"I doubt whether the workers really are with this strike or not"and to initiate the action which may result in an order that the organisers of the strike have to stop, not only stop organising it, but have to go out of their way to withdraw instructions to try to bring the strike to an end, instead of that being likely to produce a harmonious conclusion to the trouble it is almost certainly in most cases that one can envisage likely to conduce to precisely the opposite result. It will exacerbate feeling. Those who start out feeling very intensely that they are victims of an injustice, that they have not been fairly met by management, are not going to be mollified by that outside intervention from the Secretary of State. On the contrary, they are going to be infuriated by it.
Then one has all the difficulties that one envisages in this kind of context. Are they going to obey an order of the Court? Well, my Lords, I know that the order does not affect the strikers themselves. It affects those who organise the strike, the officials of the union and so on. But are they then going to be made parties; is the law going to be brought into disrepute; is it going to be resented? That is the last thing that we want to bring about in our country, and I should have thought that that is the sort of consequence which might result if the arrangements are left as they are at present formulated in Clause 141.
In those circumstances, the approach which I would suggest by the drafting which I ventured to put on the Order Paper would have the following result. To begin with, it would mean that the Court would have itself to pronounce upon the question whether the strikers really were with the strike or not—and the wording there is reformulated from the wording in the clause. The clause talks about doubt. There is greater precision in my submission, as to the exact question which, if these Amendments are accepted, the courts would have to pronounce upon by the words which I hope I may read out without taking your Lordships' time unnecessarily. The Amendment 92T substitutes for the words in the clause the following words:
(c) the majority of the workers who are taking part or are expected to take part in the strike or other industrial action are or would be taking part in it against their wishes and have not had an adequate opportunity of indicating their wishes in this respect.")
That would be the matter on which the Court would have to pronounce on some evidence. It would not be left simply to the unchecked judgment of the Secretary of State. That is the first change I seek to introduce.
The other change which I seek to introduce is to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 141. Paragraph (b) in its present form provides that it is enough if either of the conditions which are specified in Clause 138 are satisfied. I do not want to go back to them, as that would be taking unnecessary time, but the second change would be that both the conditions must be present. The Court would have to be satisfied that both conditions are present and, furthermore, that

411
the condition as to majority view of workers was also satisfied. All those three requisites would have to be satisfied by evidence before the Court made an order. It is again in an attempt to suggest to the Government a possible change that might obviate the tense situations which I have tried to describe and which would produce a greater likelihood of some harmonious end to a difficult situation, that I have ventured to put down Amendments Nos. 92N, 92Q, 92R, 92S, and 92T. I beg to move.
5.56 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained this series of Amendments so clearly. I have no disagreement with him on what these Amendments mean, but the fact remains that they would completely change the character of the ballot order provision as envisaged in the Bill. The Secretary of State would then be able to apply for a ballot order only if one or other of the two emergency criteria governing a restraint order set out in Clause 138 was satisfied, in addition to the conditions that the effects of industrial action on a particular industry are or are likely to be seriously injurious to the livelihood of a substantial number of workers employed in that industry, and that the majority of those taking part or likely to take part in the individual action would be doing so against their wishes without having had an adequate opportunity to indicate their wishes. In fact, I do not think the noble Lord said one or other. I think he said that all three conditions would have to be satisfied.
We think that this is far too restrictive and we think it is unfair to workers in an industry whose livelihood is likely to be affected by, for example, a serious strike. We believe that occasions may arise when it would be entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to apply for a ballot order when by itself the effect of a particular course of industrial action gives grounds for believing that the livelihood of a substantial number of workers in that industry may be seriously affected. We also believe that this effect should not by itself be a necessary criterion for a strike ballot application. There may well be situations, particularly in some public services, where industrial action, while not necessarily
412
injurious to the livelihood of workers in a particular industry, is likely to cause grave damage to the interests of the community at large.
I would suggest to your Lordships that it would be absurd to debar the Secretary of State from making his application if he considered that a strike ballot was the necessary course on the grounds that, while the effect of the industrial action might be to cause a national emergency, it could not be shown at the time of the application that the effects of the industrial action were also likely to injure seriously the livelihood of workers in an industry. Yet this would be the effect of the first of the noble Lord's Amendments, as I understand it. So it would restrict the possible uses of the ballot order provisions to an extent that we do not think would accord with requirements.
These Amendments certainly place even more stringent conditions on the powers of the Secretary of State than that. I do not see how the Secretary of State could be called upon to substantiate an application before the Industrial Court at one and the same time that one of the conditions demands positive grounds for believing that the majority of workers taking part, or likely to take part, in the industrial action would be doing so against their wishes, and also that he would have to show that they had not had adequate opportunity to indicate those wishes. Let me put it in this way. If they have had an adequate opportunity to express their wishes, then the Secretary of State will know what those wishes are; if they have not, he cannot possibly know for certain what their wishes are. Hence the words in the Bill,"there are reasons for doubting whether ". That is the very object of those words. But these are the words that the noble Lord's fourth Amendment would leave out. They seem to be extremely important.
Amendment No. 92P proposes that this conundrum should not be just for the Secretary of State. The Industrial Court would be required to reach a decision on it, on evidence submitted by the Secretary of State, before the Court could make a ballot order. I do not see how the Court could reach a decision on these conditions. Then, in addition, Amendment

413
No. 92P, coupled with No. 92T, requires the restrictive conditions about the evidence of the emergency situation to be put before the Court. I have just indicated the objections to that. Taken together, therefore, these Amendments would impose conditions which are incapable of being satisfied, and would I believe, undermine the purpose of the ballot order provisions in situations of emergency. I hope that I have made the point clear to the noble Lord. It is extremely difficult to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to satisfy the conditions which the noble Lord would make and which, instead of being alternative, would all need to be fulfilled. I do not think this would be right; it would not meet the situation: and I do not think the Secretary of State could fulfil the obligation in those circumstances.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. There is one small observation that I should like to make. The noble Lord said he did not know how the Court could decide about the attitude of the workers under Clause 192. That is not quite what the Court has to do. It has to be satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing; that is to say, it is not a complete conviction, but something more than a prima facie case. However, I will not take up time on that. The noble Lord said that the purpose of my Amendment was to make the situation, to use his term, much more restrictive. Frankly, that was exactly the purpose of the Amendment. It was designed in terms to make the options open to the Secretary of State far narrower. The noble Lord thinks that it is too restrictive. That is a matter of judgment between us, and I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to continue with the discussion. That being so. I ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 92, and shall not move the other related Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.3 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 92U:
Page 103, line 41, at end insert—
(" ( ) For the purposes of this section the effects of such industrial action shall not he deemed to be such as to be likely to be seriously injurious to the livelihood of a substantial number of workers employed in that
414
industry by reason only of the fact that it will or is likely to result in a substantial loss of remuneration to them in that industry over a prolonged period of time.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is on a different point. It is closely analogous to the last Amendment I moved to Clause 138. It is designed to try to introduce some more precision into the expression,
" such as to be seriously injurious to the livelihood of a substantial number of workers employed in the industry ".
That finds its place in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Clause 191. Again I can use almost exactly the same arguments, although I am anxious not to repeat myself. What are the criteria that anybody has to employ in answering the question whether the effect of industrial action is likely to be seriously injurious to the livelihood of a substantial number of workers employed in that industry? Is it enough to point to the fact that they will not be receiving their normal remuneration during the period of the strike? Is it enough to say that that period will extend probably for five weeks, six weeks or even more? I submit that the phrase is so indeterminate in scope that it is putting a difficult task upon the Court, under Clause 192, to require the Court to make a decision upon it. That engages precisely the same arguments as I addressed to the House when I moved my Amendment on Clause 138.
I suspected that my Amendment to Clause 138 was defective. My suspicions are still more acute that my drafting of this Amendment, No. 92U, is defective. In particular, I thoroughly dislike the phrase,"over a long period of time ", but it is difficult to find another phrase. What I mean is that if all you can say is that the workers who are engaged are not going to receive their remuneration over a period of time—the remuneration that they would otherwise have received—and consequently, to that extent, will be impoverished, that is not enough to enable either the Secretary of State or the Industrial Court to reach a conclusion that the effect of the industrial action is such as to be seriously injurious to the livelihood of the workers. That is the point.
I frankly concede that I do not like the drafting, which I hope I may say perfectly freely as being the author of

415
it. I merely put it forward as a suggestion, which again I hope the Government may think it worth while pursuing, in order to make the Court's task and also the Secretary of State's task rather easier, to formulate with some greater precision the question on this aspect of the case to which the judges of the Industrial Court would have to address themselves. With that object in view, I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has been good enough not to go over the arguments that he put on the Committee stage, and I propose to follow his example: we have both had an opportunity of re-reading them. The problem here, as I see it, is: does the Amendment do anything to clarify this position? The noble Lord seems to think that it does. We have great difficulty in seeing that it does, and I shall try to persuade him to our point of view.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I did not say that I thought it did. I said that I hoped it did, which is a very different thing.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I stand corrected. What the noble Lord is attempting to do is to make a distinction between serious injury to a man's livelihood, on the one hand, and, on the other, substantial loss of remuneration over a prolonged period of time, a distinction which in certain circumstances, at any rate, I should have thought it would be quite impossible to sustain. If substantial numbers of people lose their jobs as a result of industrial action, everyone hopes that they will secure other employment, preferably in the occupations for which they are trained, but in the process many of them may suffer a severe loss of earnings which could seriously affect their livelihood. I do not like to give concrete instances, but I indicated the sort of thing that could happen if there were, for example, a stoppage in a particular company of the motor industry, where a prolonged stoppage might mean a severe and permanent loss of business and a cutting down of staff, possibly at another level of employment, because, as we all know, a small body of men can hold up an industry of
416
this kind and affect the earnings of a great many.
As I understand the Amendment, the Court would be debarred from considering this possibility when deciding whether there was a case for a strike ballot order, on the grounds that the only certain and immediate result of the industrial action for the workers was substantial and prolonged loss of remuneration. I do not pretend that the circumstances to which this subsection will apply will always be easy for the Court to determine. It simply will have to decide on the evidence submitted to it by the Secretary of State and the other parties. But this Amendment seems likely to make the task of the Court even more difficult than it is now. I feel certain that it is better to leave the clause as it is, and I hope that the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord but, if I may say so, the Amendment is not quite as bad as he thinks and I should like to point out why. What the clause would provide is that the mere fact that the workers lose remuneration shall not by itself enable the conclusion to be drawn that the effects of the industrial action are likely to be seriously injurious to their livelihood. In this draft the critical words are"by reason only of the fact "; in other words, those who seek to establish that the industrial action is likely to be seriously injurious must go on and show something in addition to the fact that the workers will suffer substantial loss of remuneration. For example, they might show that the action went so far as to imperil the future of the undertaking in which they were engaged. That would be quite a different thing and I dare say it would well come within the scope of the phrase"seriously injurious ". In defence of my drafting, may I emphasise that the mere loss of remuneration by itself is not enough. But my endeavour obviously does not commend itself to the noble Lord any more than my last endeavour. It is a matter of judgment, and in these circumstances I do not think it would be a useful exercise to prolong the argument. I should be grateful if the House would give me leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.12 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 92B:
Page 104, line 8, after (" union ") insert (" organisation of workers ").
The noble Lord said: May I, on behalf of my noble friends, move this Amendment and seek your Lordships' lenience if I deal with the matter very shortly, since our debating time has been so curtailed, even though for good reasons. We are dealing here with a clause which describes the circumstances under which the Secretary of State can apply for a compulsory ballot. Subsection (4) says that before he applies he shall, so far as appears practicable, consult every employer, trade union or employers' association appearing to him to be a party to the dispute. I imagine the reason for that consultation would be a last-minute attempt to avoid the difficult step of seeking a compulsory ballot. When it gets to the hearing of the application for a compulsory ballot, all parties must be heard, but when it comes to consultation, as I have read out, your Lordships will have noted that trade unions only are to be consulted, not"trade unions and unregistered organisations ". It seems to me that where you are seeking by consultation to avoid difficulties you should consult everyone concerned. The employer has to be consulted, irrespective of whether he is a big or a little employer, registered or unregistered, or whatever he may be; and I should have thought, therefore, that it would have been sensible for all employees' associations to be consulted. In fact I am much encouraged to believe that the Amendment, which seeks to put this right by ensuring that everybody will be consulted, will find favour with the Government, because when this matter was discussed on Committee the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that he was not certain why"trade union"was put in, and that the Government were prepared to look at it again. I trust that now he has done so he will be prepared to view this Amendment favourably. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has looked at the wording very carefully, but I regret to say not very favourably. The Secretary of State, we entirely agree, is clearly under an obligation to consult; and whilst this obligation is qualified by
418
the phrase"so far as appears to him to be practical in the circumstances ", we do not feel that this phrase would in general nullify the mandatory effect of the clause unless it was physically impossible for the Secretary of State to contact the trade union or employers' association in the time available. I put that point because I know it was of interest at a previous stage, although it was not one made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his opening speech.
We are now dealing with a situation where industrial action is causing or likely to cause an industrial emergency, and any action which the Secretary of State is empowered to take to try to avert the situation clearly must be taken immediately. We feel that the Secretary of State would obviously be placed in an invidious position in these circumstances if he were given no discretion on consultation. I submit to the House that this discretion should not extend to consultation with unregistered unions. When this point was raised at the Committee stage, as Lord Diamond has said, my noble friend suggested as a first reaction that one of the difficulties about unregistered organisations of workers is that they may be merely temporary and it might be difficult to identify and consult with them. I do not think that the qualifying phrase"so far as appears to him to be practicable"entirely removes this difficulty. Not only may there be physical or administrative difficulties about consulting an unregistered union, but there may also be difficulties of policy.
As I have indicated, the term"organisation of workers"has been defined in the Bill as meaning any organisation whose objects include the regulation of relations between workers and employers, and they can range from very large organisations who for their own reasons simply do not wish to be registered, to very small, temporary organisations formed for a particular purpose, including possibly organisations which have broken away from a main body. In the situation of a serious industrial dispute there may be exceptional circumstances where it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to be required mandatorily to consult temporary organisations about a strike ballot proposal, although technically it would be possible for him to do

419
so. Indeed, I would put it to your Lordships that other parties to the dispute, both employer and trade union, might have the greatest objection to such consultation taking place; and here I bear in mind advisedly a grave national dispute—this is what we are talking about—where a registered trade union might have the gravest reservations about the Secretary of State having to consult mandatorily with a break-away splinter union: this could be the gravest disservice to the registered organisation which properly represented the workers concerned.
Perhaps it may be of some reply to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, if I finish by saying that we must remember that the purpose of requiring the Secretary of State to consult with the parties before applying for a strike ballot order is not only to seek their views about the proposal; it is also about the terms of any application to be made by the Secretary of State with a view to assisting the Court in deciding whether and in what terms the order ought to be made. The consultations are also a necessary preliminary to the effective conduct of a strike ballot. In this context there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from consulting quite voluntarily any organisation which seems to be party to the dispute—and the Secretary of State will have every incentive to do this voluntarily—to ensure that the ballot is held with the minimum of delay.
I come back to the original point, which is a familiar one. We have on this Amendment the reservations of policy which I have submitted to your Lordships. We also have the reservations of speed. We feel that in a national emergency situation speed is going to be of the essence, and a real difficulty will be placed on the Secretary of State if mandatorily he has, by the Bill, to consult with organisations which we entirely accept the Secretary of State may well consult with voluntarily in a situation of this kind.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I find that a totally unsatisfactory reply, both in logic and in terms of policy. It does not help for barrow loads of dust to be thrown into our eyes in an attempt to put us off the logic of the case. It is as
420
simple as can be. What we are concerned with is consulting everybody. The noble Lord has said that there is too much of a responsibility, and delays will be caused, but the clause says that every employer has to be consulted. Why does not the noble Lord bring an Amendment forward saying"Consult most employers "? That would save time. But the clause says,
" consult every employer, trade union or employers' association ".
If the noble Lord says that the difficulty is finding time to do all this why does not he alter his own clause? If he is in difficulty about the practicability of doing so and says that the words do not protect the Secretary of State, with which I totally disagree, the words which are already here which say
" so far as appears to him to be practicable in the circumstances, "
give complete discretion in saying what is practicable. If the noble Lord says to me that that does not cover the Secretary of State sufficiently so far as practicability is concerned, why does he not bring an Amendment forward strengthening the words in whatever way he wants? Why bring all these totally irrelevant arguments forward when what we are considering is not whether it is every person but whether a particular category is to be withdrawn from consultation. It will not be a splinter union, it will be the majority, and the biggest unions. If the noble Lord says that the Secretary of State will have difficulty, for example, in finding out how to contact the Transport and General Workers' Union we will tell him what the address is, and where it is to be found. We will do everything that we can to assist.
It is sheer nonsense to say that his argument is based on the kind of statements that he has made to us. What he is doing is refusing to allow consultation to a particular category of trade unions. We are going to have two classes of citizens and two classes of trade unions: the trade union which is registered shall be consulted, and the one which is not registered, irrespective of however big it is, irrespective of the fact that it may be the only trade union involved, is not going to be consulted. If the noble Lord has nothing better to say than that we will divide the House.
6.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 92B) shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

George-Brown, L.

Peddie, L.

Archibald, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Popplcwell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Bernstein, L.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sorensen, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stonham, L.

Diamond, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Gardiner, L.

Norwich, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wheatley, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Margadale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Digby, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Alport, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Amory, V.

Dundee, E.

Molson, L.

Balerno, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Monck, V.

Barnby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monckton of Brenchley, V

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Essex, E.

Mountevans, L.

Belstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrier, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Boston, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Braye, L.

Gage, V.

Oakshott, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen. V. [Teller.]

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Ranfurly, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Burton, L.

Hailes, L.

Rochdale, V.

Byers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rothermere, V.

Carnock, L.

Rothes, E.

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hatherton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Clwyd, L.

Henley, L.

St. Just, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hood, V.

Selkirk, E.

Colgrain, L.

Howe, E.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strang, L.

Courtown, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kemsley, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Killearn, L.

Teviot, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Croft, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Cromartie, E.

Long, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Daventry, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

de Clifford, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wise, L.

Clause 142 [Order of Industrial Court on application under s. 14]:
6.32 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 92C:
Page 104, line 13, after (" sufficient ") insert (" reasons for doubting whether the workers
Their Lordships divided: 45; Not-Contents, 107.
involved would have had an adequate opportunity of indicating their wishes in respect of the industrial dispute and that there are sufficient ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before the Secretary of State can make an application to the Court under the terms of Clause 141 for an order for a ballot and a standstill he has to be satisfied that a strike or industrial action short of a

423
strike is taking place or is contemplated; that such action would constitute an emergency or would be seriously injurious to a substantial number of workers employed in the industry, or that both of those conditions exist, and that there are reasons for doubting whether the workers involved have had an adequate opportunity of indicating their wishes in connection with the actual or proposed industrial action. On receipt of an application, the Court has to satisfy itself that the first two of those sets of conditions exist. But this independent body, the Court, is not to inquire into the third; namely, whether there are reasons for doubting whether the workers involved have had an adequate opportunity of indicating their wishes in the matter.
If I understand the purpose of the Court in this, as in so many other instances in which the courts of the land have a function, it is to provide a possible check on the Executive. But in this procedure the Secretary of State may act as he pleases and the Court has no say. As I understand Clause 141, even though it is certain that conditions 1 and 2 exist, the Secretary of State could still not apply to the Court for an order leading to a ballot and a standstill unless he felt that there were reasons for doubting whether the workers concerned have had an opportunity of indicating their wishes in the matter. It seems to me that this indicates that the key to the whole operation is the doubt about the wishes of the workers, and yet the Court, which must take a decision, is not to be able to inquire into whether there are valid reasons for that doubt. The Court will therefore be expected to make an order for a ballot to clear up a doubt the existence of which they must take for granted.
When this matter was discussed on"clause stand part," in the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, at column 317 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, on June 9:
" The trouble about asking the Court to decide whether the Secretary of State is right to have doubts or not is that it is very difficult to prove a matter of this kind in a Court."
I do not think that that is the case at all. We are not asking that what is in the mind of the Secretary of State should be proved. What the Court has a right to look at is whether or not there is doubt
424
about whether the workers' wishes have been ascertained.
One of the parties appearing before the Court will undoubtedly be those representing the workers—the trade union or organisation of workers, or the officials of such an organisation named in the application. Is it seriously contended that the Court, after having heard the Secretary of State express his reason for this doubt, could not by questioning the other party establish whether there exists a valid reason for the doubts of the Secretary of State? I am bound to say that it seems to us on this side of your Lordships' House to be quite unreasonable to accept that what the Court must take is the say-so of the Minister. It is a doctrine which we find completely objectionable. I do not think I need to make a long speech to make it clear that we think that the Government, in the Bill as it stands, are depriving the Court of the opportunity of looking at all three sets of factors, when the key one is this question of doubt. My Lords, I beg to move.
6.37 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as Clause 142 is now drafted its purpose is to require the Court to satisfy itself that the Secretary of State has good grounds for believing that an emergency situation in fact exists or is likely to occur as the result of the industrial action. This is a justiciable issue. What we cannot accept is that in an emergency situation the question whether the workers involved have had an adequate opportunity to express their views should be justiciable by the Court. It is well to record—I believe I said this on the Committee stage—that one must bear in mind, as my noble friend Lord Belstead has said, that in a situation such as this the Secretary of State's conciliation officers will have been in very close touch, but essentially this must be a question of"feel"more than anything else.
In our view, the judgment on this point is something for which the Secretary of State must take full responsibility, just as he must take full responsibility for deciding in an application for a restraint order under Clause 138, whether deferment of industrial action would be conducive to the settlement of industrial dispute by further negotiation. This is the kind of question he must decide; it is the

425
same kind of issue. Decisions as to whether or not the Government should intervene in a major industrial dispute have to be taken constantly by the Secretary of State, and the extent of support for a particular course of industrial action is one of the questions he has to take into account when reaching his decision.
In our view, it is right that the Secretary of State should have to answer for his judgment if he forms the view that workers do not support a strike and have had inadequate opportunity to express their opinions. He is not at all likely to apply for a strike ballot order in circumstances where there is a strong possibility that a strike will be fully supported by the workers, for the very good reason that he would look silly. The result of the ballot would merely indicate the extent of his misjudgment. If this Amendment were accepted, the Secretary of State would be able to transfer to the Court the responsibility for deciding whether workers had had an adequate opportunity to express their opinions about a strike in which they were involved. This would be a most difficult task for the Court, particularly as the Secretary of State would still retain responsibility for deciding the extent of support for the industrial action—because there are the two limbs here, although the noble Lord has referred to only one in this Amendment—and we doubt whether, in reality, the two decisions can be separated in this way.
What I am saying is that, given the pressure of an emergency situation, particularly the time factor, we think that the transfer of this responsibility may put the Court in an impossible situation. Views as to the adequacy, or otherwise, of the steps taken to consult the workers concerned about whether or not they wish to take industrial action are bound to be highly controversial; much more so, I suggest, than may often be the case about the extent of an emergency situation. They are speculative, if you like; it is a question of"feel ". The Court would have to deal with much detailed evidence from the two parties concerned—and this is the sort of matter which would involve a great deal of evidence—and could hardly be expected to give the speedy decision which the emergency requires and which is essential to the operation of these emergency procedures
426
as a whole. So I hope that the noble Lord will not proceed with this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in the course of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that in certain circumstances the Minister would look silly. That is the part of his remarks with which I find myself in agreement. The one point about which I am quite certain is that on many occasions, as a result of this Bill, the Minister is undoubtedly not only going to look silly, but in fact is going to be silly—at least, in his course of action. I do not want to divide on this Amendment, but this is another of those matters on which we very strongly hold a different view from that expressed by noble Lords on the other side. Having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said and to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said on the previous Amendment, all I would say is that I wish those who wrote the lines, the playwrights, were as good as those who deliver them. The delivery is far in excess of the quality of the material.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 143 [Provisions pending result of ballot ordered under s. 142]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 92X:
Page 105, line 2, leave out (" shall ") and insert (" may ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the Court decides to make an order, Clause 143, as at present worded, makes it obligatory for the Court to give a direction as part of its order that from the date of the order the strike is to stop. This Amendment would substitute a discretion for the obligatory quality of Clause 143. In other words, if the Court makes an order it will have a discretionary power to say that the strike is to stop as from the date when the order is made, but it is not bound to do so. The argument is that there is really no reason why a ballot could not perfectly well take place, even although a strike is still in progress. It would be less provocative if the Court did not make an order that while a ballot was taking place the strike was to stop. That is the case for the Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is a point which we discussed during the

427
Committee stage. The view that I expressed at that time, and which I still hold, is that it is essential that in circumstances of this kind the strike action should come to an end or be deferred, as the case may be, because it is of the essence of this kind of emergency procedure that the status quo ante should be restored. For one thing we believe that the ballot would be very much facilitated if it could be taken when everyone was back at work, or before they had gone on strike. If a strike was allowed to continue in progress, the likelihood is that embitterment would increase, and we think that the right course is to bring people back in order that the ballot could be held. Side by side with that, conciliation could go on all the time, and one would hope that, as a combined result, one would achieve a good outcome. But we do not think this should be optional and we see no point in substituting"may"for"shall"here.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, this is a matter of judgment on which I am afraid we shall have to continue to disagree. But I do not think it would serve any purpose to prolong the argument, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.48 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 92Y:
Page 105, line 3, after (" that ") insert (" if the result of the ballot indicates that the majority of the workers who are taking part or are expected to take part in the strike or other industrial action are or would be taking part in it against their wishes, for a period not exceeding sixty days beginning with the date on which the result of the ballot is reported to the Court.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of rather more substance, but I will move it as shortly as I can. As I said on the last Amendment, Clause 143, as at present worded, requires the Court, if it makes an order, to direct that a strike is to stop while a ballot is being held. One does not know how long it will take to hold the ballot. In a given situation, it might take quite a period of time. So that what the Court is really required to do, if it decides to make an order, is to direct that for an indeterminate time the workers are not to continue the strike. I am
428
conscious that the order is not made against those who participate in the strike; it is made against those who, as officials, organise it. It would be a grievous sin if I repeated what the House has heard from me ad nauseam about embittered feelings and tempers running high, and I hope that that is the one sin of which I may ultimately be found to be innocent. But I submit that it would be a more practical arrangement if the change embodied in the Amendment were made. Instead of the Court's having, as at present, to order that during the period beginning with the date on which the order takes effect the strike is to stop, a changed arrangement is introduced by the Amendment as follows.
If the result of the ballot indicates that the majority of the workers are against continuing the strike, then, as from the date the result of the ballot is reported to the Court, the strike has to stop for a period not exceeding 60 days. That period of 60 days is a counterpart to the 60 days provided for in Clauses 138 onwards; and it is submitted that it is a perfectly workable arrangement that the strike can go on while the ballot is being taken, but that if the ballot result, when reported, indicates that the majority of the strikers are not in sympathy with the industrial action in question, then as from the date that the result of the ballot is reported the strike must stop for a period not exceeding 60 days. It is of course to be hoped that if the result of the ballot shows that the majority of the strikers are not in sympathy with it, then in any event it will come to an end; but if there is still some dissidence among the strikers at any rate the 60-day period—or, rather, the period not exceeding 60 days—will give ample time for accommodation to be reached between the dissident elements and for the strike to be brought to an end in that way. If I may summarise, instead of the strike having to stop while the ballot is being taken, it will have to stop for a period not exceeding 60 days as from the date when the result of the ballot is reported if the majority is shown to be out of sympathy with the strike. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment has been

429
explained to us in full by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and I am bound to say, without wishing to be discourteous, that it is something which we feel cuts across the fundamentals, almost, of this clause, and of the conception of this Part of the Bill. As I understood the noble Lord, the effect of the Amendment is that there would be no restraint placed on the organisers of industrial action until the ballot had been completed. Therefore, a ballot could be held while a strike which was giving rise to a national emergency was in progress, and it is this which we on this side of the House feel vitiates the whole purpose of having the strike ballot procedure at all. I felt that I ought to make this clear at the outset. By the time the ballot was completed, there might be no prospect at all of averting the most desperate situation; and if the ballot was a major one (and this has been the subject of discussion in your Lordships' House before) it might take a few weeks to hold the ballot.
There is a further point which I think is a worry here. The effect of this Amendment would also be that the result of the ballot would be the only factor providing grounds for a restraint order, if I have understood the noble Lord correctly. That restraint, up to the 60 days as set out in the Amendment, would be purely restrictive, if I may put it that way, and would not be, as under the proposals of the Bill, if one takes this part of the Bill in the round, applied for some express purpose, either for further negotiations or for the holding of a strike ballot. I really do not know, on looking at the Amendment, on what grounds the Court could decide what the period of the restraint should be under these proposals. Since the result of a ballot must show that a majority of the workers involved in the dispute, and not just those voting, must be opposed to industrial action before the organisers can be restrained by the Court, the ballot takes on an entirely different character and significance compared to the ballot proposed in the Bill as it is framed at the moment. It is because the purpose of the strike ballot provisions in this Part of the Bill are simply to ensure that where industrial action is likely to have serious consequences for the community, organisation of that action should be restrained—it is for that simple reason—and because the noble Lord's Amendment
430
would mean turning this principle entirely on its head and making the restraint the subject of the ballot, that I must ask your Lordships to resist the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I do not quite agree with what the noble Lord says. After all, the main purpose of these two clauses is to try to find out in a rather critical situation whether or not the strikers wish to strike. I have submitted previously that if, suddenly, you order—I do not say the strikers to go back, but the organisers of the strike to stop, you are engaging upon provocative action which may result in challenge to the order of the Court and in the strike leaders becoming martyrs, heroes and all the rest of it. And that may conduce to an opposite result to bringing an immediate cessation to the industrial action. That is the point I made. It may be right or it may be wrong, but I submit that it is not obviously wrong by a long way. Again, I feel tempted to commit the sin to which I referred. But if one envisages a situation of that sort, for the Court to order the strike to stop would, I should have thought, be asking the Court to do something which would be construed as provocative to those engaged.
This Amendment suggests a rather different situation. The ballot is ordered, and it takes place. In any event, one does not know how long it is going to take, so the observations of the noble Lord about the indeterminate nature of the lack of restraint apply whatever arrangement is embodied in the clause: that is common ground to both. But what the change would bring about is to say that if the ballot achieves its purpose and shows that the majority are against the strike, then it must stop, and in those circumstances it would not be provocative to order the organisers to stop it. That would be acceptable. The noble Lord said he did not quite know how long, within the outside period of 60 days, a Court was likely to order the organiser to stop organising a strike. If I were a judge and I found there was a large majority against the strike, I should say the full 60 days, in the confident expectation that in that period the dispute would reach an accommodation and one would hear no more about it. If the majority was only very slight, what I might well do if I were a judge would

431
be to choose a much lesser period in the hope that during that lesser period the parties might get together and reach terms. That, I should have thought, would be the situation which would emerge. But I have put the point; my proposal does not commend itself to the Government, and I do not think there is any great point in pressing it. Therefore, having put the point and the arguments and counter-arguments having been heard, I ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ROYAL ASSENT
6.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Criminal Damage Act,

Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act,

National Insurance Act,

Torbay Corporation Act,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Ore Berth) Act,

Luton Corporation Act,

Surrey County Council Act.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of the Industrial Relations Bill on Report be adjourned for one hour in order to enable the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill to be further considered in Committee.

LICENSING (ABOLITION OF STATE MANAGEMENT) BILL
7.0 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Disposal of property in England held by Secretary of State for purposes of State management]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 3 to Clause 2 has already been moved, but the debate on the Amendment was not finished and will now continue.
The Amendment was as follows:
Page 2, line 1, leave out (" The Secretary of State ") and insert (" There shall be constituted a body to be called the State Liquor Trade Management Agency (hereinafter referred to as the Management Agency) which ").
LORD WINDLESHAM: As noble Lords who were present on Monday will recall, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had moved Amendment No. 3 and had spoken at the same time to Amendments Nos. 4 to 16. What I propose to do now is to reply to the principle behind all these Amendments, which is that a State Liquor Trade Management Agency should be set up. Amendments Nos. 4 to 16 concern Clause 2(1). All the remaining Amendments (Nos. 17 to 30) concern Clause 3(1); and they make a similar proposal as regards the assets in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in moving the Amendments explained that their effect would be to constitute a new body described as the State Liquor Trade Management Agency with a discretionary power to dispose of the Carlisle State Management assets on such terms as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient in the public interest. The Management Agency would consist of three persons, appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, qualified and experienced in land and property valuation and with no financial interest in the liquor industry. Similar Amendments to these were tabled and discussed in Committee in another place and the Opposition at that time argued strongly in favour of an independent agency to handle the valuation and disposal of the State Management assets.

433
The argument seemed to rest on the proposition that the Government could not be trusted to handle these matters themselves without risk of accusations of impropriety being made. This argument overlooks the ordinary arrangements for Exchequer financial control which would effectively safeguard the public interest. The Exchequer and Audit Department can, and no doubt will, report to Parliament on the transaction and bring any criticisms to Parliament's attention. No Government could possibly act improperly in this matter; and in the debate on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, from the Opposition Front Bench, utterly rejected any suggestion that they would. The proposed arrangements therefore seem not only unnecessary but also cumbrous and disproportionate to the value of the assets concerned. Nor does it seem to us that any comparison can usefully be made with the scale of operation involved in the denationalisation of the steel industry. The cost of setting up a special agency of this sort would be out of all proportion to the assets involved. There is no doubt at all in our minds that far and away the best, the most effective and the least cumbersome way of handling this particular exercise is to leave the responsibility for determining how the assets should be disposed of in the hands of the Secretaries of State, subject to the normal methods of Government financial control.
The Government's proposals to dispose of the assets involve making use of the independent valuation service which exists within the Government machine; namely, the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue. The valuations received from the outside agencies will be checked against those of the staff of the Valuation Office—the District Valuer and, in the case of the licensed properties, the Regional Licensed Property Valuer. We believe that this is a more effective safeguard than the proposal in the Amendments to appoint a Management Agency consisting of three people experienced in the valuation of land and property; these people would be in no position to check the independent valuations obtained unless they went out to inspect each of the premises. In any case, mere experience of property valuation is not enough. The valuation of licensed property is a specialist job which relatively few agencies
434
in this country are equipped to perform. The joint agents appointed by the Government, on the recommendation of the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, to dispose of the licensed property in Carlisle are a well-known Northern firm with specialised experience and a London firm which is one of the foremost in the country in this specialised field.
Another feature of these Amendments is that the proposed State Management Agency would be given no power to run the business while the properties were being disposed of; so presumably the Secretaries of State would have to continue trading. Thus responsibility would be shared in an uneasy partnership: the Secretary of State trying to run the business, in the realisation that the Agency was trying to dispose of the properties at the same time. Moreover, since the Agency would not be required to sell, the Amendments merely giving it power to do so, the Secretary of State would have no control over the pace at which the sale proceeded, although he would remain responsible to Parliament for the operation of a gradually declining business.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in moving these Amendments on Monday went further and implied that the Agency might decide not to dispose of the assets of the scheme after all. This means that Amendment No. 4, which provides that the Agency shall"have power to"dispose of the properties rather than, as in the Bill, imposing an absolute requirement, could be interpreted as being designed to enable the Agency to preserve the State management assets intact, if it thought it right to do so. This is clearly open to strong objection as a matter of principle. The Government have made clear their view that this is an inappropriate activity for the public sector, and have presented this Bill to Parliament on that assumption. It would not be realistic to set up an Agency which might then decide to implement the policy in a way different from that intended by the Government and different from that intended by Parliament in approving this Bill. These are the reasons of principle why these sets of Amendments are not acceptable to the Government and why I must ask the Committee to reject them.
LORD HUGHES: In recounting what took place on Monday the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out that Amendments Nos. 3 to 16 are more or less duplicated in Clause 3 by Amendments Nos. 17 to 30, applying more or less the same set of amending conditions to the Scottish clause. I do not intend to move any of these Amendments when we come to them, because all the arguments which have been put forward so ably on Monday by my noble friend Lord Stonham could not possibly be bettered by anything I say over again in relation to Clause 3. I am therefore personally happy to accept that what he said on Monday, in speaking to Amendments Nos. 3 to 16, should be taken as applying equally to Amendments Nos. 17 to 30.
I am reinforced in that decision after having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, though he put forward what seemed to him to be perfectly valid reasons, from the point of view of the Government, objecting to certain of the Amendments; and when he stated what was possible if those Amendments were put forward he was, of course, reiterating things with which we are in complete agreement. We agree that those could be the consequences of some of these Amendments, but, unlike the Government, we consider them to be desirable consequences. So he will not be surprised if I find my noble friend's statement on Monday much more acceptable than his reply to-day.
7.10 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I am extremely disappointed, but not wholly surprised, at the nature of the noble Lord's reply. It seemed to me that the only objection he put forward to our proposal for the setting up of a State agency was that it was far too cumbersome. He thought that the appointment of these three people (one of whom, I imagine, would have had knowledge of property licences)—these three wise men—would be far too cumbersome. I do not see that it is so very different from the Government's proposal. They will be appointing estate agents who, it is true will draw a commission on all the work they do, but when these estate agents have come to a provisional decision and have seen prospective buyers they will then have to submit the proposal to the
436
Home Office. How cumbersome is that, and how expert are the gentlemen who at the Home Office will make the decision either to accept a bid or to reject it? They are estimable and experienced gentlemen in many fields but they have no expertise in this one. Therefore I should think that not only is the management agency not cumbersome; it is no more cumbersome than the actual machinery that the Government propose to set up, and the decisions would be more reliable. As for its being such a large organisation to set up, out of all proportion to the total value of the assets, I flatly disagree. I believe the values are much greater than the noble Lord thinks or the Bill suggests. In any case, this is public money. These are assets we have had for a very long time. They should not be given away or sold on inadequate advice.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that under my Amendment the Secretary of State still has to trade. That is only in theory, because the proposal is that this management agency should manage and should relieve the Secretary of State of day-to-day problems. But in Clause 5 of the Bill it is provided that the Secretary of State must remain in the business until all the properties are sold. Of course that means that he is eventually responsible for trading, but there is no objection at all to that. As my noble friend Lord Hughes said when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, objected to our Amendment No. 4—" shall have power to dispose of property "—there is nothing wrong with that. I find it difficult to understand why the Government feel that in a trade of this kind, something they are giving up because it is not appropriate for a Government to deal in pubs and the sale of beer, they nevertheless feel it is appropriate for the Minister to deal with it instead of having a small expert organisation to value the properties and to negotiate their sale. I think it is quite right that such a body should have power to do so.
This may be the last opportunity to speak on this Bill. All our Amendments were designed to be helpful. The Government have rejected them. They do not want more time, which they could so usefully use; they do not want any organisation, however small—and three experts

437
does not constitute a big organisation—to settle this business. I think they are wrong. The noble Lord reminded your Lordships that I said on Second Reading that I utterly rejected suggestions which have been made that the Home Secretary has not got clean hands in this matter. Of course I do, and I stick to that; but in the very nature of things it must be better that this is not done by a Minister of the Crown. It is far below his work, and I can only regret that the Government are forcing this Bill through without accepting these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.19 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.]

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
8.0 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
Clause 144 [Conduct of Ballot]:
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No. 92E:
Page 107, line 11, at end insert (" or for any subsequent ballot arising out of the order of the Industrial Court under section 142 of this Act in consequence of a doubt as to the wishes of the workers in respect of any settlement arrived at on their behalf.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hesitate to bring this great progress to an end but, having made my contribution, I should like on behalf of my noble friends to move Amendment No. 92E. Clause 144 sets out the procedure to be followed where the Court has ordered that a ballot be taken and the Commission makes the arrangements. In certain conditions the Commission may request a trade union which is a party to the dispute to conduct a ballot of its members itself. If the Commission so decides and the union does make itself responsible for conducting a ballot and carries it out, the Bill says, in subsection (5), that the Commission
" shall pay to a trade union the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred "
438
in so acting. This is as it should be. But a point arises in connection with a second ballot conducted by the union arising out of the result of the first ballot. The point is, ought not the Commission to be empowered in such circumstances to pay the expenses reasonably incurred by the union in conducting a second ballot?
The attention of your Lordships' House was drawn to this matter by my noble friend Lord Collison, who did it so admirably that I do not think I can put it more succinctly and better than by simply repeating his words. The noble Lord was a member of the Donovan Commission, and, as your Lordships know, he is an ex-general secretary of a very important union in this country, so his words and opinions do carry some weight. On June 9 my noble friend said:
" If the Secretary of State is in doubt and requires a ballot, and a ballot is decided upon by the Industrial Court, it could well happen that the majority of workpeople concerned would vote for the strike. The strike would then continue, and the union would negotiate with the employer with a view to reaching a settlement…which they would want to recommend to their people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/7/71, col. 330.]
A little later my noble friend said (col. 334):
" If a ballot is demanded by what the trade union people will see as State intervention. I think they will equally well demand, and with justification, that, before they accept their union's decision as to the acceptance of a settlement which some of them may not like, there should be a further ballot…. Obviously, the question as to who pays for the ballot comes into this."
The question, then, is who pays for the second ballot, and it is because that question ought to be answered that this Amendment has been put down. I think it ought to be clearly stated that the Commission should be empowered to pay for the second ballot, and I hope that this will be the view of the Government. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has told the House, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn undertook, at the time the noble Lord, Lord Collison, made his speech at the previous stage of the Bill, to give this matter further consideration. As my noble friend mentioned during an earlier discussion on this clause, and subsection (7) of Clause 143, it is in fact technically

439
impossible to have a second ballot to determine support for continued industrial action. The situation is that the Court is not able to entertain any application for a second ballot because of Clause 143(7), and this Amendment would, therefore, be incompatible with the previous clause. So that the noble Lords should not feel that I am simply shielding myself behind a technicality in this matter, perhaps I should be a little stronger in my remarks and emphasise that the whole purpose of the strike ballot order is to give the workers involved an opportunity to express their views about support for an industrial action likely to cause an emergency situation. It is for this reason that, as the Bill is drawn at the moment, the order does not, and cannot, place any requirement upon the parties once the result of the ballot is known. If the union wishes to hold its own ballot on a return to work (which was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collison) it is at perfect liberty, of course, to do so; but in those circumstances the cost of such a ballot ought, we feel, to be met by the union itself, since there is nothing in the strike ballot provisions imposing any obligation in this respect, and any pressure by elements in the union for such a ballot would be a matter for the union to deal with in accordance with its own policy and rules.
May I say, in conclusion, in case my remarks sound unduly uncompromising, that we are dealing here with a situation in which there will have been a vote to do something which the members apparently wish to do: that is to return to work. Therefore I do not know that there is as much between the two sides of the House on this point as may appear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and the speech I have made from this side. I feel that where people have taken a vote on the line of action they wish to take, to place on the Court a mandatory duty to pay for a further ballot, presumably to carry the line of action the workers are already wishing to take to its logical conclusion—namely, to return to work—is asking a bit much;
and for that reason we must resist this Amendment.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I must say that the reply is exceedingly disappointing. The noble Lord has not made out a case at all, and has so far misinterpreted the case I made. What I was saying was that it was likely that the Commission would say to the trade union,"All your members have to be consulted, and as a consequence we place upon you the responsibility of holding a ballot ". The noble Lord agrees with that. The workers then decide to strike, so that the strike is quite legal and valid; it is done by ballot. After the strike has started, the trade union and the employers then enter into negotiations on terms. It may well be that the trade union will then want to recommend those terms to its members. Some members may object and may say,"If you are in fact recommending this as a result of your first ballot which put us on strike, we are going to challenge this decision made by you, the union leader ". As a consequence of that, a ballot might be necessary. This ballot arises as a result of the first decision, and so we are saying—and I thought it was quite a modest request to make—that if the second ballot is a consequence of the first ballot, at least the union ought not to be asked to bear the expense of it. The union has done its part in this job. It has got what it regards as a reasonable settlement, and it wants its action to be homologated, and it can be done by ballot.
I should have thought that under these circumstances (and if this Bill is supposed to promote good industrial relations at all) this is a sample of those good industrial relations. All I can say is that if the Government have no more to say on it than that, then I dread to think what is going to happen in the working of this particular Bill.
8.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (92E) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 78.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Henderson, L.

Platt, L.

Slater, L.

Henley, L.

Popplewell, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Hoy, L.

Raglan, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lindgren, L.

Segal, L.

White, Bs.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Essex, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Falkland, V.

Napier and Eftrick, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Belstead, L.

Geddes, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Boston, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Braye, L.

Gray, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brecon, L.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brentford, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hanworth, V.

Somers, L.

Burnham, L.

Harcourt, V.

Strange, L.

Burton, L.

Hastings, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hatherton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Courtown, E.

Hives, L.

Suffield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Teviot, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Inglewood, L.

Teynham, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kemsley, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Killearn, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

de Clifford, L.

Latymer, L.

Vivian, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Long, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Ward of Whitby, V.

Digby, L.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 147 [Effect of strike notice]:
8.19 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 93K:
Page 109, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (4) is that part of the clause dealing with the effect of a strike notice. The clause starts off by saying—and it is a very important statement—that a strike notice shall not be construed as a notice to terminate the contract of employment, or as a repudiation of that contract. I should probably be right in saying that this is the first time that the task of defining a strike has been attempted. It is a very important statement indeed. One wants it to be clear and not to be confused by any subsequent unclear statement in the same clause. Unfortunately I think subsection (4), which the Amendment seeks to remove, is such an unclear and confusing statement. It says:
442
" Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall be taken to exclude or restrict any right which an employer would have apart from that subsection to dismiss…an employee who takes part in a strike."
My Lords, I recognise that there are two different actions. One is the giving of a notice to strike by the employee, and the other, which is in subsection (4), is the giving by an employer of a dismissal notice to the employee. The reason I am raising this point is because this subsection is almost an invitation to an employer to take the view that it would be right for him to dismiss an employee who has given a strike notice. Why do I say that? Because there is no other purpose in putting the subsection there. I am reinforced in making that statement by the discussion we had in Committee when, on June 9, as reported at column 359, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who was replying to an Amendment which I had moved on this issue, said:
" …as a corollary to the right of the employee to say he refuses to work, we have the right of the employer to terminate his employment. This is the present situation. It is not affected by the Bill."
As I understand that statement and the rest of what the noble Lord said, this subsection (4) has no effect; it may be declaratory but it has no effect. If I am right, and I think I am, in saying that it has no effect, I mean that it has no legal effect, but it has an emotional effect. It is a highly provocative subsection. The right to strike and to avoid a repudiation of a contract of employment by giving appropriate notice to strike is a very important right and one does not want it confused in any way or any part of it to be withdrawn. I therefore think it would be far safer, and certainly far less provocative, and, if I understand it aright, would not affect the legal provisions of the rest of the clause, if subsection (4) were removed, as the Amendment seeks to do. I therefore beg to move the Amendment.
8.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment, or its equivalent, was thoroughly discussed in Commitee. This Bill makes a number of changes in the law, but two changes it does not make. The first is that it does not make a strike illegal and the second is that it does not alter the employer's right to terminate a contract of employment during or after a strike, provided it is not discriminatory within the meaning of the clause we have been discussing. Subsection (4), which is alleged to be discriminatory, only preserves the status quo. Clause 147, of which it is part, makes clear a branch of the law which has always been open to contest and has been, I think, argued about by many erudite legal authorities, but subsection (2) of Clause 147 makes it clear that where an employee takes part in a strike after due notice has been given, his action is not to be regarded as a breach of a contract of employment, either for the purposes of any proceedings in contract brought against the employer or in respect of any proceedings in tort, whether brought against the employee or any other person, or for the purposes of Section 5 of the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, which we discussed in Committee, or Section 96 of the Act, which is the section dealing with inducement to break a contract of employment. So, whether or not that was the law before—and that might be the subject of argument—the employee is protected, and
444
for certain purposes third parties are protected, in respect of the classes of case which are set out in subsection (2) of Clause 147.
The effect of enacting subsection (2) would of course inevitably raise the issue one way or the other whether that enactment abridged the right of the employer to dismiss. The general policy of the Bill is that, subject to the provisions of the Bill, the right to strike remains and, subject to the provisions of the Bill, the right of an employer to dismiss remains. That is safeguarded by subsection (4). I do not myself see what is provocative about that, because it only pretends to maintain an existing state of affairs and there is in fact no limitation either on the employee to strike under subsection (2) or on the employer to dismiss under subsection (4). If it were true, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, says, that subsection (4) constituted an invitation to the employer to dismiss, it would equally be true—although of course it is not—that under subsection (2) there was an invitation to the employee to strike. The truth is that neither is the case.
The purpose of the subsection sought to be left out is simply to maintain the status quo and to dispose of many of the legal doubts between the two parties to a dispute. Of course it is true that in 99 cases out of 100 questions of so-called victimisation on either side and actions by the employee and by the employer are settled as part of the settlement, and it is proper that it should be so. If they are settled as part of the settlement, as part of a no victimisation clause, the Bill has nothing to say to an agreement of that kind: and I have nothing to say, except that if they want to settle a dispute it is a very wise course for both parties to take to say that there should be no more dispute about it. If in the rare minority of cases it is not settled, then the right of the employee to strike is preserved and the right of the employer to dismiss is preserved, subject to the other provisions in the Act. For these reasons, I see no reason to diverge from the opinion expressed by one of my noble friends—I am not sure who it was; I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—who dealt with the matter on Committee. I see no reason to alter the opinion of the Government in any way, and for this reason the Amendment should be resisted.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a question?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of Course.
LORD SLATER: The noble and learned Lord referred to the status quo and he repeated that two or three times. We have knowledge of that term and we know that where we have had strikes—as the noble and learned Lord will be aware—we have had victimisation. People have been victimised because of their action in striking and they have not been able to find employment, either with the original company or with any other company which may have been an associate or subsidiary of the parent company.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not absolutely sure what is the question which I am supposed to answer, but the answer to it, if I can divine what was in the noble Lord's mind, is that after the end of a strike it is wise to include a no victimisation clause: wise from the point of view of both parties. This situation arises only if such a clause is not included; and all it says is that this Bill is not to alter the existing law except to the extent that it is altered in favour of the workman by subsection (2).
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has said; but, with the greatest respect, I must say that he has confirmed my anxiety. It is not an enormous anxiety but it is an anxiety. May I indulge the noble and learned Lord's usual patience to explain it? The noble and learned Lord based his case on the fact that the corollary to the re-statement of the law in subsection (2) was the re-statement of the law in subsection (4). He did not say that this altered the law. On the contrary, he said that it re-stated the law and he confirmed what was said by his noble friend Lord Windlesham. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said:
"…we have the right of the employer to terminate his employment. This is the present situation. It is not affected by the Bill "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/6/71; col. 359.]
My Lords, there is not a clear balance, as the noble and learned Lord indicated. Because subsection (2) either alters the
446
law or makes clear what the noble and learned Lord said had on many occasions been in doubt; that is to say, some people must have thought that the law said a particular thing which subsection (2) now says that it does not mean. So subsection (2) is altering the law, at least in the view of some people.
There is, however, no parallel with subsection (4). In short, you have a reason for stating subsection (2); you have no reason for stating subsection (4), except the one that the noble and learned Lord adduced; namely, to give some balance and make clear that it is right to say this about the employee and it is right to say something else about the employer. It is because the noble and learned Lord has confirmed that subsection (4) does not alter the law that I find it difficult to see why it is necessary to put in a declaratory phrase repeating what is the law. If there is no reason for it in law, you are bound to look at the phrase and say,"Why is it put in? ". If it is put in a clause which is in other respects an acceptable clause—and the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that it is a clause which gives protection to the employee, the striker, on giving due notice—one is bound to construe it as an indication that Parliament thought that at the same time that it was giving something to the employee it was saying to the employer,"But don't you worry; if you want to strike back, you jolly well do so." I am not saying that is what the subsection means. I am saying it is tantamount to an invitation, and therefore, in my view, it is still a provocative statement.
The noble and learned Lord is not prepared to accept the Amendment to delete subsection (4). I am sorry about that. I think it will be of some help that what the noble and learned Lord said, with his great authority, will be on record for all to see; namely, that it does not alter the law; that it is not intended to be provocative; that it is not intended to be an invitation to the employer to do anything that he would not otherwise have thought of doing. All I can do, therefore, is rely on the record of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, and to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.37 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 93L:
Page 109, line 36, leave out (" an ") and insert (" a single ").
The noble Lord said: I suggest that with this Amendment your Lordships consider Amendment No. 93M, as the two tie up together. This is an attempt, probably a very amateur one, to meet a real difficulty. This is a suggested Amendment at line 36 to subsection (5), which says:
"…' due notice ', in relation to an employee, means notice of a duration not less than that which…he would be required to give to terminate his contract of employment."
That is a very common-sense concept, and my recollection is that it arises out of a rather famous law case which so decided. But a strike is essentially the withdrawal of labour by a group of people at one and the same time.
For practical purposes, the strikers are not those who happen all to be engaged on the same period of notice, but all who happen to be engaged in a particular workshop, or at a particular task, or in a particular factory—some geographical or occupational category, not a category defined by a period of notice to be found in their contract of employment. Therefore, this difficulty arises: that for workers to withdraw their labour effectively as strikers, they must all come out together. For workers to avoid the harm that comes through not giving due notice, they must give varying periods of notice if their contracts of employment are for varying periods of notice. Of course, one week's notice would be the average case; some would have a period of notice of less than one week and some more than one week. I suggest that one has to meet this difficulty if one is going to give any value to the relief which giving due notice provides without at the same time making nonsense of the right to strike.
Therefore the suggestion in these two Amendments is that, instead of the clause reading, as it does at the moment,
"…' due notice ', in relation to an employee, means notice…not less than that which…he would be required to give to terminate his contract of employment ",
it should read:"' due notice ' in relation to a single employee"means what I
448
have already read out, but the subsection would continue:
" but where a strike notice has been given by or on behalf of a number of employees, then ' due notice ' means one week's notice."
One week's notice is, it seems to me, a fair average period. It will not necessarily be the exact notice period in all relevant contracts of employment, but it will be in most cases. In some cases, it will be a little longer than is necessary; in others, a little shorter than is necessary. But the essential point is that I cannot see any value in the"due notice"relief unless that notice is of such a kind that it can be properly given by every member of the group. No group, no strike. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
8.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we had a discussion about this point while we were arguing the matter in Committee, and the noble Lord put forward his case then in a little more detail. He said, and said truly, that in a factory there might be employees affected by a dispute, some of whom were on an hourly basis or a daily basis, some of whom were on a weekly basis and some of whom were on a fortnightly basis; and he said this would cause the organisers of the strike to have heart failure because they would not know which employees belonged to which category, and to give a series of different notices of varying length of time would cause a Government Department and a computer a long period of agony. My Lords, I replied and—I still believe that the reply had certain validity—that if they all gave a fortnight's notice they would be in order under the terms of this Bill, because under subsection (5), which this Amendment seeks to modify, the term is not that they must give the exact notice provided for in the individual contracts of employment but that the notice should not be less. All, therefore, that the organisers of the strike have to do in the given set of circumstances is to give the largest period of notice in respect of all the employees. I cannot myself see what difficulty, practically, that presents. It would certainly involve no use of any computer, only a little common sense.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned

449
Lord the Lord Chancellor. This is the argument he used on the last occasion, and I would therefore seek to show him that there is a very real practical difficulty, of such practicality that it virtually destroys the strike. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to envisage the case of a typical shop or factory where there are 100 workers on one week's notice going on strike, and there is one person employed in a clerical capacity, in the storeroom or something, in the same factory, and he is on two weeks' notice. What the noble and learned Lord is saying is:"There is no difficulty; let there be a fortnight's notice on behalf of 101 persons, in circumstances where they have decided to go on strike, and it is to be hoped that somebody can hold them for one week while one week's notice is expiring." But, my Lords, to hope that it would be possible to hold them for a fortnight when 100 people are on one week's notice and one person only is on two weeks' notice is, to my mind, to hope for the impossible. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to explain how one gets out of that practical difficulty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord's ingenuity is so enormous that I should have thought it was unnecessary to ask the question. He can do it in one of two ways, but the simplest way would be to let the one man clerical worker go on working for an extra week; and I cannot see why that unduly interferes with the objects of the strike or causes even the stupidest shop steward a moment's anxiety. If, however, he wanted to be super-careful he would try to persuade them all to last out for two weeks. But neither course, I should have thought, presents insuperable difficulty. The first assumes that the workers are so enthusiastic for the strike that they cannot last out for two weeks, and the other one assumes that they have a little common sense. But both of them, I think, present no difficulties at all to an ingenious shop steward, still less to the noble Lord whose ingenuity has impressed the House increasingly as time has gone on. But the fact that I am put such a difficult conundrum on the Report stage of an important Bill only leads me to marvel at the purely imaginary difficulties which the noble
450
Lord has been able to conjure up out of the vast recesses of his imagination.
My Lords, the other thing that needs to be said is that the employees have made a contract. Some people think contracts are only scraps of paper, or even scraps of air. I do not, curiously enough, take that line at all. I think that when an employer makes a contract with his workmen it ought to be kept because it is a promise, I think that when an employee makes a contract with his employer it ought to be kept because it is a promise. I just do not laugh off the theory with which the noble Lord does not seem to have really made intellectual contact, that people ought to keep their contracts, if the contract is that in one case they should keep a week's notice and in another case they should keep a fortnight's notice, my simple-minded doctrine—perhaps naïve, perhaps starry-eyed, perhaps unduly idealistic—is, none the less, that they should do what they have promised to do; and the noble Lord has never really explained why he wants them to do something else and something less than they have promised to do.
But the noble Lord really must catch on with the white heat of the technological revolution, if I may coin a phrase borrowed for the purpose from the Leader of his Party. Strikes are not confined to weekly wage-earners; they are not confined to monthly wage earners. I do not know what the average length of notice required in an airline pilot's contract is—I have not inquired. But I do know one thing: that they are paid approximately the same as the Lord Chancellor or a High Court Judge. No doubt they perform greater services: I am prepared to accept that. The Lord Chancellor is on a minute's notice, but I rather suspect that this would be considered by an airline pilot too short a period. I fancy that a week would be considered too short by an airline pilot, or by his employer, but under the noble Lord's Amendment the whole of an airline could be brought out on a week's notice. Of course this is absolute rubbish; let us face it.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said,"This is absolute rubbish; let us face it ", I could not have

451
been in greater agreement. I am assuming, of course, that the"rubbish"he refers to is what he himself has just said. I assume that because nobody was talking about the airline pilots. I was talking about the law and the desire to adhere to the law; and about the difficulty that this clause poses—because this clause is about a strike and a strike notice, and for the first time is trying to set down what a strike is. We all know that the first element of a strike is that a group of people have to go out at the same time, otherwise it is not a strike. That is the problem we are facing.
I assumed, erroneously it seems, that the Government, who had been thinking like this in the interests of good industrial relations, were seeking to further good industrial relations. It has been made perfectly clear by the noble and learned Lord that nothing could be further from his mind, at all events, whether it is farther from the Government's mind or

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Raglan, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

George-Brown, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Stonham, L.

Carnock, L.

Henderson, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Janner, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lindgren, L.

Walston, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Longford, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

White, Bs.

Foot, L.

Popplewell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gray, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Courtown, E.

Gridley, L.

Albemarle, E.

Craigavon, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Amory, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Hacking, L.

Auckland, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hailes, L.

Balerno, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Balfour, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Daventry, V.

Hanworth, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

de Clifford, L.

Harcourt, V.

Belstead, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hastings, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Denham, L.

Hatherton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Digby, L.

Hives, L.

Boston, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hood, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Braye, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Inglewood, L.

Brecon, L.

Essex, E.

Kemsley, V.

Brentford, V.

Falkland, V.

Killearn, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ferrers, E.

Kilmany, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Geddes, L.

Latymer, L.

Burnham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Burton, L.

Gowrie. E. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

not. The reason why I suggest one week is because, according to the best of my recollection, when we last discussed this matter the noble and learned Lord himself said that in nearly every case the period of notice was one week. Therefore, I thought that the period of one week would fall on sympathetic ears. But it is perfectly obvious that far from it falling on sympathetic ears the noble and learned Lord sought to make a case for his self-entertainment. The noble and learned Lord has a difficult task to perform and he is entitled to entertainment of every kind he can possibly summon. What he is not entitled to do is to exacerbate industrial relations, and to have no intention of improving them; and because the noble and learned Lord has made that perfectly clear. I have no alternative but to divide the House.
8.52 p.m.
On Question. Whether the said Amendment (No. 93L) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 91.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Rochdale, V.

Teviot, L.

Milverton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Teynham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

St. Just, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Northchurch, Bs.

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sinclair of Cleve, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Oakshott, L.

Strange, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Windlesham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Suffield, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.59 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 93P:
Insert the following new clause:
Teacher in aided school dismissed on requirement of local education authority
".—(1) Where a teacher in an aided school is dismissed by the governors or managers of the school in pursuance of a requirement of the local education authority under paragraph (a) of the proviso to section 24(2) of the Education Act 1944, sections 22 and 24 and subsections (1) to (3) and subsection (5) of section 106 of this Act shall have effect in relation to the dismissal as if—

(a) the local education authority had at all material times been the teacher's employer, and

(b) the local education authority had dismissed him, and the reason or principal reason for which they did so had been the reason or principal reason for which they required his dismissal.

(2) For the purposes of a complaint under section 106 of this Act as applied by the preceding subsection, section 115 of this Act shall have effect as if—

(a) in subsection (4)(b), for the words the employer in question refused or failed to make such an offer, and the tribunal or Court considers that he acted unreasonably in doing so' there were substituted the words ' the local education authority refused or failed to permit the aggrieved party to be re-engaged, and the tribunal or Court considers that they acted unreasonably in doing so ', and

(b) in subsection (5), any reference to the employer were a reference to the local education authority."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to safeguard the right of appeal against the unfair dismissal of teachers in voluntary aided schools who are dismissed on the request of the local education authority under proviso (a) of Section 24(2) of the Education Act 1944. That Act empowers a local education authority to require the managers or governors of an aided school to dismiss a teacher without giving any reason. The managers or governors and not the local education authority are in fact the employers of the teachers. The
454
unfair dismissal provisions of the Bill provide only for a complaint of unfair treatment against the employer who carried out the dismissal, lf, therefore, such a dismissed teacher made a complaint of unfair dismissal against his employer under these provisions, the employer would have a complete defence under Section 24(1)(d) of this Act, which provides that a fair reason for dismissal is that the continued employment of the employee in the position he held would contravene a duty or restriction imposed by statute. And I am advised that the complaint in this case would almost certainly be dismissed.
My Lords, we consider that this does not give the teachers concerned—that is to say, those in aided schools—fair and just treatment. We think that in these cases the local education authority should be treated as the employer, and that the dismissed employee's appeal should lie against the authority and not against the employer who merely acted on the statutory requirement under Section 24 of the 1944 Act, and that where the tribunal determined that the dismissal was unfair the local education authority should be expressly liable for compensation. I will go into more detail if any noble Lord wishes, but this in fact is what the new clause does. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would be good enough to say whether the usual consultation took place with the relevant representatives before this clause was finally worked out.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, discussions have gone on with the Church of England and the Roman Catholic school authorities. The Department of Education and Science has been in touch with, but has not discussed with, the teachers' unions and the education authorities this proposal, and there has been no reaction from those two bodies.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 149 [Redundancy payments]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 935:
Page111, line 22, after (" Act ") insert (" or a sum payable under section 41(2) of that Act ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 935, and if it is convenient to your Lordships perhaps we can also discuss Amendments Nos. 93U and 93V. These are technical Amendments and they are designed to adjust the clause in order to ensure that the regulation-making powers that it provides in relation to overlapping claims for redundancy payments under the Redundancy Payments Act and complaints of unfair dismissal under the Bill cover payments made to Crown employees, because these are regarded under Section 41 of the Redundancy Payments Act as similar to redundancy payments and in respect of which rebates may be paid out of the redundancy fund. Crown employees are within the scope of the"unfair dismissal"provisions of the Bill, but Clause 149 as it stands at present does not cover the payments to Crown employees which, under Section 41(2) and (3) of the Redundancy Payments Act, are regarded as similar to redundancy payments and attract rebates from the redundancy fund. The Amendments therefore make the necessary adjustments to the clause to ensure that its provisions apply to payments to Crown employees as they do to redundancy payments under the Act. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, unless any of your Lordships wish to participate further in the debate on this, all I need do is to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, for explaining the matter completely to our satisfaction.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.6 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 93N:
Page 111, line 25, at end insert—
(" Provided that no such regulation shall prevent the payment to the complainant of a sum equivalent to the said redundancy payment wherever a lesser sum is awarded by way of compensation under subsection (5) of the said section 106.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 93N. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness here, because I think we were privileged to have her attendance when the matter was discussed on a previous occasion, and my recollection (though I have not had time to check on this) is that she was good enough to say that she would consider the matter and see whether the proposal which I then made might prove to be acceptable.
The situation, if I may remind your Lordships, that the Amendment seeks to achieve is that, assuming an employee has been unfairly dismissed and is not reinstated afterwards, then he has lost his job, and lost his job in circumstances in which, if he had not been unfairly dismissed, but had simply been dismissed, he would have been entitled to redundancy payment of a given figure. It is conceivable that that redundancy payment, assuming the employee was an employee of long standing and earning substantial wages, might have been a substantial sum. But the Bill provides that where there is unfair dismissal an employee is entitled to compensation, and regulations are to be introduced to provide that he can set one against the other, so that he does not get both the compensation and redundancy. So far, I should have thought that all reasonable people agree.
But what I am instancing to your Lordships is the possibility of a person receiving by way of compensation a small sum, because he is able to get another job quickly. The compensation is based on the likely period that the ex-employee will be out of work, and therefore the amount of compensation awarded on a damages basis is fairly small; whereas if he had received redundancy payment the sum would have been large, because of course redundancy payment has nothing whatever to do with the prospect of future unemployment, but is concerned only with the achievement of past employment. These are two totally different concepts, and the basis on which each amount is calculated is a different one. In the case of redundancy, you take note of the wages that the man has earned and the period that he has been employed. In the case of damages or compensation, you take note of the likelihood of the period for which the man

457
is likely to be unemployed before he gets another job.
To make the position clear, whether your Lordships think it right or not, the present law, as I understand it, is that a man can be given a proper dismissal on Friday, get £500, or whatever sum it may be, in redundancy pay properly under the law, and start his next job at the same or at a higher wage on Monday. That is what the law provides. But, in those circumstances, it is conceivable that the compensation payable, if this were subsequently established as being an unfair dismissal, would be quite small. All I am saying in the Amendment, which seems to me to be worth more than sympathetic consideration, is:
" Provided that no such regulation "—
these are the regulations which this Bill empowers the Secretary of State to bring in—
" shall prevent the payment to the complainant "—
that is, the employee unfairly dismissed—
" of a sum equivalent to the said redundancy payment wherever a lesser sum is awarded by way of compensation under "
the relevant section of the Bill. So, in short, where compensation in the case I have instanced would be quite small, and the redundancy payment quite big, it would be unfair to deny the redundant employee his redundancy pay merely because it has turned out to be an unfair dismissal for which a different kind of compensation, calculated on a different basis, has been awarded. I beg to move.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept this Amendment. My noble friend in moving the Amendment talked about unfair dismissal. This often happens where you get four or five people engaged in a form of employment, and because some slight error has occurred in the operations in this small establishment a particular man receives, as it were, a minute's notice, but when the matter is gone into later it is found that he ought never to have been dismissed because he was not responsible for what happened. The man ought still to be in employment, but things did not work out that way. Naturally, because of his qualifications and ability he is quite easily able to find
458
employment further down the street, or within the village or district.
I think my noble friend has been quite fair in putting down this Amendment, and what he has said in regard to redundancy payments is correct. Some men are fortunate enough to be able to take up fresh employment the following Monday or the following week. My noble friend's Amendment provides that a man will be able to get by way of redundancy payment the sum to which he made reference, but it shall not outweigh itself against the compensation due to the man because of wrongful dismissal or something for which he was not responsible. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will give us some form of accommodation in this respect.
9.14 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the views expressed both by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Slater, and naturally, being an Aberdonian, I would always prefer to see that whether you were unfairly dismissed or subject to a redundancy payment you always got the best of the bargain. I see the point of this Amendment, but I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said in his opening remarks that he had accepted that the provisions concerning unfair dismissal and those concerning redundancy were exclusive of each other. He must have received a great number of letters during the course of this Bill, but I wrote to the noble Lord on June 23 and sought to confirm to him that I felt that the intentions of the Government were correctly laid down in this clause. What they amount to is that if you have a protection which is afforded by the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, or one which can qualify under the unfair dismissal provisions, they are exclusive. You really must choose between them.
In the debate during the Committee Stage I used the phrase—I was looking it up the other day—that"you cannot have it both ways: it must be one or the other ". This is really what this clause is about. You have either been unfairly dismissed or you are entitled to redundancy payment. I quite understand the feeling because I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, instanced a

459
man aged, I think, 61 who had served very ably for some time and would have been able to qualify for redundancy payments but who was in fact unfairly dismissed. I quite see that. On the other hand you must have one or the other but not both, much as I would like that, as an Aberdonian. That being so, I fear I cannot recommend to the House that they should accept this Amendment.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, might I ask the noble Baroness this: could not an employee be unfairly dismissed and have his case tried and still be entitled to redundancy payment?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, an employee can, for example, be dismissed, and he may seek at the time to put it the other way round to the noble Lord—that he was redundant, but he wishes to put forward a claim that he was unfairly dismissed. The Bill provides that he can put forward this claim on either set of circumstances, but he cannot have the award on both at the same time; nor can he choose between them. If the tribunal has decided that he has been unfairly dismissed he takes compensation; if the tribunal decides that he is redundant then he takes a redundancy award.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, surely the redundancy payment will always be the one that is made, because when employees become redundant the employer notifies the Department of Employment some weeks before and is required to work out the redundancy payment, which has to be agreed by the Department before the employee leaves. It seems to me that in these circumstances, unless there is something in the actual dismissal or some attempt on the part of the employer to prevent the employee receiving the redundancy payment, it is unlikely that there will be a claim for unfair dismissal, or at least that it could be considered before the employee has left and has taken his redundancy payment. This is my understanding of the situation and my own experience; and I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would explain to me how there could be this conflict and how a claim for wrongful dismissal could arise.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if I might put it in the way that I would understand it: at the time, if a man is not redundant—whatever the reason for his dismissal, whether it is fair or unfair—he does not receive a redundancy payment. The noble Lord opposite is asking for the position to be changed, so that the man who is not redundant should nevertheless receive a redundancy payment. I can see the reason. This is not really the object behind the Redundancy Payments Act, and it was not the intention of the Labour Government when they introduced it. The proposed Amendment is not fair to other employees who have not qualified for redundancy payments. We have to bear this in mind. Therefore I suggest that the noble Lord is trying to get the best of both worlds, and I hope that he will realise that one cannot have them both, one must choose.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am very satisfied that you cannot have it both ways, which is what the Government are trying to do, as I shall seek to demonstrate. I shall write to the Prime Minister to-night recommending the noble Baroness for the job of Chief Secretary, because an Aberdonian is only a beginner at the task of saving the Treasury money.
May I explain why I say that it is not right for the Government to have it both ways to the extent of creating a clear injustice. The noble Baroness did not explain, and perhaps I could explain, the background of the whole of Clause 149. It is the Government taking power by regulations to claw back money paid, to have it both ways. That is to say, where an employee has received redundancy payment, and then gets compensation, the regulations provide that you set one against the other. In short, you deduct the redundancy payment from the compensation so that the employee does not get more than the compensation. You are envisaging circumstances in which you do not know at the start of the situation where you are. As my noble friend Lord Stonham said, in the normal circumstances the first thing that happens is that the redundancy payment is made, then the argument takes place about unfair dismissal. I want to make it clear it is the Government who are introducing regulation-making powers in this clause in order that the employee shall

461
not have it both ways. In the normal circumstances that is not complained about.
What is complained about is that that should apply to the following circumstances: namely, where an employee is dismissed (let us have a neutral word at the moment) and says,"You should not have dismissed me; I was doing my job well and I want it back again ". If he gets his job back there is no question of an employer paying redundancy, or an employee being entitled to redundancy payment. Until you know therefore whether the employee has to be reinstated, nobody knows what the outcome of the situation is going to be. This is the answer to my noble friend Lord Stonham. The man seeks to be reinstated, the court has power to say,"You have been unfairly dismissed ", but it has no power to say,"You will be reinstated ". It only has power to say"We recommend reinstatement ". If reinstatement does not take place then the compensation may be increased.
At the end of the day, and this may be at the end of several days, weeks, or months, for the first time the man who has sought to retain his job, to be reinstated and to continue as a good workman for the same employer, finds that not only has he lost his job, but that because he has lost his job unfairly he is going to be worse off than if his employer had come along and said,"I am sorry, Bill, I don't think we can keep you any longer "—for whatever the reason may be."You have been a jolly good worker for all these years. Here is your notice. Here is your week's pay and here is your redundancy payment amounting to x hundred pounds." That is what he would be entitled to if he knew at the start that he was not going to get his job back, which he does not know until weeks or months have expired.
I submit to your Lordships that it would be a gross injustice if one were set against the other. The noble Lord is shaking his head in a negative fashion. I hope he will be good enough (because I always pay great attention to what he says) to explain to me why it is that that a workman should be much worse off, maybe several hundred pounds worse off, because an employer has treated him unfairly as against an employer who has
462
treated him fairly and given him fair notice.
I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider what I have said. The noble Baroness rather thought I was not paying sufficient attention to her letter. I can assure her that I read her letters word for word, day after day. The noble Baroness's letter finished, I think I am right in saying (I have it in front of me):
" We think that subsection (2) is sufficient to achieve what we intend. We are considering however whether it is necessary to amend the Bill to provide, etc."
I did not quite know what the"etc." meant; and I did not quite know whether the decision was to amend the Bill. So I thought that, before referring to the letter, I would give the noble Baroness an opportunity of saying what the further consideration by the Government had resulted in and precisely what it meant.
My Lords, I am not satisfied with the present situation. It cannot be right that this injustice should occur. The Government are perfectly entitled to say that in the normal case one should be set off against the other. We have no objection to that. We fully understand that regulation-making powers are necessary to achieve that. We are not objecting to the substance of the clause. We are objecting merely to this one case of a man's seeking re-employment, not knowing where he stands until the end of the day, and then finding himself, because he sought re-employment, much worse off because the employer has dismissed him unfairly than he would have been if the employer had dismissed him fairly. That is a simple statement of the case. I hope that it appeals to all your Lordships' sense of justice.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as this is Report stage may I ask the leave of the House briefly to reply to the noble Lord? I would say, as there are no objections, in reply to his query about the last paragraph of the letter which I wrote to him, which I am delighted to see he has beside him, that I understand that an Amendment was accepted (No. 90H) to page 162, Schedule 6, and that that covered this particular point. It does not, of course, cover what we are discussing at the moment. The noble Lord said that he accepted—and he has been consistent

463
about this; he accepted it right from the beginning in the Committee stage—that one could not have it both ways.
Perhaps the only thing I can do is briefly to state the problem as we see it and what this Amendment seeks to do. Surely we are agreed—certainly I thought we were agreed—that the protections afforded to employees under the Redundancy Payments Act and the unfair dismissal provisions are mutually exclusive. In other words, an employee who is entitled to one remedy cannot also have the other. On the other hand, we must make provision to allow for the hearing of claims of unfair dismissal. A man may have been dismissed as redundant and perhaps he himself is not sure whether he ought to make a claim for unfair dismissal. We must make provision and give time for him to do so. If he does make a claim, the tribunal has to decide whether he was redundant

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

George-Brown, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bernstein, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Stonham, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Diamond, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Raglan, L.

White, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hanworth, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Crathorne, L.

Harcourt, V.

Albemarle, E.

Cromartie, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Amory, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hastings, L.

Auckland, L.

Daventry, V.

Hatherton, L.

Balerno, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Hood, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Barnby, L.

Derwent, L.

Ilford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Digby, L.

Inglewood, L.

Belstead, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ebbisham, L.

Killearn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Kilmany, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lansdowne, M.

Boston, L.

Essex, E.

Latymer, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Falkland, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Brecon, L.

Ferrers, E.

Long, V.

Brentford, V.

Fortescue, E.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Bridgeman, V.

Gage, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Geddes, L.

Milverton, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Burnham, L.

Gowrie, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L. [Teller.]

Burton, L.

Gray, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Carnock, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hacking, L.

Oakshott, L.

Courtown, E.

Hailes, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

or whether he was unfairly dismissed, and it will award accordingly. We allow in the Bill for the time factor, when people are not quite sure whether they should make a claim, why they have been dismissed and what their position is. But at the end of the day they can receive an award only under one set of provisions or the other. I agree with the noble Lord that in certain circumstances there would be a larger award if a person was declared redundant, but if the tribunal decided that he was not redundant but had been unfairly dismissed, then the award must be on that count. It must be on one or the other. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
9.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 93N) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 106.

Rochdale, V.

Strange, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Rothermere, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Sudeley, L.

Vivian, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Suffield, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

St. Just, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sandford, L.

Terrington, L.

Windlesham, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Wolverton, L.

Sinclaire of Cleve, L.

Teynharn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.38 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 93T:
Page 111, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) In section 21 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 (claims for redundancy payments), at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be added the words"or
(d) a complaint relating to his dismissal has been presented by the employee under section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 ".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that an employee who has made a complaint of unfair dismissal under Clause 106 will not be barred by the time factor from making a claim under the Redundancy Payments Act for a redundancy payment if the tribunal finds that his dismissal was not unfair. In a complaint of unfair dismissal under Clause 106 a tribunal may find that the employee was not unfairly dismissed but that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. Such an employee, I would suggest to the House, should not be debarred from making a claim for a redundancy payment by reason of the six months' time limit in the Redundancy Payments Act. Therefore, the Amendment adjusts the time limit provisions in Section 21 of the Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, this Amendment has been discussed. I beg to move it formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 111, line 28, after (" payment ") insert (" which is either—
(a) a payment ").—Baroness Tweedsmuir of Bellielvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, Amendment No. 93V is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 111 line 30 at end insert (" or
(b) a payment in respect of the termination of a person's employment, made in accordance with any provision of the Superannuation Act 1965 or in accordance with any such arrangements as are mentioned in section 41(3) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 ")—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Bellielvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 150 [Period of continuous employment]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 93R:
Page 112, line 1, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
(" ( ) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may make provision—

(a) for preserving the continuity of a person's period of employment for the purposes of Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, or for the purposes of that Schedule as applied by or under any other enactment specified in the regulations, or

(b) for modifying or excluding the operation of section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 (which requires the continuity of the period of employment to be treated as broken for the purposes of that Act where a redundancy payment is paid to an employee and he is subsequently re-engaged), subject to the recovery of any sum which, in accordance with subsection (3) of that section, is treated as payment of a redundancy payment,

in cases where, in consequence of action to which the next following subsection applies, a dismissed employee is re-engaged by his employer or is engaged by a successor of that employer or by an associated employer.
( ) This subsection applies to any action taken in relation to the dismissal of an employee which consists—

(a) of the presentation by him of a complaint under section 106 of this Act, or

467

(b) of his making a claim in accordance with the procedure provided for by a procedure agreement designated by an order under section 31 of this Act, or

(c) of any action taken by a conciliation officer under section 146(4) of this Act.".)

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the present subsection (3) of this clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for an employee's continuity of employment to be preserved for the purposes of Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act and the legislation to which that Schedule applies. This is in cases where employees are re-engaged after making a complaint of unfair dismissal under Clause 106. We have given further consideration to this provision, and we think that it ought to be widened in order to allow the Secretary of State to make similar regulations to preserve an employee's continuity of employment in two other sets of circumstances. They are: first, after re-engagement, following his making, a claim of unfair dismissal under a voluntary procedure which is exempted from the unfair dismissals provision of the Bill under Clause 31; and, secondly, after re-engagement following action by the conciliation officer under Clause 146(4). I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is just that the Secretary of State should be able to make provisions for continuity of employment in all three sets of circumstances in which an employee might be re-engaged after making a complaint of unfair dismissal. This is what the Amendment seek to do.
My Lords, the second part of the Amendment refers to Section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. This provides that where a redundancy payment has been paid to an employee and he is then re-engaged by the employer, his continuity of employment is broken for the purpose of the Act. The Government feel that where an employee refunds a redundancy payment in circumstances where he is re-engaged by a former employer as a result of making a complaint of unfair dismissal under Clause 106, or through an exempted voluntary procedure, or as the result of action by a conciliation officer, his continuity of employment should be preserved for the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Act. Therefore the Amendment enables the Secretary of
468
State to make regulations to this end. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this improves the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I should like to put one question to the noble Baroness who has moved the Amendment. She will recollect that she very kindly answered on behalf of the Government when I raised certain difficulties about Clause 28, and also Clause 150, which she is now proposing to amend. She may also recollect that I was concerned about the requirement in Clause 28 for 104 weeks' continuous employment in order to found a claim for unfair dismissal. In the course of our earlier debates she pointed out that under Clause 150 the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 were made applicable for the purpose of determining in any given case whether employment was continuous or not.
I submitted, in reply to her, that the then provisions of Schedule 1 to the 1963 Act were not altogether satisfactory as they did not in terms provide for continuity, despite certain short breaks—for example, breaks occasioned by friction or something of the sort, or possibly even brief strike action—and I submitted that the Court should be given a discretion to treat employment as being continuous for 104 weeks even though there had been some short interruptions.
This Amendment enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for preserving the continuity of a person's period of employment for the purpose of Schedule 1 to the 1963 Act. As I read it, that seems to be subject to no qualifications art all. As I listened to the noble Baroness when she introduced this Amendment she did not have in mind the particular breaks to which I referred when I was questioning the Government previously as to the effect of the Schedule, but it seems to me that the regulations which the Amendment empowers the Secretary of State to make could cover the sort of situation which I was describing. I see nothing in the Amendment to prevent their covering that. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness is not yet in a position to say what the intention is with regard to the regulations. I am concerned as to two

469
things—and I hope that I may have her confirmation. The first is that the regulations could be made to cover the situation that I was describing, and the second is to ask whether she is in a position to give any information as to the Government's intention. I should be grateful if she could inform the House that it is in fact the Government's intention to make provision by regulation for the sort of case I had instanced. I shall quite understand if she cannot at this stage answer the second question—it is perhaps too early; but I shall be grateful if she can answer the first.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I wrote a letter to him also, and I hope that he has it beside him, in the same way as his noble friend Lord Diamond had my previous letter.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, if I had received a letter from the noble Baroness that would be an incident which I most certainly should not forget.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord would have slept with it under his pillow.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I have not received it. It may have been lost in the post, or it may not yet have reached me; but I should have been most interested to see such a letter. Unless I am grievously mistaken I have not received a letter from the noble Baroness, but I am grateful to her for having written to me.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that was just an interruption and perhaps, with the leave of the House, I may say to the noble Lord that I am deeply grieved that he has not had my letter, because I wrote to him on June 23, which is quite a long time ago.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, the postal services under this Government are not doing very well, are they?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Lord on the particular point raised by him, regarding the provisions of
470
Schedule 1. I will of course send him another copy, because I have it here.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Hand it to him!
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, in order not to delay the House I will answer the two brief questions which were put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. In the first place, the regulations can cover the situation he had in mind. Secondly, the purpose of my letter was to explain that, having given further consideration to this clause, which at that time was Clause 146, and is now Clause 150, we felt that the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act, together with the Bill, completely cover the intermittent breaks in employment which were concerning him, and that they would therefore provide for a continuous period of employment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to thank the noble Baroness and to assure her that I will at once make a most intensive search of my correspondence. But I did not say I had not received her letter without careful consideration as to whether I had.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Baroness put a 2½p or 3p stamp on it?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 152 [Recovery of sums awarded in proceedings involving trade union or employers' association]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 93F:
Page 113, line 9, leave out from beginning to (" comprised ") in line 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 93F relates to a very technical point that I took up on this clause and on which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor answered on behalf of the Government. He very kindly said he would consider the question that I raised, and he has since considered it and written to me upon it. I certainly have his letter and I have it by me. I am very sorry indeed to say that it did not convince me. But this is a highly technical point, and I

471
do not think it would serve any useful purpose to pursue it. I simply wish to thank the noble and learned Lord, and, with the leave of the House, I will not move this Amendment.
Clause 153 [Proceedings against unregistered organisations]:
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment in my name, which again, I am afraid, is rather a technical one. Clause 153 deals with proceedings against unregistered organisations of workers.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the number of the Amendment to which he is speaking?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (VISCOUNT HOOD): My Lords, I called Amendment No. 93Q.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am extremely sorry. I was speaking to Amendment No. 93G. I apologise to the House.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we all recognise the difficulty of all these letters, and I am sure my noble friend does not need to apologise to anybody. I beg to move Amendment No. 93Q:
Page 114, line 14, at end insert (" or has not been so used.")
Clause 153 deals with proceedings against unregistered organisations, as my noble friend has just said, and subsection (4) deals with
" Recovery of any sum which in any such proceedings is awarded as compensation or damages ",
and it says that it
" shall not be enforceable against any property comprised in a fund belonging to…the organisation, if under the rules of the organisation property which is…comprised in that fund is precluded from being used for financing strikes…".
So we are dealing with the protection of that property, and we are dealing with it because it is entitled to that protection if the rules say that it should be precluded from being used for financing strikes.
The Amendment seeks to add"or has not been so used." In short, there should be two tests: one whether the rules say that it is precluded from being used, the
472
other the fact that it has not been so used. The reason why I suggest that additional test is that until this Bill is published unions will not know necessarily that in order to obtain that protection they should have rules which say that this property is precluded from being used. They may be under the impression that if you simply do not use the property in that way that is adequate for protection—and indeed it probably is until this Bill becomes law. When the Bill becomes law those unions which want to continue the protection would have to alter their rules, and that would take time. Therefore, it is right that the additional test which I am proposing should be adopted, and that is why I beg leave to move the Amendment.
9.56 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to extend the protection against liability for awards of compensation and damages that is afforded to unregistered organisations of workers and employers by this clause to cover not only those funds which, under the rules of the organisation, are not available for financing industrial action, but also any funds which have not yet been so used, in the words of the Amendment, or not used for that purpose.
Noble Lords will recall that this Amendment is similar to one which was withdrawn at an earlier stage, in Committee, and I fear that we cannot accept it for two reasons. First, the Bill is intended to offer protection only to provident funds, and then only if the organisation is prepared to forfeit any right to call on them for other purposes by putting them under independent control. Secondly, because the Amendment would, in contrast, provide immunity for the general funds of an organisation which had not before used them for what, I suppose, would be called"militant"purposes. For these reasons, we do not feel that we can accept the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I would not propose to seek to divide the House on it, but I am unhappy about the answer. As the noble Baroness said, the purpose of the Bill is to protect provident funds. But provident funds can be of two kinds.

473
They can either be funds which are earmarked and set aside, or they can be those funds which are part of the regular funds, the normal funds, of a union, and that part which is used for provident purposes. This presents no problem for tax purposes, because the tax definition is merely a question of fact: what had the funds been used on, and if they had been used for provident purposes then the tax benefits are paid, or repaid, as the case may be. Therefore, it is right that where you have unions, or unregistered organisations, which do not separate their funds in this way, the test should be a factual test; and if in fact the funds are not used for strike purposes, and have never been used for strike purposes but only for provident purposes, even if they are not set aside it is reasonable that they should be protected in this way.
If the noble Baroness is not prepared to change her mind about this, all one can do is to take note of the view of the Government, and organisations of this kind will have to take the appropriate steps to protect their funds by earmarking them, setting them on one side, or doing whatever is necessary, which I want to point out to the noble Baroness means a new course of conduct for them. For years and years and years they have been able to treat one fund as serving a variety of purposes, but this course will no longer be available to them. The noble Baroness has made clear that the Government are not prepared to look kindly on these organisations in this respect, and I have no alternative but to seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 93G:
Page 114, line 14, at end insert—
(" (5) For the purposes of this section property belonging to the organisation shall not include property belonging to any member of the organisation otherwise than jointly or in common with the other members of the organisation.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the Amendment which I mistakenly began to move before the last Amendment was discussed. I put it forward merely as a suggestion for consideration, and I do
474
not pretend for a moment that any great question of principle is involved here. It arises in the following way. Clause 153 specifies the property which can be taken in execution of a judgment against an unregistered organisation of workers. In Committee I called attention to the fact that the Donovan Commission Report pointed out that there was considerable doubt as to what constituted property of an unregistered organisation of workers. Under the Trade Union Act, 1871, the property of a trade union was vested in trustees, but it was doubtful at all times what constituted the property of an organisation not registered under the 1871 Act. Now the 1871 Act is being repealed by this Bill, and in those circumstances doubt exists as to what one means by the expression,"property belonging to an unregistered organisation of workers."
In Committee I suggested that perhaps it would be useful to take the opportunity of resolving that doubt by incorporating some definition which indicated precisely what was meant by"property belonging to a union ". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied on behalf of the Government, and pointed out that it would not be practicable to incorporate any such definition because there was a wide range of doubt, which applied not only to the property of an unregistered organisation of workers but also to a number of other bodies, clubs and so on, and that therefore it would not be feasible to amend subsection (3) of the clause by putting into it any such definition. That I entirely accept and understand, and I do not ask the Government to do so. It would need some other measure of a more comprehensive character to resolve that doubt.
The suggestion, however, which I seek to make in the Amendment is not to go anything like so far as producing a definition, but simply to say what is not included in the property of an unregistered organisation, whatever that property is. What I seek by the new subsection is to exclude from such property the property of any member of the organisation which he does not own jointly or in common with other members in it, in other words his own property. I would not for a moment suggest that that is something which I should press on the Government, but I put it forward as a suggestion which I think might be an

475
improvement if the Government think it is rightly framed. It would, I imagine, bring some sense of comfort and security to members of unregistered organisations if they were told explicitly in the terms of the Bill that their own personal property was in all circumstances completely immune. That is the purpose of the Amendment which I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment makes no difference to the existing effect of the Bill. It makes clear that which I thought was already clear, that the private property of members of an unregistered organisation
476
of workers or employers is not available to meet an award of damages, compensation or whatever it may be, arising from civil proceedings against the organisation. My Lords, that is the position of the clause as it stands; that is the effect of the Amendment and, faced with that position, I am happy to accept the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting the Amendment? I do not maintain that it is a world-shaking Amendment, but it effects a slight improvement, and I am grateful to him.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
10.6 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 93A:
After Clause 153 insert the following new clause:
Nominations by members of trade unions
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for enabling members of trade unions who are not under sixteen years of age to nominate a person or persons to become entitled, at the death of the member making the nomination, to the whole or part of any moneys payable on his death out of any funds of the trade union of which he is a member; and

(b) for enabling any moneys payable out of the funds of a trade union on the death of a member of the trade union, to an amount not exceeding £500, to be paid or distributed on his death (whether in accordance with such a nominaton or otherwise) without letters of administration, probate of any will or confirmation.

(2) Any regulations made in accordance with subsection (1)(a) of this section—

(a) may include provision as to the manner in which nominations may be made and as to the manner in which nominations may be varied or revoked, and

(b) may provided that, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, no nomination made by a member of a trade union shall be valid if at the date of the nomination the person nominated is an officer or employee of the trade union or is otherwise connected with the trade union in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) Any regulations under this section may include such incidental, transitional or supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate, and, in particular, any such regulations made in accordance with subsection (1)(a) of this section may include provision for securing, to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed,—

(a) that nominations made under the enactments repealed by this Act shall have effect as if they had been made under the regulations (and, in the case of any such nominations made by members of organisations which are not for the time being registered as trade unions under this Act, shall so have effect as if the organisations were so registered) and may be varied or revoked accordingly, and

(b) that any nomination made under the regulations by a member of an organisation which, at the time of the nomination, is registered as a trade union under this Act shall continue to have effect notwithstanding that the organisation ceases to be so registered, and may be varied or revoked accordingly.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order mad by statutory instrument direct that, in relation to deaths occurring after the end of
478
the period of one month beginning with the date on which the order comes into force, subsection (1) (b) of this section shall have effect as if, for the reference to £500, there were substituted a reference to such higher amount as may be specified in the order.
(5) No order shall be made under subsection (4) of this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) In this section any reference to a trade union shall be construed as including a reference to an organisation of workers which is for the time being entered in the provisional register."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it falls to me to propose what looks at first sight to be a rather involved Amendment, which achieves really a very modest result. The repeal of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act 1876, which is effected by Schedule 9, will involve the repeal of an existing facility. The existing facilities allow members of a registered trade union to nominate persons to receive sums from union funds in the event of a member's death, and money can be distributed in other circumstances where there is no will. This is a useful facility which ought to be saved. It would have been possible—perhaps in some ways it would have been more attractive—simply to save the provisions of the 1876 Act. But that Act operates according to an outdated code, and there are other and more modern codes operating elsewhere. The result is that it has been thought advantageous to substitute a new code on lines similar to those found in other and more recent Acts. This is what the new Clause attempts to do.
The new provisions preserve the essential features of the old procedure. They protect the position of existing nominees, but they commit the details of procedure to regulations. These regulations are to be made by the Secretary of State, and this, it is thought, will give greater flexibility and adaptability to the new code. There are two consequential Amendments to Schedule 9—and those of your Lordships who are interested in details will find them in Amendments Nos. 99 and 100—repealing the Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies Act 1883, and parts of the Administration Estates (Small Payments) Act 1965. In due course I, or another noble Lord who is a member of the Administration shall propose these Amendments.
The new clause ensures that the regulations will maintain the existing features of the present procedure. An important function of the clause is to protect the rights of existing nominees. A nomination made by any organisation registered under the existing Trade Union Act will remain valid, irrespective of whether that organisation can and does subsequently register as a trade union under this Bill. Similarly, a nomination made by a member of an organisation registered as a trade union under the Bill will remain valid, even if the organisation subsequently cancels or loses its registration. I have received and it will be my duty to call it, if I can find it in the mass of paper with which I am surrounded, a manuscript Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. In the meantime, I beg to move the new clause.
My Lords, it is now my duty to call a manuscript Amendment, supplementary to the present Marshalled List as an Amendment to Amendment No. 93, as follows,"in subsection (6), to leave out line 3."
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment:
" In subsection (6), leave out line 3."
The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to explain the purpose of the new clause. It will enable a member of a trade union under 16 years of age to nominate a person to become entitled at his death to the whole or part of any monies payable at death out of funds of the trade union of which he is a member. Subject to what the noble and learned Lord has just said, we find it unacceptable to distinguish, for the purpose of a young man disposing of his monies without the use of a will, between a young man who is a member of a union whose committee had decided to register and of a young man who belongs to a body which had not decided to register as a trade union. This is a circumstance we treat with seriousness and solemnity. We do not like to make this artificial distinction. It seems to me a pity that this much-needed new clause, which provides the continuation of this facility, should have this blemish.
Subsection (6) says:
" In this section any reference to a trade union shall be construed as including a reference to an organisation of workers which is for the time being entered in the provisional register."
The words"trade union"mean a registered trade union. Though subsection (1) shows some evidence of progress in the Government's thinking, it does not go so far as to remove entirely a distinction which I think it is only proper we should remove. It seemed to me, on considering this matter (and one gets to these matters very late, because things have been moving very fast and the Marshalled List has been growing every day until to-day), that one way of dealing with it was to remove this last line, which is what my manuscript Amendment seeks to do. The subsection would then read:
" In this section any reference to a trade union shall be construed as including a reference to an organisation of workers."
I think the effect of that would be (though I am an amateur in this) to remove the distinction, which I think we should remove when considering these solemn matters. For that reason, I beg to move my manuscript Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The original Amendment was No. 93A, after Clause 153 to insert a new clause on the Marshalled List, since when a manuscript Amendment has been proposed to the Amendment No. 93A in the following terms: that is to say,"In subsection (6), leave out line 3." That is the Amendment which the House should now discuss.
My Lords, I have had this manuscript Amendment only since I occupied the Woolsack this afternoon. It follows, therefore, that what I say now is not irrevocable, and I am sure noble Lords will accept that. It is possible that there may be less technical objection to this manuscript Amendment than I now seek to set forth, and I should not like the noble Lord to think that, without adequate consideration off the Woolsack, I would reject it finally or out of hand. Our present thought is that the Amendment to the Amendment is not acceptable, but for the reason I have given, I do not suggest that this decision is irrevocable.
The manuscript Amendment would have the effect of making the new procedure for nominations, and the distribution of money where there is no will, available

481
to members of any organisation of workers, whether registered as a trade union or not. There has been throughout this Bill a controversy between the two sides of the House as to the virtues of registration under the Bill and the vices of non-registration under the Bill. I do not want to embark upon this contentious subject from a contentious point of view, but obviously one of the advantages of registration under the Bill, and indeed of registration under the existing set of laws, is that one can be, up to a point, satisfied that an organisation which is registered is reputable, and that one has some control in the end of whether it is administered properly. If an organisation is unregistered, as many organisations and trade unions are up to this moment (they do not have to register), then there is no control over it at all. The procedure which we sought to save was limited to registered trade unions; that is to say, trade unions registered under the existing law.
There is no question of progress in this matter, as the noble Lord said. As soon as this particular trouble was drawn to my attention—and I am bound to say that, for instance, at the stage of Second Reading I was quite unaware of it, although perhaps I ought to have known of it because it was vaguely in the number of things I did know—I said that of course this must be saved; and it has been saved by the Amendment which I have proposed. What the noble Lord now proposes is that the procedure, instead of being saved, should be extended to unregistered organisations. I do not want to help unregistered organisations, because our policy is to encourage organisations to register. But nor do I want to penalise people who happen to be members of an unregistered organisation as such, because they happen to be members of an organisation which has taken a foolish decision. What I am concerned with, as Lord Chancellor, is the proper administration of the law, and at the moment the manuscript Amendment is not acceptable. But I had it in my hands only after 2.30 this afternoon and therefore I do not want to give the noble Lord an unqualified,"No ". Perhaps he will be good enough to withdraw it and in the meantime I will consider the matter. However, I must tell him that it is not acceptable to the Government.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I wonder whether I might make two prefatory comments before coming to the substance of my remarks. First, I should like to say that I well understand that the noble and learned Lord and his advisers have had totally inadequate time to consider this Amendment. In an ideal world one would have had more assistance and more time oneself and would have got to this a little earlier and so have put it forward to the Government a little earlier; but in an ideal world industrial relations would be such that there would he no need for a Bill of this kind at all. So this is just unfortunate. Secondly, may I say that when I referred to progress I was not for one moment suggesting that when the matter was put to the noble and learned Lord it would not receive his sympathy—that is to say, the whole matter of Amendment 93A and not my Amendment to it? I was referring to the fact that whereas up to now in the Bill a union on the provisional register is not a trade union, we are now in this clause getting that treatment as a trade union that we have had in another case during the provisional period. That is the only element of progress, and again that is something which should not be raised in a contentious way.
As to the substance of what the noble and learned Lord was good enough to say, I quite appreciate that the way he put it, with respect, would be entirely the proper way having regard to his important duties. I quite accept that although this is a facility which one would not wish to deny to a young man because of some incidents outside his control, nevertheless in the proper administration of the law it is essential that there should be proper and responsible administration. I quite understand that there would have to be sufficient evidence of that kind of approach in order to extend this facility to those who are members of an organisation of workers, as opposed to being members of a trade union.
I would only say this to the noble and learned Lord: that he should bear in mind during his consideration that if the registration had been of precisely the same kind as under the 1871 Act, then it would be reasonable to assume that the same proportion—something like 85 per cent.—of union members would be

483
in registered unions. It is because the new registration proposals have turned the majority of unions from members of registered unions to members of non-registered unions that we are all finding ourselves in this difficulty. The noble and learned Lord has been good enough to say that he will consider the matter. He has said it in a most acceptable context. I am grateful for his undertaking to consider it, and seek permission to withdraw my manuscript Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move Amendment No. 93W:
After Clause 153, insert the following new clause
Winding up of trade unions, employers' associations and certain other organisations
".—(1) For the purposes of the application of Part IX of the Companies Act 1948 to—

(a) an organisation in respect of which the Chief Registrar has presented a petition under section 90(4) of this Act, or

(b) an organisation whose registration under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association has been cancelled,

the organisation shall he regarded as an unregistered company within the meaning of Part IX of that Act, whether apart from this section it would be so regarded or not.
(2) Section 399 of that Act (winding-up of unregistered companies) shall have effect in relation to any such organisation as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection as if—

(a) in subsection (3), for the words"place of business ", wherever they occur, there were substituted the word"office ";

(b) subsection (5)(a), the words"or has ceased to carry on business, or is carrying on business only for the purpose of winding up its affairs"were omitted; and

(c) in subsection (6), in paragraphs (a) and (b), for the words"at its principal place of business, or by delivering to the secretary or some director, manager or principal officer"there were substituted the words"at its principal office, or by delivering to the secretary or any other officer ".

(3) Except as provided by subsection (1) of this section, Part IX of the Companies Act 1948 shall not have effect in relation to any trade union or employers' association.
(4) An organisation which has been incorporated by virtue of section 74 of this Act shall not be dissolved, except by an order of
484
the court under the Companies Act 1948, until there has been lodged with the registrar a certificate signed by the secretary, or by some other officer of the organisation approved for the purpose by the registrar, that all property vested in the organisation has been duly conveyed or transferred by the organisation to the persons entitled to it."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I must now propose this Amendment in a slightly amended form from that in which it appears on the Marshalled List. As it appears on the List it reads:
" After Clause 153, insert the following new clause—".
The Amendment is the same, but it must be proposed in the form:
" After the new clause last inserted, to insert the following new clause ".
This is a rather formidable-looking Amendment to effect a relatively modest purpose. It establishes that a trade union or employers' association has to be wound up under Part IX of the Companies Act; that is to say, in the same way as an unregistered company. But it also provides that Part IX is applicable only to a winding up which takes place on the initiative of the Registrar. This really arises out of a number of criticisms which were put forward on May 24 at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. In particular, Clause 90, as it now is, was alleged to leave it in doubt whether or not the subject of winding up was adequately dealt with; and in particular whether it was clear which part of the Companies Act would apply to the winding up of a registered organisation, and how and in what circumstances the relevant provisions would be applied. The purpose of the new clause is to meet these criticisms.
For the purposes of Clause 90, trade unions and employers' associations are to be dealt with under Part IX of the Companies Act 1948, so in effect they will be dealt with in the same way as unregistered companies are dealt with. Part IX will also apply to the organisations which have had their registration under the Bill cancelled. The reason for this is that such organisations do not cease to be bodies corporate and it is therefore necessary to provide for the manner in which they are to be wound up. There is another important function to the new clause: it is to make clear that, even though a trade union or employers'

485
association is to be treated as an unregistered company, it will not be open to the creditors to seek the winding up; only the Registrar will have that right. That is provided for in Clause 90.
The new clause also makes provision for the proper dissolution of a registered organisation in other circumstances, as when the members themselves decide on dissolution in accordance with the rules. I hope and believe that the new clause fully covers all the technical provisions needed to support Clause 90, and I hope that it will meet with universal approval.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I rise to express sincere indebtedness to the noble and learned Lord for the steps that he has taken to meet difficulties which I felt on Clause 90. He wrote me very fully upon the matter, and he has now put down and introduced this new clause. So far as I am concerned, it seems to meet completely the difficulties that I raised and, as I have already said, I am most indebted to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 154 [Restrictions on registration under other Acts]:
10.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 93X:
Page 114, line 32, at end insert (" unless the decision of the registrar on the application is reversed on or in consequence of an appeal to the Industrial Court ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is as follows. It provides that the registration of an organisation of workers as a
486
company under the Companies Acts shall not be void if the Registrar's refusal to enter the organisation upon the special register is reversed as the result of the organisation's appealing to the Industrial Court against his decision. It follows, I think, that this is a consequential Amendment rendered necessary by the addition in Committee to what is now Clause 114 of a right of appeal against the Registrar's decision not to admit an organisation to the special register.
Organisations of workers are prevented by Clause 154 from retaining their registration as companies unless they are admitted to the special register. If the organisation of workers registered as a company is refused admission to this register, it will be able to make use of the new appeal facility to challenge the Registrar's decision before the Industrial Court. In this situation it is necessary to ensure that the organisation has the right to retain its registration as a company pending the result of the appeal. The Amendment will have this effect. It will defer the application of subsection (2)(b) of the clause until the organisation's position is made clear either as a result of the appeal or as a result of the Registrar's reviewing and withdrawing his objections to entry upon the special register before the appeal reaches the Industrial Court. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, all I think it needs for us to do is to thank the noble and learned Lord for having explained the purpose of this Amendment, which undoubtedly is an appropriate one and improves the Bill. We are grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on July 1 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
HARINGEY CORPORATION BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

1967

1968

1969

1970

Rugby Football

1

4

1

Not available

Boxing

0

1

1

Not available

Accidental drowning during recreational activities

Not available

135

169

144

Bathing accidents other than drowning

1

3

4

Not available

Road accidents at week-ends

Not available

1,814

1,977

1,763

Information regarding motor car racing, motor cycle racing, National Hunt racing, balloon flights and parachuting is being prepared and I will write to the noble Lord when it is available. The form in which accident records are held makes it impracticable to extract information on

  SPORTS FATALITIES AND ROAD DEATHS
  SPORTS FATALITIES AND ROAD DEATHS