Sitting of 18 December 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Beam Trawling (South Coast)
  Mr. Cordle: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of this honourable House, I beg to present a petition on behalf of 41 fishermen of Mudeford and district and others.
  The petition shows that there is grave concern over the conservation of British fishing grounds within the 12-mile limit and, indeed, where the six-mile limit applies. Except by special permits the petitioners wish to ban all 8-metre beam trawlers which cause serious damage to the sea bed.
  They petition that six patrol vessels are totally inadequate to protect the whole of Britain's coast and propose that a system capable of enforcing existing and further regulations for essential conservation be introduced forthwith.
  I warmly support this petition, which states:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do most urgently debate the conservation of Britain's fishing grounds and do give protection to the livelihood of Britain's inshore fishermen, and that your honourable House do approve to ban all beam trawling along the South Coast within Britain's territorial waters 12-mile limit, except by local trawl permits to meet local area needs and that your honourable House do enforce existing regulations for conservation by replacing the present proposed naval patrol system by a fast adequate number of vessels competent to enforce conservation in all areas under their control and supervision and do urge your honourable House to call for an immediate inquiry into these matters.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    School Transport
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek to ascertain how many schemes reorganising secondary education in Wales introduced after the summer holidays have resulted in increases of school bus fares being met by parents; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): No, Sir. These are matters for the local education authority concerned.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in my constituency, following the reorganisation of secondary education in the Wrexham area and the introduction of the new system of the sixth-form college, some parents are having to find an appreciable sum of money in addition to that which they have had to find to pay bus fares to Wrexham? Next year one parent in particular, who will then have three children at school in Wrexham, will be obliged to find an additional sum of £3 per week from her housekeeping money. Does not the Secretary of State think that this is unreasonable, that the three-mile limit arrangement should be reviewed and certainly that it is unreasonable to expect children to walk nearly three miles to school in all weathers unless parents are obliged to find the extra money?
    Mr. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Education Act 1944 lays down the statutory responsibility of local education authorities for school transport and allows them the necessary discretionary powers to provide transport for those who live within the statutory walking distance. I have no power to intervene provided the education authorities are complying with the statutory requirements.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether any thought is being given to the possible reduction of this statutory distance? Three miles seems a very long way.
    Mr. Thomas: The whole question of school transport in England and Wales is being considered by a working party which has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and myself. The terms of reference of the working party are to review the present arrangements including the existing law affecting the provision of school transport and to report on any changes which might be needed. The Welsh Joint Education Committee is represented.

    European Community Firms
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with representatives of Common Market firms who have indicated to him their intention to set up manufacturing prccesses in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Consultations with European firms are undertaken by officials of the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as by the Development Corporation for Wales. I shall participate when it is appropriate for me to do so.
    Mr. McBride: What a confession of failure—that the Minister will "participate". How many German and Swiss firms are commencing business in Wales as a result of discussions they have had with the Development Corporation and with Welsh firms, bearing in mind that 80 per cent. of Welsh firms employ fewer than 100 people? How many jobs will materialise as a result of the discussions which have taken place? Will the European Economic Community rules apply in the inhibiting competition sense to the 18 applications made by Welsh firms under the Industry Act?
    Mr. Thomas: The Development Corporation recently announced that 27 German and Swiss firms are considering manufacturing arrangements in Wales as a result of its promotions in South Germany and Switzerland this autumn. I visited Zurich in connection with the corporation's campaign. I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this shows that the Development Corporation is doing very well.

    School Building Programme (Monmouthshire)
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the new school building programme in Monmouthshire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. John Stradling Thomas) and the hon. Members for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse) have written to me recently about cost limits and their possible effects on the authority's major school building programme. If the authority can satisfy me that everything possible has been done to keep projects within the cost limits I am prepared to consider exceptionally any difficulties that may arise. These are complicated matters and I shall of course be replying to hon. Members in due course.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the Government have another remarkable achievement to their credit in that they have created a shortage of building trade workers in an area of heavy unemployment and that ultimately the whole school building programme in Monmouthshire will be in jeopardy? Will he therefore, as a matter of urgency, look into the question of cost limits and also the question of training facilities in Monmouthshire, including the provision of a new training centre at Newport?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is true that for various reasons there is a shortage of building workers. There is a greatly added demand for building at present. As regards training, colleges of further education in Monmouthshire and adjoining authorities offer an extensive range of courses for people employed in the building industry.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that one way in which he can immediately accommodate Monmouthshire's demands and secure an increase in educational provision is by increasing his allocation of nursery schools from the four that he allowed Monmouthshire in response to its demand for 32?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a later Question on the Order Paper on precisely that subject.
    Mr. George Thomas: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how long it will take him to make a decision on the upper cost level, as it is this that is handicapping authorities in Monmouthshire?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the question of cost limits is not a matter entirely for me. Cost limits were increased by 13 per cent. in April 1971 and by a further 15 per cent. in April 1972. The matter is always under review.

    Nursery Education
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many nursery places will be made available by 1976 to children in Wales below five years of age under the proposals contained in the Government White Paper, Cmnd. 5174.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I propose to invite local education authorities early in the New Year to submit their bids for the nursery programme announced in the White Paper. The number of places to be programmed by 1976 will be decided after their proposals have been studied.
    Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the far-reaching proposals—even if unfortunately not yet very detailed—which are outlined in the White Paper have given great satisfaction to the many people who have for a long time been pressing for an extension of nursery education?
    Mr. Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend. The response that I have had from people who are interested in this branch of the education service has been considerable. The White Paper announcement, particularly on nursery education, has been extremely well received.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that many areas such as Rhondda traditionally send their children to school at the age of three? What we do not want from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is any attempt to restrict Rhondda
    894
    from doing that in accordance with the White Paper.
    Mr. Thomas: I think that over the last 2½ years we have had a very good record in the provision of service for children under five in Wales in particular under the urban aid programme. Local education authorities are now free to go ahead and provide nursery education from their own resources. This may result in the expansion of nursery provision before additional new buildings become available.

    Bilingual Official Forms
    Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with progress made in providing forms and explanatory material in the Welsh language by Government Departments in Wales in accordance with the principle of equal validity as recommended in the Hughes Parry Report and embodied in the Welsh Language Act 1967; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The number of Welsh or bilingual versions of official forms is now 351, compared with 246 in June 1970. Informative material in Welsh issued by Government Departments is also increasing steadily. I am satisfied that the Government's policy in this field is progressive; and it will continue so.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman, like his predecessors in office, conduct periodic progress examinations with other Government Departments involved in the programme of bilingualism? In particular, will he look at the position in the Inland Revenue Department, where so far very little, or very inadequate, informative and explanatory material in the Welsh language has been issued with regard to the new income tax system that is due to come into force next April?
    Mr. Thomas: I shall certainly look into that matter and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing it to my attention. I know that an explanatory note on value added tax has just been published in Welsh.

    Livestock (Export)
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to

    895
    publicise the merits and attractions of Welsh native breeds of animals for export for breeding purposes.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Publicity for individual breeds is a matter for the breed societies and breeders concerned. I hope that they will make full use of the facilities available from the Government's export services and from export promotion organisations.
    Mr. Hooson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that over the years there has been a good deal of discontent among breeders in Wales at the Livestock Export Council not having enthusiastically supported Welsh breeds? As this could be an important factor in the agricultural life of the Principality in the future, will the hon. Gentleman see to it that the council shows more enthusiasm for Welsh breeds than it has done in the past?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that in the past I was Chairman of the Livestock Export Council and I therefore have some knowledge of this matter. Knowing that the hon. and learned Gentleman has great knowledge of the Welsh Black Cattle Society, last night as a matter of urgency, I spoke to the president of the society and he told me that the exports of Welsh black cattle are very encouraging indeed.

    Queensferry Bypass
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what special emergency measures he will take to alleviate traffic congestion on the Queensferry bypass and the surrounding area.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I have nothing further to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 10th April.
    Mr. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that traffic conditions at Queens-ferry roundabout are a sorry and hair-raising shambles and are impeding industrial development? Will he sanction the immediate erection of a flyover at the Queensferry roundabout and thus help the steel and Vauxhall car workers?
    Finally, may I ask whether the Secretary of State for Wales is aware that in my constituency we call him Peter
    896
    Promise because he gives no action but only promises?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's winding up comment. I am aware that there has been congestion in the area to which the Question refers, and the Department has been concerned about it for some time. Although the construction of a temporary flyover could afford some relief, it would take some time to design and erect and would be likely to cause additional complications on this restricted site when the improved junction comes to be built.

    Government Contracts
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will initiate a study into the employment aspects of Government contracts in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Policy on Government contracts is kept under regular review.
    Mr. John: That may reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman but it reassures no one else. Is he aware that Government contracts placed in Wales are serviced by a contractor bringing in his own labour from other parts of the country, which is no good for unemployed building workers in Wales? This practice and the policy in other industry such as opencast mining are in urgent need of review because the employment feedback is not coming to Wales as it should.
    Mr. Thomas: I am aware that many people want contractors to employ more local people than they do, but the employment of local labour is a matter for the contractor and the client. The Government cannot intervene. The main aim must be to complete the contract as economically and efficiently as possible.

    Celtic Sea Oil
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to establishing a central information service for Welsh industrialists about the opportunities arising from Celtic sea oil exploration.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am arranging for this suggestion to be looked at in more detail by my Department and the other organisations which might be concerned.
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that one of the most important services that the Government can perform for Wales is to identify the immense opportunities that will arise for Welsh industrialists as a result of oil exploration? Is he further aware that Scottish experience shows that the Government have a key role to play in this direction?
    Mr. Thomas: I was very interested to see the recommendation in the recent CBI report on the opportunities for Welsh industry. I hope that it will be possible to have the CBI ideas discussed in more detail very shortly. The report is a helpful contribution to thinking on the prospects for Welsh industry.

    Singleton Hospital, Swansea
    Mr. Alan Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of Swansea's Singleton Hospital.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Welsh Hospital Board has just issued a consultation document on its proposals for the hospital service in the Swansea area. It is therefore not appropriate for me to make a statement at this stage.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Minister realise that it is felt in Swansea to be completely unsatisfactory that decisions about the eventual size of the Singleton Hospital are dependent on a decision that must he taken about the medical school in Swansea, as that decision apparently will not he made for a long time? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the city council has made it absolutely clear that it is willing to provide land for such a school but that it has been unable to obtain guidance from the board? Will he ensure that such guidance is given as to whether the retention in use of Sketty Lane will or will not stop the eventual provision of a medical school in Swansea?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am aware of the problem. I visited Swansea about two years ago and discussed with representatives of the council the question of the medical school. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science,
    898
    and any question about Sketty Lane must be a matter for the council.

    Government Factories
    Mr. Ifor Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in the completion of the Cwmgorse advance factory in the Pontardawe district of the Gower constituency; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I understand that negotiations for the allocation of this factory are at an advanced stage. I am hopeful of a successful outcome in the very near future.
    Mr. Davies: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that helpful reply. Is he aware that the people of the area will receive this hopeful note with sonic satisfaction? They are people who have had more than their fair share of the social consequences of pit closures. Is he also aware that this could be a breakthrough from an employment point of view for this inland community and that it justifies the policy consistently advocated from the Opposition side of the House in favour of advance factories and investment grants? In view of the likely success of the negotiations, will the Secretary of State consider a further advance factory for this special development district, in accordance with the terms of the rolling programme for mining communities?
    Mr. Thomas: I certainly appreciate the importance to the area of an allocation of the factory to suitable industrialists. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his efforts to secure a tenant for the factory. As to a further advance factory, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will keep it in mind.
    Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what liaison there is between his Department and others in the effort to secure a tenant for the Government-built factory at Penygroes, Caernarvonshire which has been empty for more than two years.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My Department has maintained the closest contact with the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most disappointing answer? Is he further aware that there is deep and increasing concern in Caernarvonshire about the continuing inability of the Welsh Office and related Departments to attract a suitable tenant for this factory, particularly in view of the excellent facilities which it has and the high class of local labour available? Is he aware of certain recent suggestions made locally about the possibility of using this factory to produce equipment and fittings for the proposed hydro-electric scheme at Dinorwic? Has any attention been given to this proposal by the Caernarvonshire County Council?
    Mr. Thomas: I would certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is extremely disappointing that a suitable tenant has not been found for this excellent factory. As he knows the Government have spent a considerable amount of money recently in modernising the factory. They have drawn it to the attention of industrialists, through the Department of Trade and Industry, on all suitable occasions. I am satisfied that every effort is being made to find a tenant for this factory. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulties. I believe that the Caernarvonshire County Council proposes to send a deputation to discuss its suggestion with the Central Electricity Generating Board.

    M4 Extension (Public Inquiries)
    Mr. Michael Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to hold a separate public inquiry for each section of the proposed western extension of the M4.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, Sir. I intend to hold separate inquiries into each section of the M4 wherever such inquiries are necessary.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is public concern over the method by which public inquiries are undertaken on proposed motorway developments? One cause of concern is that when inquiries are set up in the way he intends to adopt for the M4, on a piecemeal basis, which may be suitable for the allocation of finance and may measure up to the construction resources available, they do not give the
    900
    public the opportunity to participate, except in detail. There is growing concern that opportunities to raise the important aspects of planning, which are environmental, social and broadly economic, are denied the public at such inquiries.
    Mr. Thomas: I agree that there is concern, and for that reason I looked into the matter very carefully and considered whether it would be more advantageous to have a public inquiry involving sections of the road. But I am satisfied that by keeping each section reasonably short it is possible to consider line and side road orders together—a procedure which is generally welcomed in that it enables everyone concerned to see the full implication of each part of the proposed line. If we attempted a longer section, the length and complexity of the orders, schedules and maps would be virtually unmanageable at public inquiries and extremely confusing to members of the public, particularly those directly concerned.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that the M4 will be completed by the end of 1976, as was programmed in June 1970?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is impossible for me to give a categorical assurance. All I can say is that that is what is planned, and I have no reason to doubt that it will be effected by then. But various statutory procedures must be gone through. I cannot bulldoze the road through without regard to the interests of the public.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he proposes to hold a single public inquiry or more than one public inquiry in connection with the routeing of the remaining sections of the motorway M4 between Castleton and Chapel-Llanilltern; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: A public inquiry into my proposals for the section between Coryton and Capel Llanilltern is due to start on 23rd January 1973. A decision on the holding of a public inquiry into the Coryton/Castleton section will be taken after formal proposals have been published.
    Mr. Gower: Despite my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to my hon. Friend

    901
    the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Michael Roberts), will he look at the matter again as the anxieties expressed by residents' associations and individual residents at Whitchurch, Rhiwbina, Lisvane and other places are based on a fear that if my right hon. and learned Friend makes a decision for one section, that will prevent his having a free choice in the other sections? In other words, by adopting a certain route through, say, Whitchurch, he will remove the possibility of an impartial judgment of the different routes in the other sections, so it seems to me—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. The hon. Gentleman has put a point already.
    Mr. Gower: In the light of what I have said, will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Thomas: As I said in answer to the previous Question, I have looked into the matter very carefully. I appreciate that the anxieties of which my hon. Friend speaks have been expressed. I have been very anxious to meet the concern that is undoubtedly felt, but in view of the complexity of having a public inquiry over a long line I am sure that the proper course, one that is in the interests of all the objectors, is to have inquiries on small sections. There is no objection to the raising of the wider strategy of the motorway at a public inquiry into any particular section.

    Council Housing
    Mr. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he now intends to take to boost the level of council house building in Wales.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The new subsidy system concentrates resources on people and areas in need; special yardstick allowances were introduced last month; and the clearance of slums will, I hope, be speeded up as a result of the new special subsidy.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that 1972 will go down as the sorriest in council house building for many years and that the figures could be as low as any since the early 1960s? Is not the best thing to do to abolish the Housing
    902
    Finance Act, which is creating great confusion and uncertainty, and establish a generous system for council house building in Wales?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are other ways of building houses and that it is for the local authorities to determine their own needs. Officials of the Welsh Office will continue to give whatever help and encouragement is necessary.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only local authorities build houses to rent and that many thousands of families in Wales are waiting for a house? In view of the disastrous house building figures so far this year, will the hon. Gentleman show a greater sense of urgency and look into the matter again?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He says that the house building figures are bad this year, but taken as a whole they are not bad.
    Mr. Rowlands: We are talking about council house building.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: That was not what the hon. Gentleman said. If the figures as a whole are coupled with the great success of improvement grants, it will be seen that the housing position in Wales is much better than Opposition Members try to make out.
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of houses to be completed in the public sector in Wales in the whole of 1972.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Over 4,000.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister of State aware from that answer that there is a real slump in council house building which, coupled with the unprecedented rise in house prices, means that many thousands of young families in Wales will be many years without a home of their own? Apart from words, what practical steps will the Government take?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman was present during a recent debate in the early hours of the morning when this subject was dealt with. The new housing subsidies replacing the old outdated and

    903
    indiscriminate system will concentrate financial help where it is most needed.

    Industrial Development (South-East Wales)
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for attracting new industry to South-East Wales in the next five years.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Government will use the full resources available for regional development, including the Industry Act, for this purpose.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the attraction of new industry has become even more critical because of the threat that is poised over the steel industry in Wales? Which of the rumours circulating in yesterday's newspapers was true—the one to the effect that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland were making a valiant fight to safeguard regional steel interests or the one to the effect that they had already lost? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that as the report that give him the most credit was written by dear Miss Nora Beloff we attach the usual degree of authenticity to it?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman should not believe rumours which he reads in newspapers. No decision has yet been made by the Government on the proposals put forward by the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, as I am sure he must be, that the corporation's proposals in regard to Ebbw Vale are totally unacceptable to the people of Ebbw Vale—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not arise out of this Question. It might arise out of a later Question.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have a question which arises out of this Question, Mr Speaker. Has the Secretary of State been approached by the Rover Company about its proposed redundancies in Car diff during the next few months? Will he undertake to see the company and also representatives of the workers concerned, because this is another blow in addition to the one we fear in connection with East Moors?
    Mr. Thomas: I am aware that the Rover Company has announced that there will be added investment in Cardiff which will be an acceptable piece of news for one part of the company's factory. I am aware that there will be redundancies in another part of the factory involving white collar workers. My Department is in close touch with the Department of Trade and Industry about this matter.

    House Prices
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average selling price of three-bedroom detached and three-bedroom semi-detached bungalows in Swansea in the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and to 31st October 1972, stating the increase in percentage terms for each of these periods.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Statistics are not kept on the basis of particular types of dwellings in specific towns.
    Mr. McBride: Is the Minister of State aware that I do not think anyone tells him anything, that in Swansea increases in house prices are scandalous and that although they may be a speculator's dream they are a Welsh national scandal? Is the hon. Gentleman aware further that the Fair Trading Bill gives no protection against gazumping, which is morally indefensible but is legally permissible under the present Government and a practice which is responsible for snowballing house price increases? Lastly, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this factor causes great financial hardship and frustrates especially those who are about to set up house? Will he tell the Government to take their fingers out and get on with it and do something?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The way to keep house prices down is to build more houses. In Swansea 50 per cent. more houses were under construction in the first nine months of this year than in the same period in 1971. On the question of gazumping, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 6th November.
    Mr. Gower: Will my hon. Friend press local authorities throughout Wales to

    905
    release land more quickly for housing development and to impose conditions that land released shall be used for building houses within a very limited time?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Certainly. The question of land in South-East Wales has been concerning my right hon. and learned Friend and myself. We take every opportunity of encouraging local authorities to release land wherever possible.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the British Steel Corporation about the future of the steel industry in Monmouthshire.
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the British Steel Corporation about the future of the steel industry in Flintshire.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am in close touch on all aspects of the Welsh steel industry.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that there is now a chaotic situation in the steel industry in Monmouthshire and that a great fight will be made to keep Ebbw Vale as an integrated works? We hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will assist in this fight to the point of resignation. Will he bear in mind one key factor, namely, the nearness of iron ore supplies? Will he press on the British Steel Corporation the need to go ahead with the Uskmouth project to serve the steel industry in Monmouth?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am fully aware of the concern which has been expressed in Wales about announcements which have been made by the corporation. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the proposals recently announced for Ebbw Vale largely reflect the corporation's announcement in March 1970 that it saw no long-term future for iron and steelmaking there and are confirmation of it.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the proposals made by the corporation for Ebbw Vale are totally unacceptable to the people of Ebbw Vale and that dis-
    906
    cussions have been initiated to cover the whole matter between the works council and the corporation? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will give no sanction or approval to any of those proposals until the discussions have been fully completed?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree that great discussions are taking place. There are still many aspects of the corporation's proposals which have to be discussed, particularly the timing and the phasing of the proposed rundown. I have in hand a most urgent and detailed appraisal of the infra-structure needs of the area. There are to be talks later this year between representatives of all the Government Departments concerned in Wales and representatives of the Heads of the Valleys Standing Conference. My officials will be reporting the outcome to me. I look forward to further discussions as soon as possible.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Cabinet split over the future of Shotton? Will the Secretary of State resign if he fails to protect steel-making at Shotton? Did he enjoy Lord Melchett walking over him last week?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has frequently shown that he is totally unaware of what is going in Government and British Steel Corporation circles in respect of these proposals. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am fully aware of all the points that have been made—effectively by some people—about Shotton's future.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake not to be rushed into making public the Government's decision? Does he accept that it is generally appreciated that the Government have a much better understanding of the social implications involved in all this than the British Steel Corporation and that the longer the Government take to make up their minds, the better?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The proposals which have been put forward by the corporation are being most carefully studied by the Government. I realise that anxiety is felt in many parts of Wales. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a decision which should not be rushed. It is a major economic and social question and hon. Members

    907
    do Wales a disservice in pressing for decisions too urgently.
    Mr. George Thomas: I appreciate that this is a matter that affects Wales deeply and that the Government are right to take all social considerations into account, as we have pressed them to do, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones), to whom the Secretary of State referred disparagingly. Is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said the Government's way of telling us that we are not to have a statement on steel before Christmas?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am obviously unable to say when an announcement will be made. I have made it my business to be fully in touch with all developments affecting the future of the Welsh steel industry. In my discussions I am taking fully into account the implications for employment in Wales and the social consequences of any major recession in the steel industry.

    Office Space (Newtown)
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to encourage Government Departments and public authorities to move to Newtown, Montgomeryshire, to occupy the new offices now being built by the Mid-Wales Development Corporation.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am fully aware of the importance to Newtown of securing tenants for the new offices and I have this very much in mind whenever Government Departments and public authorities require new accommodation.
    Mr. Hooson: Does that reply mean that the hon. Gentleman's Department will encourage Government Departments to move there, because it is important that a development such as Newtown should have a wide range of job opportunities? Is it not a desirable policy that wherever possible there should be centralisation of Government Departments?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me to give priority to Newtown I am afraid that would not be possible. Other towns have strong claims. I am sure he will share my pleasure that the tenders for the office block have recently been accepted and
    908
    that work is expected to start early next year, for completion by the end of 1974.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission a study into the problems of long-term unemployment in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No Sir. Long-term unemployment is already the subject of close study and Government action in the form of a variety of types of assistance is already in train to solve the problems of unemployment generally.
    Mr. John: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that since October 1971 such long-term unemployment has increased in Wales by 50 per cent., certainly in my constituency? Besides talking about the need for close attention, which the Secretary of State regularly trots out, will he say when will be the time for action?
    Mr. Thomas: I am concerned about the rise in long-term unemployment in Pontypridd. This has been largely due in the past year to the redundancies arising from economic difficulties which Government policies are now putting right. As at July of this year the proportion of long-term unemployed in the travel-to-work area as a whole was not significantly greater than the national average. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that unemployment in the Pontypridd travel-to-work area has fallen from 6·9 per cent. to 5·3 per cent. over the past three months.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Secretary of State accept that the continued delay in making a definitive statement about the steel industry increases the fear of long-term unemployment in every Welsh steel community? Will he also confirm that the discussions at the highly publicised secret meeting of Ministers with Lord Melchett were based on the nationalisation plan put forward by the corporation, the Government having rejected the corporation's original proposals to produce 42 million tons of steel by 1980? How would a return to that figure affect the long-term unemployment in Wales?
    Mr. Thomas: I appreciate that we should not delay for too long in making

    909
    an announcement about the Government's decision on the corporation's proposals. It is important to remove the uncertainties. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are anxious to reach a conclusion as soon as possible.

    Carmarthen—Pembroke Dock Road
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for improving the road between Carmarthen and Pembroke Dock.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Five schemes for the improvement of sections of the road between St. Clears and Nash are included in the firm programme for commencement within the next two years. Three others for building dual carriageways for a total of 10 miles of the Carmarthen to St. Clears road, including the bypassing of Carmarthen, are in the preparation pool.
    Mr. Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that the road goes westward from St. Clears? Is he further aware that when the Minister for Industrial Development visited Pembrokeshire on Friday every industrialist agreed that this was the most important single step that could be taken by the Government to assist West Wales in gaining benefits from offshore oil exploration? Is he aware that it has been rendered even more important by the unsatisfactory state of a number of the bridges on the road?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am aware of all those points. The Government have spent a considerable amount of money on the M4 in South Wales. We intend to press on as hard as we can in this direction.

    Manufacturing Industry (Employment)
    Mr. Alan Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many manufacturing jobs are in prospect in Wales; and how this compares with those available at 30th June, 1970.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: There were 30,900 in July, 1970. A comparable current figure cannot be given because of changes in industrial development certificate procedures. The figure for August, 1972 was 16,300 and there are indications of a significant revival in industrial interest in recent months.
    Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, unacceptably high as the present level of unemployment in Wales is, the Government have succeeded in keeping the figure at these levels only by eating up the 30,000 to 40,000 jobs that were in the pipeline, without doing anything to replace them? Can he tell us what study is being undertaken within his Department of the effect of the abandonment of the regional employment premium, which is soon to come about, upon labour-intensive industries in Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The number of jobs in the pipeline is measured by the number of industrial development certificates. For instance, one of the jobs in the pipeline in 1969 was the Alcoa proposals for the rolling mill, which was abandoned. That has now been revived because of Britain's entry into the European Commuinty and an upsurge in demand. It is not proposed that regional employment premium should stop immediately but that it should be phased out from 1974 onwards. It has yet to be decided what will take its place.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that it was the Government's policy which delayed the Alcoa project by two years and that it is only now, when investment grants have been restored, that this proposal has gone ahead. Is he further aware that his failure to tell us how many jobs are in the pipeline is bound to cause further anxiety in Wales? The Government must have the statistics. Will the Secretary of State give the House the figure which the Welsh Office has in mind?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter because the 1969 Alcoa development was postponed indefinitely, as I understand it, due to the general economic climate here and abroad. Its reinstatement shows industry's confidence in the way the Government are putting the British economy right. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has noted that one of the principal reasons given by the firm is our forthcoming accession to the EEC.

    Glamorgan Airport
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the future ownership and administration

    911
    of the Glamorgan, Rhoose, airport; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: As I have previously told the House, at this stage this must be primarily a matter for discussion between the local authorities concerned, but I would welcome their views.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that whatever local authority or consortium of local authorities may own this expanding airport in future, the initial capital expenditure involved in its enlargement must constitute a considerable financial burden? As since the end of the last war Wales has had only a puny amount of expenditure on civil aviation compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider what extra help he can give to the maintenance and expansion of Rhoose airport?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, certainly, this matter is being considered at the moment.

    New Houses (Purchase)
    Mr. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department intends to take to provide adequate safeguards and protection for buyers of new houses in Wales.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The National House Builders Registration Council's scheme already provides a large measure of protection and the Defective Premises Act will come into force on 1st January 1974. The Law Commission is studying the problem of gazumping.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that those measures have totally failed to safeguard home buyers during the last two years and that the speculative processes have continued? Is he not aware, for example, that when a buyer signs a house-to-house contract he may find six or seven months later that the garage is non-existent or that a fitted kitchen turns out to be just a top sink unit? Will the Department do something about the way home buyers are so badly treated at the moment?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: As I said on an earlier Question, the whole matter of gazumping was answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-
    912
    General some time ago. It is certainly a difficult problem which the Law Commission has been studying.
    Mr. Kinnock: But will the hon. Gentleman recognise that while the NHBRC's attempts are laudable they fall very far short of what is necessary in safeguarding the position for new home buyers? Is he aware that they do not cover the upkeep or condition of estates when they are left by developers and that constantly we have dirty, unsightly, unhealthy and dangerous estates throughout South Wales?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the hon. Member has any particular problem he wants to draw to my attention, please let him do so. With regard to the general matter of the NHBRC, the council still believes that it is important that it should maintain its present character. Local authorities have been recommended to lend only on new houses covered by the scheme and the Building Societies Association has made a similar recommendation to its members.

    Tonyrefail Bypass
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what stage has been reached in the planning of the Tonyrefail bypass.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Glamorgan County Council, the highway authority, is carrying out preliminary survey work. My right hon. and learned Friend awaits its proposals.
    Mr. Jones: Does not the Minister agree that this road would be of considerable advantage to the commuters who travel daily from Rhondda to Llantrisant and Cardiff and that it would be of tremendous advantage in attracting new industry to the whole area? Will he take steps to speed up the construction of this vital road?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I would not disagree with the hon. Member about the importance of the matter. I believe he wrote to the Welsh Office in December 1971 about it. All I would say is that it is a matter for the local authority concerned.

    CHIEF RENTS AND RENT CHARGES
    Mr. Michael Cocksasked the Attorney General when he expects to receive the Law Commissioners' proposals with regard to chief rents or rent charges on freehold land.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The Law Commission expects to issue a further working paper on the subject before Easter. I do not yet know when the Commission will report.
    Mr. Cocks: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, but he will recall that he gave me the answer exactly a year ago that we would get the report this year. The law is notorious for its delays, but does not the Attorney-General realise that literally tens of thousands of people are anxiously awaiting this report? Will he please make sure that his fresh assurance about Easter will be kept?
    The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman will recollect, first a working paper on the subject was issued by the Law Commission in September 1969, and this is a second working paper. The hon. Member may recollect that proposals were spoken about in the House of Commons in August 1972. It is a very complex matter. I will certainly see that the hon. Member's comments are brought to the attention of the Law Commission.

    SUPREME COURT (DORMANT FUNDS)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to enable a substantial proportion of the capital of dormant funds under the control of the Supreme Court of England to be applied for national purposes.
    The Attorney-General: Dormant funds are already applied for national purposes in that the income derived from them is surrendered to the Consolidated Fund.
    Mr. Davis: Why does not the Attorney-General apply part of the corpus of the fund to national constructive purposes along the lines of the legistration introduced by the Irish Government which
    914
    enabled the Abbey Theatre to be built? If the principle has already been conceded by using the interest, why cannot the corpus be used?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Member will appreciate that this is a surplus which is transferred to the National Debt Commissioners and is invested by them. Having regard to what the hon. Member says, I will certainly put the proposal to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    LEGAL AID
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Attorney-General if he will initiate legislation to extend legal aid to proceedings before rent assessment panels and rent tribunals.
    The Attorney-General: This will be reconsidered in the light of the outcome of research which is now proceeding.
    Mr. Davis: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some indication as to when this research will be completed? Is he aware that there is tremendous homelessness existing in stress areas of inner London and that one of the ways at least of mitigating this situation would be through legal aid to grant representation before rent tribunals, thereby getting at the matter at source rather than waiting until the situation is too late?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Member will recollect that some time ago there were indications that legal aid might not be the most appropriate aid that was needed for this particular kind of tribunal. The Nuffield Foundation is doing the bulk of this research. I understand that it is sufficiently advanced that we may hope that by the summer we may get some advice from it.
    Mr. Rose: Is not a general principle involved that where legal representation is permitted, failure to allow legal aid gives one party a distinct advantage in the proceedings? Will the Attorney-General look into this, more particularly in the context of industrial tribunals, where frequently far more complex cases occur than in the county courts and where the administration is often far more difficult for those appearing before those tribunals? Is he aware that legal

    915
    aid would at least give the parties to those tribunals the equal right to a voice before them?
    The Attorney-General: As I said, there was doubt about what was the most appropriate aid which could be given. It was for this reason that the Nuffield Foundation—as were two universities also—was engaged in the research. It is therefore sensible to await the outcome of the Nuffield Foundation recommendations.

    WELSH LANGUAGE ACT
    Mr. Ellisasked the Attorney. General if he has received the report of the inquiry conducted by Lord Justice Edmund Davies on the workings of the Welsh Language Act 1967; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has received a personal report from Lord Justice Edmund Davies following his informal inquiry into the working of the Welsh Language Act in the courts in Wales. My noble Friend is studying this report.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the Attorney-General aware that that answer will be received with satisfaction by many people in Wales? Does he not agree, however, that it would be sensible to publish the report so that an objective report of the situation can be provided for evidence for the courts in England. where, for example, in recent cases there have been such idiosyncratic happenings as sending batches of defendants collectively for mental reports because of their request to use their native language through an interpreter? That might be obviated
    The Attorney-General: As the hon. Member appreciates, this is an informal report which the Lord Chancellor asked Lord Justice Edmund Davies to make. My noble Friend received it only in the last month. It is still under study and consideration.

    RAILWAY CLOSURES (LEAKAGE OF INFORMATION)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement about his intention to insti-
    916
    tute proceedings under the Official Secrets Act or the Theft Act, in connection with the leakage of confidential information regarding railway closures.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Attorney-General what decision has now been taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions as a result of the police entry to the offices of the Railway Review.
    The Attorney-General: The police investigations have not yet been completed. No decision can be taken about the possible institution of criminal proceedings until the Director of Public Prosecutions has received and considered the police report.
    Mr. Huckfield: May I ask the Attorney-General when this monstrous and sinister witch-hunt of the Press is to end? Is he aware that there is a strong suspicion that a telephone call I made to the editor of the Railway Gazette on 1st December was tapped? Is he aware that the police have used blackmail in connection with questioning of the assistant editor of the Railway Gazette? Is he aware that many sections of the Press are afraid to comment because of possible proceedings under the Official Secrets Act? Can he not tell this House now whether the leak procedure is in process or not? Can he not tell this House now whether he intends to proceed under the Theft Act or the Official Secrets Act? Does he not think it is time that the Government came clean on this very dangerous, this very monstrous, threat to the freedom of the Press in this country?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has made several dramatic statements. In fact the matter is as follows. There was an inquiry into the loss of a classified confidential document by a Department. The procedure is that the Director of Public Prosecutions is told and he calls for a police investigation. That police investigation is taking place. It would have been quite improper for the Department to have hidden the fact that a confidential document was missing. The House will recollect the interest which was shown in the missing documents at the time of the V & G inquiry. If, as a result of these inquiries, there is any evidence against any person, doubtless prosecution will be considered,

    917
    but until the investigation has been completed it would be improper for me to say anything further.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why in one case the warning was under the Theft Act and in the other case under the Officials Secrets Act? Secondly, as there is still a little confusion, despite the clarification by the Prime Minister last week, will he say whether this is happening under the leak procedure and the follow-up to it or under the separate procedure referred to by the Prime Minister? Thirdly, recollecting the Prime Ministerial directive of 1964 that the telephones of Members of Parliament would not be tapped, will the Government give a similar directive with regard to tapping the telephones of the British Press?
    The Attorney-General: I know nothing about the third matter, which is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. In reply to the second question, when a classified confidential document is missing and the inquiries instituted by the Department are exhausted, the procedure is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to be informed. Having been informed of the position, he causes a police investigation to take place. That is what happened on this occasion. I understand that the search warrant was taken out by the police under the Theft Act.
    Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be a little more forthcoming about this when the decision of the DPP has been taken. Is he saying that this is consequential on the use of the leak procedure, of which the House was given details, or is it a separate procedure?
    The Attorney-General: The leak procedure is carried out by the Department. If when the Department has concluded its inquiries it finds that there are further matters which it feels should be investigated, the matter is passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions who calls for a police investigation. I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said about waiting until after the police investigation has been concluded, but I repeat that nobody is immune from investigation if the police feel that there is a proper matter to investigate.
    Mr. Huckfield: In view of the disgracefully unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE
Mr. Peart(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outbreak of swine vesicular disease.
The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): On Friday 15th December my right hon. Friend was advised by the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright that the virus responsible for the first three outbreaks in Staffordshire was not foot-and-mouth disease virus but a virus similar to those which the institute isolated and studied following outbreaks in Italy in 1966 and Hong Kong in 1971. While pigs which are affected develop signs and symptoms which are indistinguishable from foot-and-mouth disease, the virus has not affected other cloven-footed animals and, as my right hon. Friend announced on Friday, the disease has been named swine vesicular disease. An order was made on Friday extending to swine vesicular disease all the restrictions and controls which are applied in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease but in present circumstances slaughter is being confined to pigs.
The total number of outbreaks confirmed is eight and the infected area was extended southwards in Warwickshire and Worcestershire on Friday. The first three outbreaks were directly linked with the initial outbreak and four of the five subsequent outbreaks appear to be linked with one another through the movement of either swill or pigs.
Mr. Peart: I thank the Minister of State for his reply. As he will appreciate, this is a worrying time for those in the industry. I hope that he will still exercise caution about carriers even though only pigs are to be slaughtered. We still do not know the incubation period of the virus involved, but I do not want to harry anyone about that. I feel that the Ministry is well aware of this and that its scientists and advisory officers are doing all they can, and I wish them success. We are concerned about this,

919
and I hope that the Minister will continue to keep the House informed.
Mr. Stodart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said on the BBC yesterday and for what he said today about the work done by the Department. The precautions are entirely the same as those for foot-and-mouth disease because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have no knowledge in this country of the length of survival of the virus We shall continue to exercise all the precautions which would be necessary for foot-and-mouth disease.
Mr. Biffen: Is my hon. Friend aware that in all quarters, particularly in the farming community, there is a wish that the warmest congratulations be extended to those at Pirbright who have been able to identify the disease so speedily? Is swine vesicular disease covered by any of the existing or draft regulations of the EEC concerned with animal health?
Mr. Stodart: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said. I shall have to investigate the second part of his question, and I will let him know.
Mr. Hooson: Will the Minister please confirm that not only do the foot-and-mouth regulations apply but that the compensation procedures are exactly the same? As the Minister is aware, these are very troublesome days for farmers who may be affected.
Mr. Stodart: The compensation payments are identical with those for foot-and-mouth disease. In those cases where cattle were lost—I think there were four—compensation will be paid as for foot-and-mouth disease.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Minister confirm that the source of the virus has as yet not been identified? Will he clear up the slight confusion which exists in Derbyshire about exactly how far there are restrictions on the movement of beasts and will he say what is the position about poultry and turkeys during the coming few days before Christmas?
Mr. Stodart: Investigations are still going on as to the origin. Swill was a factor in four of the primary outbreaks,
920
but no imports of either uncooked or unprocessed meat are coming in from Hong Kong or Italy, which have the only previous records of this disease. As I say, investigations are going on. If I may, I will let my hon. Friend know at the earliest moment about the precautions for poultry.
Mr. Mackie: Many farmers, particularly dairy farmers, insure against loss through foot-and-mouth disease. As this is not foot-and-mouth disease, how will farmers who had to have cattle slaughtered be placed?
Mr. Stodart: If any of the four has a consequential loss policy he will be covered up until Friday, when swine vesicular disease was diagnosed, because the insurance covers the slaughter of any stock under a foot-and-mouth order. After Friday, farmers will have to review their policies.
Mr. John Morris: Will the Minister convey sympathy to the farmers who have lost their stock—often the work of a lifetime—and also to the officials who had to make the decision to slaughter animals other than swine? Is the Minister satisfied that compensation is adequate, having regard to rising prices, and will he take into account the cost of re-stocking animals?
Mr. Stodart: I would certainly wish to place on record—and my right hon. Friend already has—my sympathy for those who have had their stock slaughtered. I am certain that I carry the House with me in saying that it would have been criminal folly if we had not acted at once on the assumption that foot-and-mouth disease was involved. As for replacement costs, I cannot go further than to say that the usual procedures will apply.
Mr. Alfred Morris: What consultations have the Department and Ministers had with other countries about possible causes of the outbreak?
Mr. Stodart: This will depend on the results of the investigations and the situation that will obtain when we have diagnosed the cause of the disease.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
As the House knows, the Government have decided to make the £10 Christmas Bonus available to those pensioners previously excluded because of their earnings. This decision involves further legislation, which will be presented and published tomorrow.
Following the undertakings given by right hon. Members opposite to facilitate the passage of all stages of the Bill in one day, it is intended to bring it before the House as first business on Wednesday, in the hope that similar action can be taken in another place in time to allow Royal Assent to be signified before the House adjourns.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I should like to express satisfaction, which I am sure will be shared in all parts of the House, at the announcement made by the Leader of the House. I should like to endorse the statement made last Thursday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we shall do all in our power to facilitate the progress of the forthcoming measure on Wednesday. I do not say that there will be no discussion whatever, but within the parameters announced by the right hon. Gentleman we hope that it will pass through the House with all speed and that this will interfere as little as possible with the important debate that is due to be held on that day.
Does the Bill extend to widows or the long-term sick? If not, is it drafted in a form in which amendments could be moved to that effect? Is the Leader of the House aware that we on this side of the House are grateful that the Ten Minute Rule Bill, the introduction of which was intimated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), has prised open this issue and got the Government moving?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's words and for his intimation that the Opposition will facilitate the Bill's progress this week. As I understand the situation, the Bill deals
922
with women over 60 and men over 65—in other words, those who have retired or who are drawing retirement pensions but who were previously omitted from the Bill's provisions because of the operation of the earnings rule. The Bill does not seek to go further than that. I understand that there is a further additional clause in the Bill to deal with another matter on which there has been consultation within the usual channels.
Mr. Hooson: May I on behalf of the Parliamentary Liberal Party welcome this news. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the rest of the Liberals?"] They are preparing for the next by-election. Would the Leader of the House confirm that if facilities are provided to allow the Bill to pass quickly through the House, payments will be made before Christmas?
Mr. Prior: I regret to say that it will be impossible to pay out before Christmas, but the vast majority of those concerned should be paid shortly after Christmas. About 1,500 of the 7,000 to whom the provisions will apply may have to apply personally for payment, and this will take a little while. Each case will be looked at individually, but the majority—80 per cent.—should be paid within a short time after Christmas.
Mr. Cockeram: Will the Bill take account of those men of pensionable age who on reaching pensionable age have decided to continue in employment but who have been made redundant and are drawing unemployment pay—which is the only income they have?
Mr. Prior: I must leave this sort of question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As I understand the situation, the Bill relates to those who have retired but who were excluded by the operation of the earnings rule. However, I shall ask my right hon. Friend to deal with that point.
Mr. O'Malley: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Secretary of State for Social Services and his Under-Secretary of State explained in the House that the principal reason for excluding these two categories of pensioner from the Bill was the Government's desire to make the payments before Christmas? Since the principle now appears to be that of making payments after Christmas, will the Leader of the

923
House consult again the Secretary of State and say to him, "Do not be a Scrooge this Chirstmas: pay the widows and long-term sick as well"?
Mr. Prior: This was one of the reasons for introducing this new legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in his Press handout on Friday, it was always the Government's intention that people who were not eligible because of the earnings rule would be excluded, but this was not made sufficiently clear and the Government thought it right to put the matter straight. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the matters he raised will fall outside the Bill as drafted, but this matter can be dealt with by my right hon. Friend and I will inform him of the hon. Gentleman's views.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
Mr. Atkinson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The need to suspend the working of the National Industrial Relations Court to enable Parliament to reconsider certain effects on industry of the Industrial Relations Act 1971."
I raise this matter because of the critical situation in the engineering industry—a situation which will increase in intensity and which will engender more strikes as time passes.
The present engineering dispute is between the National Industrial Relations Court and the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. The first thing to recognise about the dispute is that it cannot be solved either by strike action or by the National Industrial Relations Court—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that in making an application of this kind he is not entitled to make the sort of speech that he would be allowed to make if he were to succeed in his application. He must confine himself to the Standing Order No. 9 aspect.
Mr. Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was merely making the point that the dispute cannot be cured by industrial action or by the National Industrial Relations Court. It is only in Parliament that we can see a solution to the problem. I am making this application so that we can debate a possible parliamentary solution. Therefore I am arguing that the NIRC should be suspended for a period so that we can seek a solution to the dispute.
The point is often made by Conservative Members that trade unions must obey the law—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But which law? Is it the law made by the Industrial Relations Court, or the law created by precedent in the High Court? There is a contradiction between trade union rule books which have now been upheld by the High Court and the latest NIRC decision about the union membership of a certain Mr. Goad.
I suggest that the problem is registration and the fact that Parliament has never yet discussed the position of non-registered trade unions. I believe that it is now an urgent necessity for Parliament to debate the position of non-registered trade unions and the legal validity of their rule books.
In this situation, we need an authoritative statement from the Minister responsible. It will not be possible for the debate on the motion to be moved later today by the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) to be used for this purpose. We are obliged to seek a special debate in the course of which these problems can be laid before the House. I believe that it is the view of many right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House that the validity of trade union rule books is in doubt as a result of decisions of the National Industrial Relations Court, and tremendous problems have arisen.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite say that the unions should use the National Industrial Relations Court. However, that in itself will not solve the problem, which is the origin of the dispute from which the engineering industry is suffering at the moment.
I seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the specific purpose of debating the position of the non-registered trade unions and the validity of non-registered rule books, especially from the

925
standpoint of whether trade union executives should be bound by their rule books or should seek some other way of achieving the good government of their trade unions in the absence of further legal decisions. Such is the ambiguity of the law and the contradictory nature of the present situation created by the Industrial Relations Court that many hon. Members now believe that it is necessary to suspend that count in order to debate these matters fully and thereby determine the position in law of non-registered trade unions.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was courteous enough to send me in writing the terms of his application, and he supported it with a letter setting out his reasons. I have studied it carefully. I have also considered carefully what he has said today. These are important matters. However, all that I have to decide is the procedural matter. If the hon. Gentleman studies Standing Order No. 9, I think he will realise that his application has not a chance of success. I am afraid that I must reject it.

INDUSTRY (TRADE UNIONS ROLE)
3.53 p.m.
Sir Edward Brown: I beg to move,
That this House calls attention to the damage inflicted on the whole community and to public respect of trade unionism's role within industry and generally in our society by the attitudes and activities of a small minority of extremist, politically-motivated militants within the trade union movement.
I apologise if my voice sounds a little strained. I have been somewhat queer—[Interruption.] I did not say anything about being queer. I said that I had been queer.
I am hoping that this debate will prove to be non-controversial in that the subject matter is such that there is a good deal of common ground between the two sides of the House. The people are sick, tired and thoroughly fed up with never knowing whose hands is on the switch, what is happening to public transport, who is holding up our exports and interfering with the publication of newspapers, such as we have experienced today. The people are looking to this House for guidance on how to cure these ills.
If any supporting evidence were needed in the shape of speeches in this House, I should need only to turn to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who not very long ago spoke of there being
"…powerful men determined to degrade and defeat the elected Government, Conservative or Labour, in order to smash the system and impose their own sort of society."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Name them.
Sir E. Brown: I shall name them in a moment.
Recently the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said:
"I completely condemn people who try to use industrial relations as a means of wrecking society. What is needed in the trade union movement is much more participation by the majority of members so that a tiny minority don't have too much power."
In the past four or five weeks we have been greatly indebted to the publication known as the News of the World, which has been running a series of articles on the very subject that this House refuses
928
to discuss at any time. Earlier today we had a move to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 9. But a debate on who does what in the industrial society in which we live is a far more urgent matter.
Who are the people behind the militancy in the trade union movement? Let me start with one Alan Tattam, who is a member of the Communist Party and a full-time employment officer with the Construction and Allied Trades Union. In the building workers strike he often sided with extremists against his union's official leadership. He told one mob raiding a London site: "Right lads, look menacing". He claimed:
"We had to push the unions from below. They were reluctant to have the strike. Only the weight of feeling we uncovered forced the strike to escalate."
Let me quote Lou Lewis. Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite know him? He is a carpenter—
Mr. Skinner: So was Jesus Christ.
Sir E. Brown: Yes, but he was on the other side. Lou Lewis is also a member of the Communist Party. This is the fellow who on 10th August at a strike meeting at Conway Hall, London, said:
"Remember this. This is a war. We are not mucking around and in this war we need a properly trained army to carry out military-style operations. The job we have to tackle covers 100 times the area Monty had to fight over at El Alamein."
Mr. Lewis, a former member of the Communist Party Executive Committee, makes no bones about his contempt for official union leaders. He said during the building strike:
"We're acting independently of the unions. They don't really have much to do with it. If we left it to them everybody would be back at work before you could say Lenin."
Mr. Russell Kerr: Not much in common with you, Ted.
Sir E. Brown: Not much in common with me at all.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not an argument below the Gangway between the two sides of the House sitting there. This is a debate in the whole House.
Sir E. Brown: I accept your ruling Mr. Speaker. I speak in this debate with considerable qualifications. I have had 33 years in the trade union movement. I

929
began on a cycle at the age of 14 as a telegraph boy.
Let me get back to Mr. Lewis and his activities in the building unions. He has said:
"We've had to wrest control from the unions and we're going to make sure that the workers all come out, even if we have to physically pull them off the sites one by one."
An investigator employed by the News of the World reported:
"Time and again I found it was Lou Lewis to whom pickets turned for advice."
Lewis told the News of the World investigators:
"I am a political idealist and merely doing my bit on the great road to universal Socialism."
If right hon. and hon. Members want even more on this subject, let me mention Bert Ramelson, the British Communist Party's National Industrial Organiser. He is Ukrainian by birth. He has said:
"One of my tasks is that wherever workers are involved in struggle, the Communist Party as such tries to organise and mobilise solidarity and support."
This includes fostering strikes and strife. Since he took over the Communist industrial machine in 1966, he has encouraged men to strike against both Labour and Conservative industrial policies.
I can even quote the Leader of the Opposition in support of what I say. Commenting upon Communist activities in 1966, he said:
"No major strike occurs anywhere in this country in which that apparatus fails to concern itself."
He was there referring to Mr. Ramelson's activities. I have them all—make no bones about that. A News of the World article of 5th November, 1972, says:
"A campaign urging miners to seize control of Britain's pits is being waged by Trotskyists who are so revolutionary that they shock even the Communists."
They shock even the left-wing members of the Labour Party. The article continues:
"The militants are distributing a flood of militant literature which calls upon the miners to: grab the pits and run them to provide cheap or free coal to the people; institute workers' control of the mining industry and all ancillary trades without further compensation; combat any 'intimidation' during strikes and demonstrations by 'creating mobile defence teams with armed wings'…"
930
There have been some disgraceful scenes during recent picketing. The article says:
"Set up: if union branches block militancy. Though only a handful of people are involved at the moment—top Coal Board people regard them as 'insignificant'—there is concern among senior union officials that their numbers will increase."
The article continues:
"The calls to action are among 12 programme and policy statements made in The Mineworker, described as the political organ of Mineworkers' Internationale. This is edited by 24-year-old Dave Douglass."
He is known as "Dave the Ripp". He is a coal ripper in the Yorkshire mines. He wrote in his editorial column:
"The workers are determined, even with the knowledge that a sell out is likely, to go forward and wreak as much damage as possible on capitalism within the time available. For the pay claim is relatively unimportant."
The House should know that. All too often we hear from the Opposition that industrial action is being taken in respect of pay claims, but it appears that pay claims are not important and that action is taken in an attempt to get British industry under the control of the workers. Neither side of the House would benefit from that.
I could go on to talk about communications, but I will merely read an article in the News of the World of 19th November which says:
"Workers in both TV and the Press should be allowed to participate in the selection of news and documentary material."
That sounds awfully nice. But then we must consider the roots of the group. The article says:
"The group has its roots in commercial TV—roots that have spread to newspaper union 'chapels' (normal office trade union branches). Among its supporters are Neal Ascherson of The Observer, Roy Bull of the Scotsman, Gus Macdonald of Granada's World in Action and Bryn Jones, industrial writer to the Daily Mirror. Mr. Jones, then father (chairman) of the Daily Mirror chapel, was among the first of the new Fleet Street militants to arouse national newspaper journalists."
A course of action which this House—[Interruption.] It is well worth reading. I could continue quoting example after example which the newspapers have given. I could quote Frank Chapple, who knows exactly what is happening within the electricity undertakings as well as other undertakings. Many hon. Members will know what communist infiltration does to the branches. I spent many

931
years as chairman of a branch. I was a victim of infiltration from the Communist Party.
The House must face the problem. Industrial democracy is under attack. The infiltrators seek small but powerful positions as shop stewards within our various unions and organisations.
What is the solution. Clearly it is for the union leaders to combat the menace within their own organisations. The Donovan Commission, although not dealing with this aspect of industrial relations, had a recommendation to make at pages 698 and 699. I will read it because it was touched upon this afternoon by the hon. Member for Tottenham who sought the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. It says:
"The second condition is the revision of union rules on shop stewards. In many rule-books shop stewards, or their counterparts, are mentioned only because the union relies upon them to collect subscriptions. The representative functions of stewards are referred to with surprising infrequency. The rules of the Transport and General Workers' Union and of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, for example, say nothing about such functions. The rules of the Amalgamated Engineering Union leave it to the District Committees to define the powers of shop stewards with the Executive Council's approval 'subject to national agreements.'"
I could go on and on. The Commission recommends:
"There should be a clear statement as to the authority within the union to which the shop steward is finally responsible and which can in case of need suspend or dismiss him from office."
The Commission recommends at paragraph 4:
"The rules should try to give more guidance than is now usual about the action which a steward may take on his own authority or as a result of a meeting of members. This means establishing the relationship between a meeting and the branch. It should be made clear that neither is entitled to take decisions which are at variance with those arising out of factory, company or industry-wide agreements to which the union is party."
It concludes at paragraph 699:
"Such rules will make it reasonable to expect stewards (and their members) to act constitutionally, since they will at last be able to perform their functions within the compass of the rules. They will help to create a situation in which trade unions could properly be expected to discipline the small minority of shop stewards who at time abuse their position."
932
The public are right to demand that these problems be solved eventually by the House if the trade union movement does not do so. The problems are reflected upon the millions of people who are members of the trade union movement. There are 23 million people working in this country and 10 million are registered with the TUC. If only they would attend their branch meetings and cast their vote to elect their officers they would not be landed with the officers they now have. Only 1 per cent. of the 10 million attend branch meetings, and less than 10 per cent. ever take part in any ballot.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Sir E. Brown: I will give way in a moment. Less than 10 per cent. of them take part in the electoral system within their union or organisation.
Mr. Skinner: In the miners' union, as distinct from some other unions, I agree, there have been many elections since the end of the war, and in almost half of those elections, on an almost universal sufferage, as many as 70 per cent. of the membership took part. Those elections resulted in some representative from Wales or Scotland being elected who was either a member of the Communist Party or a past member. Will the hon. Member consider that if there is a mood in the union membership at any time for such a person to be elected, whatever the participation level, the same thing will happen? It has nothing to do with the numbers of people taking part in the vote. There is plenty of evidence of this in the miners' union in particular but in many other unions as well.
Sir E. Brown: Applying that sort of logic to the House of Commons, one could conclude from what the hon. Gentleman said that elections, whatever the percentage polled, would result in a stalemate from one Government to another. That does not follow. My experience within the trade union movement has been that despite the membership in the factory or organisation—and I had had some 70 members—we never got more than 15 to a branch meeting, try as we might.
Mr. Russell Kerr: I am not surprised.
Sir E. Brown: That may be so. But it is a reflection of the general apathy

933
throughout the country. It is upon that basis that the test will have to come. If trade union members do not vote, they must not grumble if they get an "ism", either Communism or Fascism. In that case the freedom of the trade union movement is lost forever. If that became the situation we should have lost our freedom.
That is why I am bringing the matter to the House today, in the name of sanity, because it is now more serious. It must not go on. No voice is raised to bring it to the attention of Parliament. There is no controversy about it; we all know the truth about what is happening. There is no difference in knowledge between the two sides of the House. The only difference is that I have got to my feet and said it, whereas hon. Members opposite remain silent.
Let there be no mistake that, at the end of the day, the British public will judge by our attitudes and by what we do. People are thoroughly fed up with what is going on. We are all fed up. If hon. Members opposite have any courage, they will support the motion.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Orme: I fail to understand what the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) has been about. He has spoken about a deterioration in industrial relations and asked what the House should do about it. Those of us who took part in the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill in 1970 —we did not see the hon. Gentleman very often on those occasions—
Sir E. Brown: Yes, I was here.
Mr. Orme: We did not.
Sir E. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman checks the Division records, he will see what my attendances in the House were. I was here all the way through.
Mr. Orme: Division records and actually playing a part in debate are two entirely different matters.
The deterioration in industrial relations, in my opinion and the opinion of many of my hon. Friends can be directly related to the Industrial Relations Act. The increase in strikes and industrial strife, and the matters which have now been brought before the Industrial Relations Court, would never before in our history have created major industrial trouble.
934
It is significant that the hon. Member for Bath did not refer to the dispute now taking place, the dispute which has led to there being no newspapers today and which will lead to industrial stoppages this week, namely, the dispute between the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and the Industrial Relations Court. The court has told the AUEW that it cannot decide who its own members are, and one "odd bod", so to speak, by the name of Mr. Goad, can create unprecedented industrial unrest. In my opinion, he is out to create mischief in this country, and he has done it, but if the Act had not been on the Statute Book there would have been no chance of that case going to the point of creating such industrial trouble as is now developing.
Mr. John Page: If the union's case is so strong, why did it not argue that case before the judge, according to the law? If its case is so strong, it could well have won it.
Mr. Orme: I concede that, if the union had gone to the court, it could well have made an excellent case. Even newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph have said that Mr. Goad has probably not got a strong case. He has not exhausted the union procedure, a very democratic procedure of appeal, and he has never gone to the membership in that sense. But the union did not go to the court because, in its opinion, the issue is of such importance in its own affairs that it is not prepared to accept the ruling of a court which it does not recognise, a court which is not operating within the terms of normal British law as we have known it in the past but a special court created for industrial relations. One could well call it the court for worsening industrial relations, for that is what has happened.
My union says quite frankly to the House and to the country that while this interference is maintained, and while the endeavour continues to put the free trade union movement in shackles, it is not prepared to concede the point.
A great deal is made of what Mr. Scanlon should or should not do, and what his views are in this respect. I wish to put on record that the decision not to participate in the working of the

935
court, to adopt a policy of complete non-co-operation, was taken by an overwhelming majority of the 67 lay members of our policy-making body for the four trade unions concerned.
Mr. David Mitchell rose—
Mr. Orme: No. I am developing an argument. That decision, taken by those 67 members, is binding upon the executives of the four unions and on the general executive. The engineering section executive, of which Mr. Scanlon is the president, and of which there are seven members who reflect distinctive points of view on industrial relations matters on many occasions, has twice considered this issue and has reached the unanimous decision—I mean unanimous, seven votes to nil—that the union may not violate the decision of its rank-and-file policy making body. Mr. Scanlon was not even called upon to vote. That is democracy, is it not?
The hon. Member for Bath talked a lot about democracy and the way in which people get into important positions in the trade union movement, whether by large majorities, with large participation of the membership, or not. Anyone who has taken a keen interest in this matter knows that those of us on this side who have argued these matters before have always advocated the fullest participation by all trade union members in the running of their unions. In fact, there is far more interest and far more active participation than is often acknowledged.
If a union has reached a decision on non-participation, and if then a gentleman such as Mr. Goad makes trouble, should it then change its policy? Mr. Goad has taken a stand on so-called principle. I shall not go into his case. He has been in and out of the union, he worked during an official dispute, and we learned a short time ago that he is so principled that he will settle for £30,000 and leave the industry to get on with its own business. This is the gentleman who is this week causing disruption.
The other people who have created disruption and who are creating disruption still are the Government and, in particular, the former Solicitor-General, now the Minister for Trade and Consumer
936
Affairs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is probably responsible for more industrial disputes since 1970 than any trade unionist could ever be said to be.
I address myself now to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). I do not think that it behoves him to criticise, or, indeed, to interfere in, the internal democracy of my union in the way he did this weekend, giving succour to the enemies of the trade union movement. My right hon. Friend need only look at some of the Press headlines, from which it would appear that my right hon. Friend supported those people who are now hampering the British trade union movement. I know that is not his intention. He has been put into that position by his statements and utterances. It is not consistent with the manner and policy of the Labour Party. Looking at conference decisions, I do not believe the Parliamentary Labour Party has even discussed this matter. Individual Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for East Ham, North say different things. Different people make policy statements on behalf of the Party. This subject is of major importance.
I say that in no form of personal animosity. I have never had a personal word with my right hon. Friend about this. His actions and statements on the BBC yesterday will have dismayed tens of thousands of members who were preparing to take action to defend the AEWU. My union's life is at stake. It is preparing to fight for that life. I support the actions of my union. I know there can be two points of view about this matter. There can be difficulties.
Mr. David Mitchell: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is making declarations in great detail about certain matters to which most hon. Members in this House are not privy. Could we be told what was said by the hon. Member which is now being attacked?
Mr. Speaker: No matter of order arises.
Mr. Orme: I am referring to the statement made by my right hon. Friend concerning the AEWU dispute on the "World at One" yesterday lunchtime.

937
Those of us who follow industrial affairs know what is going on. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) obviously does not. This is a serious matter, about which we feel deeply concerned. We in this country are undergoing a traumatic experience with regard to industrial relations. Those of us who work for better industrial relations, and who argued the case throughout the consideration of the Industrial Relations Bill must pose the issues because they are of fundamental importance to the Labour and trade union movements.
Mr. Reg Prentice: I shall make some comment later on what the hon. Member said. But will he acknowledge one point? In my position as spokesman for the party on employment it would be inappropriate and cowardly if I made no public reference and refused to answer questions publicly on this matter.
Would my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Stanley Orme) further acknowledge, when he speaks of his union's fight, that his union is taking an attitude in this case in relation to the court which is different from that of most other unions and of the TUC? There is more than one direction in which trade union loyalty points on an issue on this kind.
Mr. Orme: I would not accuse my right hon. Friend of not having the courage to state his convictions. He has done that on a number of occasions. I hope he feels it justifiable for me to put the opposite point of view, though it be in public, because the matter is of such importance.
I recognise the second point made by the right hon. Member, namely the difference between the policy of my union and that of the TUC. That is a fair point to make. My union decided, without going to the TUC, to take this stand alone. They have supported other similar actions. They recognise that the subject of industrial relations in this country is serious. But there is a new feeling in the trade union movement of workers' participation. It is not a question of a trade union leader dictating policy to the trade union membership. The AEWU leadership has not instructed its membership. It has asked its membership what action it is prepared to take in this regard.
938
It is against that serious background of industrial relations that we have had unrest since 1970 and the doubling of strikes. Picketing was not even an issue in the industrial relations field before 1970. During the passage of the Bill we challenged the then Secretary of State for Employment, now the Home Secretary, to produce evidence of violence on the picket lines which could be used as evidence during that debate. The Minister was not able to produce it. The Bill makes every major issue a political one. The issues are no longer industrial but have become political.
The minor issue concerning Mr. Goad, which would otherwise have been dealt with in a manner satisfactory to the union and Mr. Goad, could have been resolved without effort. The issue concerning that gentleman has now caused the cessation of the publication of newspapers and has created trouble in the docks and in the engineering industry. By that sort of action an individual who wishes can create trouble.
The test of the situation is how major employers have been affected by the Industrial Relations Act. How many major employers have been to the Industrial Relations Court since the Act came into being? Nobody can name one. How often have we heard about the implementation of an agency shop?
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Vestey was one.
Mr. Orme: That was a subsidiary company. No major employer in general industry has been to the Industrial Relations Court.
The AEWU has been able to reform the agreement with the engineering employers. That action has been taken by means of free collective bargaining. There is no other way.
In our society there is free collective bargaining, where the employers and trade unions can operate. The Industrial Relations Act is the cause of the trouble. When there is such an Act the trade unions are put into a legal strait-jacket. The situation will continue with cases such as those of the five Pentonville dockers and Mr. Goad. Nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. This does not help the country's economy. It does not assist the trade union movement. It

939
is changing the industrial relations atmosphere.
I accept that there is an important issue here. We live in a mixed economy where the profit motive operates but where a strong trade union movement is in a position to bargain and negotiate with the employers. That situation will continue. The Industrial Relations Act sets out to soften, divert, diminish the authority of the trade union movement. But it has not succeeded. It has shattered industrial relations which some trades unions have built up over a generation.
People such as Hugh Scanlon and Jack Jones are noted for their word. They keep to an agreement when it is made. Nobody can point to any agreement which Mr. Jones or Mr. Scanlon has ever advocated that their members should break. When members have broken agreements Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Jones have been the first to uphold them. That goes for most trade union leaders who live in a real industrial world, where one has to strike bargains by means of free collective bargaining. We heard claptrap in today's opening speech. If the best the hon. Member can do is to read extracts from the News of the World, words fail me. Yet the hon. Lady the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) said it was an excellent speech.
I should like to warn Parliament that unless something is done about the Industrial Relations Act the situation will worsen, not get better. The case of Mr. Goad has arisen almost by accident, not by design. This sort of situation will continue to develop, and it will bedevil industrial relations. It is for that reason that many of us on this side of the House oppose the motion and the hypocrisy with which it was moved.
4.30 p.m.
Sir Frederick Bennett: Before coming to the substance of my speech, I want to comment on the speech made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). He complained that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) did not meet his favour and was a lot of claptrap, partly because my hon. Friend quoted a number of facts from a newspaper. That was an odd comment. As soon as my hon. Friend rose, he was challenged on the
940
basis, "Do not offer generalities—give names". My hon. Friend thereupon proceeded to give names and is now accused of having resorted to the authority he found for giving those names.
Mr. Russell Kerr: The News of the World?
Sir F. Bennett: It would not be the first time that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have used newspapers as the source of information they convey to the House—and that includes no less a person than the Leader of the Opposition, who is only too pleased to search through newspaper columns for anything which matches his mood of the moment.
One half of the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West was about something that is a secret from the rest of us. I hope that the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) will let us into the secret of what he is supposed to have done wrong. It is not necessarily the case that the fact that one misses a particular broadcast during a weekend shows that one is not interested in industrial relations. But I have sufficient confidence in the right hon. Gentleman—I hope that it will not cause him embarrassment—to know that what he said, whether the hon. Member for Salford, West agrees or not, would be based on commonsense.
I am not one of those who believe that it matters whether Mr. Goad is a brave or a pitiable man or any other sort of man. But it is important to refute what the hon. Member for Salford, West said —that it is because of Mr. Goad that we are seeing these strikes. We are seeing these strikes because leading trade unions have refused to go before the National Industrial Relations Court. They are taking that attitude, and have always done so, quite regardless of Goad or no Goad—a fine or brave man or anyone else. They are simply not prepared to submit to the jurisdiction of the court and it is because of that that we are having these strikes. To drag in Mr. Goad's name, good, bad or indifferent, is irrelevant.
The other half of the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West was strong on the subject of motivation. I listened to it with great interest. But the motion deals with a trend which was developing in this country long before the

941
Industrial Relations Act came into force. There has been a challenge that one Member or another on this side of the House did not take a significant part in the proceedings of that Act. I frankly admit that I did not. I supported the Government, but I do not mind saying—I said this outside as well—that from the start I was doubtful whether the measures would succeed in what it was intended to achieve because I did not feel that there were sufficient reserve practical powers in the State to be able to deal with the exacerbation that the Act would cause amongst certain types of trade unionists. Yet to say that the Act has anything to do with today's motion is simply a diversion.
I wish to quote a number of statements relating to the central point of this motion to show, whether hon. Members opposite believe it or not, that it has nothing to do with an attack on trade unionism or trade unionists. I cannot imagine a modern community without trade unions playing a useful and effective role. What we are complaining about is not the existence of trade unions but the abuse of trade unionism by small minorities.
I will quote one or two comments to illustrate what is behind the motion. One is by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. He said:
"There are a few—not very many but a few—in industry today whose political ideologies require them to take such action as they can to impede and destroy our industrial progress, who take advantage of the well meaning, who disguise their motives by a pretence of loyalty to one or other section of the community, whose purpose is to create chaos so that our system of society should be changed. One should not be deceived by the smallness of their number. One should read one's history and find that a small number of determined people can accomplish a very great deal."
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:
"There are active in our society small but virulent minorities who would like to see the whole present structure of our society destroyed and who believe that economic failure is the best way to bring it about."
It is fair to say, following the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West, that these two speeches were made subsequent to the Act.
As I have said, what we are dealing with is a trend which has been steadily
942
building up over the last 15 years or so. In June 1966, years before even the Labour alternative to the Industrial Relations Act was brought into the open, the then Prime Minister made statements which is is worth quoting and putting again on record because they were made by the Opposition when they had the responsibility of office. Before the passing of the Industrial Relations Act, which we are told now is the basis of the whole problem, the present Leader of the Opposition said:
"It is difficult for us to appreciate the pressures which are being put on men I know to be realistic and reasonable, not only in their executive capacity but in the highly organised strike committees in the individual ports, by this tightly knit group of politically motivated men who, as the last General Election showed, utterly failed to secure acceptance of their views by the British electorate, but who are now determined to exercise backstage pressures, forcing great hardship on the members of the union and their families, and endangering the security of the industry and the economic welfare of the nation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June 1966; Vol. 730, c. 43.]
When the right hon. Gentleman was challenged by outraged so-called supporters from his own side, he promised to come back a week later and give further details. He did so and said:
"The House will be aware that the Communist Party, unlike the major political parties, has at its disposal an efficient and disciplined industrial apparatus controlled from Communist Party headquarters. No major strike occurs anywhere in this country in any sector of industry in which that apparatus fails to concern itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1613.]
He went on to give a number of names of individuals—I will not trouble the House with them unless requested—who were, he said, intimately concerned with determined militancy in the trade union movement in relation to the seamen's strike.
So far so good. That was back in June 1966. It is only a few weeks ago that the head chameleon of the Labour Party, when he was referring to the possibility of Communists in the trade unions having an effect on industrial relations, made a most bitter attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), who is currently one of the vice-chairmen of the Conservative Party and who had made a speech whose virulence and strength in regard to the effect of the Communist Party was

943
milk and water compared with what the Leader of the Opposition said in 1966.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: As well as quoting what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in 1966, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would quote some of the speeches made by Labour Members at that time, including myself, in relation to the arguments put by my right hon. Friend, which were regarded then as being as silly as the arguments being used at the present moment.
Sir F. Bennett: I am grateful for the additional evidence that I have just received showing that the Leader of the Opposition had the guts to make the statement and had to come back to the House a week later with further details because of the outrage he had caused to what I call his so-called supporters. With grateful thanks I now include the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in that group—to satisfy him.
Much as I should appreciate the opportunity, it is not my job to refer to speeches from every right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite who has diverted from his party leadership during the past 10 years. If I did, I should still be speaking at least two and a half days from now.
I return to the quotations from not only Conservative but responsible trade union and Labour Party sources, any one of which would have supported the motion we are debating. For I do not believe that the hon. Member for Walton would go so far as to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is anti-trade union. However, we have the case of Mr. Frank Chappell, a former Communist President of the Electrical Trade Union, who said:
"Working for the Communist Party is like being part of a ruthless industrial and political Kray Brothers organisation. It is like a religion run by gangsters. They work on a simple policy. Their task is to wriggle their way up from the shop floor to decision-making positions in key industries."
That would be strong stuff even for a Member of the Monday Club, let alone a prominent Labour supporter.
I continue with a quotation from Mr. Ray Gunter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
944
If a groan is to greet every instance to which I refer when someone has varied from the official Labour Party policy on certain matters, there should be a fair number of further vacancies on the Opposition benches, including the hon. Member for Walton.
Only a few days ago Mr. Ray Gunter said:
"I think there is a very grave threat indeed. There are today many factions bent on destroying the free society we think is ours."
Mr. Heffer: Where did he speak?
Sir F. Bennett: I do not know, but if I discover subsequently I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that there will be some extra groans ready because I am about to refer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Groans please? May we have some groans? The right hon. Gentleman said:
"The tragedy of recent events is that ordinary decent men have been encouraged to believe that the wreckers, a tiny proportion of the total union membership, speak for their interests in combating Government policy."
No groans!
I now turn to Mr. Bob Dark, a former Communist, who said something very interesting:
"It is never necessary for the party to have overwhelming numbers in a factory to bring it into line. I know a factory where some 2,000 workers were employed. Of its 12 shop stewards, six were Communists and there was a fraction of 30 party members among the workers. The secret, of course, lay with the six shop stewards. The party only controlled one in every 60 of the workers, but controlled half of the shop stewards."
Finally, in this category—not of Conservatives—of people who would have supported the motion were they here today, but including, if he were honest, the Leader of the Opposition in view of his comments which I have just read, I refer to the late Lord Carron, a very responsible and respected member of the Labour Party. I bring in this quotation because I expected one retort today would be that all this trouble came about because of the Industrial Relations Act. On the contrary, I have said that this trouble began at least as early as 1955. I will come to the history later. Long before anyone had thought about the

945
Industrial Relations Act, Lord Carron, then President of the AEU, said:
"Surely it does not require a genius to see the linkage between events divorced in geographical location but identical in nature and expression, The docks, building sites, and other spheres of activity all bear the same stamp and have the same origin."
That was not bad from someone speaking 17 years ago, and it can hardly be attributed to the passing of the Industrial Relations Act.
The point of the motion is to indicate, I repeat, not an attack on the trade unions, but, on the contrary, an attempt to try to show to them and to their rank and file membership how they are being duped and in what dangerous paths they are being led.
So far as one can trace from reading post-war history regarding the Communist movement in this country, there is no doubt that in the first flush of our ending the war as allies of the Soviet Union there was a considerable feeling of sympathy for and kinship with our great Communist ally. This showed itself in the comparative success in parliamentary and municipal elections in a period when, for a very short time, it looked as though there was at least a chance that Communism would be able to gain some strength in this country through the ordinary use of the polls whether at national or municipal level.
The Soviet Union then began to show its true self. We had the ruthless occupation of the Baltic States and the inclusion by force of all the satellite states of Eastern and Central Europe within its empire. We then had the first real cold douche to Communist fellow traveller sympathisers in this country—the savagery of the rape of Hungary. At that moment, tracing the poll figures, we see that Communism through the ballot box rapidly started to lose its appeal, which in any case from the start had been only minimal.
If anything else were needed to make sure that Communism would never reach a significant situation in either this House or local councils, it came finally as recently as the events in Czechoslovakia.
Mr. John Prescott: What about Suez?
Sir F. Bennett: There is no comparison. If the hon. Gentleman wants to
946
drag in Suez, I suggest that he puts his name down for the ballot, as I did, and trusts his luck to getting it drawn out as a subject for debate.
Continuing this theme, in the 1950s the Communists started to alter their whole technique in this country. They began to realise that there were two ways forward if they wanted to increase their influence here. One was by their support of bogus organisations and associations with high-sounding and high-falutin' names, more of which have been proscribed by the Labour Party.
The second and more significant was their realisation that the trade unions in this country offered a splendid area for the accretion of power for one very good reason which in many ways is a credit to our people. The average trade unionist in this country, when he has finished his day's work, wants to go home, listen to the radio, watch television, go to a football match, or anything else he fancies. The electorates, therefore, among such a body of men are nearly always limited—although there are exceptions—to small groups of politically motivated men who are prepared to manipulate the voting machine in a manner which would be unthinkable were they to try it at the ordinary polls.
Faced with the decline of the Communist Party in electoral terms, and before its full strength had been shown in the trade union movement, there were two occasions in the House that I can remember when Labour leaders of great distinction—first Lord Attlee and then Mr. Gaitskell—decided that the moment was ripe to cleanse their party of the infiltrators from the extreme left who were giving the Labour Party a bad name. There is not one hon. Gentleman opposite who does not know that what I am saying is true. One can remember as a result of the attempts by Lord Attlee, the disappearance from the House, because they failed to get support at elections as Labour Party candidates, of three or four members who, it was decided —by the Labour Party, not by us—were guilty of some form of subordination to Communist influences.
The second major cleansing operation was in 1961 under Mr. Gaitskell when a decision was taken that a further effort was needed to try to root out members of the Labour Party who, apart from any

947
other considerations, were damaging the Labour Party's electoral good name. It was found at that time—and I say this advisedly to show how far the rot had set in—that the chief press and publicity officer of the Labour Party as a whole—he had held that post for 16 years—was not only a Communist sympathiser but was a paid agent of the Soviet Union, and that over a period of four years had been receiving sums varying up to £120 at a time from one of the satellite states.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite want me to do so, I am prepared to give his name but I suspect that they may know enough about the person to whom I am referring not to press me to do so.
Mr. Prescott: Be brave.
Sir F. Bennett: I am only too delighted to give his name—Mr. Arthur Bax.
It would be nice to know that while all those reverses were going on at the political level the Communists and their sympathisers within the trade union movement had suffered similar reverses, but unfortunately that is not true. The position today is that in the TUC itself, about whose wisdom and balance as a whole none of us would be foolish enough to argue or dispute, at least three members have strong present or past extreme left affiliations.
It is also the fact that today 25 of the 42 people on the National Executive of the Communist Party of Great Britain are active trade unionists, and 15 of them are leading ones. If I am again told to be brave it will take a long time to read out the names of the 15 or more people involved. Perhaps it might nevertheless be worth reading them so that when their names next crop up in the headlines connected with a strike not only we in this House but the duped workers themselves may recognise some of them.
Those concerned are: Mr. David Bellman, Mr. Les Burt, Mr. Richard Etheridge.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would give the names of the unions concerned. That might be of assistance.
Sir F. Bennett: Yes, certainly. They are: Mr. David Bowman, a member of
948
the National Union of Railwaymen; Mr. Les Burt, a member of the Electrical Trades Union, Mr. Richard Etheridge, a member of the Associated Engineering Union, a frequent AUEW delegate to the annual conference of USDAW and, incidentally, in another rôle, the political circulation organiser of the Daily Worker; Mr. Ramelson, a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and the national industrial organiser of the Communist Party; the Birmingham city secretary, Mr. William Dunn, a member of the AUEW, the national election agent and member of the T & GWU, Mr. Reuben Felder; the Lancashire district secretary of the Associated Society of Woodworkers, Mr. Sidney Foster; the Yorkshire district secretary of the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union, Mr. Howard Hill; to show that the fair sex is not missing there is the national women's organiser Mrs. Margaret Annie Hunter, a member of ASTMS; Mrs. Nora Jeffrey who is still an active member of the Communist Party and a member of the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union; Mr. Frank Foley, the branch secretary of the Associated Society of Woodworkers; Mr. Jock Glenn, a member of the AUEW; Mr. James Hagan. a member of the National Union of Sheet Metal Workers and Coppersmiths; Mr. Daniel Lyons, a member of the T & GWU and a docker; Mr. Michael McKee, a miner and vice-president of the Scottish area of the NUM; Mr. Cyril Morden, a member of the AUEW; Mr. Page—not my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), but Wilfred—the branch chairman of the National Union of Agricuitural and Allied Workers; Mrs. Irene Swann, a member of the National Union of Public Employees; another miner, Mr. Samuel Taylor, who is a member and official of the Yorkshire area of the NUM; Mr. Tocher of the AUEW, a full-time district secretary; Mr. Arthur Trew a member of the AUEW; and, finally, Mr. Hugh Wyper of the National Union of Sheet Metal Workers and Coppersmiths.
All those ladies and gentlemen have confessed to their Communist allegiance and are prominent members of trade unions. They are also members of the top executive of the Communist Party Executive of Great Britain.
Mr. Richard Buchanan: The first name which the hon. Gentleman read out was that of Mr. David Bellman who, he said, is a member of the NUR. If he is a member of the Communist Party he must have joined within the last 24 hours. As that was the first name read out by the hon. Gentleman I hope that the rest of his information is more accurate.
Sir F. Bennett: If I have wrongly attributed any name—
Mr. Heffer: You have.
Sir F. Bennett: It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying "You have". If I have said that someone is a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and he is not, I shall willingly write and apologise not only to him but to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan).
As I have said, out of the 42 Members of the National Executive of the Communist Party of Great Britain, 25 are members of trade unions, 15 at least of them being leading members. We have already heard about Mr. Lou Lewis, who played a notable part during the building strike. I ask Labour hon. Members who doubt the validity of what we say about this matter to read a book called "Violence and Intimidation", a dossier of examples of personal violence, injury, arson and damage during this year's building strike. [Interruption.] It was not compiled by the Economic League but by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. Almost all the names given in it of those who stated that they suffered from intimidation are of workers or union officials, or the statements are by police or Press observers. The statements are in the main not employers' comments but those of people who suffered or witnessed the violence and intimidation. Grumbling Labour Members who read the book will find there statements by their so-called fellow workers.
It can fairly be said that if it is the wish of rank and file trade unionists to vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal at the polls, and to vote Communist or pro-Communist when they choose their trade union leaders, they have every right to
950
do so in a free society, odd though the choice may be. But what is not fair or reasonable is that men should be elected under false pretences to high office in the trade unions, many of them wielding far more influence than any individual hon. Member on either side does. Yet the constant claim of those with strong Communist affiliations who stand for high office in the trade unions do not declare themselves in the same way as when they stand openly supporting Communist aims. At Trade Union elections they say only that they are standing to support the workers' interests. If that is true, it must be a very odd electorate.
What would be said if it could be shown that any hon. Member had been elected on a 9·7 per cent. poll and yet claimed to be responsible for and to represent the whole body of a constituency? Such a person would be derided. In the case of Mr. Scanlon, to whom I am referring, one of the first things this democratic gentleman did when he was elected was to see that the rules were changed—
Mr. Skinner: What about Campbell Adamson?
Sir F. Bennett: I shall give way if the Gentleman wishes.
When Mr. Scanlon, that democratic gentleman, had been elected on a 9·7 per cent. poll, one of the first things he did was to alter the rules so that he would not need to stand for election again. So far as I know, that is the only example of a life-president in this country, a position normally preserved for some of the more repressive areas of Africa. What wonderful company to keep—Hugh Scanlon, Kwame Nkrumah and the rest!
Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman is now revealing his true self. Moreover, he is falsifying the facts, which is a serious matter. Mr. Scanlon has been the elected president of the AUEW for 10 or 12 years. About two years ago the rules revision committee of the union, which comprises 52 rank and file members, altered the union's rules, not at Mr. Scanlon's behest, in a way that allowed people with only seven years' service left not to have to contest another election. That applied to Mr. Scanlon, Mr. Conway and other national officers.

951
The hon. Gentleman made a point about a 9·7 per cent. poll. Many of us have said that we want more members to vote in union elections. But there are some hon. Members who have been returned at by-elections on percentage polls of less than 40. Therefore, we must look at the general picture, and not just one incident.
Sir F. Bennett: I have nothing to withdraw. I said that the rules had been so altered—
Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentlman said that Mr. Scanlon did it.
Sir F. Bennett: Anyone who imagines that Mr. Scanlon had nothing to do with it, or that he was not consulted on a decision that led to his remaining in office for a great deal longer than any hon. Member could without an election, needs to have his head tested.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman does.
Sir F. Bennett: I withdraw nothing.
As regards the 9·7 per cent. poll, the most that the hon. Gentleman could do was to speak of Members who came here on a poll of under 40 per cent. It was precisely because 9·7 per cent. was so startling a figure compared with anything else that I raised the matter. I did not raise the election of Mr. Jack Jones in a 20 per cent. poll, which is still a great deal less than the 40 per cent. to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, I have nothing to change in my statement that Mr. Scanlon was elected to hold a position of power in a way that would have been totally unacceptable for any hon. Member on either side, and to wield very much more power.
We could adduce a great deal more evidence to show the way in which a small minority of ruthless men are trying to interfere with the industrial well-being of the country. Except for a handful of Labour Members who are too blind, do not want to see or have some other reason for not seeing, every Opposition Member knows that what I have said is absolutely true. If I am wrong and have made wrong statements, not one of those statements has been more severe than their own party leader made only a few short years ago.
Mr. Prescott: And he was wrong.
Sir F. Bennett: I was delighted—
Mr. Prescott rose—
Sir F. Bennett: I am not giving way. I am aware that some of the Leader of the Opposition's colleagues think that he was as wrong as they think I am, but that is a matter for them to deal with in their own internal battles. I find the difference of opinion rather odd, because a couple of days ago I read a speech by the Leader of the Opposition in which he said that he was happy to announce that the Labour Party was now totally united. Perhaps Labour Members had better have another meeting upstairs on Wednesday evening to resolve the matter. [Interruption.] I am glad to have more and more secrets given to me today.
In this country political sabotage and subversion by a small but evil minority of dedicated men who support the Communist Party and allied extreme Left parties are increasing, and promise to go on increasing unless checked. They are Communist or near-Communist dominated and controlled despite the variety of titles they adopt in pursuit of them. Their effect on the economy has passed beyond the serious stage.
In the result, the rôle of the trade unions—this at least should strike a chord with some Labour Members—has been reduced to a secondary one, as has their power to negotiate with employers. If Opposition Members think that I am wrong in that, I wish they could have listened to some of the private conversations I have had with leading trade unionists in the past few days, since my motion appeared on the Order Paper—[Interruption.]—I do not know why the hon. Gentleman keeps on talking about the Bahamas. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Torquay."]—I do not spend all my time even there. I occasionally come to London. I am here today for this debate.
Even more important, whether hon. Members opposite like it or not, the rank and file worker on the site and in the factory is totally unaware of what is overtaking him. If he is aware, as was the case in the building dispute, he has been too afraid to do anything about it on his own for fear of reprisal.
These political subversionists are adequately financed and very well disciplined,

953
organised and co-ordinated. This, together with their fanatical ruthlessness, is where their real strength lies.
Faced with these facts, which no one can deny unless he has some strange reason for wanting to deny them, what can the House and the country do? The newspapers have given a lead. There is one specific thing the Government can do. After the appalling examples of the abuse of picketing which occurred in several disputes, I want the Government quickly to conclude their review of the law of picketing to ensure, first, that in future it is adequately and fully enforced, and if necessary it will have to be reinforced and the law will have to be strengthened.
In the last resort it lies in the hands of all of us how much we can get over to the country the message that a great movement is being perverted and subverted by this small minority of men to whom we have made repeated reference. A number of newspapers have already given a lead. It is up to the House and many others to follow that lead and to bring the truth home to all of us and not just some of us.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: There are about 800,000 workers unemployed. There are cities with great social problems where people are crying out for housing and children are still taught in out-of-date, backward schools. Yet, knowing of these immense problems which need to be tackled, the best that hon. Members opposite can do is to come up with this witch-hunting McCarthyite-type Motion That is my strongest condemnation of hon. Members opposite.
When I joined the trade union movement as an apprentice I was told by certain newspapers that all strikes, all industrial problems and all the issues about which workers were concerned, were in reality the fault of members of the Communist Party or of subversive elements who were only there to stir up trouble. Since the Russian Revolution, and even before it, there have been people in Britain who have had what I might call the conspiracy theory of trade unionism, as though all the issues that involve workers in industrial disputes were purely the responsibility of small groups of subversive people. It is not true. It never has been true.
Sir F. Bennett: Rubbish.
Mr. Heffer: It never will be true. Industrial conflict in Britain, as in every other capitalist country, arises from the very nature of the system of society in which we live. Employers want to make the maximum amount of profit. Workers want to sell their labour for the highest amount of money they can get. Thus there is a conflict of interest between workers and employers. As long as that situation exists there will inevitably be conflict between the two groups.
I will tell hon. Members opposite something about the nature of the Communist Party. Hon. Members opposite are all experts on the Communist Party. They all know about its stirring up trouble. Immediately after the war the British Communist Party's line was, "We ought not to have a Labour Government. We should have a National Government to include progressive Tories like Mr. Winston Churchill and Mr. Eden." Part of the British Communist Party's argument was that we should export or die and therefore the workers should not become involved in industrial conflict.
Between 1945 and 1948, when the line was changed by the Cominform, Communist shop stewards tried to head off British workers from fighting for their rights in industry. When the workers in Liverpool went on strike in the shipping industry in 1947, the British Communist Party tried to stop the dispute.
The assertion that Communists are always trying to stir up trouble in industry is not borne out by the historical facts. I would not expect hon. Members opposite to know what those of us know who are based in the trade union movement and who understand its history. Hon. Members opposite get it only from the East-West Digest or from some other such document issued by Aims of Industry or the Economic League.
It has been suggested that the Communists are today the great revolutionary force. In fact, in the eyes of most young people of the Left the Communist Party is composed of the most old-fashioned bunch of fuddy-duddies one could find. There are organisations called the Socialist Labour League and the International Marxist Group. Hon. Members should read the multifarious documents

955
which are published. I cannot keep up with them. They spring up overnight.
Communist Party shop stewards tend nowadays to be the most conservative ones. Most of our lads in the Labour Party are much more to the Left in the industrial struggle. Hon. Members should get up to date and learn something about what goes on in industry.
I come to the question of why Communists are sometimes elected to trade union office. My union used to have a district secretary who was elected every year. Regrettably, we changed our system. In those days district officers and members of the management committee were elected annually. There was a man on Merseyside of Catholic origin known as Leo McGree. Leo was elected every year with the biggest vote. In the branch of which I was chairman I used to ask for nominations for district secretary every year and one man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church and a member of the Labour Party, would immediately nominate Leo McGree. I once went to this chap and I said, "I don't understand this. You are a Catholic, you are a member of the Labour Party. You always nominate Leo McGree. Why?" He replied, "Because he is the best trade union official I know." He got the votes in my union because he was considered to be the best trade union official.
When he stood in the General Election for the Communist Party it was possible to count on one hand the votes he received. Politically, the people did not want him, but he was certainly wanted as an industrial organiser in my union. Go to any building trade employer in Liverpool and he will tell you that when Leo McGree was the district secretary and when he gave his word about an agreement, that agreement was never broken. Let us get this matter into a proper perspective.
Hon. Members opposite are trying to create a McCarthyite witch-hunt atmosphere. That is something we do not want in this country. It is designed to deflect us as a people from what is causing industrial unrest. The basic reason why we have a dispute in the newspapers, why whole sections of industry are closed down over wage deals, is the stupidity of the Government in introducing the Indus-
956
trial Relations Act. The Government cannot say they were not warned. We warned them every day when the Act was going through this House. We said it would not make any contribution towards solving industrial relations problems. In an atmosphere like this, Left-wing groups will always be ready to pounce and become involved. A person in a factory might have been saying, "We ought to go on strike" for years, but no one will take the slightest notice of him until this sort of atmosphere arises.
Sir F. Bennett: If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct, will he spend a minute or two telling us why his own party leaders spent so much of their energies condemning, in almost the same terms that I have used, the activities of the Communist Party among trade unions —long before the passing of the Industrial Relations Act?
Mr. Heffer: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speeches which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made in the House during that period. We are not saying anything different now. A number of trade union leaders have been quoted. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) made some comments yesterday. If anyone does not know what he said he ought to get a copy of the Glasgow Herald. It is clearly set out there. Jim Conway is known to be on the right wing of our movement. He is the General Secretary of the AUEW. I want to quote what he wrote in this month's editorial of the AUEW Journal. He said:
"I have made mention that sooner or later we would find ourselves in practical opposition to the NIRC. The time has now come. Our policy as determined by National Conference and National Committee is quite clear. We are opposed to the Industrial Relations Act and all the legalistic adjuncts of that Act. It has been determined by National Conference that our opposition will be expressed in non-recognition and non-co-operation. This is not the individual choice of officers; it is the collective decision of the membership and as such will be obeyed.
Our firm and unequivocal stand will result in our being criticised but much of the criticism will come from those who oppose our very existence and it is unlikely to give rise to much concern amongst members. Our opposition to the Act is based on considered judgment and not on short-term expediency … We must fight and express our opposition to the Act at all levels. To say that we have a duty to

957
obey a vicious piece of legislation when it becomes law is to take all reasoning away from the belief of democracy and law itself."
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of that speech.
We ought not even to be giving the impression that any workers involved in fighting this law are wrong. What we should be doing is what I attempted to do on Friday—to spell out the alternatives, to say that we will not only repeal the Act but that we will deal with a number of things which need action.
Mrs. Jill Knight rose—
Mr. Heffer: When the hon. Lady knows something about industrial relations I will give way. I am not being charitable just because the hon. Lady is a lady. I will not give way.
Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman is not being charitable.
Mr. Heffer: If the hon. Lady sits down I will continue my speech. I said on Friday that the time has come to repeal the Industrial Relations Act. The Government should withdraw the Act and reverse their policy as they have reversed it on just about everything else, as they have reversed their policy on issue after issue. If they have any sense they will reverse their policy on this Act.
We have to set out the alternatives. I said on Friday that we would support the idea of a conciliation service that would be non-governmental, along the lines of the TUC-CBI agreement reached in August. We would introduce legislation to restore to trade unions the rights destroyed after the passing of the Act. We could then introduced a number of short Bills restoring the Commission on Industrial Relations to its rôle as an investigatory body making joint references and recommendations to both sides of industry.
We would introduce a Bill to improve safety and welfare and create an industrial health service. The recommendations in the Robens Report which proposed new legislation on safety should be adopted and improved. I believe that every shipyard and factory should have an elected safety committee with a safety officer whose task it would be to ensure that the safety laws were strictly adhered to. Shop stewards should be protected
958
by law and trade unions should be recognised by law. That is the sort of thing we should be doing with industrial relations.
These are the issues, the essence of industrial relations, not the rubbish and banter we have heard from Conservative Members. If hon. Gentlemen want to play their part in diminishing class conflict in industry, let them carry through most of the proposals in Donovan, which are the very opposite to what is contained in the Industrial Relations Act. They should put them into operation. On that basis hon. Members opposite would be making a genuine contribution to good industrial relations instead of uttering the rubbish we have heard this afternoon.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell: Perhaps we may remind ourselves that the motion we are debating condemns
"a small minority of extremist, politically-motivated militants within the trade union movement".
As I sat listening to the historical meanderings which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made through the history of the trade union movement in Liverpool it seemed to me that they bore little resemblance to the motion.
I came to this Chamber today expecting to find hon. Members opposite supporting the motion. I had expected many of them to be supporting it with enthusiasm. This is a curious time for the Opposition, when they find themselves having lost their deposit at Sutton and Cheam, when they find themselves having been unable to capture Uxbridge at the byelection as everybody expected them to do, when they find that they have lost one of their own seats to the Liberal Party. It is an almost unheard thing for an Opposition midway through a Parliament to fail in this way. Everybody knows that the main reason why this is so is the guilt by association from which hon Members in the Labour Party and candidates of the Labour Party suffer because of the extremist minority within the trade union movement. I can well understand the embarrassing position in which the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), for whom I have considerable respect, finds himself.
The lion. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) just now referred to the

959
present industrial dispute and the strike which is taking place, and told us that the decision—which is a decision to ignore the law—was taken by 67 lay delegates, and that far more people take part than many other people give credit for in the decision-making of the AEF. What also ought to be recorded is that under 10 per cent. of the membership of his union took part in the vote when Hugh Scanlon was elected president, and that considerably fewer took part in the vote which put into office the present Communist extremist group who dominate the executive of that union.
I want to stress that we are concerned with a minority. We are not concerned with the majority of good, sound, sensible trade unionists in the country who are as disgusted by the behaviour of this minority as, I am sure, is the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, whose broadcast on the subject has been referred to.
Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Mitchell: No. I am sorry, but I am under considerable pressure of time, and some of the speeches have been rather long, and I am anxious that mine should be rather shorter.
I am going to make three points as briefly as I can. I want to look at three types of extremist active in the country at present. Firstly those who choose to ignore the law of the land. Secondly there are those involved in assault and similar criminal activities. Third, there are those who egg them on and give them moral support.
Today there are trade union leaders who refuse to recognise the Industrial Relations Court. They think that they are continuing the fight against the Industrial Relations Bill, but, as every hon. Member of the House knows, it is no longer a Bill but the law of the land, and, as such, all of us are bound to obey it, whether we like it or not. This was very well summed up in the cartoon in the Sunday Express yesterday. It put it very forcefully. It shows Mr. Scanlon coming out of a meeting to find that somebody is driving away his car, and somebody says to him, "The gentleman is not stealing your car, Sir. He just doesn't agree
960
with a law—the law of property—and is staging a political strike against it."
There are in my constituency many people who do not like the income tax laws. There are many who do not like the capital gains tax laws. There are many who do not like the corporation tax laws. Many people do not like paying train fares. However, it is the law of the land that they should pay them, and the Industrial Relations laws are also laws of the land. Why should a particular trade union believe it is above the law and separate from the controls which operate throughout the land for the rest of us.
Indeed, it is worth pausing for a moment to recognise that in a civilised society it is only respect for the law and observance of the law which enables us to live in freedom in a civilised manner. Without that we would have the law of the jungle, and that is what inadvertently I hope, hon. Members have been sustaining this afternoon.
The Transport and General Workers' Union at one time decided that it would ignore the court, and we had the tragic situation in that it had a perfectly good defence which it could have taken to the court and by which it could have defended itself, and would not have had to pay away £50,000 of its members' money. It chose to ignore the court, and we know what happened. Now the engineering union is doing the same thing, tragically pouring away wholly unnecessarily the funds of its members, the weekly subscriptions provided by ordinary trade unionists up and down the country being manipulated and misused by their executive committee elected by less than 10 per cent. of the members.
I am glad that in this debate hon. Members have been honest enough to say that the strikes we are suffering this week are nothing to do with Mr. Goad, that they are to do with the Industrial Relations Court and whether the law of this land should be observed. I want the Minister, when he winds up, to tell us whether the leadership of this union is liable for inciting people to break their contract by the circular they have sent out which has been responsible for the start of this series of strikes which is to take place this week. I hope he will

961
let us know what, if any, redress can be sought in the courts of law.
I turn to the second group, those involved in assault and similar crimes. Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House I have read the statements reported in the News of the World and other reports about what has been happening. I do not propose to go through them all but there was the case of two coachloads of pickets who closed a site at Sheffield by abusing and threatening 12 men at work. Two coachloads to stop 12 men from working! The National Federation of Building Trades Employers, reported by the News of the World, said that on 11th August
"Militants with pick handles chased men off a site at Rotherham. Next day three huts and an excavator caught fire at Sheffield after men ignored a picket call to stop work."
These are examples of behaviour which has been going on recently and which has resulted in injury and damage.
The Federation sent its report to the Home Secretary, and I should like the Minister to tell us what the Home Secretary is doing about that report and whether we can expect some prosecutions to follow. I hope I do not embarrass the right hon. Member for East Ham, North when I say that I thoroughly concur in his remarks on these matters, which appeared in the News of the World, in which he said:
"I completely condemn people who try to use industrial relations as a means of wrecking society."
How right he is. I would also like my hon. Friend to tell us whether the police have power to intervene to prevent these breaches of the peace. In other words, are they able to turn back a mass of pickets moving on to a site in such large numbers that by their very numbers they are intimidatory? We should know the answer to that question. Many trade unionists on both sides—the extremists and the rest—would like to know whether a breach of law is occasioned by the use of a large number of pickets, just by reason of the large number.
I turn from the assault brigade to the third group I mentioned, those who egg on and give moral support to extremists and militants. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to search their consciences—
Mr. Heffer: Do not be so cheeky.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman who should be searching his conscience says that I should not be so cheeky—
Mr. Heffer: You should worry about your own conscience.
Mr. Mitchell: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) last summer took part in a radio broadcast with me. I have given a warning to the hon. Gentleman that I shall raise this matter and I am sorry that he is not in his place. He probably would be embarrassed by being reminded of what he said. Following his broadcast I received a letter from someone who heard what he said in the following terms:
"The gist of Mr. Atkinson's remarks was however that people should quite deliberately break the law when they did not agree with it. Coming from a Member of Parliament I regard this as being a definite incitement to lawbreaking showing an almost criminal degree of irresponsibility."
I believe that it is irresponsible, and that hon. Members who accidentally, intentionally, or in the heat of the moment may have allowed themselves to make such remarks inciting people to break the law should think seriously about it before going any further.
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order. A reference was made to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), the purport of which was that his remarks were to be quoted. What followed was a quotation from someone else, a commentator—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order.
Mr. Buchan: I have not yet finished my point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: From what the hon. Gentleman is saying, it must be clear to him that it may be a matter of debate but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Buchan: Further to that point of order. The point is that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham remarks in a letter. With respect, if we are not to be respected by the Chair, the hon. Gentleman might obey the etiquette of the House and correct what he said.
Mr. Mitchell: I think I can help—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) will accept what the Chair has already said. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Mitchell: In case there should be any misunderstanding, I confirm that my understanding of the remarks made in that broadcast by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was precisely and exactly the interpretation placed upon them by the person who wrote to me.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) made specific reference to the content of a broadcast discussion between himself and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and said that he had warned my hon. Friend that this matter would be raised. He has done nothing of the sort but has raised merely an opinionated reaction to those remarks.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made plain that these are not points of order.
Mr. Mitchell: I repeat that the gist of the remarks of the hon. Member for Tottenham was that people should deliberately break the law when they did not agree with it. We have this afternoon heard other hon. Members who have in effect said the same thing—
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order. Do not the rules of the House govern the etiquette and good manners of the House on which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might give us some guidance? What the hon. Gentleman is saying is compounding the lack of etiquette already displayed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Mitchell: I am aware that my remarks are coming rather close to the conscience of certain hon. Gentlemen opposite—
Mr. Buchanan: Nonsense—examine your own.
Mr. Mitchell: I will turn to my final point. I should be loth to find that the
964
measurement of my time today includes the time taken by interruptions. As everyone knows, a freeze has been imposed on wage deals. I understand that many hon. Gentlemen opposite are not in favour—
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Mitchell: I, too, view such proposals with some misgiving. Many trade unionists do not want to see a permanent statutory control over wages. The vast majority of bargains which have been made have been reasonable but there has been an abuse by the militant minority—those whom I have already mentioned—who, by securing such extreme increases in wages have set at risk the whole concept of free wage bargaining. Hon. Members who have consciences on this subject, should think carefully about this.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Mitchell: Hon. Members who have taken part in this debate have been among those who, every time a dispute has been reported to the House, have been on their feet to egg on the extremists and the most militant in their extreme wage demands.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Mitchell: Hon. Members will be aware of the way in which the fraternal delegate from the Labour Party has gone round union conferences during the summer egging them on to the most extreme wage demands which have been largely responsible for putting at risk the right of free, open wage negotiations which the trade union movement regards as a most precious right.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. Reg Prentice: On a debate on a Private Member's motion it is customary to congratulate the mover of the motion on his success in the ballot, on his choice of subject and on the speech which he has made. I follow that tradition in speaking of the subject, because I believe that we should have more frequent debates on industrial relations. My difficulty in pursuing this congratulatory technique is that the speeches we have heard from the hon. Members for Bath (Sir E. Brown) and Torquay (Sir F. Bennett)—coupled with that of the hon. Member for Rutland

965
and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) 10 days ago on a similar subject—have made it clear that hon. Gentlemen on the Government side are on the familiar and boring course of trying to identify and smear the trade union movement as a scapegoat for their own failures.
The past year, 1972, has been a record year for inflation, unemployment and industrial unrest. If any fraction of this trouble had occurred under a Labour Government the attack of Conservative Members would have been on the Government. As this has occurred under a Conservative Government, the technique is to find a scapegoat, a whipping boy, and that is the technique we have seen in operation this afternoon.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Very clumsily done.
Mr. Prentice: Very clumsily done, with all the familiar techniques of exaggerated language, quotations taken out of context, generalisations from one or two bad examples and rather obscure muckraking. The nadir was that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay in which he said that he had discovered 28 prominent members of the Communist Party and then put a trawl through British industry to find out what influence they had on it. He discovered a branch chairman here, a delegate there and someone he could only describe as an active trade unionist somewhere else. This is supposed to represent the Communist infiltration into British industry. All this is very silly indeed.
As for the speech made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) who referred to violence in picketing and so on, I think that there have been a few highly publicised deplorable incidents but that it would be better if Conservative Members would recognise that the trade unions have joined in condemning these incidents and have given guidance to their members about peaceful and legal picketing. Indeed the Secretary of State for Employment, in a recent radio broadcast, paid tribute to Vic Feather and other trade union leaders on their attitude.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from a dossier by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. That document should have been discussed between the employers' organisations and the construction industry unions. The employers
966
would have found the unions glad to discuss these matters and to co-operate in seeing that so far as practicable those who offend against the law in this way can be identified and dissociated from union office.
One of the difficulties about speaking on a motion of this kind is that one is put almost too much on the defensive. I do not want to be on the defensive this afternoon. Of course, there are in the trade union movement many failings, as one would expect in a massive organisation containing 10 million people. I include in those failings the undue degree of influence of small political minorities here and there—certain pockets of influence within certain trade unions, and often only temporary. If we are to talk about this problem at all, if it is a big enough problem to be worth debating in this House, let us see it against the whole perspective of what the trade union movement is doing.
Let us begin with the acknowledgment that trade unionism in Britain has done more than any other social force in this century to raise the status and dignity of the average man and woman at work. It has done this job in the vast majority of cases peacefully, moderately and without recourse to industrial action or threats of industrial action. Hundreds of difficult and complicated situations are solved every day by the efforts of trade unionists in consultation with management.
Let us further recognise that this success is due to the devoted work of a small band of full-time officers, overworked and in the main under-paid. They are supported by a much larger number of people who undertake voluntary work as shop stewards, branch officials or district committee members. Any debate on the problems of the trade union movement and industrial relations should acknowledge the debt that is owed by society to the vast majority of those who play an active role in the trade union movement. It is a debt which should be clearly acknowledged on both sides of the House.
As for the political views of the 10 million trade unionists, it is quite natural that they cover a wide spectrum. What on earth do we expect? Most active members of the trade union movement are good, sensible, social democrats, and I rejoice in that fact. But there are

967
variations to the Left and to the Right and there are lunatic fringes on both sides of the spectrum. On the one hand, there is Mr. Bernie Steer and on the other hand the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) who at one time, I understand, was a delegate to the London Trades Council. I am against both because they are my political opponents and adopt political principles that are different from my own. Therefore, I oppose the influence of the Conservative trade union movement—a movement which the Conservative Central Office has tried hard, without much success, to make a major force over the years—and I oppose the various groupings of the extreme Left. These movements by and large are condemned by the majority of trade unionists.
The essential point to be remembered about the Communist Party or other extreme Left groups is that they have failed almost completely over many years to gain control of any major union, or a major part of a major union. They have been contained by the moderate elements in those unions, who have rejected their philosophy. That certain individuals have been elected to office has in most cases been due to their excellence as trade union officials. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) gave the interesting example of Mr. Leo McGree. Another example that comes to mind was the choice of Arthur Horner and Will Paynter as successive general secretaries of the National Union of Mineworkers. They were prominent members of the Communist Party, but they did a first-class job as general secretary and enjoyed the confidence of their executive committees, the majority of whom had a different political outlook. There are —and should be—individuals of this kind, be they Communist or Conservative, who are not representative of the general political philosophy of the main body of trade unionists but who are elected into office on their merits.
Is there a problem that within certain parts of the trade union movement there is too much influence by groups on the extreme Left? I would say yes, here and there, but nothing like on the scale which has been suggested in this debate. And if it occurs, we can ask why. It can occur in some industries because a management's policy in a particular
968
industry has been so bad that nothing short of an extreme response seems to be tolerable to the workers. This has been true of the docks industry over many years. The undue influence—at least I would say that it has been undue influence —from certain militant shop stewards in the dock industry has been made possible only by the tactics of dock employers over the years. It has been a rotten industry with rotten industrial relations, for which the employers have been mainly responsible.
One matter on which we all appear to agree is that more trade unionists should participate in their trade unions, taking part in branch work, elections and all the rest.
Mr. Skinner: As I tried to explain in an earlier intervention—and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) was listening—there is little credence in the argument that if more people participate by taking part in the elections and in other ways the same kind of people will not come to the top. My right hon. Friend referred to Arthur Homer and Will Paynter. He must remember that they were elected general secretaries on a 70 per cent. turnout at every pit-head in the British Isles. The same thing applies in all these questions. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend should also remember how all three sections of the railway industry declared themselves on the subject of the Industrial Relations Act on a very high poll.
Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend made the same sort of point, albeit a little more briefly, in an earlier intervention. I do not agree that what he said applies in all cases. I believe that in some cases a large vote would lead to the same result as a small vote but that in other cases it would not. We have to look at each case individually.
Whatever we say about the rôle of management or about the rôle of unions in all this, the central and most important question for this House clearly is to consider the role of the Government and of the Industrial Relations Act in the problems that we are discussing. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are serious in putting to the House the view that they want to encourage moderation in the unions, to encourage the election

969
of moderate officers, and to encourage the pursuit of moderate policies, the first conclusion that they have to come to is to get rid of the Industrial Relations Act, which makes the rôle of moderates very much more difficult and sets the scene for the extremist in a way that he could not have bettered if he had set it for himself.
Mr. Peter Rost: Does the right hon. Gentleman support those hon. Members behind him who said earlier that the law of the land need not be obeyed?
Mr. Prentice: Of course I wish to make some reference to this, because two of my lion. Friends referred to my remarks yesterday. But I make it clear now, as I did yesterday in my broadcast, and always have, that the main culprit in this is the Government and their persistence with the Act. The way that trade unionists should react to it is important, but the most important question for this House to consider is the kind of legislation that we have on the Statute Book. We should not be diverted away from the central political question which we have to face—
Mr. Rost: I want only an answer to my question.
Mr. Prentice: The Government were warned in the summer. The dock strike took place at a time when the real issues in dispute between the employers and the dock workers had practically been settled within the framework of the recommendations of the Jones-Aldington Committee. It was an unnecessary strike. It would not have occurred if the Industrial Relations Act had not been on the Statute Book and if the procedures of the Industrial Relations Act had not been used by Midland Cold Storage Limited. I do not exonerate Midland Cold Storage from its share of the blame. Nor do I exonerate the five dockers who went to gaol. I think that they were wrong, and I said so at the time. But the main culprit was the Government in putting and keeping on the Statute Book a framework of legislation within which foolish employers and dedicated militants on the union side between them could contribute to a course of events which led to the dock strike.
At the time, we said in this House that situations of that kind would occur
970
again and again. Now it has ocurred again in the dispute over Mr. Goad. Let me put this to right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Are they satisfied with a law which has the effect of taking an issue which concerns whether one individual should be accepted as a member of a trade union and escalates it into a crisis which brings large numbers of people out on strike?
Mr. David Mitchell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that several of his hon. Friends said that this was not the issue which caused the strike—that it concerned the industrial Relations Act and not Mr. Goad? It is the observance of the law.
Mr. Prentice: I have given way twice to hon. Members opposite. I am not sure whether it was altogether wise to do so. I know what my hon. Friends said, and I want to deal with it in a moment. At present I am still trying to put this matter in the context of the Act itself. I do not want right hon. and hon. Members opposite to get away with the suggestion that this matter is the subject of an argument between right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition benches.
There are differences between right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, just as there are between trade unionists about the National Industrial Relations Court. They are important differences, and no one seeks to paper over them. But we on this side of the House are united in saying that the Act is wrong and that it should go. We believe that the Act has contributed to 1972 being the worst year for industrial stoppages since 1926, and that 1973 may be worse again unless the Government see sense and repeal or amend the Act.
I have taken the view for many months—I did so as early as March or April, soon after the Act came into force—that the unions should recognise the existence of the Court. Certainly they ought not to initiate cases before the Court. They should not co-operate with it to that extent. But I have always thought it right that if they are brought before the Court by an employer or an individual they ought to defend themselves in the Court. This view has been accepted by the executives of the major unions one by one. The rail unions accepted it at the time of their dispute. The Transport and

971
General Workers' Union accepted it and has operated it in a series of cases in which it has been brought before the Court. The TUC annual conference in September rejected the AUEW resolution asking the unions not to go to the Court.
My view is in line with that taken by the majority of the trade union movement. I think that it is correct, on two basic grounds. First it is a matter of principle that the law of the land should be obeyed. If it is bad law, it should be changed by democratic argument, democratic election and the processes of Parliament. Meanwhile, it is the law of the land and should be obeyed as such. The second ground is one of tactics. It is not intelligent tactics to pursue a course which leads to a union's funds being depleted by unnecessary fines and to thousands of workers losing a day's pay just before Christmas in a strike which serves no purpose. Certainly it will not do anything to get the Act amended. If it has an effect on the situation, it will be a marginal effect the other way in confirming the views of those who believe that such an Act is necessary.
Mr. Heffer: I am sure that I am spelling out something which my right hon. Friend and every other right hon. and hon. Member on this side of the House knows. During the period of the Combination Acts, to start with print workers working for The Times were imprisoned for nine months for going on strike. They broke the law. All that they were trying to do was to improve their wages and conditions. They spent nine months in prison. That is only one example of the history of our movement. It has been a history of struggle against unjust class laws directed against the workers—
Mr. Rost: Too long.
Mr. Heffer: I am not talking to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). I am talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there are occasions, with unjust class laws such as this one is, when it is perfectly understandable that workers should make a stand and, as Vic Feather said in a speech earlier this year, refuse to recognise such an unjust law?
Mr. Prentice: It is not reasonable to compare the two situations. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) talked about the Combination Acts. He is talking about a period when trade unionism had no legal status and when working men had no votes. He is not talking about a free society. The long struggle since then has had two main features. The first has been the extension of the franchise stage by stage until every person over the age of 18 is able to take part in the choice of a Government and can vote to turn out a Government that lie does not like. Side by side with that has been the growth of the trade union movement and its establishment, until today when it is called, quite reasonably, one of the estates of the realm.
We are not discussing a situation in which men were faced with the necessity to break laws in order to take the first steps towards trade unionism. I support the memory of those men and of the Tolpuddle martyrs. I hope that I would have had the courage to join them if I had lived in that period. But there is no historical parallel between them and what is happening today.
The battle against the Industrial Relations Act was lost on 18th June 1970. If the trade union movement had co-operated in pulling out the votes of trade unionists and the families in the way that they should have done, we would have had neither a Conservative Government nor the Industrial Relations Act. What I want to ensure—and I am talking purely in practical terms now—is that the stance we take as a movement now and in the period ahead will help us get rid of this Government at the earliest possible moment and therefore of the Industrial Relations Act.
Mr. Orme: This is the point to which some of us have been trying to address ourselves. If we say that the fault lies with those workers who did not vote for the Labour Government in 1970, and thereby we should wait until the next election, when everything will be put right, the argument inside the Labour movement is that unless a fight is put up—and the AUEW is putting up a fight—against this most unjust law and the unjust National Industrial Relations

973
Court, we shall not have a Labour Government to change the law.
Mr. Prentice: Of course a fight must be put up. But I think that the way to conduct it is by the normal processes of democracy—by meetings, by debates in this House, by persuading people on the doorstep of the need for political change. That is the way to fight the Act. That is the way that we shall get rid of it. One of the arguments I have used against the AUEW in this situation is that it is not putting up an effective fight against the Act. I do not want to rub it in, but the news today is that 100,000 people are out on strike, and that is only about one-tenth of the engineering section of the union. Of course the trade union leaders have their problems. But if one is to try to beat the Act by industrial action, one needs a long general strike and nothing else, I do not believe in that in principle, but if I did I would want it to have some chance of succeeding. I would not want it to be ineffectual, because that simply gives the worst of both worlds.
The House should see the situation in perspective. Frankly, hon. Members opposite give the impression that they do not understand the agonising doubt which this sort of situation creates among trade unionists. They should try to understand it better. They are the main culprits. Not just the Government but all those who voted to enact this legislation are guilty. The Goad case will not be the last. There will be others next year and the year after that if this Act goes on.
Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Gentleman has made an interesting comment and now seems to be reversing his previous position. He is talking again about getting rid of the Act, but he allowed in an earlier comment that the possibility otherwise was substantially to amend it. No one is talking about the repeal of such features as extended periods of notice and right of appeal against unfair dismissal. So we are talking about amending certain sections which right hon. and hon. Members opposite say are causing and aggravating industrial relations problems. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has offered to discuss amendments of the Act. Would it not be more helpful to future developments if
974
we stopped talking about repeal and concentrated on areas of the Act causing concern?
Mr. Prentice: Our policy is to repeal the Act. In replacing it by up-to-date legislation, of course we shall provide for appeal against unfair dismissal. Indeed, we were first in the field with such provisions. They were in the Bill which the Labour Government produced and which was before Parliament when the 1970 General Election was called.
I return finally to the motion. As I have said, I think it is a pity that we should debate trade unionism only in terms of the failings or alleged failings, or of the bad examples or alleged bad examples, of the trade union movement. I would like to see trade unions debated in this House and discussed in the country in terms of all the positive and useful things which have been done through the medium of the movement. I think that a challenge should be issued here. The union leaders themselves should take up the challenge. They should recognise the need to involve themselves in a positive public relations offensive. They should tell their own story to the general public—and in the general public I include the many millions of trade unionists who simply pay their subscriptions and then read about their union in the Daily Express or the Daily Mirror.
The public should know about the hundreds of productivity agreements reached every year, very often on trade union initiative. They should know the story of the electricity supply industry and the great contribution made to its productivity by trade unionists in the last few years—even to the extent that management officials have been to the union's own college in order to learn about the techniques of such productivity agreements.
The public should know about the coal industry in recent years, and its struggle in very difficult circumstances, with a rundown in the labour force and with great co-operation between the unions and the management. The public should know about the legal aid services provided by the unions. They should know about the education schemes, including scholarships and the rest. They should know about the convalescent homes for sick members.

975
They should know about the 101 different ways in which the trade union movement is contributing to the welfare of its members and the health of British industry.
It will be an uphill task, because the media are not necessarily responsive. But the trade unions should try harder to get their story across, so that there is a sense of purpose in the study of trade unionism in Britain. The motion uses the word "militants". It has become a derogatory term. Hon. Members on both sides have used it, and I expect that I have used it. We tend to do so, however, in a way which implies an unreasonable attitude, a refusal to compromise, bloodymindedness. But what we need in the trade union movement is militancy in the sense of hard, dedicated work for the reasonable objectives of the movement. I would like to see a revival of militancy and participation by much larger numbers of people in increasing membership, in improving organisation, in union meetings. [Interruption.] I wish that some of my hon. Friends would keep quiet and allow me to proceed. There are certain courtesies in this House.
I would like to see a revival of some of the values which have always been part of the historical traditions of the movement, in the sense that members are prepared to work not only for their own wage claims or their immediate demands but for each other. There are many issues in modern industry which require that approach. I would like to see greater militancy, including greater militancy by the well-paid on behalf of the low-paid. I would like to see greater militancy on the part of the men on behalf of the women for equal pay and greater opportunity. I would like to see greater militancy on behalf of the young workers, particularly for training and further education opportunities. I would like to see greater militancy on the part of white workers for equal status for coloured workers—and the current strike in Loughborough must be taken very seriously indeed by both sides of industry when the inquiry is complete.
In other words, we are faced in modern industry with a great many problems that require militancy and the right kind of application of the traditional values of brotherhood and solidarity in the trade
976
union movement if we are to deal with them in the 1970s.
6.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Robin Chick ester-Clark): I wonder at the fact that a few not perhaps casual but preprandial remarks made by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) this weekend should have got him into such dire trouble this afternoon. I had difficulty in following his speech at one point because he was having to weave and dodge about so much in order to escape the brickbats which came from his own side of the House.
Mr. Russell Kerr: We have open discussion in our party.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The right hon. Gentleman made a brave speech, and the popularity which he may lose in his own party he will make up in respect from the country. I shall not follow him in detail into the customary inveighings against the Act but I join him in the tribute that he paid to the achievements of the trade union movement over the years.
I am not in disagreement with my hon. Friends because their motion pays tribute to the work of the trade union movement. My hon. Friends are concerned that a small minority should undermine the respect in which the trade union movement is held. [Interruption.] Before I deal with the motion, I hope that the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) will keep quiet. He has been mumbling all afternoon. I shall have a few special words for him at the end of my remarks. Perhaps he will contain his impatience until that time.
Before I deal with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) I will mention some of the remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in a curious intervention. He said that violent picketing had apparently begun only since the Act came into force. He seems to have forgotten—and I have not—about what occurred at the Barbican site in 1968, and the many arrests which were made during the Pilkington affair in 1970. Perhaps he will cast his mind back to those affairs and decide whether his remarks about picketing were so justified as he seemed to believe.

977
The hon. Gentleman also said that few major industrialists had gone to the Industrial Relations Court. He wondered why that was so, and seemed to be urging them to do so. But the Government have always made it clear that that was a course of last resort. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to see it employed more often. However, it seemed a curious remark to come from him. Few industrialists have gone to the court, but one example is that of C. A. Parsons, which took a recognition dispute to the court. The dispute ended in a CIR recommendation in favour of the hon. Gentleman's union—the AUEW. It seems that the remarks which he made this afternoon were somewhat misplaced.
I shall not refer to the arrogance which was shown by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to some of my hon. Friends earlier today. However, I shall refer to one of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. In calling for the repeal of the Act the hon. Gentleman sometimes suggests that he has some ideas to put in its place. To say he made the rather curious suggestion that we might have an industrial health service. What a new and very good idea. Or it would have been had it been propagated some time ago. The truth is that the employment medical advisory service begins operating next month, so the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with that matter and a little behind. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support it in every way that he can.
Mr. Buchan: The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) was linked with industrial safety. It was the hon. Gentleman's Government who last year destroyed a Private Member's Bill to introduce industrial safety in relation to industrial safety committees. The Government and the Government Whips destroyed it.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are many measures coming forward on this matter which he will have the opportunity to discuss. I hope that he will do so. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will be unable to say anything about the record of the Government in that direction.
I make no complaint that by a strange coincidence the motions which my hon. Friends the Members for Bath and Tor-
978
quay (Sir F. Bennett) have introduced are in exactly the same terms. [Interruption.] They are accepting and reflecting a concern which is felt by many people about the future of British industry. It is the concern of anyone who has the future of British industry at heart, no matter what are his political sympathies. That is something with which the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, would not dissent. My hon. Friends the Members for Bath and Torquay touched upon a chord of disquiet in the hearts of many people. [Interruption.] Perhaps, like the right hon. Gentleman, I might ask that there be a little courtesy in the House. The right hon. Gentleman rounded on his hon. Friends, and I do likewise.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Repeated sedentary interruptions destroy debate.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: My hon. Friends were both specific. The House will not deny that. They both made it clear what they meant by subversion and politically-motivated militance.
The House will accept that it is important to make a distinction between subversion and militancy. I describe militancy as a readiness to threaten, and, if necessary, to use strikes and other forms of industrial action. That is not in itself subversive. That is what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. We can each deplore particular instances of militancy of which we ourselves disapprove for various reasons, but no one in this House will deny the freedom of trade unions to pursue the interests of their members in industrial activity in disputes with employers. That is accepted, I think, by both sides of the House. I have not heard it denied in any speech. It is regarded as one of the basic freedoms in this country, and it is one which we mean to maintain. But when it is used to threaten the safety of the nation or to undermine parliamentary democracy by industrial or violent means, it becomes subversion. At least, that is my definition.
That is something which I hope we shall always be prepared to stand out against. Those who push militancy to the extreme of an absolute refusal to accept any compromise solution, however fair, must learn that the Government—and finally the people of this country—will not allow small minorities to hold the country to ransom.

979
We must always recognise that there are those who want to continue strikes after both sides have accepted a settlement. We must recognise—my hon. Friends dealt with this matter and names were mentioned, but I shall not mention them—that there are political groups whose aims are to subvert the national life of this country and overthrow the system of democracy. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Feltham has something to say, let him get up and say it.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the Minister confirm that there are always nuts on the fringe of any movement, either left or right, who stoop to this childish nonsense?
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman gives me the strongest confirmation that there are nuts on the fringe of any movement. We must accept that there are political groups whose aims are to subvert our national life and to overthrow our parliamentary system of democracy. They never cease to work for the establishment of power through infiltration tactics. The Communist Party itself does not primarily urge the use of violent methods. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton seeking to intervene?
Mr. Heffer: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman invites that.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The Communist Party wants to take over at least the outward structure of a political system. We probably all accept that. That is where it differs from the Trotskyists and Maoists to its left. We can easily find them indeed, evidence has been read this afternoon that we can find them criticising the Communist Party for what they see as its excessive moderation. They frequently urge violence with a view to revolution. It is worth noting that the Communist Party, speaking about the TUC, says:
"The right wing still controls the machinery of the TUC, not to mention the Labour Party and the Parliamentary Party, and the left will need to organise its forces, sharpen its steel and deepen its political analysis and understanding if it is to make real deep inroads into the right wing hold on the movement in the coming stage of the struggle."
That may be of some interest to some hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Alex Eadie rose—
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I will give way in a moment. A resolution at the Communist Party Conference in November 1971 was quoted in a speech of which, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman disapproved. I refer to a truncated speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) about 10 days ago. The resolution's aims were "to increase industrial activity" that means strikes and disturbances—and it urged the winning over of the majority of unions and the ending of the right wing domination of the TUC council.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Big news.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman says that it is big news. He should witch hunt. I do not know whether he wants to indulge in one. Needless to say the Communist Party does not always pursue its aims in an open manner or, indeed, under its own name. Like many other subversive organisations it uses front organisations.
I welcome one fact. The Labour Party is very good at listing a number of subversive or proscribed organisations. I withdraw the word "subversive" and substitute the word "proscribed". There is a very good list of proscribed organisations available for hon. Gentlemen opposite so that they know where they are going. Such organisations are not illegal, nor would anyone in the House wish them to be so. Watching them carefully is a price we have to pay.
I mentioned earlier the use by trade unionists of industrial action in the interests of their members. No one quarrels with that. I had in mind then the kinds of strikes which so often occur over pay disputes, conditions of work and sometimes demarcation or recognition. We know that legitimate industrial interests of the obvious kind are sometimes exploited by political minorities. Strikes for political purposes are another matter. Let there be no doubt about that. We have seen all too many of them in recent years. There has been far too much of that sort of industrial action against the Industrial Relations Act, against the fair rents provisions of the Housing Finance Act and several others. That has been gravely emphasised by certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The place for action on such matters is

981
not the shop floor, not the streets, but the House of Commons, through the duly and democratically elected Members of this Parliament.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is now trying to have a further dispute. Why does he not look up what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said when appearing on "Panorama"?
Mr. Heffer: The guillotine was used on those Bills.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman says that the guillotine was used on both Bills. The guillotine is a device used by both sides of Parliament. The hon. Member knows that the law was passed by this Parliament. He knows it is a law of the land. Let him now give some encouragement to those who seek to obey the law and who wish to see it obeyed.
Referring to the rôle of trade unionists, most trade unionists in this country are anxious that the movement should confine itself to the defence of the interests of its members; subversion is no part of any of its wishes. Many people would welcome the forthright statement of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North reported in the News of the World on 29th October:
"I completely condemn people who try to use industrial relations as a means of wrecking society. What is needed in the trade union movement is much more participation by the majority of members so that a tiny minority don't have too much power."
I endorse that. I am sure all my hon. Friends endorse that. I hope that most hon. Members opposite also endorse it.
Apathy cannot be overcome by legislation. During the course of the Industrial Relations Act we tried to help, so far as possible, with rights, to make sure that individual trade unionists are not deprived of their voice in the union government. Those provisions could well be helpful if they are properly used.
My hon. Friends the Members for Torquay and Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) were rightly concerned about the trade unionists' part in voting and in participation. It is true that some unions have always had a very good record of participation in elections. For the president of one railway union recently there was a 77 per cent. poll. There are very wide disparities. I noticed that when
982
interviewed on television not long ago the president of one of the largest unions in this country did not deny it when the interviewer told him he had been elected by only 6 per cent. of his membership. He did not deny that. It is encouraging that more unions are now using postal ballots. The percentage of members voting in elections has recently been higher. For the post of general secretary of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers 85 per cent. of members voted. It is not surprising that that trend is probably a cause of concern to extremist members of some unions who have traditionally benefited from low polls and small turnouts.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I shall not give way, since I have already given way so often.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member knows nothing about it.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: As I was saying, I hope that the—
Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of fact, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It may seem strange but there is no such thing in this House.
Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House concerning the point about 85 per cent. having voted in the NUG and MW elections for the general secretary. That is not a fact. I understand the branches' votes were aggregated. The individual votes of members of that union were not taken into account.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman can pursue his investigations into that matter. I have given him the best information I have.
I should like to mention the subject of picketing—a matter of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and many other hon. Members. I tried earlier to make some distinction between militancy and subversion. It is undoubtedly true that the word "militancy" has taken on a new meaning in recent months. It has been equated in a good many minds with violence, and

983
particularly violence in picket lines. One thing ought to be made clear—the right to be militant is not the right to use violence. The law permits picketing provided it is peaceful and does not involve threats, intimidation or any form of compulsion of any kind. When picketing ceases to be peaceful it is a criminal offence. Pickets have no immunity against charges for offences under the general law such as assault or obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. Most charges arising out of picketing incidents are for offences of the kind I have mentioned. There were 350 arrests in the coal and docks strikes.
While the right to picket peacefully is permitted under the law, and is protected, those who wish to continue working despite the efforts of the pickets must be free to do so. That is the cardinal principle in this whole matter.
A great deal has been said about the rights of those who wish to strike. Equally, everyone has a right to work. What society cannot tolerate is violence on the part of the criminal or violence used as a means to achieve political ends.
The courts have also held that an excessive number of pickets can amount to intimidation. I draw the attention of my hon. Friends who are particularly interested in the subject, which is very much in the minds of some of their constituents, to some of the results which have flowed from strikes during this year. In the miner's and docker's strikes earlier this year, there were, as I have said, 350 arrests, leading to the imposition of what were, in fact, substantial fines. In one incident, fines totalling £125 were imposed on one individual—which is not exactly chicken-feed. During incidents in August at the Trent and Humber Ports, 60 pickets were arrested and 31 were dealt with by the courts, when the majority were fined about £40. I think that the figure of 31 should, in fact, be higher. I shall check it and let my hon. Friend know.
It would, therefore, be entirely wrong to imply that the courts do not enforce the law or that the level of penalties is inadequate. The penalty in each case, of course, is a matter for the courts. But I reiterate that the right to conduct peaceful picketing exists and, since it exists, so also must the right exist of those who
984
wish to work, without hindrance or intimidation.
As the House knows—this has been made plain over and over again in the country—the Government do not direct the police. However, it is true that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently met the chief officers of police to discuss the whole range of problems involved in picketing, including manpower reinforcements between police forces and other forms of co-operation, and he has stressed the importance which the Government attach to the preservation of the right to work. He has assured the police that they will have the fullest support of the Government in enforcing the law, and I am sure that I can add that they will have the fullest support of the House also in doing that.
I began by trying to define the difference between militancy and subversion. It is not easy to define that difference, as everyone recognises. On the other hand, the whole House recognises—I know that my hon. Friends do, and, in particular, I am certain that this is well appreciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, who has been chided for his absence but who has been here the whole time within the hearing of the House—the difficult problems which trade unionists face in our society in deciding just how far legitimate militancy can be taken without serving the subversive elements whose aim is to take advantage of disputes, without being used by what has already been described as the efficient and disciplined industrial apparatus controlled by Communist party headquarters.
We have already been reminded of these words of the Leader of the Opposition:
"No major strike occurs anywhere in this country in any sector of industry in which that apparatus fails to concern itself".
[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Feltham may laugh. Let him take it up with his leader, and not waste the time of the House now.
That sort of situation reflects the measure of the dilemma which trade unionists face when they enter upon a dispute which is very properly concerned only with the welfare of trade union members. It is not an enviable position, but it is a position which the public at large should understand. It represents in quite

985
specific form the whole dilemma of democracy.
I leave this quotation with the House—it should appeal to the hon. Member for Feltham—
"The fight is on to keep an independent trade union movement in the face of attacks by the Government"—
by the Labour Government, be it noted, according to the Communist Party document which I am there quoting. So we have something in common. Between both sides of the House we enjoy, or endure, one thing in common, a deliberately created misunderstanding of our various positions and the outright opposition of the Communist Party to will any form of order into our industrial relations.
We on the Government side want to work with the unions. A great deal has been done to demonstrate that. We know—my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), in a powerful speech, made this very clear—that the majority of trade unionists recoil at the thought of threats to the fabric of our society. However, whether such threats come from over-stretched militancy—if I may use that expression—or whether they come from subversion, if a threat is made to our democratic institutions, to our electoral processes or, indeed, to the will of the electorate, it must be met, for no Government can afford to be left simply with the trappings of office, as some have been, when real power lies elsewhere. Governments are elected to govern, and we are determined that the reins of government shall not pass to anyone who is not elected by the British people.
I said that I would offer a little advice, in the humblest possible way, to some of those who are noisiest below the Gangway opposite. This is what I say to them:
"The Communist does not look upon a Socialist as an ally in a common cause. He looks upon him as a dupe, as a temporary convenience, and as something to be thrust ruthlessly to one side when he has served his purpose."
Those are not my words.
Mr. Russell Kerr: I am sure they are not.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: They are the words of the late Aneurin Bevan, and I strongly commend them to certain hon.
986
Members opposite, some of whom, I agree, will have great difficulty in not showing themselves to be dupes.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: One of the difficulties in this sort of debate—
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) said that I was a Communist. He had better withdraw that now. I am not a Communist. As a very young man, I was once in the Communist Party, and I was expelled. I have been involved in many struggles against the Communists over the years, and I want—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it would be disorderly to make such a suggestion. Whether it be accurate or not is another matter, but no question of order arises.
Mr. Heffer: Mr. Speaker, I am asking that the hon. Gentleman withdraw.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: May I try to help the House, Mr. Speaker? The motion of my hand was not particularly pointed at the hon. Member, although he leapt to his feet. If he feels that it was so addressed, I unreservedly withdraw any imputation.
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, may I ask you to reconsider your last ruling? I am sorry to delay the House, but the suggestion now made is that it was a general comment upon hon. Members on these benches. You ruled, Sir, that it was not a matter of order. I submit that it is a matter reflecting upon the honour of every Member referred to. It suggests, for example, that we are here under false pretences, that the way in which we presented ourselves to our electorate was a false pretence. If that does not reflect upon the honour of hon. Members, I do not know what does. I hope that you will instruct the hon. Member to withdraw completely and to apologise directly to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being too sensitive. I have been a Member at a time when there were two Communist Members of Parliament. To call an hon. Member a Communist or a Conservative or a Socialist is to

987
apply a political description. It is not disorderly.
Mr. Buchan: I am sorry to persist, Mr. Speaker, but it was not in the nature of a political description. It was an attempt to smear and to impugn the honour of those of us who have sat openly under our own party-political banners and presented ourselves in that way to the electorate. That is very different, I submit, from calling you, Sir—if I may apply it to you, with respect—a Communist or an anarchist, and I hope that your ruling will show it.
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. Member cannot call me anything now because, so soon as one becomes Speaker, one becomes a political neuter. I have no party. But I shall consider the point and, if necessary, rule upon it.
Mr. Atkinson: If it has done nothing else, the debate has shown how important it is that we do not allow television into the Chamber. The difficulty in a debate of this kind, on a union bashing motion from the Government back benches which has no serious base whatever but is merely for propaganda purposes, is that we on this side have to decide whether to participate and try to present some serious argument. However, certain charges have been made, and I think it necessary that a legitimate point of view should be put in answer from these benches, and I wish to take up three of the points which the hon. Gentleman made.
In the middle of his speech, the hon. Gentleman dealt with the influence of members of the Communist Party in the trade union movement. He will have to alter his attitude towards the Communist Party if we are to go into Europe, for he will find there that industrial discussion is much more broadly based than it is in this country now. His present attitude towards the Communist Party in this country could not be applied to Communist Party activities in Europe, where the situation is very different.
The hon. Gentleman made certain observations about the trade union leadership. Does he suggest that, if the TUC-CBI talks at Downing Street were subject to political examination and it was found that the trade union leaders representing
988
the TUC were members of the Communist Party, the Prime Minister would refuse to meet them? That is what the hon. Gentleman implied. He implied that such people would not be legitimate leaders of the trade unions and therefore should not be allowed to participate in the Downing Street talks.
If the hon. Gentleman believes that those people were honourable and were members of the Communist Party, the Prime Minister should welcome them in the Downing Street talks and he should make that clear and not imply that people taking part in such talks should be subject to political examination.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman is looking very hard at me, but I do not know whether he is directing his remarks at me. I am not sure whether he heard all of my speech, but I do not think that he could draw any implication of the kind that he is making from what I said. I went out of my way to point out that the Communist Party was not illegal.
Mr. Atkinson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making the case that most of the Communist Party was not honourable people and therefore should not be allowed to participate in the Downing Street talks because their motives were ulterior.
Mr. Alex Eadie: I speak as a moderate. Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman became confused because he tried to make out that there was something peculiar about "left" and "right", as though the "left" was a product of some predatory organisation, whereas in fact it emanates from Parliament because people in opposition sit to the left of Mr. Speaker and people in government sit to the right of Mr. Speaker. There is nothing predatory about these phrases. Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman's use of the phrases "left" and "right" was predatory in itself?
Mr. Atkinson: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is nothing sinister in the word "left" in this context, except that it denotes a minority in a democracy. Nothing more is implied.
I understand that the debate finishes at seven o'clock—
Mr. Heffer: We can talk it out.
Mr. Atkinson—and therefore I have only a few minutes in which to make my points.
My argument that the Industrial Relations Court is a political court and gives effect to political judgments is demonstrated by some of the remarks made today. An agreement on an effective £2 increase in wages right across the board could have come out of the Downing Street talks between the TUC and the CBI and it would then have been the responsibility of the TUC and the CBI to honour that agreement made with the Government and to implement whatever was decided. But it could be the job of the Industrial Relations Court to ensure that that agreement was fixed and that it was not possible for any section of the trade union movement to find a way round it.
Therefore, the court would essentially be part of a political apparatus for carrying out an agreement made at Downing Street which might have been made without the total agreement of the trade union movement. Not all the unions might be parties to an agreement of that kind. The court could well be a political instrument in that sense.
I want to put right my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) who referred to the position of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. He said that the position of the AUEW was contrary to the decision of the TUC. That is not so. The decision of the TUC about participating in the court or a union defending itself in the court was that each union should have the choice. The TUC did not advocate that unions should go to the court to defend themselves. It said that because of the position taken at Croydon a long time ago boycotting the whole apparatus of the court and industrial law there was need for amendment, and the amendment was that each union should decide for itself whether it should defend itself and participate in the court. In that sense, therefore, the AUEW is as much in line with TUC policy as is the Transport and General Workers Union, which defended itself in the court.
The other choice facing trade unions which bears on this debate is whether a union should register. That is the crux
990
of the problem regarding the Goad case and the industrial strife taking place this week which will continue. The difficulty for a non-registered union is whether its rule book continues to have validity in law. There have been precedents created in the High Court that the rule book should govern the behaviour of the leaders of unions who are bound to accept the rules in each union's constitution.
That is the position concerning the AUEW's Sudbury branch, which is at the centre of the controversy and which refused to accept Mr. Goad into membership of the branch. Incidentally, Mr. Goad is known, in trade union language, as a "boat race member". He has been a member of the AUEW on three separate occasions and expelled, and he has been a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union and been expelled. He is "in out, in out". That is the sort of fellow that we are dealing with. Therefore, the chairman of the Sudbury branch says that within the rules of the union this man cannot he admitted.
Mr. Tom King: Why does it not go to the Court and say so?
Mr. Atkinson: It may go to another court and say exactly that and that court must uphold the rule book. The branch says that it is under no obligation to accept Mr. Goad into membership, and it has every right to do that.
If the law or the court says that all people in industry have the right to join the trade union of their choice, that must mean that no union has the right of expulsion. But that is not so. The right of expulsion has been upheld in the High Court just as clearly as the Industrial Relations Court has upheld the right of the individual to become a member of the union of his choice. In that sense alone there is a direct collision between the interpretation of a trade union rule book and the Industrial Relations Act. If Mr. Goad was admitted to the branch, the trade union concerned would be immediately exposed to the rigours of the High Court because members of the AUEW could sue or proceed through that court, seeking some sort of correction and prohibiting the officers of the branch from accepting that person into membership.
Whichever way one looks at this matter, there is a conflict between the

991
precedents established by the High Court relative to union rules and the decisions being given by the Industrial Relations Court. Therefore, the time has come for the court to be suspended so that the trade union movement or the Government can come to a serious conclusion on whether it is legitimate or allow the existence of non-registered unions and also to try to define what is the legal status—
It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government Business).

PROCEDURE
Mr. Speaker: The House now comes to items Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on the Order Paper. There is a procedural difficulty here which I should like to put to the House. It seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with the matter. Either there should be a general debate covering the specific points or it should be agreed that during the debate those points should not be referred to. I think the House would wish that there should not be two debates on every topic.
I am not selecting the amendment to item No. 5, but I am selecting all the other amendments unless they have fallen before we reach them.
I am prepared for the House to do what it wishes in this matter. I gather that it might be more convenient to have a general debate to begin with on matters not covered by the specific amendments and then to deal separately with the specific amendments. That view has been put to me, but it is matter for the House.
Mr. Arthur Latham: May I seek further guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, as to what you intend by that? My particular interest is in item No. 8, Delegated Legislation. You will appreciate that it might be difficult, in referring to the Report of the Joint Committee, to avoid referring to the way in which the Leader of the House has proposed that those recommendations should be implemented. May we at least understand that if, for the general convenience of the House, we discuss general
992
principles and subsequently deal with specific proposals, the Chair will not be too strict in ruling out necessary and material references to both the general policy discussion and the proposed form of implementation on the Order Paper?
Mr. Michael English: If we are to proceed in the way that has been suggested to you, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that we do not need a general debate. I recollect occasions when the take-note motion has merely been moved formally and hon. Member have argued about the individual motions. In other words, I think that your two alternatives are even more extreme than you stated.
Mr. Edward Short: I welcome your proposal, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a sensible way of dealing with the matter to have a general wide-ranging debate and then to deal with the amendments rather more quickly and specifically.
Mr. Speaker: If I may construe my suggestion, I should think that in the general debate we would not discuss the paragraphs mentioned in the amendments to the other motions, but it is for the House.
7.3 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
"That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions, of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to Consolidated Fund Bills and Ministerial Statements, of the Third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to the attendance of Members at meetings of Select Committees and of the Report of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee appointed by the Lords on Delegated Legislation, in the last Session of Parliament."
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling and I shall do my best to stick to it. I am afraid that I have prepared my speech in a way which deals with the amendments. However, I will leave out that part of my speech and try to reply at a later stage.
I should like to make some general remarks on the procedural matters which we are now to discuss in the take-note motions.
First, I propose to deal with the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary

993
Questions, to follow that with the Second Report last Session of the Select Committee on Procedure concerning the arrangements for debates on Consolidated Fund Bills and ministerial statements, to come on to the Committee's Third Report last Session about the rights of Members to attend meetings of Select Committees and, lastly, to deal with the Report of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Government have already indicated to the House in Written Answers their general views on all these reports. This evening I propose briefly to amplify the statements and to explain the reasons behind them.
Turning, first, therefore, to the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions, I know that there are many hon. Members—
Mr. Latham: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with the speech which he has described, may I ask him to indicate his approach, as Leader of the House, to pressing any proposals to which there is substantial opposition by hon. Members? He will recall that on a number of occasions when dealing with matters of this kind his predecessors have indicated that they wished to proceed only with those matters which might have general agreement and that those on which there was a division of opinion might be open to further discussion. It would be helpful to many of us if we had an indication at the onset of the attitude of the Leader of the House in approaching these matters tonight.
Mr. Prior: I will try to give an indication of my approach. I should like to get as many of these motions as possible through this evening. If a motion meets enormous opposition from hon. Members on either side of the House—many of them are entirely House of Commons matters—I shall bow to the will of the House. Certainly on points concerned with Question Time and, if possible, on particular matters dealing with the Brooke Committee Report, I should very much like the House to be able to take decisions tonight. However, if we cannot take decisions tonight, I should want to listen to what is said and come back to the matter at an early stage.
994
I thought that it would be convenient for the House to have a debate as soon as it could be arranged on these procedural matters which have been outstanding for quite a long time. That is the way that I should like to conduct the debate. There is not much point in having a debate unless I listen to what is said. I am prepared to do that. Perhaps we could see how the opposition—I do not mean opposition on party lines—to anything I may say proceeds.
I know that many hon. Members take the view that Question Time is one of our most valuable parliamentary occasions and that it is of great importance to ensure that it is used in the best possible way. I therefore believe that the whole House will welcome the wide terms of reference given to the Select Committee which enabled it to look more deeply into the procedures and use made of Question Time than the immediate issue which gave rise to its appointment.
I do not think that hon. Members would wish the fact that the Committee had ministerial chairmen to preclude me from expressing, on behalf of the House, our gratitude to all the members of the Select Committee for a most valuable report.
Perhaps I might refer first to the proposal, which the Government recommend to the House, for the rationing of Oral Questions.
As hon. Members will have noted, the proposal is that in future not more than eight Questions may be tabled in a period of 10 sitting days ahead during which notice of Questions may be given, and that not more than two Questions for Oral Answer may be tabled for answer on any day, and only one Question may be tabled to any Minister on that day. I recommend this proposal to the House on the ground that I believe it will significantly improve the fair distribution of oral questioning opportunities between Members.
At the moment, as the Select Committee has pointed out, although 496 Members put down Questions in 1971, 46 Members asked nearly half the total Oral Questions which were tabled. Since only about one in three of Oral Questions tabled is reached, this means that other questioners must suffer.

995
I believe that this proposal will give those Members who do not ask Questions as frequently as that a better chance to have their Questions answered orally and that it will also end the kind of practice whereby some amongst us table a considerable number of Questions on the first appropriate day simply to get a better chance of one of their Questions being drawn out high on the list by the printer.
Mr. John Mendelson: Before the right hon. Gentleman assumes that there is general agreement on the underlying assumption, will he accept that there is a fallacy in the assumption itself'? It assumes that all hon. Members attach the same degree of importance to Questions, but the fact is that while some Members prefer to use other methods to tackle problems and table Questions only as a last resort, others regard Questions as the first step in anything that they undertake. The right hon. Gentleman's statement and the conclusion that he has drawn are therefore based upon a fallacy.
Mr. Prior: That may be so, but everyone knows that in the last few years the number of Members who have adopted the procedure of Questions as the first rather than the last resort has increased enormously. I think that the new method will enable more hon. Members to get a chance of an early Question.
Ten sitting days, rather than a week, have been taken as the basis for the ration, to provide more flexibility for those Members who wish to concentrate their questioning on Departments closely following one another on the rota. It must, of course, be a matter of judgment what precise ration we adopt, and this is the subject of an amendment with which I shall deal later.
Finally, I remind the House that this rationing proposal is put forward as a sessional experiment. We can thus see, suggest, how it works out in practice. If it is not successful we should not suggest that it should be repeated, but I think that we can try it.
Moreover, I suggest that any alleged restriction on the rights of Members to question Ministers will be more than compensated for by the proposed new right, which the Government also recommend to the House, that Members should in future be able to insist on getting their
996
replies to a Written Question on a specific date. I think that that change proposed by the Procedure Committee is long overdue, and I recommend to the House that it should be embodied straight away in our Standing Orders. I hope, however, that hon. Members will recognise that if they make an excessive number of their Written Questions "priority" Questions they may sometimes have to be given holding answers.
Sir Gilbert Longden: Before leaving Oral Questions, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would say something for the record about the method which decides the order in which Members' Questions appear on the Order Paper.
Mr. Prior: Is my lion. Friend referring to the way that they are drawn out of the printer's hat, or to the rationing?
Sir Gilbert Longden: Not to rationing—to the former.
Mr. Prior: To the actual printing?
Sir Gilbert Longden: To the ballot.
Mr. Prior: I do not think that I have much to say on that subject. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the way it is done, that, again, is something we can look at but, from what I have heard recently, it seems to me that it is done in the fairest possible way.
Sir Gilbert Longden: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again. I was expressing curiosity, not dissatisfaction.
Mr. Prior: I do not know the answer either. I have always taken it that a a certain hour—I forget whether it is at 10 o'clock—
Mr. English: The first batch of Questions goes to the printers at 4 o'clock.
Mr. Prior: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. They are all put into a bag, and as the printer comes to set up the type, or whatever he does, he takes one out. It is a purely chance business, but I shall have that checked during the evening and let my hon. Friend and the House know.
The Government also think it desirable, as recommended by the Select Committee, that Mr. Speaker should be empowered to ask the Table Office to take

997
a fresh look at the subsidiary rules governing the acceptability of Questions, and that the opportunity should be taken to cut out any dead wood.
The Government recommend to the House the proposals made in paragraph 7 of the report for a more regular review of the classes of Questions which Ministers have indicated they are not prepared to answer, and also the recommendation that Mr. Speaker should no longer feel bound to follow individual previous rulings in deciding whether to allow a Question to be asked after Private Notice.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "dead wood" in this context? To what is he referring?
Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman reads those paragraphs of the report he will find that there are a number of words which are automatically added by the Table Office when putting down certain Questions because they have been, as it were, written into the record for many years. Quite a few of the sentences and words are no longer regarded as being necessary or proper, and that is the kind of dead wood that we could cut out. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in asking long Questions, or long supplementary questions, and that may be of some help to him.
Mr. John Brewis: Under the heading of dead wood, will my right hon. Friend cut out such questions as "Will the Prime Minister visit Saudi Arabia?", which are tabled in order to get in a supplementary question on Aberdeen?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I say, without being unduly boastful or complacent, that if everyone's questions were like mine there would he no need for this debate or for rationing Questions.
Mr. Prior: Fortunately, or unfortunately, we are not all alike.
The Government also accept the conclusions of the Select Committee with regard to the preparation of Questions by civil servants and, in particular, the recommendation that it should not be the rôle of the Government machine to seek to redress the party balance on Questions on the Order Paper and that civil servants should not in future be asked to prepare
998
Questions which have this object. Instructions to Departments are being issued accordingly.
I emphasise to the House that this does not imply that the Government consider that the actions taken by the Ministers in the Department of the Environment over the incidents which gave rise to the setting up of this Select Committee were in any way contrary to existing rules. There are no such rules. But the Government accept that in the interests of Question Time generally there ought to be such a rule in future. They hope, therefore, it will be recognised that in doing so the Government are acknowledging their responsibility to the House in giving a lead towards giving more Members a better opportunity to get answers to genuine Questions.
The acceptance of this recommendation by the Government does not imply a view that the Civil Service should in some way be impartial as between Government and Opposition. The impartiality of the Civil Service lies in the fact that it is equally the servant of any Government of whichever party. It is, and remains, the rôle of the Civil Service to be freely at the disposal of Ministers, unless there are clear precedents or rules against a particular form of assistance.
Mr. J. T. Price: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about liberalising this section of the rules and procedures will he say whether his advice to the House covers the situation where a Minister who has been having a thin time scatters a few bits of bait around the House by getting Members to sponsor Questions which will produce answers which show him up in a favourable light? I am not making a party point, because this works on both sides. Is it not time that we did something about the sponsored Question?
Mr. Prior: I do not think that we could do anything about it, because it is entirely up to the Member. No Member has to accept a planted Question from a Minister if he does not wish to do so. What the report makes clear, and what the Government make clear, is that there should be no assistance from the Civil Service in, as it were, trying to aid a Minister to fill the Order Paper with Questions on a particular subject in order to balance other Questions, and so on.

999
As regards the other proposals made by the Select Committee, the Government do not believe that a Friday Question Time is generally necessary or welcome to hon. Members, but again this is the subject of an amendment which we can discuss later. The effectiveness of Question Time depends on the opportunity that it provides for all Members to participate, to probe and to harry with supplementaries. But I shall leave that to be dealt with later.
Prime Minister's Question Time is another feature of Questions to which the Select Committee has clearly given a good deal of attention. There is a widespread feeling that the House is not at present making the best use of these occasions, and the Select Committee particularly concerned itself with the growing use of "vague" and frequently trivial Questions addressed to the Prime Minister, related to visits and speeches, which are designed rather to conceal than to make apparent the real point the questioner has in mind.
The Government believe that the solution to this problem of the nature and importance of Prime Minister's Question Time lies primarily in the hands of Members themselves. They do, however, support the two suggestions made by the Select Committee that Members might, in tabling Questions to the Prime Minister about ministerial speeches, indicate the particular aspect of the speech with which they are concerned; and that in dealing with Questions to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker should in future exercise his discretion in limiting the number of supplementary questions arising from identical Questions to the Prime Minister, irrespective of when the Questions were originally tabled.
The Government do not, however, accept the recommendation made by the Select Committee, and supported in another amendment that we shall deal with later, that Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday should be extended by a quarter of an hour.
Finally, on this Report, perhaps I should mention the proposals made by the Select Committee in paragraph 30 about the Question rota. Whilst the Government do not consider that it would be appropriate to sub-divide by subject matter Questions addressed to the major
1000
Departments, the proposal that Questions to myself, the Attorney-General and the Minister for the Civil Service should in future come on at a particular time will be carefully considered through the usual channels when the rota is next reviewed.
It is the Government's hope that if the motions are acceptable to the House, and with the proviso I stated at the beginning of my speech, they will provide the basis for a real improvement in the usefulness of Question Time.
I turn to the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure last Session, dealing with the arrangements for debates on Consolidated Fund Bills and with ministerial statements.
The Government's general view on the arrangements for debates for Consolidated Fund Bills is essentially that these are matters which should be determined by the wishes of Private Members. The proposals made by the Procedure Committee for the time-tabling of such debates seem, however, in the Government's view, to be in the general interests of the House.
As Members will be well aware, the present arrangement for these annual debates is that they are open-ended, both with regard to the length of the debates as a whole and in respect of the debates on each particular topic. Because of this uncertainty over timing, and the resultant frequent late withdrawal of topics, it is often complained that Members have little or no idea when a particular topic will come on, and that they therefore waste a great deal of time waiting about.
The Procedure Committee's proposed remedy for this is that whilst balloting for topics should continue, there should in future be a definite overall "cut-off time" for these debates, and that Mr. Speaker should allocate time within this overall limit to each debate on a particular topic, depending on his judgment of the importance of the topic concerned, and the evidence he has of the number of Members wishing to speak.
The overall timetable proposed by the Select Committee for the normal three annual debates is accordingly that the winter and July debates would commence at the normal time and conclude at 5 a.m.; and that the March debate would end at 1 a.m. I can give no undertaking about the provision of Government time

1001
for these debates or about longer notice as to when they will take place. All these new arrangements for Consolidated Fund Bill debates would be initially on an experimental basis.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he cannot offer the succeeding Friday, which was the Committee's recommendation?
Mr. Prior: At present that is right. The Committee suggested that the debate should be adjourned at a certain time—
Sir Robin Turton: It is a little more than that. My right hon. Friend's predecessor gave the Committee an assurance that he would be ready to give one Government Friday, although he was doubtful whether he could give more than one. It must be borne in mind that the Committee recommended that a Government Friday should be given on only two occasions, and that on the spring Supplementary Estimates there would be no question of resuming the debate on a Friday.
Mr. Prior: This is a question of trying to make available as much parliamentary time as we can. The cut-off period chosen, five o'clock in the morning, allows a pretty considerable length of time for debate.
Mr. English: Five hours less, on average.
Mr. Prior: That is if the debates go on until 10 o'clock in the morning, but many of them have ended before that. I believe that is not an unreasonable cut-off time, but I shall listen to what hon. Members say in the course of the evening.
Mr. Robert Mellish: I was one of those who gave evidence. I have always wondered why, in approaching the question of the Consolidated Fund Bill debates, we do not take account of the staff of the House, the Chair, the clerks, the police and the restaurant people, and do not conduct ourselves in a rather more dignified way. I am bewildered that we did not support the principle—and that the Committee did not accept it—of adjourning the debate at, say, one o'clock in the morning, then starting it again at a reasonable hour, say 8 o'clock in the morning, and going on for four hours. That would appear to me to make for a reasonably organised debate. The right
1002
hon. Gentleman is saying that the debate should be cut off at five o'clock. What an unreasonable hour to cut off!
Mr. Prior: We can reconsider the matter, but I seem to remember that the evidence showed that there was a good deal of opposition to cutting off and then resuming the debate the same morning. That possibility was not accepted by the Committee, but the suggestion of resuming on the Friday won a good deal of support. All this is set out in paragraph 18.
As regards the Procedure Committee's proposal in the same report for the introduction of a new category of ministerial written statements, the Government have already indicated, in my predecessor's written reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) on 3rd July, that on the whole they favoured this proposal. It is not, however, a proposal which the Government would wish to put forward to the House in the absence of all-party agreement. This has not proved possible.
Nor do the Government propose to recommend to the House the Committee's proposal that there should be special provision in Standing Orders to enable ministerial statements to be made exceptionally at 7 p.m. or at the conclusion of Public Business. Such provision would tend to undermine the certainty of Public Business. In cases of grave national emergency suitable ad hoc arrangements could be made, and I think I am right in saying always have been made when the need arose.
Perhaps I should also mention recommendation (10). The Government consider that the consequential risk of eroding the traditional certainty of the break of business at 10 p.m. outweighs the advantage of making provisions for "injury time" when ministerial statements run on before 4 p.m. on days when Private Members' motion half days are followed by opposed Private Business.
The Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure last Session also dealt with another question which, like the arrangements for Consolidated Fund Bill debates, is more a House than a Government matter—namely, the rights of Members to attend meetings of Select Committees to which they have not been appointed.

1003
The Committee was invited to consider this question by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when Leader of the House, because it was felt by the Government that the existing rules of the House were undesirably uncertain in this field, and that there was no clear guidance either for Select Committees or Members.
The Procedure Committee's Report confirms the ambiguities in the present rules that my predecessor no doubt had in mind—in particular, the uncertain degree of obligation which a Member has to withdraw from a Select Committee, if requested to do so and whether the relevant passages in Erskine May apply both to meetings of Select Committees when evidence is being taken and meetings when a Select Committee is deliberating.
The Procedure Committee, therefore, recommends to the House two clear rules—that Members who are not appointed to a Select Committee should not be able to attend its deliberations and other informal meetings; and that, with regard to meetings of Select Committees when evidence is being taken, Select Committees and sub-committees should be empowered to exclude Members by resolution.
It would be inappropriate for the Government to express any view on these recommendations other than it would seem that a clarification of the existing position is desirable in the interests of the House.
The motion on the Order Paper, however, provides an opportunity for the House to express its view on the particular recommendations proposed by the Procedure Committee.
I turn finally to the Report of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation under the chairmanship of Lord Brooke. The House will be aware that this Committee was set up last Session to look into the whole question of delegated legislation and to consider ways in which the parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation might be improved.
An aspect with which the Government were particularly concerned was to see how more time might be found for the debating of Prayers against negative instruments in view of the many other pressures for time on the Floor of the
1004
House. As hon. Members will know, it is a regular feature of Business Questions for the Leader of the House to have to explain why it has not proved possible to find time for a particular Prayer, and under present procedures if Prayers are not debated on the Floor they cannot be debated at all.
In its Report the Joint Committee makes two principal proposals, each concerned with the setting up of a new parliamentary committee. It proposes, first, the establishment of a joint scrutiny committee of both Houses to check the technical propriety, including the vires, of statutory instruments; and secondly, that a Commons Standing Committee should be set up to consider the "merits" of stautory instruments referred to it by the House.
I would certainly accept the view that the Joint Scrutiny Committee must reflect the balance of parties existing in the House of Commons at any one time, otherwise I do not think it would be acceptable to this House that it should be a joint committee.
As I have already informed the House in a written reply to my right hon Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) the Government recommend both these main proposals.
I believe that the setting up of the proposed joint scrutiny committee would avoid the present undesirable duplication of functions between the present Statutory Instruments Committee of the House of Commons and the Special Orders Committee of the House of Lords, and the proposed Commons "merits" committee will, in the Government's view, provide a valuable and much-needed additional forum for the consideration of delegated legislation.
In case there are Members who fear that the establishment of a committee for debating Statutory Instruments on a "take note" motion would mean that major delegated legislation might no longer be debated on the Floor, I emphasise that affirmative orders would go to the "merits" committee only if there were agreement to this through the usual channels and provided that 20 Members or more did not object. Otherwise affirmative orders would, as at present, automatically have to be taken on the Floor.

1005
As regards negative instruments against which Prayers had been tabled, these could be referred to the committee only if 20 Members or more did not object. Since, in the case of negative instruments, the effect of such blocking might otherwise be that the Prayers were not debated at all, either on the Floor or in the new committee, the Government propose to accept the tentative additional suggestion put forward by the Joint Committee that the 11.30 p.m. rule might be modified so that a negative instrument could be debated on a "take note" motion at any hour, however late, subject to not more than one such debate being permitted on any one night, with a time limit of 1½ hours.
The Government do not, however, recommend to the House the other proposals made by the joint committee for securing additional time to debate negative instruments on the Floor of the House either by the setting aside of particular days or by the reserving of time between 10 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. on Supply Days for Prayers.
I think I ought also to draw the attention of the House to those particular detailed aspects of the joint committee's recommendations which the Government do not commend to the House. The first of these is the proposal that the Standing Orders of both Houses should provide that no motion for an affirmative order should be moved until it has been considered and reported on by the proposed joint scrutiny committee.
As regards this House, the Government will continue to do all they can to ensure that a joint scrutiny committee would have the opportunity to examine affirmative orders before they were taken on the Floor. But, in the Government's view, there must inevitably arise occasional circumstances, either of extreme urgency or, for example, at the beginning of a Session before committees are established, when an absolute requirement of this kind would be unacceptable.
The Government are, therefore, unable to accept this proposal so far as the House of Commons is concerned.
Mr. English: I am not familiar with the procedure of another place. However, is it not the case that the House of Lords already has this rule and, therefore, that the rule must already apply to the Gov-
1006
ernment? Therefore, although I understand exactly what the Leader of the House said, I do not see why it should be true if it is already imposed on the Government by another place.
Mr. Prior: It is not imposed on the Government in the House of Commons. In other words, we can table an affirmative resolution or a motion can go down for debate here straight away before it has been to the Statutory Instruments Committee. As I understand it, before that affirmation can be put on to the Order Paper in the House of Lords it has to go to its special orders committee. Therefore, the two practices are different.
Mr. Latham: Either the Leader of the House has not grasped the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was making or I have not grasped the answer given by the Leader of the House. The case that the Leader of the House was making against the joint committee's proposal was that the Government took the view that there would be circumstances of urgency in which this would be an obstruction to their carrying out their task. The point that my hon. Friend was making was that the Government are already subject to that obstruction in another place and if that has not proved an insuperable obstacle in the House of Lords why should it be so in the House of Commons.
Mr. Prior: I see what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. I presume that because it has not been the practice of another place, with one or two exceptions, in the last 50 years to vote down Statutory Instruments it is always considered of much greater importance that this House should get them on to the Order Paper more quickly than is perhaps the case in the other place. I will have another look at that in the course of the evening, but that is probably the explanation. Often we want to get it down on to the Order Paper at once or at the beginning of the Session. It is not of such great importance for their Lordships to do so and therefore there is time for it to go to their Lordships' scrutiny committee.
Mr. English: In Session 1967–68 the orders considered by the Lords' committee and drawn to the attention of the House of Lords were less than 20 per cent.—10 out of 56. If that is what the Leader of the House means by a very

1007
small number, it is not what normally would be said to be the case.
Mr. Prior: I did not mean that point. I meant their Lordships disagreeing with the House of Commons in a statutory instrument passed on the Floor of this House. I will have another look at this during the course of the debate and perhaps when I reply, with the leave of the House, I can say something else about it.
The second Government reservation concerns the proposal that all instruments open to consideration by the proposed joint scrutiny committee, and to which the committee had drawn the special attention of the House, should come automatically within the scope of the proposed "merits" committee and should receive precedence in their consideration by that committee.
In the Government's view, this would be inappropriate. The rôles of the two proposed new parliamentary committees would be quite separate, and there seems no reason why an instrument which has been drawn to the attention of the House on the basis of technical impropriety should also have to be considered by a committee which would be concerned with the "merits" of the instrument.
Subject to these two subsidiary points, however, the Government commend the establishment of the two new proposed committees to the House in the belief that they will represent a considerable improvement in the parliamentary machinery for the scrutiny of delegated legislation.
I think we must leave the chairmanship of the joint committee for the committee to decide in due course.
Overall I believe that the recommendations covered in these various reports represent quite a substantial package of procedural reform. In particular, if acceptable to the House, the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation would mark a significant extension of the opportunities for the parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation.
Procedure, although a necessary and important feature of our parliamentary life, is not a subject which normally warms the blood although it has certainly excited one or two hon. Members tonight. It is important that our procedures should
1008
be as good as we can devise if we are to make the best possible use of the limited time available to us.
It is, therefore, all the more important that the House should recognise and pay tribute—as I do now on its behalf—to those Members of the Procedure Committee and of the other committees concerned who have devoted so much time and thought to the study of the issues which we are considering today.
7.42 p.m.
Mr. Edward Short: May I first of all associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said in his closing words when he paid tribute to all the Members who have served on the Select Committee and the Joint Committee?
Secondly, I must register a protest about the short notice that we have had for these motions. These are complicated and some are rather obscure. They were put on the Order Paper only last Thursday, which gives inadequate time to scrutinise them properly, to try to collect the voices and to get some kind of agreement. I take the view that this is essentially a House of Commons matter and the views that I will be expressing will be largely my own, although I have taken the trouble to consult a number of my hon. Friends.
I do not agree with a ministerial chairman on the Procedure Committee. I believe that the chairman ought always to be a back bencher. This is not a party matter, but we are extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about listening to the views which are put tonight and, where a proposal encounters opposition, promising to take it back. We are grateful to him for bringing these proposals forward. We feel that he could have gone very much further in one or two important respects which go to the heart of parliamentary democracy and individual freedom. Some of the proposed diminutions in the rights of Members are also extremely important.
I will follow the pattern which he adopted and comment on the proposals in the order of their appearance in the "take note" motion. First of all I will deal with the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions. We all recollect the rather shameful circumstances in which this Committee was set up. There was

1009
a quite unprecedented use of civil servants in the Department of the Environment to prepare a mass of Parliamentary Questions which were then farmed out to Conservative Members. The right hon. Gentleman left this to the last of his comments on Parliamentary Questions.
There is a difference between the inspired Question which we all understand and which is a kind of low key ministerial statement, and a bank of Questions prepared by civil servants. The report says on this:
"It is not the rôle of the Government machine to seek to redress the Parliamentary balance of Questions on the Order Paper and civil servants should not in future be asked to prepare Questions which have this object."
It is a great pity that this was not stated as a recommendation. It is simply in the report as an opinion. I believe it should be firmer than this and should be in the form of a recommendation.
To digress from my pattern for one moment, I want to mention two other expressions of opinion. The first deals with Members asking about ministerial speeches. As far as I can see, it has no effect at all. What it says is that Members may or may not include in their Questions a precise indication of the subject matter in a ministerial speech to which they wish to refer. If I understand the English language, the sum total effect of that is nil. Similarly, in paragraph 25 there is a suggestion that Mr. Speaker should be rather tougher on identical Questions placed on the Order Paper. I have always felt that it was an abuse when large numbers of hon. Members copied another hon. Member's Question simply to be called for a supplementary question. I welcome this, even though it is only in the form of a suggestion.
Paragraph 7 deals with the refusal of Ministers to answer a Question and proposes two quite sensible changes in the absolute rule concerning Questions which the Government refuse to answer. We should be clear that the power to refuse to answer Questions is an extremely powerful protection against legitimate inquiry by Members and therefore it is high time it was modified. I welcome these changes. I wish that they had gone a little further.
Paragraph 8 gives Mr. Speaker the right to modify subsidiary rules—not the
1010
principal rules—on Questions. There is a great multiplicity of them and there is no doubt that all these rules applied by the Table Office—and we have all encountered them many times—result in large numbers of Questions being excluded from the Order Paper during any Session. We welcome the placing of that new right in the hands of Mr. Speaker and the Table Office and we hope that they will use it.
Paragraph 10 follows a similar theme. It says that Mr. Speaker need not feel bound by previous decisions so long as Questions ask for information or action which are within the responsibility of the Government and are not in conflict with the proposed new rules. It is difficult to see why on 26th June the Chairman used his casting vote against a proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South West (Mr. George Cunningham) which, had it been carried, would have swept away all the accumulated dross or dead wood in our rules about Questions. I am sorry that the proposal was not carried in place of all this.
Paragraph 28 deals with another longstanding grievance of Members, the difficulty of getting Written Answers when Members want them. I very much welcome the priority system for Written Answers. I support its immediate inclusion in the Standing Orders of the House. Paragraph 29 lays down that Mr. Speaker is no longer bound by previous decisions in allowing Private Notice Questions. Speaking personally, I am less sure about this. It is not a bad thing to have some certainty about what is and what is not allowed in such Questions. As a back bencher I often found—this is no criticism of the Chair—that the decisions of the Chair in this respect were incomprehensible. However, that is the proposal and I have some doubts about that.
There were proposals not accepted to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The first one was for Friday Questions. I realise that there are two points of view about this. Speaking as a provincial Member for the past 21 years, I always try to get back to my constituency on a Friday and I feel that a Friday Question time would be less than satisfactory. Also, of course, Ministers are in charge of large Departments, and

1011
Ministers have got to get round the country. When I was Secretary of State for Education I always used Fridays to visit schools and colleges all over the country. I think it is essential that Ministers should get out of their offices at least one day a week. Indeed, I would lock up every Minister's office one day a week, and make Ministers go round the country.
Mr. Marcus Lipton: On the subject of an hour for Questions on a Friday, the suggestion also is that only two Ministers would be liable to be questioned during that hour on a Friday, so that the idea of having a whole lot of Ministers pinned down in London on a Friday is not correct.
Mr. Short: Well, I said I thought there were certainly two points of view about this, and I imagine that we polarise geographically on this according to where our constituencies are.
The other proposal was about Prime Minister's Questions. On reflection, we get so little out of our present two periods of Prime Minister's Questions that I cannot really see that another quarter of an hour would make very much difference.
On paragraph 19, the rationing of Questions, this certainly simplifies the present rather complicated demoting system and it means a Sessional entitlement to about 130 Questions on the basis of eight in ten days. Again, there are two views about this. I think it is a good thing. I realise that some hon. Members will not agree with me and I hope that all hon. Members will express their views about it.
I turn briefly to the Consolidated Fund Bills. This, again, is a vitally important matter for Private Members. It is not a Government matter; it is not an Opposition matter; it is a Private Members' matter. So I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the views we have about this.
Second Reading debates on Consolidated Fund Bills are a contemporary example of the operation of the fundamental principle of the redress of grievances before Supply is granted to the Crown. Consolidated Fund Bills are founded upon Supply resolutions agreed by the House for the purposes set out in
1012
the Estimates, in Supplementary Estimates and Votes on Account which make good excess Votes, and there are three of them. One is the winter Consolidated Fund Bill, another is the March one, which is devoted to defence and Special Estimates, and the third is the July one. The winter and July Second Reading debates are very wide debates because the content of the Bills is wide.
Since the Procedure Committee of 1966, Second Reading debates on those Bills have been left entirely to Private Members. So we have had five years' experience, and we can look back and see how it has worked. Certainly some very long debates on wide subjects have detracted from the constitutional principle here—in my view the opportunity for a large number of Members to air their grievances. The report itself gives an example of five out of ten debates on wide Bills lasting over 16 hours. Many of the subjects chosen by ballot have not been reached, and, of course, there is great uncertainty about when a Member's subject will be reached as well as about whether it will be reached.
So there has been dissatisfaction, but the dissatisfaction has been almost entirely about the unpredictability of debate and not about its going through the night, as the report says. I think nobody complains about this because the Members concerned, the Members who have drawn places in the ballot, are the only Members who stay; and they stay and are willing to stay. So I do not really agree with the report when it says that there has been dissatisfaction about that.
Mr. English: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Would he also agree that this complaint has arisen primarily since the days of a previous Speaker who off his own bat decided to have a ballot and that there has not been any decision by this House to have a ballot until now when this motion is before us tonight?
Mr. Short: That may be relevant. However, after five years it seems to me quite reasonable to have a look at the matter and to see how it has been working.
The proposal is that there should be a cut-off time not only for the whole debate but for each subject. I welcome the cutoff time for different subjects. I think

1013
that that is reasonable, and I think that it is quite reasonable to leave it in the hands of the Speaker as to the time devoted to each subject according to his estimate of the importance of the subject. I think it is a quite unreasonable and a quite unnecessary and a quite unwarranted diminution of the rights of Members to terminate the debate at 5 a.m. Why in heaven's name do we need to do that? I am not very concerned about the March Bill. This is mainly on defence, and my view is that we have in this House far too many debates on defence, compared with the debates we have on education. I hope that this can be looked at, for I think we spend far too much of our time on that. That is quite unacceptable to me that there should be a cut-off of the whole debate, although I am in favour of apportioning the time for the subjects.
Among the proposals not accepted was one about written ministerial statements. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, the Government agreed to it but did not put it down. I do not agree with it. I think even the inspired Question, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) dislikes, is better than that. I am sure that Ministers would take advantage of it to get publicity for some proposal or another, without any accountability to the House.
A second one was that extraordinary ministerial statements be made at 7 p.m. or at the end of public business. I do not see that there is any need for this because at moments of crisis the House always finds its procedure flexible enough to find a way for such statements, and we should be very careful about detracting from the certainty of public business, as this would. Therefore, I am glad that this has not been included.
Thirdly, I come to the right of Members to attend Select Committees when they are not appointed to them. Certainly there are ambiguities here which might lead to the embarrassment of Members concerned, but this proposal really does go much too far. It gives power to individual Committees to exclude the rest of Members of Parliament, a power which they should not have. I think it is quite unnecessary. Again, it detracts from the rights of Members. I hope that the right
1014
hon. Gentleman will feel that he need not press this one.
Mr. J. T. Price: I have spent a great deal of time performing in a modest capacity in Select Committees. May I ask my right hon. Friend to reflect on this, not being dogmatic at all about it myself? There are in Select Committee many occasions when many of us, as working Members of a Committee, feel that it would be desirable not only to admit Members but to make the Committee open to the Press as well. The difficulty is that there are many occasions when witnesses being examined or cross-examined are not willing to give evidence except in camera. This is the difficult thing. I would say that many people like myself who have done a lot of work on these Committees would much prefer them to be as open as possible, but within limits. If they are open, and we declare them open, they are open not only to the Press but to all of our fellow Members of the House, and this is a situation I would like to encourage.
Mr. Short: I certainly think that there is a problem, and that is why I said that there are sometimes ambiguities and embarrassments, but I do not think that the two rules proposed are the way out. Committees should not have a blanket power to exclude other Members of Parliament.
One of the most substantial and important parts of the proposals deals with delegated legislation. The scrutiny of and the right to challenge delegated legislation are fundamental to democracy. Minister-made law or, more often, Civil Service-made law is increasing at an alarming rate. Under this Government I am sorry to say that the House is gradually losing its power to scrutinise delegated legislation. During the last Session over and over again we either were not able to debate important Prayers or we debated them out of time. I do not agree with debating them out of time. The House must have the right to reverse a Statutory Instrument if it is so minded.
The Joint Committee under Lord Brooke proposed two committees—first, a joint committee to scrutinise Statutory Instruments and to check the technical propriety, including the vires, of the instruments. That may avoid duplication between the Statutory Instruments

1015
Committee in the House of Commons and the Special Orders Committee in the House of Lords, but I am extremely apprehensive about the proposal.
Page xxi shows how the Lords have dealt with Statutory Instruments, from which it will be seen that the House of Lords always draws more orders to the attention of the House when there is a Labour Government. That makes me apprehensive.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the recommendation that the chairman should, after the first appointment, be entirely in the hands of the committee. Before my right hon. and hon. Friends and I can accept this proposal we must be assured that the chairman will always be an Opposition Member from the House of Commons. Secondly, we must be assured that the strength of the House of Lords element on the committee will be pro rata to the strength of the parties in the House of Commons. Those are the minimum terms on which we could agree to the joint committee.
Mr. Prior: I made a special note. What I said was that we must reflect the balance of the parties in the House of Commons.
Mr. English: I think that the right hon. Gentleman did say that, but he did not say anything about the chairman.
Mr. Prior: No, I did not.
Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman has met the point, but we must insist on the other before the proposal can be agreed.
It is proposed that there should be a House of Commons Committee to consider the merits of Statutory Instruments. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would provide a much needed additional forum for the consideration of delegated legislation. I am not sure that it is the right kind of forum. Affirmative orders are only to go to the committee if there is agreement through the usual channels and if 20 or more hon. Members do not object. Negative instruments—that is, Prayers—presumably would go to the committee without the usual channels provision unless 20 or more hon. Members object. These proposals make it more difficult for hon. Members to pray against delegated legislation. They simply erect
1016
more barriers to hon. Members carrying out a vital constitutional function. In the last Session the Government put all kinds of barriers in our way. It has been virtually impossible to debate Prayers. To have to rely on 20 hon. Members standing up would make this even more difficult.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with a point which commends itself to me? In 20 years I cannot remember any occasion on which the Government have been defeated on a Prayer in the House, whereas upstairs in Committee I can conceive of this happening more easily and so making our scrutiny much more effective.
Mr. Short: It seems to be a sure and certain path to authoritarianism to say that because the Government have not been defeated in 20 years we must therefore abolish the rule. Hon. Members must retain the right to debate these matters and, if they think fit, to vote against them.
Mr. Albert Booth: Will my right hon. Friend look at this in the context of page xlv, paragraph (d), where it is made clear that the only motion that could be passed or defeated on the consideration of merits in Standing Committee is the motion, That the Committee take note of the order? As I understand the recommendation, there could be no possibility of the Government being defeated in Committee upstairs on any Statutory Instrument. It would be helpful if this point could be clarified.
Mr. Short: That is my understanding. That is why I said it was not a good additional forum for debating Statutory Instruments.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say something which alarmed me. He said that the effect of blocking might otherwise be that Prayers are not debated at all. Why ever not? Is he threatening the House? Is he saying that if hon. Members block a Prayer going to Committee the Prayer will not be debated either in Committee or in the House? Surely the House has a constitutional right to seek to annul these orders? The only danger of their not being debated arises from the chaotic state of the Government's business.

1017
Another major weakness of these two committees is the absence of mechanism to get the Statutory Instrument back from the Committee to the Floor of the House. If my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have no doubt that he will develop these points, because he is an expert on delegated legislation.
There is also a proposal that the 11.30 p.m. rule should be modified so that a negative instrument can be debated on a "take note" motion at any hour, however late, for a limited 1½ hours. Hon. Members who have been in the House for some years will know that this is putting back the clock in more senses than one. I regard this as a retrograde step. We used to sit debating Prayers until the early hours of the morning, almost every night. That is why the rule was changed. I hope very much that this proposal will not be pressed.
I profoundly regret that the Government have not accepted the Opposition proposal for setting aside a date for debating Prayers. We have a right to debate Prayers. It is a fundamental safeguard of democracy against bureaucracy, and bureaucracy today is much more dangerous than autocracy.
Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend deal more closely with the "take note" concept? A Statutory Instrument which is referred to the committee with 20 Members not objecting can be debated only on a "take note" basis. My right hon. Friend has referred to this point in the context of the house debating an instrument on a "take note" motion. Will he deal with the point whether there can be any significance in a "take note" motion other than the exchange of views. Presumably, whether a "take note" motion is carried or defeated can make no material difference. It therefore appears that the existence of the "take note" procedure either in the House or in Committee offers no definitive safeguard against bureaucracy.
Mr. Short: That is the logical result of the view put by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). He said that it was to allow Members to exchange views. I put it more crudely and say that it is simply to allow Members to get it off their chests
1018
and blow off steam, and it has no effect whatever. That is what I obect to. I object to the right being taken away from an hon. Member or from this House to annul an order. It may nominally be made by a Minister, but in effect it is made by a civil servant. It is a law that is binding on everybody and the House must have the right to annul it. That right must not be removed. We are not satisfied with a motion simply "to take note".
Mr. Ronald Bell: I agree with that view. I should like to see a Committee upstairs with the power to annul. I agree that a "take note" motion is useless, but I believe that it is more valuable to have the power to annul in a Committee upstairs than it is to have that power on the Floor of the House, because upstairs the party system does not operate in quite the same way.
Mr. Short: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for saying that. This shows that if we were given an opportunity to discuss these matters among ourselves we could reach agreement on this kind of proposal.
I thank the Leader of the House for bringing these matters forward. Some are acceptable; others are quite unacceptable. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press those which are unacceptable since they should all be by agreement. I hope that in future the Government will allow a minimum of at least two weeks after publication of motions to see what amendments arise and to try to reach agreement among all members of the House. This is not a Government or an Opposition matter, but it is a matter for every Member of the House of Commons.
8.12 p.m.
Mr. Albert Booth: I should like to address my remarks only to delegated legislation. I hope that it will not be considered discourteous if I do not deal with other important matters with which the Select Committee on Procedure has dealt. I am restricting myself to the Report of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation because it is a subject with which I have been particularly concerned for some time.
To see the problem of delegated legislation in perspective we must first note

1019
the change which has taken place both in the volume and the nature of delegated legislation in recent years. The Joint Committee's report refers to the number of Statutory Instruments made in the Session 1970–71. In that Session there were 151 affirmative instruments, 765 negative instruments and 556 general instruments—a total of 1,472 Statutory Instruments in a single year. I have taken a year in which there was an enormous volume of such instruments, but we cannot envisage any year in which there will not be many hundreds of pieces of delegated legislation laid before this House.
We must first ask ourselves how we should deal with this legislative volume. The orginal procedure as laid down in Standing Orders to deal with delegated legislation was conceived at a time when such a volume of delegated legislation would have been unthinkable. We must also recognise that the very nature of delegated legislation has changed. Whereas originally delegated legislation was regarded as a means of dealing with detailed points of administration which had to have legal effect, it has now become a very much more wide-ranging and flexible instrument. It can be used, and in recent years has been used, to bring about major changes of policy. The Leader of the House remembering his previous rôle will recall that it was by the use of delegated legislation that the Government changed their policy from the payment of food subsidies to the system of import levies. That major change of policy was implemented solely by delegated legislation, and it was done quite legally. Powers were laid down in earlier Agriculture Acts which made it possible for the Government to take such action.
I make no complaint on the grounds of legality. At one time such a major change of policy—through delegated legislation rather than through the normal governmental processes of planning and policy decision in this Chamber—would have been unthinkable. At present such a situation not only is possible but is a practice that is likely to grow. Therefore, it is even more important that the House has complete control over delegated legislation. If we study the subject carefully we see that the House of Commons, instead of increasing its control over
1020
delegated legislation, has lost effective control as such legislation has grown in volume and importance.
Two significant changes in the Standing Orders in post-war years have resulted in a 1½ hour limitation on affirmative order debates and an 11.30 p.m. limit on negative instrument debates. It is quite clear that the most severe restriction, the 11.30 p.m. limit, has been in the area of legislation which has thrown up the greatest number of instruments—namely, negative instruments. There is no year in recent times in which there has not been a considerably greater number of negative orders than affirmative orders. Each time in Standing Committee on a Bill upstairs I suggest that certain matters should be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedures, the suggestion is strongly resisted by the Minister involved—with, I suspect, the enthusiastic support of his civil servants.
It is now possible to have a series of affirmative instruments put through the House in a day. Indeed the Government, if they are so minded, can put through a series of such instruments throughout the night. A Prayer must end at 11.30 p.m., and this means a maximum of only 1½ hours, but the Government, intentionally or otherwise, often arrange business so that it will eat into part, if not all, of that 1½ hours. Therefore, there is the greatest need for control of delegated legislation, particularly of the negative instrument.
Changes in Standing Orders over the years have cut down the amount of control in the hands of Members of the House of Commons. For this reason I am concerned about the Government's attitude to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation which would substantially increase the amount of time spent by the House on delegated legislation, particularly on negative instruments. If we pass the Government's motion on delegated legislation, two of the proposals will not become effective. Therefore, I trust that the Leader of the House will sense the mood of the House, as expressed in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), that we do not wish to proceed any further without giving serious consideration to these matters.
Mr. Mellish: Is there not a further matter which should be put on record—a matter of which I have had experience in the last two years? This relates to the volume of negative resolutions and the fact that again and again Government business, quite properly, takes priority. By the time we have tabled a Prayer it is found to be out of time, and we then go to the Government to ask for a motion to be tabled to discuss the matter by affirmative order. But having tabled such a motion, it is then found to be irrelevant, and the order is usually in operation by the time one comes to pray against it. This makes a farce of democracy. Unless something is done to take hold of this situation and to bring these matters to the Floor of the House at the right time for proper discussion, any consideration of a negative order will become even more of a farce.
Mr. Booth: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) emphasises a crucial point on the question of control. It relates to the Government's attitude to the time made available in this House to deal with a prayer. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, all sorts of objections are raised when one attempts to discuss when a Prayer is to be debated. In reality what this amounts to is that the Government say that all sorts of other matters must take priority over a certain form of legislation. However, it is my view and that of the majority of working hon. Members that it is completely wrong, in a democracy, that this House's control of legislation should be set aside as being a matter which is not one of priority.
It does not matter to me whether it is called delegated legislation or primary legislation. The reality of the matter for the citizen and for our courts is that what appears in a Statutory Instrument is the law of the land just as much as what appears in an Act of Parliament. To say that there is no time in this House to deal with the law of the land is the very negation of the democratic process. But that is what has been happening increasingly in recent years. The Government have said that there is no time to deal with this legislation by the democratic process of a debate and vote in this House before it becomes law. Law which is not subject to the process is not democratic law and certainly is not
1022
in accordance with the traditions of government that we have established in a way in which we rightly take pride.
It is fundamental that time must be granted. It is ridiculous to continue taking a growing volume of delegated legislation without an appropriate increase in the amount of time that this Chamber devotes to it. If we cannot find a way of dealing with primary legislation on the Floor of the House and taking a vote on it, we should send it upstairs. The Second Reading Committee is an example of legislation which has gone upstairs with the possibility of returning to this Chamber for a vote. If we found a means to do that with delegated legislation it would be understood. What will not be understood by those who look to us to protect their democratic rights is sending this legislation to a committee which can merely take note and do nothing else about it. That can never be an alternative to our law-making process.
I turn now to the proposal for a joint scrutiny committee. I take the view that all the affirmative and negative orders which are considered by this House should first have been considered by a scrutiny committee of this House. This is probably the appropriate occasion to make the complaint that we have no scrutiny committee operating in this Session. The Government have not chosen to set up the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments to consider all the hundreds of instruments which have so far been laid in this Session. Since this matter was not referred to by the Leader of the House, I can only assume that the Government do not intend that the Statutory Instruments which have been laid up until now should be subject to technical scrutiny.
I do not accept that it is not practicable to have technical scrutiny in advance of consideration by this House. This is the matter about which the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments set up last Session corresponded with the then Leader of the House. The Committee expressed the view that it attached such importance to having proper technical scrutiny in advance that it would be willing to meet virtually at 24 hours' notice at the start of a Session to subject an instrument to technical scrutiny before

1023
it was considered on the Floor of the House.
The point has already been made that in the Lords instruments are subject to technical scrutiny anyway. That shows that it is a practicable proposition. Certainly it is practicable to have this scrutiny, and in any event it is a safeguard for the Government as well as for this House that an instrument should be subject to technical scrutiny before any decision is taken on its merits. In legislation of increasing complexity, and in view of the experiences that we have had in dealing with questions of vires and of what is a correct form of delegated legislation, this has become more and more important.
Mr. Latham: There are two observations that I wish to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). First, he will see that I am holding in my hand the multifarious copies of Statutory Instruments laid up to about the middle of last month. Any committee now appointed to examine them would have an almost impossible task to do a thorough job in the time. I regret as much as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members do the fact that no action has been taken by the Government until now. It looks as if all the opportunities both for scrutiny and for the House to attempt to exercise any surveillance over these instruments has gone by default. I hope that the Leader of the House will comment on that in the course of the debate.
The second point that I wish to put to my hon. Friend is that one can make a distinction between matters which are questions of vires and matters which are questions of merits. However, in view of my hon. Friend's experience as Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I draw his attention to the difficulties which occur where merits appear to be confused with technical matters of propriety. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the difficulty which has arisen over lorry drivers' hours. Previously there was a provision—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham)
1024
should not make a speech in an interjection.
Mr. Latham: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I be allowed two more sentences in order to make my point? Previously it was possible for the old Committee to say that an unexpected use was being made of powers. The Committee found such wide use being made of powers as to except the majority of vehicles from the provisions of the legislation.
Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this aspect of the problem of obtaining a proper relationship between correct technical scrutiny and the consideration of merits. The example that he has picked is one of the best that can be found. In the case of the lorry drivers' hours regulations, the original Act gave power to the Minister to lay regulations exempting certain activities in road haulage from the drivers hours' regulations.
It was the case—and I hope that it will continue to be the case—that the terms of reference of the joint scrutiny committee will be wide enough to draw attention to instances where an unusual use of power is made. In the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) referred, a regulation was laid which exempted from the drivers' hours regulations all the carrying of materials to and from building and construction sites. It wiped out the safeguards of the drivers' hours regulations for many people involved in that industry.
That was a matter of unusual use of powers, and a matter which was reported by a Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The fact that the Prayer or the consideration of merits did not subsequently take place was due to another failing which we will discuss tonight. The illustration to which my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North drew attention shows that if the merits of a particular instrument had been discussed, without having regard to the consideration of scrutiny, we would possibly have wasted a considerable amount of time. The issue of merit can lie very close to the issue of technical scrutiny in such cases.
I shall deal with the committee that would consider the merits of instruments

1025
if the proposal before the House were put into effect. I take it from the Government's motion that they are opposed to the committee's considering, as a matter of priority Statutory Instruments to which the joint scrutiny committee has drawn special attention. If the Standing Committee for considering merits cannot give consideration to the instruments to which the joint scrutiny committee has drawn special attention, what is to happen to the reports in which they draw to the special attention of the House what they consider to be unusual use of powers? If a negative instrument is ultra vires, would it be the wish of the Government that this instrument on which the joint scrutiny committee reported should come straight back to the House and be considered as if it were affirmative? If that were so, I would be most ready to accept the proposition that such instruments should not go to a committee which will be concerned with merits. But nothing has been said tonight by the Leader of the House to indicate that they would give such preference to negative instruments to which the special attention of the House has been drawn by a joint scrutiny committee. In fact, indications have been rather the other way.
Therefore, in the absence of any indication by the Government that they will give some rights to Prayers against instruments to which the joint scrutiny committee has drawn special attention, the very least that we must be guaranteed is that such instruments will have some priority of consideration by the Standing Committee which deals with merits. This underlines the point, to which attention was drawn by my hon. Friend, of the necessity of having technical scrutiny taking place in advance of consideration of merits.
The most serious defect in the section of the report which deals with the committee on merits is the one to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central drew attention—namely, that no mechanism is proposed for returning the instrument to the Floor of the House. That must be seen in the context of the committee's having no power to vote on anything but a motion to take note.
If it were to be proposed by the Leader of the House that the committee
1026
should be able to vote whether to annul an instrument, there would be a different attitude towards the committee. The motion would be considered by a crowded House if that were to be the case. But it is proposed that the committee shall decide only whether to take note. In that case it is totally unsatisfactory to the House to accept these recommendations unless they are amended in such a way as to include a mechanism by which a Prayer can return to the Floor of the House.
An impossible position is being created for hon. Members. If an hon. Member is particularly concerned about a merit issue in a particular instrument, and he tables a Prayer upon it, he then has to decide whether he is to let that Prayer go to the committee or whether he is to alert 19 other hon. Members to oppose it. He has to weigh the matter carefully. By letting it go upstairs he is, in the last analysis, jeopardising his chances of the matter's being subject to a vote in the House of Commons. If he is serious in his Prayer and wishes, in the absence of a satisfactory reply, to press it to a Division, what is he to do? Is he to ask 19 other Members to join him in opposing the instrument's being sent upstairs? Or is it better to let it go upstairs, to attend the committee, as he would have the right to do, argue his case and say, "On the report of the committee upstairs I will have a better chance of this matter going back to the House and voted upon." But in the absence of any mechanism to return it to the House, he has an impossible dilemma.
The official channels will also have an impossible dilemma, because the Opposition may well be concerned to seek some amendment to an instrument. They know, of course, that in the normal processes of the House they cannot amend an instrument, but they can have reasonable hope, upstairs, of persuading the Minister to withdraw the instrument and make some adjustment to it. They will have an impossible choice. I suggest, therefore, in all seriousness, that this part of the Government's recommendations should be looked at again and that two things should be done.
Mr. Prior: Perhaps I can clear up one or two things as we go along, in case I miss certain points at the end of the debate. The hon. Gentleman is making

1027
two points. First, he feels that there should be a proper mechanism for a vote to be taken in the merits committee. Secondly, supposing we have a mechanism which enables the vote to be taken, and there is thereby a vote, presumably the committee's report would come back to the Floor of the House.
Mr. Booth: Not for debate.
Mr. Prior: Not for debate, although I presume that through the usual channels one could be arranged, although it would not be automatic. Is the hon. Gentleman asking that there should be another vote without debate on the Floor of the House? Perhaps I can help him on his first point. Having heard his views so far, I believe that we should make proper arrangements for a vote to be taken in the merits committee. What I am not certain about is whether he is asking for a further vote to be taken on a report back to the House.
Mr. English: The Committee itself made the analogy on the 20 Members and other matters with the Second Reading Committee. This analogy seems to work in many ways, except that non-contentious Bills are referred to the Second Reading Committee. But if we take the analogy as far as we can in this context, we can bring the adverse report to the Floor of the House for a further vote. I would have thought that that would be desirable from both Government and Opposition points of view. The Government, for example, might have been defeated in a Select Committee, and might wish to restore the situation on the Floor of the House. On the other hand, the Opposition might wish to show that the whole of the Opposition had a certain view on a topic. I think that from either point of view—Government and Opposition—there would be merit in that. It would still save the time of the House, because at the most one would be taking about 10 minutes.
Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his intervention, because I see that I did not make my position clear. It is a complex issue. I believe that if the debate in the merits committee is to have importance, it need not be subject to a vote upstairs, provided
1028
there is a mechanism for a vote on the Floor of the House—a vote which would take account of the report of the Committee. To put it at its lowest, a half-hour debate on the Floor of the House on the report of the merits committee might suffice for a final vote on the issue, or perhaps an adaptation of the 10 Minute Rule Bill procedure, with one speech for and one against. But for the merits committee to have relevance its report must be subject to decision on the Floor of the House. The alternative, as the right hon. Gentleman has reasonably pointed out, is a vote upstairs.
If there is a vote in the Committee the Government would have to decide whether it wanted power subsequently to reverse the decision on the Floor of the House. There is some merit in that, because the Government might wish to look again at an instrument following an adverse vote in Committee, with a vote to annulment. Whichever way it is done, before the whole procedure starts there has to be some understanding by those who table Prayers of the procedure which will follow reference to a committee. Unless that is understood an impossible situation is created.
May I suggest a way which might avoid certain difficulties which we now face with the very large batch of regulations issued under certain Bills? During the last week the Leader of the House may have had a look at the large number of regulations which came out this year in connection with the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. The same will be true of a number of other Bills. The Family Income Supplements Act produced a large number of regulations during its first year.
It may be of advantage to Parliament if the Standing Committee on a Bill was not disbanded once the Bill became law but was kept in existence to examine the first set of regulations produced under the Act. That procedure would have two major advantages—one being that the Members who looked at the first set of regulations would know when they debated in committee what powers they meant to put into the hands of Ministers to make regulations. It would also make Members serving on Standing Committees a little more apprehensive of giving Ministers powers to make regulations if they knew they were going to be responsible

1029
for looking at the first batch of regulations. I put this to the House as a suggestion—not for the first time, because I put the same idea before the Committee on Procedure in 1970. I have not yet been convinced by any arguments that this suggestion would not serve a useful rôle.
I turn to the new job which will fall upon those dealing with delegated legislation as a result of the European Communities Act. I talk in no way about the merits or demerits of the Act. What that Act does in respect of delegated legislation is something which no other Act has ever done on such a scale. It enables Ministers to make delegated legislation of statutory instruments which will amend primary legislation substantially.
If we are to have before Parliament or its committee instruments which substantially amend primary legislation we will have the difficulty of there being no procedure for amending statutory instruments. For that reason there is very considerable thought to be given to the rôle of the committee on merits. We may or may not introduce an amending procedure on delegated legislation. We may have a little more flexibility from Ministers, with considerable advantage. Following a debate in Committee, they may show a willingness to take away an instrument, to amend it and relay it. To help the Minister do that we would have, in the nature of the time limits that operate, to be prepared to reduce the amount of time available for rescrutiny or reconsideration. At present, with the negative instrument procedure, there should be 40 days for praying; with the affirmative procedure we should have 28 days.
If a Minister, following a debate in Committee, withdraws an instrument on a specific point raised in Committee, or changes it to meet the point and lays it again, to ask him to go through a further 40 days of praying time, or a further month, would be unreasonable.
One of the things we could introduce into our procedures with advantage is some shortening of the period when an instrument was relaid, in the event of a Minister's meeting some of objections raised in Committee.
Statutory instruments and regulations increasingly concern Members of Parliament. They concern the courts of this
1030
land. Above all, they control the rights of the citizens whom we represent to a far greater extent than ever before in our history. For this last reason Members of Parliament must do their utmost to regain proper democratic control over that area of our legislation.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: As the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) says, this is a subject of great importance. He is not right, however, when he says that the European Communities Act is the first Act to give power to amend our substantive statute law by delegated legislation. Unfortunately, there are several other Acts, quite independent of the European Communities matter, which give this far-ranging, almost unlimited, power to Ministers to proceed by statutory instrument and to amend almost any Act of Parliament.
It has been the practice of Parliament for a long time now to pass Acts under which a great many things are done by orders or instruments. We have our debates in Standing Committee or Committee of the whole House. Members express anxiety. Sometimes, there is put in what is described as a parliamentary safeguard, and the instruments are made subject to prayer. Sometimes, we think that that is not enough and, at the end of a long struggle, the affirmative procedure instead of the negative is introduced, and the instrument is made subject to an affirmative motion to approve.
There must by now be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of powers to make statutory instruments. Those of us who have served on the Statutory Instruments Committee, for an endless period of years, it seems to me, have scrutinised statutory instrument after statutory instrument. I cannot think of how many thousands I have scrutinised, as it is put, and, at the end of it all, I ask myself what the value of the procedure has been. We have looked at the technical qualities of these instruments. We have found faults in the wording, we have found retrospection, we have found unexpected use of the powers in the statute—all the matters in our terms of reference—and I think one can fairly say that we and our predecessors have done a good job on the technical side. But as to the merits, what has Parliament done through all these

1031
years since the statutory instrument habit started?
I cannot remember an occasion when Parliament has successfully annulled a statutory instrument, save one in 1950–51 when Lord Wigg, then Mr. Wigg, challenged an order on behalf of the then Opposition, he being a Government back bencher, by shouting, "No". He put in tellers for us but forgot to put in tellers for the then Government, so, in default of tellers for the Government, the Opposition, to their utter astonishment, without voting managed to annul a statutory instrument. Next day, we duly had a message from the King saying that he would be graciously pleased to annul the instrument, which, I am sorry to say, was relaid virtually the next day.
That is pretty well the sum total, and it means that Ministers make these orders in their thousands, and they are not subject to any effective parliamentary challenge. The safeguard is useless, and the sooner that is understood the better. It is a useless safeguard for three reasons. First, one cannot amend an order, and often enough the objection is to a small part of it. Second, prayers are taken late at night. They used to be taken very late at night. Now, they are nearly always taken as late business ending at 11.30 p.m. Hon. Members are kept here late so often that, when they have the opportunity to pair on a prayer and go away, they take it. It is no good pretending that prayers are treated as first-class business. They are not. When the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was Leader of the House, he announced that, because of this defect, he would find time early in the day for more important prayers. But, like many other good intentions, it just never happened and prayers are late-night business.
The third reason is that, in effect, these are Government orders. The normal whipping procedure applies every time and we have created, as a rod for our own backs, the convention that the Government must not be defeated on the Floor of the House. This is often represented as an illustration of the sovereignty of Parliament. It is in effect the death knell of Parliament because if we cannot defeat the Government on the Floor of the House, far from having
1032
control over them, we have abandoned all control.
As we have allowed to grow up the lunatic convention that the Government must not be defeated on the Floor of the House, or if they are defeated it is a major affair, with questions asked as to the Government's intentions, when polling day will be, and all this kind of nonsense, the only place in which we can improve legislation by amendment or by defeating a proposal is upstairs in Committee where, for some reason, this extraordinary convention has not become established with the same rigidity.
Recently the business of scrutiny of instruments has broken down completely. Only a small crop of prayers had to be tabled for the procedure to collapse because there was not enough time and there was so much late business. Last Session the system collasped entirely. The situation would have been equally hopeless this Session, and the only effect of the European Communities Act is to make it manifest for all time that the existing procedure is in a state of total collapse.
The House must therefore ask itself what it will do. Is it to allow what is, not the main law-making activity but an activity which seriously rivals in volume the direct legislation of the House, to be a purely bureaucratic operation without any parliamentary scrutiny worth the name?
Mr. John Mendelson: Is there not a sharp distinction between delegated legislation introduced by a Government elected by a majority of the electorate of this country and legislation which comes from an outside body? I have always thought that the underlying political justification of the procedure which we have adopted is that basically we have a certain amount of confidence that the constitutionally elected Government of this country will not, in their orders, go completely outside the general policy which they have put to the electorate. That will cease completely when the Common Market orders come into force.
Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman has had his commercial for a policy—
Mr. Mendelson: Oh!
Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman need not worry. I agree with him on this

1033
matter and I congratulate him on using the opportunity of an intervention to put forward his view. However, I am not dealing with the interesting question of the merits of the European Communities, nor am I willing, though it is a very tempting proposition with Conservative Government, to agree with him that Governments in general never do anything contrary to what is expected of them—not even Governments of this country.
Our function is to look suspiciously on all Governments: to exercise very friendly scrutiny when they are made up of members of our own party and rather less friendly scrutiny when they are not.
The House must ask itself what it will do about this vast volume of delegated legislation. I have thought about this matter, as indeed have others, and have had the advantage of dealing with it for a very long time. Until we change our conventions I do not believe that any procedure on the Floor of the House will work. We must put it upstairs, but it is useless to put it upstairs before a committee which has no power to do anything except debate, take note or not take note. What is the good of not taking note? It must go beyond that. I gather from my right hon. Friend's intervention that his mind is moving slightly in this direction and he wants to give it some meaning.
I have no rigid concept of what the procedure should be. I do not mind what it is, provided that it supplies what we lack—a real check by Parliament on this mass of delegated legislation. When the members of the Scrutiny Committee disapprove of it they cannot give expression to their disapproval. We sometimes feel that something of which we approve in a broad way is being done in a wrong way, that we would like it recast, but there is nothing that we can do about it. This kind of view must be given proper expression.
I suggest, without wishing to be dogmatic, that the committee should have the power, by vote, to pass a resolution in some form which annuls an instrument unless its decision is reversed by a vote of the House. This throws the emphasis the right way. If the Select Committee, meeting in a rather less partisan atmosphere than that in the House, said, "This instrument ought to be taken back", that
1034
should prevail unless the Government feel so strongly about it that they put down a motion to reverse that decision. That is as much as we can ask for.
There has to be an element of compromise, because the volume of delegated legislation is so great that any procedure giving full expression to any order concerning the control of Parliament would inevitably break down. There must be a selective element about it and the committee would have to exercise discipline in its approach. At any rate, let us try a procedure like this, see how it works, whether it breaks down under the weight of the volume of work and, indeed, is misused to fight party battles. If it is, we can look at it again. But let us try something like that procedure. We shall then feel that we have given some meaning to the words which we put into Bills for parliamentary scrutiny which at the moment are as useful as a vote of thanks to the staff.
I say no more about it. I have made my point and do not want to labour it with a long speech. I ask my right hon. Friend to believe that this is a matter on which there is strong feeling on both sides, that something should be done about it, and that this is the opportunity.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: I wholly support some of the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short).
I recognise that this is the first procedure debate of the present Leader of the House, and everyone will wish him well in this respect. I hope that he will revert to the practice of his predecessor—now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who used to lay similar motions well in time. These motions were laid in the minimum time to avoid being starred on the Order Paper. They were laid on Thursday, and for the very reasons that the Government have not accepted Friday Questions, even the Government tonight are saying that a Friday is not quite the same as other days. I suggest that had they been laid a fortnight or so ago most of these motions would have gone through almost on the nod.
This may seem a strange thing to say, but for example, I think the right hon.

1035
Gentleman will realise that there is overwhelming support for the principle behind the motion dealing with delegated legislation. The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central agree with it. Nobody has spoken against the principle of the proposal, and I do not intend to myself, but there are small points that arise on such details as what one should vote on in Committee and minor things of that character.
What has happened in most cases in this Parliament so far is that a draft has been laid, any Member who wished has had the opportunity to table an amendment, and then the Leader of the House, as I know personally, has discussed particular amendments with individuals and perhaps accepted some and refused others. When he knows all the issues involved a Leader of the House is able to be more flexible. Had he had a whole crop of amendments before him he could, when he nodded his head and said that he was going to accept something that my right hon. Friend said, had said instead that he was going to accept the relevant amendment, No. 13, or whatever it was.
There is another reason for going back to that practice. Several times during his speech the Leader of the House said, "This is as the Procedure Committee recommended it". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman makes a distinction between something that the Procedure Committee does very well, namely, take evidence, and its recommendations. I compliment the Procedure Committee on the way that it takes evidence. It asks everybody whom it thinks is interested and suggests to them—and this is very important—the specific points which it believes ought to be considered in the evidence. The result is that there is some measure of guidance and nobody inadvertently omits to give evidence on a particular point. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) primarily, and also the Clerk to the Committee, because they are the two people responsible for this excellent system.
1036
I do not agree with the Committee—and I think we must recognise this—that it is representative of the House. The European Communities Act has been dragged into the debate. As an illustration of my point, I do not think that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, with all his knowledge of procedure, would claim to be totally representative of his party on the subject of the last report of the Committee. Equally, it so happens that every member of the Labour Party on the procedure committee belongs to its minority on the issue upon which it reported last time. It is not representative of the House in that way, nor is it intended to be.
The Committee is good at taking evidence. I do not think it is even true that all its members are necessarily particularly interested in the procedures of the House. As far as I can see only the Chairman and one other of its members are here today. None of the others is present, although some of them are academic writers on the subject. All the rest, including every Labour Member, are not here.
That shows that we are not to take every word of the Committee's recommendations as gospel truth. The then Chairman of the 1922 Committee gave evidence identical to that presented by the Parliamentary Affairs Group of the Labour Party. I understand that he is a back bencher elected by Conservative back benchers. We have no exact equivalent, because the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party is a Front bencher elected by both Front and back benchers. But we have something that the Conservative Party does not have, a group of back benchers interested in the subject. When the Chairman of the 1922 Committee and my party's Parliamentary Affairs Group present identical evidence and the Committee turns it down, it is legitimate to wonder which of the various people concerned are right.
I acknowledge that some of the Parliamentary Affairs Group memoranda in the report are in my name, but they are in no way my sole work. Each is individually drafted and circulated among the 30-odd members, those already interested in the subject. All the amendments are then discussed and circulated to our Front Bench for information. Therefore, by the

1037
time they reach the committee they have been considered by a fair number of people. Much of what my right hon. Friend said tonight was already said in our memoranda of evidence to the committee, and, oddly enough, also said in many cases by the 1922 Committee.
The origin of the motion on the right of Members to attend Select Committees is not quite as the Leader of the House, through no fault of his own, thought it was. The practice of Members attending Select Committees goes back about 400 years. Like my right hon. Friend, I do not think that it can be reversed overnight. It used to be much more extensive. Members used to be able to attend Select Committees and speak but not vote. The odd thing is that the day we are abolishing attendance, in Motion No. 9, we are, in Motion No. 8 putting back something that was abolished before 1857, because the right of Members to attend and to speak at the Standing Committee is one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation. Therefore, there is a certain inconsistency.
There used to be attached to committee orders of reference the statement
"and all Members shall have voices.",
a rather nice phrase. That ceased to happen in the 1830s for most committees and about 10 years later for the Committee of Privileges. But, if the clerks follow precedent, as they so often do, the exact wording of that statement will presumably be the way in which they will word the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, because the Joint Committee Report says that all Members should be able to attend and speak. Just as something is being put back in one place which disappeared in the 1830s and the 1840s, it is being abolished for every other committee of the House of Commons.
The Select Committee on Procedure, which as I say is an excellent committee for collecting evidence, say this at page vi:
"Your Committee sought information from the select committees of the House as to the extent to which Members had exercised their rights of attendance at meetings of select committees; the comments of select committees were also invited on the methods proposed by the Second Clerk Assistant for altering the practice, should this be desired. Of the fourteen select committees consulted, the majority were content with the present practice."
1038
That is the evidence which the Select Committee on Procedure got. I am not worried at present about the committee's recommendations. The committee then said that the Expenditure Committee, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and the Select Committee on Science and Technology—only three out of 14—had some views on, for example, classified information. I have consulted the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee and I understand that was solely in relation to one sub-committee, the Defence subcommittee.
Nobody has suggested that there should not be a way of dealing with classified information. The memorandum submitted by the Parliamentary Affairs Group of the Parliamentary Labour Party suggested that the committee should have power to exclude a Member when a witness is giving evidence that is not likely to be published. Fair enough, but that is not a blanket power to exclude on all occasions.
However, that is exactly what happened at the Select Committee on the Civil List. I and several members of both major parties wished to attend the Civil List Committee when it was hearing evidence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer who was the Committee's chairman produced—I think he was ill-advised—a statement to the effect that we had no right to attend on any occasion. We pointed out that there might be some witnesses whose evidence he wished to take in private. His attitude was that he wanted all the witnesses to give evidence in private. So the Members gently withdrew. However, we came back for the deliberations of the committee. We were then told, "Not only did we not want you to hear the evidence. We do not want you to hear us discuss it. You have no right to hear us discuss it". So it was to be total and general exclusion.
Then then Leader of the House, who was also a member of the Civil List Committee, said to the chairman of the committee and to those present that he was entirely prepared to put any motion before the House if the committee wished it, but the committee did not wish it. That was the essential point about it. We refused to withdraw from the committee because the committee did not want to return to the House. They wanted us to withdraw but they did not want to

1039
decide it, because that would have meant coming back to the Floor of the House for approval. Yet that is how the matter ought to be done. It ought to be a matter for decision by the House of Commons whether and to what extent a committee should have the power to exclude Members. We may say it in a general way about classified information or of a particular committee at the time it is set up if it is an ad hoc committee. However, it should be the function of the House of Commons, not the blanket motion which is on the Order Paper today.
The Civil List Committee did not want Members there, but it did not want anybody to know that it did not want Members there either. That was the Civil List Committee's peculiar difficulty. In the end the then Leader of the House out of his general kindness and quick wittedness solved the difficulty by saying, "If I refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure, will you be happy?" We said that we would be happy, because there is a rule of procedure which says that Members cannot discuss what happens in committee. The only way we can discuss what happens in a Select Committee, oddly enough, is not on the Floor of the House except when the matter is first raised in another Select Committee and put in evidence to that committee. That committee then reports on it and then we are able to discuss it here. This subject ought to have been on the Order Paper to enable us to discuss what happened in the Civil List Committee. I am sorry that the procedure Committee went to the extent of widening somewhat the suggestion put to it in evidence.
I will not go through all the other motions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central has adequately and fairly defended the rights of back benchers on Consolidated Fund Bills. All the evidence submitted by back benchers expressed views different from the view put forward in this motion. I agree that this is exactly the same as the limitation suggested by the procedure Committee but it is substantially opposed to the present pattern. I am not at all convinced that back benchers want five hours chopped off the Consolidated Fund Bill debates.
1040
I have never heard this mentioned to me by any back bencher and I stress "back bencher". I have heard it said by the Chief Whip but never by any back bencher, for the simple reason that Members are able to assess approximately when their subject will come up.
I said in the evidence I gave to the Procedure Committee that examples of this could be given. In the previous Parliament my right hon. Friends' successor as Chief Whip called me into his office once and said, "Michael I am going to try an experiment. You take a piece of paper and I will take a piece of paper and let us see how long, in the light of the number of people in the Chamber now and the subjects to be discussed, this Consolidated Fund Bill debate will last". We both worked it out and we arrived at figures which were different by half an hour. The debate ended exactly on the quarter hour between those two estimates. I suggest that this can easily be done, is done and used to be done before the balloting system by Members who put themselves down for a Second Reading debate.
The Chairman of the 1922 Committee, and I imagine his executive committee, because I understood he consulted it, and the Parliamentary Affairs Group of my Party, together representing all back benchers interested in this subject, recommended to the Procedure Committee that we scrap the ballot. The ballot has never had any legal existence in so far as no one wished to challenge Mr. Speaker—and I do not mean you, Mr. Speaker, but a predecessor of yours. All of a sudden one day the then Mr. Speaker rose and said that in future, instead of everyone putting their names down for the Consolidated Fund Bill debate, so that it was first come first served, he would have a ballot. There was no consultation with anyone. If this motion is passed, and I hope that it will not be, this will be the first legalisation of the ballot to take place in the form of a resolution in this House.
The ballot has caused an awful lot of trouble. To begin with it increases the influence of the whips. When there is a ballot, because there are greater chances of coming up at any given place the greater the number of people who put their names in, so there is a situation where the whips go round and say, "Have

1041
you forgotten to put your name in the ballot? Remember to put your name in. Have you got a list of subjects you might think about?" They do this on both sides, as we all know.
The advantage of this as put to us by the Procedure Committee, and I almost put "advantage" in inverted commas, is that a ballot is fair because it does not mean that the first man to get there gets the subject, to which the former Chairman of the 1922 Committee and I replied that we did not particularly see why the keener and more active Members of the House should necessarily be considered as being disadvantageous if they came at the top of the list.
We pointed out that this procedure did not exist anywhere else in the House, that there were opportunities for obtaining things by ballot, that there were other opportunities selected by Mr. Speaker, and we suggested that a variety of possible procedures was a good thing in itself and that they should not all be replaced by ballots, by a selection of Mr. Speaker or in any other single way. This procedure is unique in that respect.
The third result of having a ballot is that although an hon. Member may be the first to put in his name, he may come eighteenth in the ballot and not bother to turn up for that subject, although the Minister may be waiting. One hopes that a back bencher would always have the courtesy to tell the Minister. That does not always follow, because he may think that the debate will be cut off before his subject is reached and then by some accident it may be reached. With a first-come, first-served system, people know before they put their names down exactly where they are in the list and whether their arrangements permit them to turn up.
The fourth difficulty is that the notice both for other hon. Members and for Ministers of the subject to be debated that night is shortened. The procedure Committee has mentioned that and made recommendations upon it.
All the groups representing back benchers made a suggestion to go back to the old practice. I did not hear much criticism at that time, except a slight scramble to get to the door. If we went back it would be interesting to see
1042
whether the criticisms which have been made since disappear.
I will not go over the other subjects, but I am glad that my right hon. Friend spoke as he did upon them. I am a little sorry that it is from this side of the House that the objection to written statements comes. I think I know the reason for that. If one had a little more time for discussion one might be able to persuade one's hon. and right hon. Friends that my hon. Friend's suggestion of written statements had merits and had not the disadvantage that some see in it. The essential thing is that we should always have time for discussion before the motions come to the Floor of the House.
When I say that I am opposed to them for that reason, I hope that the Leader of the House will realise, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that we have very much support for him and very much good will towards his resolutions except on points of detail. If we will not press them tonight but simply leave them on the Order Paper, amendments of the type suggested could be put down. The right hon. Gentleman could consider them at his leisure and come back to the House with a revised motion mopping up those that he finds acceptable.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: I was very interested to hear what the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) had to say about being excluded from the Select Committee considering the Civil List. I am very pleased that tonight the House has an opportunity of considering this question and the rights of Members to attend such meetings. It enables me to explain in five minutes a situation in which I myself have been affected but which could equally affect any other Member of this House. It is a situation which can hardly be allowed to lie where it is—a situation in which the House may detect some small element of injustice.
What happened is this: I chanced one day to draw from the Vote Office a report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner. In that report I found that the Select Committee had devoted a very full sitting to a matter which lies wholly, solely and exclusively within the Salisbury division, which I represent. My initial reaction was one

1043
of delight—delight that colleagues, two Conservative, two Labour, and one Liberal, had appreciated the fact that this was a particularly unusual case, and that they had been good enough to devote time to it. I also saw that the committee had called in and examined the Permanent Secretary and an Assistant Secretary of the Department concerned with the matter. I was very interested to see that those high-ranking civil servants had to say about matters in Wiltshire.
That same day I wrote to the chairman of the committee, the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), and made clear to him that I hold views different from those expressed by those witnesses. I pointed out that it was quite fortuitous—though I welcomed the fact—that I had stumbled on this report, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman if I might be summoned as a witness and cross-examined equally. Needless to say, I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman last Friday telling him that I would be raising this matter tonight. The right hon. Gentleman replied to my first letter saying that the committee did not feel that it could ask me to meet it. Later I again wrote to him and asked, if I were to submit a paper to the committee, whether the committee would consider it and, secondly, whether it would consider publishing that paper in its report. I am sorry to say that I have not received an answer to those two questions, and that is precisely where the situation lies at this moment.
Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Procedure Committee and I apologise for not before mentioning his presence. Do I take it that he is now saying that this report needs to consider some of the small edges of this matter?
Mr. Hamilton: I think that the suggested change to the Standing Orders goes a small way towards helping me in principle, as I think the hon. Member will see as I come to the point towards the end of what I have to say.
I would not have chosen to raise this issue on the Floor of the House, but I see no alternative. I think it is justified because I feel that this situation could equally occur with any other hon. Member. With great deference, I suggest that
1044
it would accord with the traditions of the House if the committee, at its convenience, were to hear and to cross-examine the Member who raised the matter in the first instance and whose constituents are vitally affected. This report has been published by the Stationery Office. At the public expense a forum has been provided for the Permanent Secretary's views, spread over 18 columns of print, and the committee has not provided a similar forum for those whom I represent. Neither before nor afterwards was I notified that this matter was to be considered. One side has been heard, and one submission only stands on the record.
I have—and I think all of us here have—great personal respect for the right hon. Member for Fulham. He is a most courteous man. We are concerned tonight not with personalities but with procedure.
If I read his thinking and that of his committee correctly, I believe it is concerned, first, to protect the Parliamentary Commissioner. I sense that the committee is anxious that the Commissioner's finding should not subsequently be laid on the table and examined, but if the committee's case rests on this premise those civil servants should not have been summoned and cross-examined as they were. Since this has now happened, it cannot be right that the privilege accorded to them should be denied to a Member.
If the concern of the committee is to protect the Parliamentary Commissioner, I hardly think that this is the best way to set about it. In principle, if people have confidence in the handling of this or any matter, that confidence is hardly strengthened by excluding dissentient views. As for the Parliamentary Commissioner, I am certain that no man would seek to be defended less than he. He is fallible, just like the rest of us, and it would be a sad day if ever he came to be regarded as some Delphic oracle. However, his findings have been published and I am sure that he would wish them to be submitted to the fullest daylight and scrutiny. If they cannot be submitted to scrutiny they are not worth the paper on which they are written.
I stress that I would like to have been present at that meeting of the Select Committee. There surely is something profoundly wrong when Select Committees consider individual constituency problems

1045
without notifying the Member concerned. Secondly, there must be something equally wrong—I am delighted that the Leader of the House is present to hear me say this—if a group of Members, appointed by the House to act on its behalf, invites civil servants to its counsels while refusing similar facilities to a Member of this House.
I am pleased to have been able to raise this matter and to put it on record. It is not a minor personal protest; it is a matter of principle, which affects the rights of hon. Members and their ability to represent their constituents.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to suggest how best this matter can be remedied. Today it is Salisbury, but tomorrow it may equally be Lowestoft. This could happen to any one of us. It is not enough to say that Select Committees are masters in their own houses. Something has gone wrong, and only my right hon. Friend can put it right. I hope that he will consult the committee in question, and I greatly look forward to his reply tonight.
9.34 p.m.
Mr. Michael Cocks: I wish to deal briefly with the question of the Consolidated Fund Bill because I am against any change in the existing practice. I put forward this view with due modesty because I have been a Member of this House for only 2½ years, but in my limited experience I have come to the conclusion that the proposed changes would not be in the interests of back bench Members.
The application of some sort of time limit of 45 minutes on debates would put an extremely onerous burden on you, Mr. Speaker, in trying to decide where discretion should be allowed. It is extremely difficult to judge, with the best will in the world, the substance of a debate from the title of the subject matter to be discussed.
If I may give an example, when we discussed the last Consolidated Fund Bill but one I put down as a subject for debate holiday road traffic congestion in South Bristol. On the face of it, it was a narrow constituency point. In fact, the debate was used by the Minister for a most important statement on the motorway bridge carrying the M5 across the River Avon. It was a topic of great
1046
interest not only to me but to other hon. Members representing Bristol and Somerset constituencies. A full debate took place, where it would have been very difficult to confine it to 45 minutes or so and do justice to those who wished to take part.
What is more, if an hon. Member's name appears very low in the list all is not lost. Shortly after I came to this House my name was drawn very low in the list. I spent the night trying to get a little rest in a series of uncomfortable positions, only to find that my topic was not reached. However, the Minister who was due to reply was gracious enough to tell me afterwards that if I cared to write to him setting out the points that I intended to make in the debate he would be pleased to consider them. He went on to suggest that he would be prepared to allow me to discuss the matter with him and his civil servants. He granted me an interview and took my points. At a later date he was kind enough to come to my constituency in order to examine the premises concerned with the subject that I had raised with him. As a result of not being drawn, and thanks to the Minister's generosity, I did a great deal better than if my name had appeared higher in the list and I had put my points to the Minister in the course of the debate.
In this connection, I am not entirely against a ballot. A list on a first-come-first-served basis takes my mind back to one of the earliest procedure debates that I attended on the subject of Ten Minute Rule Bills. I recall that the House was asked to sort out a problem which had arisen in the previous Session when one hon. Member had apparently arrived first on the scene and had pre-empted all the opportunities for Ten Minute Rule Bills throughout the year. This undesirable trait has now been eliminated by the present procedure. But it seems to me that just as can happen with planted Questions, so a Government in difficulty can arrange for a number of back benchers to pre-empt the early places in the Consolidated Fund Bill Second Reading debate, knowing that by this means they can remove themselves from critical scrutiny during the passage of the Bill.
I ask the Leader of the House to think again about these proposals, especially

1047
from the point of view of back benchers. To a large extent a great deal of what back benchers do in this House is dictated by the respective Front Benches and party Whips. We do not have a great deal of freedom, and some of us put in a great deal of time here. I should not like to see any change which reduced the freedom that we enjoy in the Second Reading debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, where hon. Members who are prepared to attend and to wait for an opportunity to subject Ministers to the questioning and scrutiny may do so.
I hope that the Leader of the House will have second thoughts about the Consolidated Fund Bill, and not seriously change the established position. In saying that, I am mindful of the point made by the Opposition Chief Whip in his evidence, that the present practice is inconvenient to the staff. I appreciate that fully, but I often feel that that is the sort of excuse which is used in circumstances where a certain course of action may be very convenient to other people. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again.
9.40 p.m.
Sir Robin Turton: I will keep to the same order and deal first with the Report of the Committee on Questions. I have served on four committees dealing with Parliamentary Questions. But Question Time has become progressively worse. I do not know whether there is any connection, but when I was first here we used to get through from 60 to 100 Questions an hour. We now get through between 30 and 40. That means that today 500 hon. Members are putting down 15,000 Questions, fewer than 5,000 of which are being answered in a Session. If that is compared with what has happened over the years, back bench Members have lost the opportunity of asking something like 3,000 Questions a Session. I regard Question Time as the back benchers' great opportunity, and the loss of opportunity is unfortunate.
There are three ways of tackling the problem—first, by extending Question Time; secondly, by restricting the more inquisitive back benchers; and, thirdly, by devising new methods of getting more Questions answered in the limited time. Successive committees have recommended the extension of Question Time by 10
1048
minutes to a quarter-of-an-hour and making Questions begin punctually at half past two. Ministers regarded that recommendation as being a terrible invasion of the lunch hour, and it met with no support. I should have thought that a punctual start at half-past two would not embarrass those who indulge in the heaviest of lunches.
The Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions, of which I was a member, recommended two extensions, Question Time on a Friday and an extra quarter of an hour for the Prime Minister's Questions on Tuesday. These recommendations have been completely scorned by the Front Bench and rejected. Even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thought that it would be highly inconvenient taking Questions on a Friday because he did not grace the House with his presence on Friday. It seemed to be a good reason for taking Questions on a Friday because it is the back benchers' opportunity and not an opportunity for Deputy Leaders of the Opposition.
One of the worst declines in the habits of the House has been at Question Time. It used to be the privilege of back benchers, but it is now continually being usurped by Shadow Ministers who are trying to show off their prowess not only individually but in great groups. That is an unfortunate development.
We have failed in trying to get any extension of Question Time so we must look next—
Mr. James Tinn: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, as a provincial hon. Member, that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was probably speaking on behalf of provincial hon. Members who usually have constituency engagements on a Friday?
Sir Robin Turton: I am as provincial an hon. Member as the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn). But if I had an important constituency matter in my constituency I might well sacrifice it so that I could put a Question on a Friday. Bearing in mind that it was recommended that only two Ministries should be taken each Friday, that it should be in addition to any rationing arrangement and that Ministers could put up their Parliamentary Secretaries to give the answers, it would enable more hon. Members to get

1049
the opportunity to put Questions. But any recommendation for an extension of Question Time is savagely treated by all Front Benchers.
Mr. Lipton rose—
Sir Robin Turton: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to make a contribution. However, time is getting on and I must deal with my next point.
Professor Chester looked at the problem of rationing and concluded that with rationing one would probably have to allocate each Member 15 Questions a Session. The Committee proposes that each Member should have 130 Questions a Session and the Government have accepted this recommendation. I will be quite frank about it. I have sat on two procedure Committees which have looked into this matter, and I have always been opposed to rationing, for two reasons. First, constituency problems are not spread out evenly over the year. One may suddenly find a time where for one's constituency one wants to put down a large number of Questions in a short time. Rationing would work against that. Secondly, as those old enough to remember sweet rationing will agree, rationing always stimulates the appetite. If one is told that one can put down eight Questions in ten days, one is tempted to say, "I must be failing in my duty if I do not get my eight Questions down".
I warn my right hon. Friend, therefore, that if he accepts this recommendation he will not necessarily get fewer Questions, but more. In fact, he will see from the statistics that 466 Members ask fewer than 100 Questions each. They ask altogether 9,260 Questions in the Session. Thus, as we reach rather fewer than 5,000, the recommendation would not be a solution even if it did not cause more Questions than ever to be put on the Order Paper.
I have come to the conclusion that we have to be more radical in our approach to Question Time reform. I am certain that the failure of this House—and I say it as one who is a Conservative by political belief—is that it is far too conservative when dealing with its procedure. We have built up a number of fictitious traditions, such as that every Member has a right to a supplementary Question. The result is that if a number
1050
of hon. Members ask identical Questions which are answered together, you, Mr. Speaker, have to call them successively one by one to get their treasured right to a supplementary, thereby destroying the whole value of Question Time. I hope that the House will agree with the recommendation in paragraph 25 of the Select Committee Report and that you, Mr. Speaker, will take note.
With all deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the success of Question Time depends a great deal on the exercise of your discretion, and I know how conscious you are of the responsibility that lies in you. If I venture an opinion, it is that if 45 Questions were answered every day it would be a great gain to the majority of back benchers, but to do that it means a certain exercise of discretion and perhaps the Nelson touch in dealing sometimes with interventions by members of the Front Bench and by Privy Councillors. I believe that this would help Question Time a great deal.
Again, if we are to have—I hope that we shall, because it is a good recommendation—written Questions on named days, I suggest that if an hon. Member puts down for oral answer the kind of Question which should be answered in written form on a named day, he will not necessarily be allowed a supplementary. We know that hon. Members often ask Questions for oral Answers which can clearly be answered only with a table of figures. Hon. Members think they can have a supplementary question on that although they cannot have seen the table of figures to be circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Originally Questions were printed and then the Member read out the Question. To save time and to enliven the proceedings, the House of Commons in the early part of the twentieth century, changed the procedure. So that Questions were not read out. An experiment should be tried, as recommended by the Warden of Nuffield College, that answers as well as Questions should be printed on the Order Paper. It would mean that Ministers had to prepare their answers some 12 hours earlier. I know from my own ministerial experience that that is what normally happens. It is only on rare occasions that Ministers have to make alterations to their answers during

1051
the last 12 hours. That change of procedure would enliven Question Time.
Some of my colleagues serving on the Committee thought that procedure would take the surprise out of waiting for the ministerial answer. Hon. Members will not attach much importance to that. I have always found ministerial answers to be predictable. The fun begins when a Minister answers supplementary questions.
I am sorry that that experiment is not being tried now. I feel sure when we have had the ration and have seen how the number of Questions mounts up from 15,000 to 20,000, we shall again come back to another Select Committee which eventually, I think, will adopt Professor Chester's suggestion.
Turning to the criticisms made of the two reports of the Procedure Committee, and dealing first with that concerning the Consolidated Fund Bill, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is very worried because he and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) both said they did not like the ballot and we had paid no attention to them. The position of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West is not the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West is the chairman of the Parliamentary Affairs Group of the Labour Party. Whereas my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely was the chairman of the 1922 Committee. His opposite number, the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), said he wanted Mr. Speaker to select the subject. He was not in favour of the ballot. The evidence we had, except that from the hon. Member for Nottingham, West and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, was in favour of the ballot and against the first-come, first-served principle. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) gave as his reason the fact that the ballot would discourage the "packing" abuse one saw.
Mr. English: If the right hon. Gentleman will read my speech he will see that I made the point that the chairman of the 1922 Committee is neither the equivalent of the chairman of the Parliamentary Affairs group, myself, nor the equivalent of the right hon. Member
1052
for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), the point being that what the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely and I have in common is that we are the only two back benchers, whereas the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party is a Front Bencher elected by the whole party.
Sir Robin Turton: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely gave his own opinion.
Generally most Members are in favour of the ballot. That is the general view of the Committee on Procedure.
The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) criticised our suggestion for the cut-off at five o'clock. As I understand it, he is in favour of Mr. Speaker allotting time for debate, but he is against the cut-off. The reason why we must have a cut-off is that Mr. Speaker cannot apportion the time unless he knows what time there is to apportion. We, therefore, recommended for the two debates, the winter and summer debates, the longest time that we had had previously. In other words, one would go until one o'clock at night, then adjourn, and go over to a Friday to make up the full time. We had an assurance from the then Leader of the House that that could happen on one of the two occasions, but there might at times be difficulty on the other. Therefore, we put in the alternative, which has now been embodied in the motion, that there would be the five o'clock cut-off.
The House must recognise that the habit of going through the night does not gain the admiration of the country, and it is inconvenient to the staff. I believe that this is a lesson which the House must learn. So long as I have any appointment on the Select Committee on Procedure, I shall try to reduce the amount of time which the House spends late at night, because I believe that it makes the House a laughing stock in the country and I cannot think that it is good for business or for those who work for us.
That is why we made our recommendation. Many Fridays are used by the Government for their business, and that business finishes early. This happens particularly often on Fridays in the summer. I believe that an adjustment could be made, as we suggested, by making a gap in Private Members' Fridays, the Government giving one Friday to the

1053
Consolidated Fund, and then the Private Members' Friday being taken one week later. I am sure that it could be done.
I am sorry that we are not to have written ministerial statements. I hope that the Opposition will reconsider this matter. The suggestion originated from one of their own Members, the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), and I thought it very wise, for this reason. Recently, the number of Questions for Written Answer has increased to 20,000 a Session, a huge increase. It has gone up by 100 per cent. Small decisions by Ministers are increasing in number, and it is necessary for the House to be told about a decision before a Minister makes an announcement in the Press.
Whether an oral ministerial statement is made depends on the decision of the Leader of the House, who must have regard for opportunities for business and debate. There cannot be too many ministerial statements. At present, we find that policy decisions are being tucked away in a large number of Written Answers, which makes it hard for a Member to identify them.
As I say, I hope that the Opposition will think again about this. I understand that the Government would be perfectly ready to make the innovation. Written ministerial statements would be advertised in the Opposition Lobby, and would be available in the Vote Office at 3.30 p.m. I am sure that, if it were adopted, this procedure would be a great improvement for the House.
I am surprised that we are not to have "injury time" on Private Member's motion days. We thought this a reasonable recommendation. It was put forward by a back bencher who pointed out that there had been an occasion, on 13th December 1971, when a Private Member's motion had been delayed for 1½ hours by three ministerial statements, one Private Notice Question, and two applications under Standing Order No. 9.
We thought it reasonable that that amount of "injury" time should be given after seven o'clock. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central—if it was not, I apologise—who said that—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

PROCEDURE

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Motions relating to Procedure, Parliamentary Questions, delegated legislation, Attendance of Members at Meetings of Select Committees and Business of the House (Consolidated Fund Bills) and the Housing (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Prior.]
  Question again proposed.
  10.1 p.m.
  Sir Robin Turton: The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central said that that would be in breach of the ten o'clock rule. But it would not. It would mean that if the Government, through ministerial statements, wished to take the time of Private Members' motions, they would have to be robbed of that time between seven o'clock and ten o'clock.
  The proposition is very reasonable. It is not fair continually to cut down the time devoted to Private Members' motions. It does not happen on Standing Order No. 9 debates. Members get "injury" time in those instances; they have the three hours. In the 1967–68 or the 1968–69 Session, on two occasions out of four, time for Private Members' motions was cut by over an hour.
  I wish to say a word or two on the question of the right of Members to attend Select Committees. This is not an easy matter. There has been much discussion about the Civil List. What critics of our recommendation have forgotten is that unless some rule is laid down the only remedy for a committee is to adjourn. In certain instances witnesses will not give evidence, and they make it clear that they will not give evidence, unless it is limited to the members of the committee. If a Member demands that he should attend the committee, the only remedy for the committee is to adjourn, and to keep on adjourning.
  We made it absolutely clear that a Member should have the right to attend meetings of all Select Committees—and that applies particularly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) said—but that a committee should have the right by resolution to exclude other Members for a special reason, and that is embodies in the motion which has been accepted by the

  1055
  Government. I do not see how hon. Members can object to that.
  Mr. English: There are two points. First, the matter is not quite as the right hon. Gentleman has put it. Whereas formerly Members had the right to attend the deliberations of Select Committees, under the proposal of the Select Committee on Procedure as accepted by the Government, we would not have that right, even if it were the Services Committee discussing our own parliamentary building, which surely is not a subject classified as secret as there are exhibitions about it all over the place.
  Secondly, nobody objects to there being a rule that, although Members should have the right to attend during the evidence of witnesses, we should give the committee a power, not to exclude them from hearing classified information or information which the committee is not likely to publish, but a blanket power. It was exactly that power which the Civil List Committee thought it had, found it had not but did not wish to come to the House to obtain it because it wanted to meet in secret.
  Sir Robin Turton: The intention of our recommendation was that all Members should be able to attend but that the committee should have the power to exclude them. If our recommendation is not drafted sufficiently clearly for the Government, it can be amended for that purpose.
  The evidence that we received from both the then Opposition Chief Whip and the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party was that it was extremely embarrassing for Members to have the right to attend during deliberations. It is far from certain, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, that that was the old practice. I think the old practice was that Members could not attend Select Committees to which they were not appointed during deliberations, but they could always attend when evidence was given.
  Our recommendation is an attempt to bring the law back to what it was accepted to be in recent years. I very much hope that that is not delayed, because it can be embarrassing if one or two hon. Members try to obstruct the
  1056
  work of a Select Committee by attending when their attendance is inconvenient.
  10.6 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: I think that sufficient has been said in the debate to make the Leader of the House realise that the House as a whole has not yet had enough time to consider all the implications of the proposals that he is asking us to accept. That point was made with considerable force by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). It would surely be undesirable that with such a small number of Members in attendance these important changes in our practice and procedure should be made.
  I give notice that I do not propose to put the amendments standing in my name when the time comes for them to be called. That may help to shorten the proceedings so that we do not have another debate after the general motions moved by the Leader of the House have been considered. For the convenience of the House, and in the spirit of good will which should prevail at this time of the year, I do not propose to press my amendments.
  The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) referred to injury time affecting Private Members' motions. That leads me to remind the Leader of the House that we never have a full hour for Questions. Four or five minutes are taken up by Prayers, there may be one or two private Bills to which objection is taken, or one or two petitions. Therefore, the ordinary back bench Member never has a full hour of Questions in which to probe, display his talents, or annoy the Government. The Leader of the House might be disposed to consider that the hour for Questions should commence as soon as Mr. Speaker calls upon the first hon. Member to put his Question. In that way Question Time may run to 3.35 or 3.36 p.m., but at least we would have the full hour for Questions to which we are entitled.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central does not agree that it would serve a useful purpose to have one hour for Questions on Friday mornings, and I am sorry that the Leader of the House has not accepted that proposal. No one is under any obligation

  1057
  to attend the House at any time. Ministers—even Shadow Ministers—may find it necessary to be absent from the House on a day other than Friday. No one will criticise them for that. I think that if this concession were made it would be found that it was not used only by London Members. There are many provincial Members who would like to avail themselves of this hour on a Friday morning. They could do so and still get home or back to their constituencies in time for an evening meeting.
  Reference has been made to the extent to which the Order Paper is overloaded with Questions. The Father of the House is able to say that this is done to an extent that has never been equalled in the past. The committee has put forward a complicated proposal to allow every Member eight Questions every 10 days. I think that it will be necessary for the Table Office to have a computer to work that out.
  If the intention is to ration Questions it would be simpler to allow each Member one oral Question a day. That would be the effect of the Amendment which I do not now intend to move. As Dr. Johnson said on one occasion, "Impending execution is a powerful incentive to the concentration of thought." If a Member were allowed only one oral Question a day he would have to decide for himself which were the important issues and which were not and the Order Paper would not be cluttered up to the extent it is now by Questions which we know in advance will never be answered orally. The kind of rationing that I have suggested would reduce the number of Question on today's Order Paper by about 20. The idea is certainly work considering, because it would enable perhaps the second or even the third Minister on the Order Paper to be reached much more frequently than happens now. I suggest that this business of eight Questions every
  1058
  10 days is unnecessarily complicated, and I am being even more generous than the Leader of the House when I suggest one oral Question per day. That would be the simplest and easiest way of dealing with the problem.
  Today's Order Paper contains 37 Questions to the Secretary of State for Wales. That means that the words
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Wales"
  are repeated 37 times. Would it not he much simpler to have a heading, "To ask the Secretary of State for Wales" followed by a number Mr. So-and-So, and his constituency and Question, and so on? That would save an awful lot of printing.
  I have calculated that on today's Order Paper up to 600 words would have been saved, and when Questions are addressed the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the saving would be even greater. The tendency of the present Administration is to have Ministers with long titles, and I am sorry for the printer who has to set up long titles over and over again. It would be easy to have a much more streamlined Order Paper without prejudice to the rights of individual Members.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will consider that suggestion because day after day we get a lot of printed material thrown at us and anything that we can do to reduce the number of printed words that we have to read is worth considering. The same applies to written Questions. By adopting this procedure we would also save paper and that too, is worth considering.
  I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House. I shall consider my contribution to the debate to have been worth while if the Leader of the House accepts my proposal to cut down the amount of printed material on the Order Paper.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am all for the verbal surgery proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). To use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), we are in injury time, so I shall confine myself to certain specific issues.
  The first speech to which I wish to refer is that of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton). I happen to know something about the case he raised, which is prima facie an important House of Commons matter. The attitude of mind among Ministers that is revealed is one that spreads over into other matters. I hope that the Leader of the House will raise with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the question of the whole style and behaviour of the Scottish Office over certain key appointments in our constituencies.
  Should not Members of Parliament be given the courtesy of at least being informed before appointments are made, such as appointments to the chairmanship of new towns in their constituencies? When it is put to them that certain things will happen in their constituencies, they can be trusted not to inform the Press beforehand or leak an announcement. But we are often approached by members of the Press who bring us the news, and it is very embarrassing to have to say, on inquiry, "This is the first I have heard about it." Therefore, the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is important, and a general issue. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider it his business to go into it.
  I echo in general the thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). I wish specifically to raise the matter of Private Notice Questions. I do not think that this is a debate in which back bench Members or Front Bench Members should tell you how to conduct yourself in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. What I have to say is not meant in that spirit. But may we ask on what criteria a number of Private Notice Questions are allowed? I think specifically of all the relatively minor accidents. Doubtless, when two or three people are killed in a bridge disaster or railway accident it is
  1060
  very miserable, but it is immediately obvious what the House of Commons can do about it.
  There seems to be some force that motivates many hon. Members when an accident happens in their constituency to feel that they must, even against their own better judgment, raise the matter in the House, although they know perfectly well that the House and the Government can do nothing about it until there has been an inquiry. Time and again we go through a somewhat embarrassing ritual. We find it difficult to understand why sad but relatively less important matters are raised in prime time of the House when very important matters are often turned down—for example, an important development in the war in Vietnam or the situation in Ireland. I have made the point and I leave it at that.
  It would be a pity if the time on the Consolidated Fund Bill were cut down. It is often one of our more valuable exercises, and the idea that time is limited gives even more power to the Executive. There may well be a case, for the purposes of the staff, for starting the debate again at 8 a.m. after an adjournment, though I am not convinced of this. But any reduction of the total time on Consolidated Fund would be a great pity.
  Finally, I should like to ask two questions. The first is about the position of Scotland, a labyrinthine subject. Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to write to some of us about it. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), a great expert on these matters, is baffled, the rest of us need not be embarrassed about being baffled. We do not understand the relationship of Scottish business to statutory instruments. If there is no Scot on the Committee, the Scottish business—[Interruption.]
  The right hon. Gentleman can deal with this in his winding up speech or perhaps he would care to give me a considered answer in writing. That is as far as I wish to take that question.
  Finally, this may seem to some of my hon. Friends a somewhat self-interested point, but I am not entirely happy about the rationing of Questions. I hope that it is not entirely for selfish reasons, because as I am a frequent questioner I

  1061
  am one of those who blatantly use Questions for a campaign If Questions are rationed it makes that campaign that much more difficult.
  Let me put it in other terms. All of us here, whatever view we take of the merits of the subject, must have some admiration for the campaign which was conducted by the then hon. Member for Kidderminster on purchase tax. There is no doubt that rightly or wrongly the present hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) altered the attitude in the House towards purchase tax and many aspects of taxation. The hon. Gentleman could not have done that had there been a rationing of Questions on a tighter scale.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that the rationing that is proposed is so loose that one wonders if it is rationing at all. I hope that this is not too much the thin end of any particular wedge, because speaking personally—I hope that hon. Members will take this in the spirit in which it said—I could not have conceivably had any effect on the policy of the then Labour Government on Aldabra, variable geometry aircraft and various other causes had Questions been limited. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) will understand this point because he has done the same on occasions. If one is limited in the Questions one can ask it gives that much more power to the Executive.
  Are we sure that this is what we want? Hon. Members opposite may one day be in opposition again. It may be that they will want to campaign on certain issues. I warn them that this is the thin end of a wedge and it may not be a wedge that they particularly like when they examine its consequences.
  This may seem like bestowing advice on the Chair, which I do not need to do. Surely the purpose of Questions is scrutiny. It should be within Mr. Speaker's discretion, and we should encourage him to use it, to permit scrutiny as he thinks fit. I would often be happy not to be called for a supplementary at all if in Mr. Speaker's view an adequate answer had been given to the Question I had put. There are occasions when I would dearly like to get in a second supplementary question and, if in Mr. Speaker's
  1062
  discretion it was thought to be useful, a third supplementary question on the one issue.
  When I was first elected to Parliament the then Member for the Cities of London and Westminster—Sir Harry HyltonFoster—as Mr. Speaker used on occasion to allow a second and, indeed, a third supplementary question. That is when, to use a phrase that I would not have used—I believe that it was used by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton—the fun begins. I would not say "when the fun begins" so much as when the scrutiny and revelations start, because it is on the second and third jab that one can get to the heart of a matter.
  I am not suggesting that this course be adopted on parochial subjects. Incidentally, there are many of us who ask a lot of Questions but who hardly ever ask a constituency question because we go about our constituency business in a rather different manner. If the subject is parochial or trivial, then do not let us have second and third supplementary questions. On the other hand, if it is a subject of national importance in which the consensus of the House makes it clear to Mr. Speaker that there is rather wide general interest, surely it should be in Mr. Speaker's discretion to allow the questioner a third stab. Rather than being rationed in questions let us be frequently turned down and refused even one supplementary if the question is trivial or if the answer has been given and let us, when the occasion arises, really be able to strike and strike again.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. James Tinn: I want to refer to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) about Questions on Fridays. While I recognise that he is as much a provincial Member as I, I must say that he did not satisfy me about the difficulties which would arise for a provincial Member in deciding priorities and choosing whether to put a question in the House or deal with constituency commitments.
  Many of us who customarily regard ourselves as being committed to this place from Monday to Thursday inclusive also regard ourselves as being pretty fully committed in our constituencies for the remainder of the week for a long time

  1063
  in advance. I feel it is necessary for me to be in my constituency on Friday afternoons and even Saturday mornings. If Questions on a Friday were to be answered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry I should need to decide whether I wanted to be in the House on that occasion or continue with my constituency commitments. It could be a difficult decision.
  It would be difficult enough if I wished to table a question but even more difficult if a provincial Member were to find that another hon. Member had tabled a Question which had direct relevance to his constituency and to which he may be able to put a supplementary. There would be an obvious conflict. The position of the constituency Member is particularly difficult in this respect and I am glad that this recommendation is not being proceeded with.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. James Prior: By leave of the House, I would like to reply to the debate, which has been extremely interesting. I am grateful that so many hon. and right hon. Members have stayed on for it. I begin with an apology. I am sorry that more notice was not given on the motions. I shall see that it does not happen again. Towards the end of my speech I will indicate that there will be time for a further discussion on various points.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said he thought that most hon. Members were agreed about the scheme in principle but did not like all the details. He suggested that perhaps we could sort out some of the details. I am perfectly prepared to bide my time and do this. That is the spirit in which I approach the debate. We have to recognise that the procedure of the House must change and has constantly changed with circumstances. When one thinks of what the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) pointed out—the number of statutory instruments, whether affirmative or negative—or neutral—which have to be laid on the Table nowadays, compared with the number a few years ago; when one thinks of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) talked about—the number of parliamentary Questions, whether Oral or
  1064
  Written, which are asked now, compared with the number a few years ago, it is perfectly plain that changes in our procedures have to be made. We may not like giving up some of the old ideas. After all, the business of the House is about keeping the Executive under control. It is about giving all Members proper opportunity to state their views. This is what the House has to carry out.
  In that respect I turn straight away to the problems of the merits committee. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised that issue. I am sorry that there was not perhaps a great degree of support for the proposal.
  This is the whole problem of finding time for these debates. I agree that last Session the problems of finding time for Prayers were very great indeed. I know that we have done much better this Session so far, although probably not well enough. I have not the figures with me, but our record this Session is not very different from the record of the previous Government. For all that, the problem of finding proper time for debating Prayers is not a new problem. It is one which has been the concern of Government of both parties. In an ideal world there would be plenty of time to debate not only Prayers but many other important general subjects, but in practice there is a great deal of pressure on our time, and it was to deal with that problem that the Brooke Committee made its proposal to establish the merits committee.
  If the House should decide in the long run not to accept the proposal for the merits committee we shall do all we can to debate these Prayers on the Floor of the House, but it will not be possible to debate anything like the number which we believe ought to be debated. The merits committee would ensure there would be a formula available for debating Prayers which at present just do not get debated. It would not be an ideal arrangement, but, in my judgment, it would be a better arrangement than having a sizeable number of Prayers not debated at all.
  I recognise the strength of feeling in the House. If the merits committee were to be accepted it would have the power to draw the attention of the House to Prayers which, in the committee's belief, should be granted; it would give reasons for its views; and it would express its

  1065
  views by means of a vote. I accept that. As I have already indicated, I am willing, if it should be the wish of the House, as I think it would be, to table draft terms of reference for the committee. It would vote accordingly. I hope that that will help the House.
  Again, if the committee were to be given that power and were to vote in favour of granting a Prayer, the subsequent pressure on the Leader of the House to find time for debating that Prayer would be so substantial that I am sure time would in practice invariably be found for it.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) told me he would have to leave, and apologised for his absence. He said that the merits committee would have to be circumspect and careful about the decisions it reached. That is probably correct. That would mean that only from time to time would the House find itself in the position of having to deal with a Prayer which had succeeded in the committee upstairs. I should like to make it clear that the procedure which I have just outlined is one which the Government put to the Brooke Committee. I hope very much that we shall be able to go ahead with the committee.
  Mr. Edward Short: What would be the legal effect of the committee's voting in favour of a Prayer? Would the Queen annul the order as a result? Or would it require to be confirmed by a vote of the House?
  Mr. Prior: I should have to find that out for the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Short: Presumably, what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that the Prayer would be in the usual form in committee, a Prayer to the Queen to annul the order, but if the committee, which is a committee of this House, decided to pass the Prayer, would not the Queen immediately annul the order, whatever the House decided
  Mr. Prior: I shall have to check that, but I presume that is what would happen and the Government would have to lay a fresh order which would have to be debated on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. English: Very tentatively, I think the answer is that if it were done that way the legislation would have to be amended, because the legislation requires the approval or disapproval of both Houses. Whatever happens, at some stage that must be done, or a Statutory Instruments Act could be passed to provide for it to be done the other way.
  Mr. Prior: This shows the value of the debate and the many loose ends which need to be tidied up before proceeding to the next stage.
  The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) referred to the chairman of the Joint Scrutiny Committee. I accept as entirely appropriate that the chairman should always be both a Member of this House and a member of the Opposition party. I think that would be acceptable to both sides of the House. Unless we adopt a procedure of this nature I do not believe that we shall ever get a proper scrutiny of regulations. I will seek further consultations with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight and lay motions which take into consideration the points that have been raised in the hope that we shall then be able to proceed quickly.
  The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness asked why the Statutory Instruments Committee had not been set up. The reason is that we hoped that this debate would take place earlier and that we could have a decision on this matter. If there is further delay we will set up the committee, but I would prefer, after our debate tonight and after consultations, to get the Joint Scrutiny Committee and the merits committee working as soon as possible after the House comes back.
  I am intrigued by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for cutting down the amount of printing on the Order Paper. I am not certain whether it is within my responsibility, but I shall be happy to look at that suggestion. There may not be much difference between us. His suggestion is for hon. Members to have one Oral Question a day. My suggestion is for hon. Members to have eight Oral Questions in 10 sitting days. As that works out at a Question a day for each day on which Questions are answered, it is

  1067
  almost the same thing but not quite. The reason for suggesting eight Questions in 10 days is that if an hon. Member wants to ask two Questions of two different Ministers on the same day he is able to do so.
  I turn to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that the rationing of Questions could prevent a campaign from getting off the ground. He quoted the example of the campaign on purchase tax conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). It must be said that the situation was a good deal easier ten years ago because in those days my hon. Friend was allowed three Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on any one day and might well have two Questions on the next day on which the Chancellor answered Questions. Ten years ago there was no problem in getting two or three oral Questions answered by a Minister on the same day. The problem at present is that many more hon. Members are tabling Questions.
  Mr. Tinn: I think it should also be said that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), though I am sure he is too modest to say so, conducted more recently a successful campaign in respect of the Aldabra Atoll.
  Mr. Prior: I do not think the proposals which I am putting to the House will prevent a campaign being pursued equally effectively.
  I am rather more worried about the suggestion that any rationing system would tend to make the occasion more important and might lead more hon. Members to seek to table Questions. I very much hope that that will not happen. The Order Paper is already very overcrowded. That is not the sort of situation which any rationing process would be designed to bring about.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) asked whether I would consult the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, to go
  1068
  through my hon. Friend's remarks with him in order to see whether some change is required in terms of evidence received by the Select Committee—for example, in respect of evidence given by civil servants. I have sympathy with what my hon. Friend said and those of us who heard his speech must have been impressed with what he had to say. I know that the House will want me to discuss the matter openly with the right hon. Member for Fulham. I shall do so, and I shall seek to find some way of reporting back to my hon. Friend and to the House, if that is considered appropriate.
  I turn to the question of the attendance of Members at meetings of Select Committees and to the Consolidation Fund Bill procedures. I have listened carefully to what has been said on both these matters. I explained at the beginning of the debate that these were points which the House must decide for itself and I said the Government had no strong views one way or the other. The motions on the Order Paper are there merely to give a lead so that discussion could take place. I believe that we should not proceed with those two matters tonight, but should take them away and consider them in the light of today's debate.
  That leaves me only with the matter of asking the House to take a decision on the subject of Parliamentary Questions. My own view is that it would be appropriate to allow the motions on Parliamentary Questions to go ahead. I must make clear that this is a one-Session-only experiment. If we do not make some experiments, however wrong they turn out to be, we shall not make as much progress as we should like to make. I hope the hon. Member for Brixton will allow us to go ahead for the rest of this Session on the understanding that it is experimental for one Session only, and that if by the end of the Session we find it not working we shall put other suggestions to the House.
  Mr. Lipton: Does that mean that this section of our procedure that we are discussing will come up automatically at the beginning of next Session?
  Mr. Prior: I should like to consider that. We should have to have a ten

  1069
  'clock debate on it when we had other procedural matters to discuss at the beginning of a new Session. That is how we should have to conduct ourselves on that occasion.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian asked me about what he termed the "labyrinthine" subject of Scottish affairs. Perhaps I might write to the hon. Gentleman when I have read carefully what he said. He also mentioned matters not properly the subject of this debate about the way in which Members of Parliament are kept informed about their constituents' activities. I see the force of what he said—
  Mr. Dalyell: It is not a matter of the activities of our constituents but of major Government appointments in our constituencies.
  Mr. Prior: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I shall see to it that it is considered and that the hon. Gentleman is written to about it when I have done so.
  Probably I have not covered all the points which have been raised. But these are matters in which the whole House is concerned. I want to carry the House with me on them. I hope that we shall be able to make quick progress now on the Statutory Instruments Committee. For tonight, I will not move that motion, nor that concerned with Business of the House (Consolidated Fund Bills) and that concerned with the attendance of Members at meetings of Select Committees. But I ask the House to accept Motions Nos. 6 and 7 dealing with parliamentary Questions.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Short: With the leave of the House, may I thank the Leader of the House for coming so far to meet objections to his proposals. Without, I hope, sounding pompous or patronising, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has acted in the best traditions of the House as Leader of the whole House. I am sure
  1070
  that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree to allow the right hon. Gentleman's proposals relating to Questions to be tried out for a year.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions, of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to Consolidated Fund Bills and Ministerial Statements, of the Third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to the attendance of Members at meetings of Select Committees and of the Report of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee appointed by the Lords on Delegated Legislation, in the last Session of Parliament.

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  Resolved,
  That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions appointed in the last Session of Parliament in the recommendations contained in Paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 19, 28 and 29 of their Report, in the opinions expressed in Paragraphs 24 and 25 thereof and in the conclusions expressed in Paragraph 36 thereof.—[Mr. Prior.]
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 8 (Questions to Members) be amended in line 51, by inserting, at the end, a new paragraph as follows:
  'A Member who, while not desiring an oral answer to his question, desires that the answer to it shall be printed in the Official Report not later than the day for which notice has been given, shall distinguish it with the letter W, and the Minister shall cause the answer to be so printed:
  Provided that the minimum notice for such a question shall be the same as that prescribed for questions for oral answer in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this Order '.—[Mr. Prior.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Do I understand correctly that Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 will not be moved? No. 8 is Delegated Legislation; No. 9 is Attendance of Members at Meetings of Select Committees; and No. 10 is Business of the House (Consolidated Fund Bills).
  Mr. Prior: That is correct.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

JUDGES (MAXIMUM NUMBER)
10.51 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): I beg to move,
That the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
The order is made under Section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1968. It relates to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It does not apply to England and Wales. Under the Act, by virtue of Section 1(1)(c) the maximum number of judges of the Court of Session is fixed at 19, and under Section 1(1)(d) the number of puisne judges of the High Court of Northern Ireland is fixed at four.
As I am sure the House is aware, under Section 1(2) the Queen may by Order in Council alter these figures. No recommendation may be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an order under the section unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.
Accordingly the order deals with the number of judges in the Court of Session in Scotland and the puisne judges in the High Court of Northern Ireland. I propose first to draw the attention of the House to the position of the Scottish judiciary.
Before I deal with the Scottish position, may I with your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, pay a brief tribute to Lord Grant, the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, who was killed with two other people a month ago in a road accident. Lord Grant was a Member of this House between 1955 and 1962. He was Solicitor-General for Scotland and later Lord Advocate. I took
1072
the liberty in court a few weeks ago of stating—and I think that I was entitled to do so—that his untimely death in such tragic circumstances was deeply felt by his many friends at Westminster as well as in Scotland.
I am delighted to congratulate Lord Wheatley on his appointment as Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland in room of Lord Grant. Lord Wheatley was also a Member of this House for many years and was Lord Advocate in Earl Attlee's Administration.
In 1968, when the present Statute was enacted, there were 18 judges in post in Scotland. That had been the situation since 1966. In that year it was deemed appropriate that provision be made for a nineteenth judge to be appointed. No appointment was made until 1971 when the additional appointment was taken up because of the increasing volume of civil and criminal business with which the Scottish judiciary had to contend.
Today I am inviting the House to approve the draft order so far as Scotland is concerned in the light of the continuing increase of judicial business in Scotland. While I do not wish to go into statistics in any great detail, the facts speak for themselves. They are set out in the Civil Judicial Statistics, Command Paper 5028, which was published in August of this year, setting out the statistics for 1971.
Table 1 of the statistics shows a substantial increase in the volume of civil business with which the Court of Session is concerned. It bites most effectively in the work of the outer house, the work of the Court of Session as a court of first instance. One only needs to consider the figures revealed in the table to realise what a tremendous increase there has been in the work of the Court of Session particularly as a court of first instance, and particularly in the last few years.
Leaving aside petitions, interdicts, inner house appeals and the more specialist work of the court, in 1971 about 700 additional civil cases were begun and by the end of this year a further 1,000 cases will have been started—that is to say, about a 10 per cent. increase in 1971 and a further 12 per cent. in 1972.
So much for the civil side. The criminal statistics of course tell a similar story.

1073
I think it is more accurate to look at the number of judge days spent on the criminal side. Again, over the last two years there has been a very substantial increase. In 1970…71 the figure of judge days spent on criminal work was very close on 400; the total for 1972, according to the calculations I have had made, is likely to be almost 100 in excess of that, or about 480 judge days, in itself an increase of nearly 25 per cent.
In addition, in the current session the court is burdened with the work of the Valuation Appeal Court. Every five years under legislation heritable property is revalued in Scotland and there is a right of appeal ultimately to the Land Valuation Appeal Court, and until that work is cleared, which one hopes will be done by about Easter 1973, a very material additional burden is imposed on the court.
I do not wish to elaborate this matter unduly but I assure the House, from my personal knowledge and the discussions I have had with the Lord President of the Court of Session, that I have no hesitation in saying that the Court of Session needs another judge now in order to cope with the work with which it is faced. I commend that part of the order to the House.
In the case of Northern Ireland, as we are all aware the tragic situation in the Province has undoubtedly given rise to increasing pressures, particularly on the criminal side. Even apart from that, however, there has been a substantial increase in the volume of civil work in the court in Northern Ireland and the pressure of criminal work, which is absorbing the full-time attention of two of the four puisne judges, inevitably reacts on the way in which the civil business is transacted. The Northern Ireland court had two additional puisne judges appointed in 1968, and that undoubtedly had an effect in reducing the number of cases which were pending but which had not been disposed of. For a short time the statistics were optimistic but with the increasing volume of criminal work in Northern Ireland the number of civil cases which are pending and which have not been disposed of has been growing year by year.
Likewise cases for trial at assizes by puisne judges in the Province have increased in number from 332 in 1968 to
1074
over 410 last year, and indeed my latest information is that at the beginning of this month the figure had reached a total of 645.
There are clearly special circumstances affecting the situation in Northern Ireland. It is clear, in my respectful submission, that the High Court in Northern Ireland equally needs an additional judge now. For that reason I also commend that part of the order. Indeed, I commend the order as a whole to the House.
11.01 p.m.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for the very clear and cogent way in which he has put the case for the order. I shall not attempt to deal with what is to me the somewhat strange language which arises in relation to the Scottish part of it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) is much more competent than I to do so.
Perhaps I might be permitted to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman in offering my congratulations to Lord Wheatley on his new appointment. I had the great good fortune, although I was not a Member of this House when he was a Member, to work very closely with him when he was a member of the unhappily abortive Royal Commission on the Penal System. His incisive mind and clear down-to-earth temperament were of tremendous value to that inquiry and made a very deep impression. I am certain that he will carry out his new responsibilities admirably.
As regards Northern Ireland, the case made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this House and by the Lord Chancellor in the other place is one which cannot be gainsaid. Indeed, looking at the statistics, both those put to us by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and those given in the speech of the Lord Chancellor, one wonders whether an increase of one in the number of judges is likely to be adequate and whether it might not have been better to cater for a larger number, though not necessarily making the full appointment at this stage.
I support the order as far as it goes. I do so particularly because one of the important factors which arises as a result of the increase in the number of cases awaiting trial is that inevitably one gets

1075
to a position where people are kept in custody for longer periods before their cases can be heard and thus there are more people in custody awaiting trial. As we have learned and said on previous occasions, many of those who are kept in custody eventually are acquitted or, if not acquitted, are not punished by custodial sentences.
Although the order does not apply to this country, one knows from the example particularly of London the very serious effect of having an inadequate number of judges to deal in particular with the criminal jurisdiction. I hope that my remarks about the increase which is being made—I have suggested that it might well be even higher—in the number of judges in Northern Ireland will be read in that context. The number of civil cases awaiting trial is important, but we take the view that the most important matter of all is the number of people in custody and the time which they spend in custody.
To what extent is judicial time in both Northern Ireland and Scotland being given to functions which are not specifically judicial? I noted what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the quinquennial valuation in Scotland. We order things somewhat differently in England and Wales and judicial time is not normally taken up on those matters save on points of law, and that only rarely. But I noted in the Lord Chancellor's speech the reference to Royal Commissions and other commissions and boards of inquiry which occupy the time of judges in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as they do in this country.
In asking this question I am by no means suggesting that it is wrong that judges should be so employed. Often they are the most appropriate people to be so employed. There have, however, been occasions when one might have thought that taking a particular judge away from his judicial duties to chair a certain tribunal was not necessary and that others might have performed the same task with equal facility and, perhaps, greater knowledge of the subject matter. I do not suggest that that happens often but I hope that the general rule will be, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales, that the use of judicial time for these extra-judicial duties will be kept to the essential
1076
minimum, because if a judge is taken away from the trying of cases to deal with other matters one inevitably works up the sort of arrears of legal business, including criminal business, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
I have one other question regarding Northern Ireland. I note from the Lord Chancellor's speech that, as one might expect, after additional judges were appointed in 1968 more cases were tried but that during this last year the number has fallen back. Is there any reason for that and, if so, will the Lord Advocate explain it? As the Lord Chancellor said,
"In the last year there has been a virtual explosion in the number of prisoners awaiting trial in custody".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th December 1972; Vol. 337. c. 764.]
It is highly undesirable, particularly in Northern Ireland, that on the one hand there should be detention for political reasons and on the other hand a large number of people awaiting trial but kept in custody through either a shortage of judges or, as appears to have been the case in the past year, a slowing down in the rate of the trying of cases.
Subject to those points and any points which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith may wish to make on the Scottish aspect, we on this side of the House will not oppose the order.
11.11 p.m.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: The House will be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and to the hen. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) for the support they have given to the order. I cannot speak about the effect of the order on the justiciary in Northern Ireland, but I agree completely with the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend that there has been a continuing and, indeed, a worrying increase in the burden of business on the justiciary in Scotland.
All of us would want to joint with my right hon. and learned Friend in congratulating Lord Wheatley on his appointment. I say that with particular feeling, because I recall very well that the noble Lord moved some very helpful amendments in another place to the Interest

1077
on Damages (Scotland) Bill which I introduced in this House. I remember the helpful and responsible view which he took of the whole matter.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to join my right hon. and learned Friend in the tribute he paid to the late Lord Grant. We in the House of Commons remember him as a generous, considerate and true friend. While his tragic and untimely death was seen in Scotland as a great loss to the Scottish judiciary, I think that we here saw it as much more than that. It was the loss of a very close friend. We mourn him deeply and extend our deepest sympathy to his family.
There has been a great increase in the burden on the Scottish justiciary, and I cannot say whether it is right to increase the number of judges by one or two or more. However, if my right hon. and learned Friend suggests that an increase of one is right, that is sufficient for me. I am satisfied that we need to increase the number, and I am content to be guided by him as to the right number.
It is important that the course of law —and I speak as a layman—should be seen to be exercised as speedily as possible within the general understanding of natural justice. If this order will achieve that I support it totally, as I believe it will be supported by every well-balanced person in Scotland.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Ronald King Murray: I should like to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid to the late Lord Grant. There is no doubt that his judicial stature will not be dimmed by the passage of time. I should also like to associate myself with the congratulations which have been paid to the appointment of Lord Wheatley as Lord Justice Clerk.
Nobody would doubt that the statistics which the Lord Advocate has given to the House certainly justify the increase in the establishment of Scottish judges by one. Indeed, I share the doubts expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) that it is a modest increase which might have been greater on the statistics alone.
1078
I think we have to look not only at the Scottish but at the Northern Ireland position. Certainly it should not go unrecorded that the establishment of the Court of Session in Scotland in 1532 was 15 judges. Now it has increased to a modest 20. I do not think anybody would seriously argue that an increase of 25 per cent. in the establishment over more than four centuries is excessive.
I should like to put a question to the Lord Advocate on both the Scottish and the Northern Ireland increases. We know that the judges have an increasing volume of civil and criminal business to get through. Of course, the weight of public opinion tends to fall on the side of the criminal business. It is there that the law's delays are most conspicuous and achieve the greatest degree of publicity. But it is important to know to what extent the judicial infrastructure requires to be augmented. It is not much good increasing the complement of judges by the modest figure provided for in the order unless we have the ancillary staff to go with the additional judge. I hope that the Lord Advocate can satisfy us that in both Scotland and Northern Ireland there are sufficient trained ancillary staff in the judicial infrastructure to go with the appointment of additional judges.
I welcome the order as giving a modest increase which is at least justified by the statistics alone. However, it is also right to direct our attention for a moment to the extra-mural, extra-judicial, activities of judges. It would be a sad day for the Government and administration of this country generally if it were felt that Royal Commissions and other non-partisan public inquiries were not to have the services of Her Majesty's judges from time to time. There are some instances when it is appropriate to have a partisan inquiry in which it would not be correct to have one of Her Majesty's judges in attendance or as a member of a committee or commission, but there are many other spheres in which Her Majesty's judges have played a very important role in bringing about changes in the law and administration of the country. Indeed, one need only instance the Local Government (Scotland) Bill at present going through this House and recall that the Commission was chaired by Lord Wheatley, who is now the Lord Justice

1079
Clerk. Therefore, it would be a sad day for the administration of this country if the independence of the judiciary were not recognised in this important social function.
11.14 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: By leave of the House I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides for the welcome they have given to the order.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) referred to the extra-mural activities of Her Majesty's judges. I entirely share the views which he expressed on the valuable part that the judiciary can and does play in public life by chairing commissions and committees of inquiry of all kinds.
One of the problems is that with a small bench any encroachment that is made upon it for this type of public service has a much greater impact on its work than is the case in England and Wales where one has a larger bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked to what extent this public service takes place today. There are at present four committees presided over by members of the Scottish bench—that is 20 per cent. of the whole bench.
I should add that the Emslie Committee which recently reported and made certain recommendations with regard to penalties provided for murder recommended that there should be a High Court judge as a member of the parole board in Scotland, and Lord Wheatley, who has just been appointed Lord Justice Clerk, was a few weeks ago appointed a member of the board. One of the problems facing a relatively small judiciary is that if we are to use these highly qualified people for these important public functions there will necessarily be a greater impact on the work of the bench than in a larger jurisdiction.
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) raised the question whether one extra judge for Northern Ireland was enough. All I can tell the House is that that was the request from the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. In his view that is sufficient for the moment at least. If the situation requires further additions it will be possible for my right hon. and learned Friend
1080
the Attorney-General and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in another place to come forward with another order.
I am grateful for the tributes that have been paid to Lord Grant, for the congratulations that have been given to Lord Wheatley on his recent appointment and also for the general welcome that the order has received.
Mr. Ronald King Murray: Before the Lord Advocate concludes, I wonder whether he would deal with the question of the judicial infrastructure.
The Lord Advocate: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, particularly in the criminal jurisdiction, it is not merely a question of providing more judges. The Crown Office for which I am responsible in Scotland likewise has to be strengthened, and this is in the process of being done.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SECONDARY LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider procedures for scrutiny of proposals for European Community Secondary Legislation and to make recommendations.—[Mr. Murton.]
11.23 p.m.
Mr. Richard Body: There are a number of matters which ought to be raised on this important issue. I submit that there are a number of unsatisfactory features in the way that the motion has been presented.
As you may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there has been a report—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Is the hon. Member seeking to oppose the motion?
Mr. Body: I feel bound to oppose it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it from what the hon. Member is saying that he is opposing the motion.
Mr. Body: Yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case I must take his objection.
It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SECONDARY LEGISLATION
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Murton.]

DORMAN LONG (PENSIONERS)
11.24 p.m.
Mr. John Sutcliffe: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring the plight of Dorman Long pensioners to the attention of the House. Inflation continues at a high level. It is important that we should be satisfied that the British Steel Corporation is making sufficient provision to protect the standard of living of its pensioners. This is of concern not only to present and past steel employees but to the public generally who, as taxpayers, provide the money for and, through the Government, are sole shareholders in the corporation.
More particularly, the public will want to be assured that the corporation is administering the Dorman Long pension fund exclusively in the best interests of the Dorman Long pensioners. Members of the Dorman Long scheme who retired on or before nationalisation are in particularly difficult circumstances. Their pensions are small, a reflection of the comparatively low earnings they received during their working lives. They benefit far less from percentage increases than do pensioners with current higher pensionable incomes. Dorman Long pensioners are losing on all sides. They are not just a small group of retired executives. The Dorman Long pension scheme covered administrative, clerical and technical staff. It also covered foremen and weekly-paid employees. In April 1968, the last date for which the figures are available, there were 3,489 members still contributing, and 626 drawing pensions averaging £310 a year.
Dorman Long was one of the private companies taken over by the BSC. It was one of the few to have a self-invested rather than an insured pension fund. The fund is therefore capable of
1082
earning a profit to supplement pensions, and its trust deed provides for periodic actuarial valuation at intervals of not more than five years and for distribution of whatever surpluses may exist. The latest valuation revealed a £1 million surplus. This made possible a 2½ per cent. per annum increment to pensions.
It should be made clear at the start that that award, effective as of 1st July 1970, was made simply in accordance with the rules for distributing the profits of the self-invested fund. No doubt it was marginally useful in offsetting inflation, but the award was not made for that purpose. It being quickly eroded at the then current rate of inflation, approaching 10 per cent., the question arose as to the date of the next valuation. Five years seemed too long an interval, and the corporation was asked whether reviews could be more frequent, especially as it was pointed out that other companies, public and private, had injected money into pension schemes to meet the erosion they had suffered from inflation.
In the light of this I suggested to Dr. Finniston, the corporation's deputy chairman, in a letter dated 9th October 1971, that:
"The corporation will be defaulting on its obligations to all its former employees and those of its constituent companies unless a serious attempt is made to pay to pensioners the sums they were originally intended to receive, that is, amounts equivalent in purchasing power to their original pensions. The arguments for so doing are particularly strong in the case of the Dorman Long group, which took action in both 1947 and 1957 to counteract the impact of inflation on pensions, even though the rise in prices during those two periods was in no way comparable with that recently experienced."
The corporation's reaction was extraordinary. It announced a general 3 per cent. increase in pensions and denied all but half of 1 per cent. of it to members of the Dorman Long scheme. The 2½ per cent increase previously awarded to Dorman Long pensioners was to be deducted from the 3 per cent. that they would otherwise have received from the corporation.
I wrote to Lord Melchett on 6th December 1971 saying that it seemed particularly unjust that the successful management of this pension fund should be regarded as a reason for reducing BSC's contribution. I went on to suggest that the chairman should consider

1083
granting the full increase irrespective of increases awarded after retirement by the trustees of former pension schemes or by former companies.
To that letter Lord Melchett replied as follows on 17th December:
"As the corporation is now a single business it should not differentiate between employees notwithstanding the differing practice in the past of the various companies and funds."
As a reason for the corporation chairman's decision this is absurdly unsatisfactory. It supported not his argument but mine. The way not to differentiate between employees is for the corporation's contribution to be the same for all, not 3 per cent. for some and a derisory ½per cent. for others.
I need not dwell on the sense of injustice or the bitterness felt by Darman Long pensioners, but it can be gauged from the terms of the letter they received on 13th July 1970 which announced their 2½ per cent. increment. The letter explicitly stated:
"It should be emphasised that the above increases do not arise from a review by the BSC of the adequacy of existing pensions. They are in fact as explained above a distribution of surplus arising from the fund's continuing to invest members' and employer's contributions over past years."
Despite this letter and despite the 7 per cent. salary increase backdated to 1st January 1972 which the corporation staff have received, Lord Melchett has refused to restore equity by granting Dorman Long pensioners the full 3 per cent., the 3 per cent. they had confidently expected.
One is forced to contrast this situation with the pressure behind the disappointed pensioners who expected the Christmas bonus and who now, on account of that expectation and political pressure, are not to be deprived of it after all. The treatment of Dorman Long pensioners is quite indefensible. Considered in the light of the way similar pension schemes are handled by other nationalised industries, it is scandalous. British Railways, the National Coal Board and the Electricity and Gas Councils all review their staff pensions annually and they grant increases in line with the Pensions (Increase) Act. These increases are substantial, 18 per cent. in 1971 alone. They are granted to all pensioners under the jurisdiction of those bodies, not just to members of the nationalised industries' own scheme
1084
but to members of the private schemes inherited on nationalisation. So it may be said that in its present pensions policy the British Steel Corporation is totally out of step with other nationalised industries.
Thanks to the built-in annual reviews, an employee of the Electricity Council, for example, who retired in 1948 with a pension of £100 a year would now be getting £282.58, almost three times the original amount. The pension of a Dorman Long fund pensioner who retired in 1948 has less than doubled and that of a Dorman Long pensioner who retired in 1957 has increased by less than half in 14 years. That is the discrepancy.
The history of the Dorman Long fund prior to nationalisation makes it even more glaring, because the private company acted to increase pensions. For example, in 1948 the existing insured scheme was replaced by a self-invested one able at that time to offset inflation through its earnings. In 1957 the per annum pension rate for each year's pensionable service was increased from one-one hundred and twentieth to one-seventieth of pensionable salary, which in turn was increased by £30. Had nationalisation not intervened and put off the 1968 review, which did not take place until 1970, there can be no doubt whatever that this private company which acted in 1948 and 1957 would have acted again 10 years later to pump money into its pension fund in order to maintain and restore the original value of its pensions, as ICI and other private companies have regularly done over the years.
The bleak fact is that Dorman Long pensioners have received all told a 3 per cent. increment since 1957, made up of the 2½ per cent. distribution in 1970, in no way connected with the adequacy of pensions, and the niggardly ½ per cent. in 1971, being the corporation's contribution to offset the effects of 14 years of inflation. Yet between 1958 and 1963 the Dorman Long pension fund increased by £2,270,000 and amounted to £5,148,068 by April 1968, when the interest reserve fund contained £633,606. Since then the position is unclear.
I can get no specific information about how the fund has fared in the last four and a half years. I only know that the 1970 quinquennial valuation, a valuation due in 1968, revealed a surplus of over.

1085
£1 million, making possible the 2½ per cent, increment. I do not know exactly how big that surplus was or just how it was distributed. This is important because according to clause 8 in the Dorman Long trust deed there are five separate uses to which profit can be put. While the increasing of benefits is fifth on the list it is a use to which reserve fund surpluses can also be put, according to a further provision of the deed.
I am therefore surprised that the increments received by pensioners from the fund have been so small. There is concern about the administration of the fund, which is justified because specific information is apparently not available. We know neither the current amount in Dorman Long or BSC pension funds nor the average age of the pensioners. Nor do we know whether the corporation's recent 3 per cent. award was paid out of the corporation's own pension fund surplus or out of corporation moneys generally. The source of the ½ per cent. is also unclear. The amount of the½per cent. is insignificant. What is significant about it is the fact that this insultingly small ½ per cent. represents an acknowledgement of the corporation's responsibility to increase Dorman Long pensions. Unfortunately that responsibility or moral obligation inherited from the private company to do all in its power to maintain the real value of the pension the corporation has conspicuously failed to carry out.
This is not just a matter of justice for those who have contributed to a private company fund that the private company can no longer protect and supplement. The issue is the equitable use of both private and public funds for the protection of pensioners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot just stand aside. Dorman Long pensioners have watched, and go on watching, their standard of living being remorselessly eroded. The only guarantee they and the general body of pensioners have is that their funds will be valued at least once every five years. They have no assurance that they will get any increase at all, far less that increases will follow the cost of living or give them the purchasing power they were originally intended to have.
Contrast this with the Government's promise to review old-age pensions every year and their determination at the very
1086
least to maintain their purchasing power; compare this with the annual reviews by other nationalised industries and their pension increases linked to the cost of living. I ask the House, where is the ability of these pensioners—victims of multiplying injustices—to appeal from the corporation's arbitrary decisions, except through Parliament and to the Minister? I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to look into this matter and that, having done so, he will make representations to and use his influence with the corporation to achieve at least these minimum objectives: that the corporation should provide information, so far unavailable, about the administration of its own and the Dorman Long pension scheme, that it guarantees an annual review and gives some assurance of realistic increments linked to the cost of living.
I would like to believe that Lord Melchett will be persuaded, as he has not so far been persuaded by any of my protestations over the past year or more, that Dorman Long pensioners merit equal treatment with that of other corporation pensioners, which means awarding them the full 3 per cent. arising from the one and only review by the corporation to date of the adequacy of its existing pensions.
11.41 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): Obviously, I welcome the opportunity of responding to the questions which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) in propounding a strong argument for certain of his constituents, although I must say that he does not do his case any good by some of the flowery language he used, suggesting that the plight of Dorman Long pensioners is that much worse than or different from that of many other pensioners within the British Steel Corporation. The idea of "multiplying injustices", which I think was the term my hon. Friend used, is not really in correspondence with the facts of the case. Let me, therefore, bring the attention of the House to what I see these facts to be.
Basically, when the steel industry was nationalised the corporation inherited some 110 pension schemes of various ages and various sizes. The corporation established its own staff superannuation

1087
scheme in 1969 and has since then assimilated all those company staff pension schemes. A similar scheme for manual workers is about to be launched. Therefore, the Dorman Long pension scheme is in exactly the same sort of state as that of those other pension schemes within the steel industry.
Many of us get fairly worked up by and boggle at the complexity of pension schemes when they are simple and affect only ourselves. The corporation had to gather together and study in detail all those 110 schemes and work out for each individual member how much credit in respect of his past service he would be entitled to under the corporation's new scheme, if he wished to become fully subject to the corporation's scheme. If he did not, he could elect to continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of his former scheme as far as they related to contributions and benefits. The Dorman Long employees had that opportunity and it was up to them how they opted.
It is important to realise what are the statutory responsibilities, because I can answer for them rather than for the management of the schemes, which must be the responsibility of the BSC. Paragraph 40(2) of Schedule 4 to the Iron and Steel Act 1967 states that
"the regulations shall be so framed as to secure that persons having pension rights under the scheme, whether such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection or not, are not placed in any worse position by reason of the amendment, repeal, revocation, transfer, extinguishment or winding up".
That provision sets out to ensure that no person in the new scheme shall be worse off because of the BSC's new overall pension scheme than he would have been if he had stayed with his own pension rights under one of the 110 schemes which existed before the BSC took them over.
Most of the members favoured the terms of the BSC scheme, because less than 7 per cent of nearly 42,000 members elected to continue with their old rights of contributions and benefits. The Dorman Long fund members voted in similar proportions. Of the 3,500 members, over 3,200 elected for the corporation's scheme.
1088
During this operation the corporation's pensions officers toured the country explaining the transfer arrangements to the members and making themselves available to answer questions. No doubt it was this long and careful groundwork that led to the fairly smooth assimilation of these many diverse schemes. In the case of the Dorman Long Fund—I take it that my hon. Friend is referring also to the Redpath Brown and Company fund and the Teesside Bridge and Engineering Company Fund, all of which were transferred with effect from 1st May 1971—the usual transfer procedure was followed. The corporation gave the Department's officials details of the schemes to be transferred and an assurance that all the members of those schemes had elected for assimilation. Regulations were drafted and circulated to the appropriate steel unions and the BSC for comment. In the absence of any objections, the Minister for Industry made the regulations, which were subject to annulment by either House.
The corporation and my Department's officials have always recognised that the existing pensioners of the former companies did not have the same opportunity as had contributing members to express their views on the transfers, but their position was not materially affected by the transfers. The source of payment has been changed from the local company pensions office to the BSC central pensions office in Glasgow.
Before the transfer of the three Dorman Long funds took place, an independent actuary valued them. With BSC agreement, the accumulated surplus was applied to securing for all the existing pensioners an increase in their pensions at the rate of 2½ per cent. That was for each year since their retirement and not, as I think my hon. Friend suggested, a once-and-for-all payment.
Mr. Sutcliffe: No, I did not suggest that.
Mr. Emery: I am sorry; I misunderstood my hon. Friend. That 2½ per cent. was for each year since retirement. Subsequently, the BSC decided to supplement all former company staff pension schemes by 3 per cent. for each year since retirement, but less any increase already given by the former scheme or company. Because the surplus from their

1089
own scheme had already enabled an increase to be paid, the Dorman Long pensioners received only a balance of an increase of ½ per cent. a year. This means that over all the schemes there was a 3 per cent. increase.
It can be argued, and I accept the argument, that people in those schemes have benefited to a greater extent than Dorman Long employees or pensioners, because under their own schemes they would not have obtained 2½ per cent. but have now obtained a full 3 per cent., which is the same as the sum given to the Dorman Long pensioners. The BSC wanted to ensure that the least-well-oft section of pensioners within the corporation had been able to benefit to the same extent as anybody else in the scheme. All are as well off and nobody is worse off than if he had not been part of the BSC scheme.
This may seem unfair to certain Dorman Long pensioners who were members of a self-administered scheme which had accumulated a surplus. However, quite a number of pensioners have been given small increases under their own schemes and the corporation's purpose in supplementing all pensions was to provide an immediate increase in all pensions to offset increases in the cost of living which had taken place since the former company's scheme pensioners had retired. It was therefore considered appropriate—and I can understand this argument—to provide this supplement to account for any increase received since retirement.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not this dissipating throughout the pension funds of the corporation the particular surplus for
1090
distribution under the Dorman Long Fund pension scheme? Is it right that it should be dissipated throughout the corporation at the arbitrary will of the BSC? Does the 3 per cent. granted to everybody in the corporation represent a review of the adequacy of the pension, or was it a distribution of surplus earnings?
Mr. Emery: My hon. Friend must get the situation right. There is no dissipation. In fact, the 2½ per cent. which could have been distributed because of the Dorman Long surplus has in fact been distributed. There are other pensioners in other schemes who have got more, not because of the balances in their own scheme but because the BSC decided, rightly or wrongly, that there should be an overall 3 per cent. Therefore, the only argument that seems to me to be justified is that Dorman Long pensioners should have received more, but if they had received more there would have been an inequity between one section of pensioners in Dorman Long and others in other parts of the steel industry.
I, as Minister, am not responsible for the management of this scheme. This must be part of the BSC management decision. It was its decision that this should go the way it did. Therefore, the Dorman Long pensioners—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

WALES
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Agricultural Industry
  Agricultural Industry
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Animal Trespass
  Animal Trespass
  Roads
  Roads
  Tree Planting Year
  Tree Planting Year
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Railways (Goods and Freight)
  Railways (Goods and Freight)
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Sheltered Accommodation
  Sheltered Accommodation
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Trunk Roads (Dual Carriageways)
  Trunk Roads (Dual Carriageways)
  Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association
  Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association
  Schools (Minister's Visits)
  Schools (Minister's Visits)
  LAW MINISTERS' CONFERENCE (UGANDAN MINISTER OF JUSTICE)
  LAW MINISTERS' CONFERENCE (UGANDAN MINISTER OF JUSTICE)
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
  HIGH COURT JUDGES
  HIGH COURT JUDGES
  CIRCUIT JUDGES
  CIRCUIT JUDGES
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Post-Apollo Programme
  Post-Apollo Programme
  London-Paris (Journey Time)
  London-Paris (Journey Time)
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Japan
  Japan
  Pyramid Selling
  Pyramid Selling
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Paper and Paper Processing (Prices)
  Paper and Paper Processing (Prices)
  Aircrews
  Aircrews
  North Thames Gas Board
  North Thames Gas Board
  Veal (Imports)
  Veal (Imports)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Gas Emergency (Portsmouth)
  Gas Emergency (Portsmouth)
  Live Animals (Export)
  Live Animals (Export)
  Gas (Cardigan Bay)
  Gas (Cardigan Bay)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Oil
  Oil
  Aerospace Policy
  Aerospace Policy
  Industrial Liaison Centres
  Industrial Liaison Centres
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Pacific Area
  Pacific Area
  General Franco (Talks)
  General Franco (Talks)
  British Volunteer Programme
  British Volunteer Programme
  China (Air Services Agreement)
  China (Air Services Agreement)
  Australia and New Zealand
  Australia and New Zealand
  Crown Agents (Company Directorships)
  Crown Agents (Company Directorships)
  West Africa
  West Africa
  Empire and Commonwealth Settlement
  Empire and Commonwealth Settlement
  United Towns Organisation
  United Towns Organisation
  Tonga (Airstrip)
  Tonga (Airstrip)
  Ugandan Asians (Emigration to Latin America)
  Ugandan Asians (Emigration to Latin America)
  Southern Sudan (Relief Aid)
  Southern Sudan (Relief Aid)
  General Gowon
  General Gowon
ENVIRONMENT
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Royal Parks, London (Parking)
  Royal Parks, London (Parking)
  Vehicle Checks (Inspectorate)
  Vehicle Checks (Inspectorate)
  Hollybank Lane, Emsworth (Development)
  Hollybank Lane, Emsworth (Development)
  Ringway 3
  Ringway 3
  British Railways
  British Railways
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Exhibition Facilities
  Exhibition Facilities
  Tyneside Rapid Transit System
  Tyneside Rapid Transit System
EMPLOYMENT
  Lead Refineries
  Lead Refineries
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Clothing Industry
  Clothing Industry
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Travelling Grants
  Travelling Grants
  Foreign Student Employees
  Foreign Student Employees
  Fatalities at Work
  Fatalities at Work
  Sheltered Workshops (Report)
  Sheltered Workshops (Report)
  Commonwealth Trainees
  Commonwealth Trainees
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Frederick Sewell
  Frederick Sewell
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law
  Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law
  Gibraltarians (Immigration)
  Gibraltarians (Immigration)
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  Licensing Laws (Erroll Report)
  Licensing Laws (Erroll Report)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Angry Brigade (Trial Costs)
  Angry Brigade (Trial Costs)
  Foulness (Reclaimed Land)
  Foulness (Reclaimed Land)
  Court Cases (London)
  Court Cases (London)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pneumoconiosis (Post-mortem Examinations)
  Pneumoconiosis (Post-mortem Examinations)
  Spirits (Medicinal Use)
  Spirits (Medicinal Use)
  Nitrous Fumes (Industrial Injury Appeals)
  Nitrous Fumes (Industrial Injury Appeals)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Terminal Patients
  Terminal Patients
  Disabled Persons (Hospital Accommodation)
  Disabled Persons (Hospital Accommodation)
  Pensioners (£10 Bonus)
  Pensioners (£10 Bonus)
  Swimming Pools (Fatal Accidents)
  Swimming Pools (Fatal Accidents)
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Ambulance Accidents (Responsibility)
  Ambulance Accidents (Responsibility)
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Heating Allowances
  Heating Allowances
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Commuter Fares (Tax Concessions)
  Commuter Fares (Tax Concessions)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Customs and Excise Booklets
  Customs and Excise Booklets
  Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland)
  Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland)
  Pensioners (Tax)
  Pensioners (Tax)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Duty-free Concessions (Service Personnel)
  Duty-free Concessions (Service Personnel)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Live Animals (Exports)
  Live Animals (Exports)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
CIVIL SERVICE
  Computers
  Computers
DEFENCE
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve
  Computer Network
  Computer Network
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Research Councils
  Research Councils
  Council for National Academic Awards
  Council for National Academic Awards
  National Photographic Archive
  National Photographic Archive
  Day-release Students
  Day-release Students
  Turner Collection (Admission Charge)
  Turner Collection (Admission Charge)
  Governing Bodies (Teaching Staff Representation)
  Governing Bodies (Teaching Staff Representation)
  Teachers (Status)
  Teachers (Status)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  House Building
  House Building
  Bail
  Bail
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
SCOTLAND
  Murder
  Murder
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission

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

HOUSING: PRICES AND BUILDING POLICY
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further steps they propose to take to control the price of houses offered for sale and to increase the number of houses built for sale and for letting.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the way to achieve stable house prices is to increase the number of houses offered for sale. This is happening. Local authorities are free to sell their houses to tenants who wish to buy them and the Government encourage them to do so. So far as new building is concerned local authorities can build to the extent they consider necessary to meet local housing needs.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he able to tell the House how successful the Government are being in achieving what he says is the right way to approach this matter? Can he assure the House that the number of houses already built this year, and likely to be completed, is in excess of those built and completed in 1963? Is he satisfied that the price of houses is being kept at a reasonable level having regard to the fact that the increase in the cost of living appears to have been a great deal less in the last two years than the rise in the price of houses?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we have of course discussed this subject at
812
some length and no doubt will discuss it again, but there are three things I can say briefly to the noble Lord. The supply of houses for sale in the private sector—the prime sector—is 35 per cent. up in the first ten months of this year as compared with the first ten months of 1970. Particularly satisfactory is the figure for the sale of council houses to tenants. This is 36,000 for the first ten months of 1972—more than double the figure for the whole of 1971. But I fully recognise that had it not been for the general problems of inflation we should have been able to do better still.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, in view of the fact that fewer council houses have been built this year than in any year since 1963, may I ask the Minister what is the point or the profit of selling council houses at all?
LORD SANDFORD: In fact, my Lords, the production of new houses (taking public and private sectors together) is up this year on the year before, and was up in 1971 on 1970. The policy of selling council houses derives mainly from the fact that that is what council tenants want.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to explain how selling council houses adds to the supply of new houses? Will be confirm or deny that the number built in the public sector this year represents the lowest figure, in terms of production in the public sector, since 1967?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that may well be so, but we are not now dealing with an overall national shortage of housing. In those circumstances more houses, both in the public and in the private sector, is the right policy. What we are dealing with now is a strong shift towards the desire for home ownership and the need to meet the general problems of homelessness and housing need. The Housing Finance Act is specially designed to increase the rate of council house building in those areas where it is most needed: in Greater London for example, but not over the country as a whole.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is it or is it not a fact that the number of homeless in this country is larger to-day than at any time, and does what the noble

813
Lord has just said bear any relation to the real problem that confronts these people?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the figures I quoted in answer to the noble Lord's original Question, in answer to his supplementaries, and in previous debates all indicate that the combined effect of the Government's housing policy is meeting the problems of the various towns where the need is greatest. If it had not been for inflation we should have been able to do better still.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Lord try to equate what he said originally to my noble friend, that the way in which to bring the price of houses down is to provide more houses for sale (both built and from ready stock), with the noble Lord's latest submission that there is no shortage of houses? And will be confirm that for this year, 1972, two years after assuming office, the overall figure for new houses will be lower than that for any year prior to 1963 when the previous Conservative Administration was in office?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the position is that the rate of starts of new houses produced for sale over the last three years has been going up steadily. The rate of private houses for sale has been going up rapidly. The overall national figure for public housing starts has been declining.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question I put to him? Is it not a fact that the figure for 1972 will be lower than in any year prior to 1963? Will the noble Lord answer that small, simple question?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to public sector starts, that is so; but if he is referring to starts generally, it is not so.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the Minister knows perfectly well that the question asked was what was the overall figure. Will be please give us what is a quite simple figure, the addition of the public and the private sector?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I have answered that point, but I will be more specific. For the years I have in front of me, 1970, 1971 and 1972, the combined starts are 273,000, 286,000, 296,000,
814
respectively. These figures refer to the first 10 months of those three years.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that one of the most serious social problems in London to-day is the considerable turnover of staffs in schools in London, sometimes amounting to dozens a year in the larger schools, due to the fact that the staff cannot afford to buy houses in London? Therefore, would it not be in the interests of education in London if the Government were to make it possible for houses to be built and rented to the staffs of the schools, either through grants to the councils or directly from the Government?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is precisely an example of the kind of particular and local need to which local authorities are now having to address themselves, more so than in the past. It is not a question of meeting overall need all over the country.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the Minister realise that the increased desire to own houses is a consequence of the lamentable failure of the Government's monetary policy, which created this tremendous boom in house values?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the desire for home ownership, and policies designed to meet it, are, I should have thought, matters on which both sides of this House could unite.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree, in view of the serious concern of the Opposition as to the dwelling accommodation in the country, that the very large inflow of immigrants into the country this year has possibly added to the pressure on housing accommodation?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is another question; but the original answer applies: if there is a strong demand for houses, the way to meet it is by increasing the supply.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, this will be my last supplementary question. With regard to what I originally asked him concerning controlling the price of houses, are the Government satisfied with the difference between the increase in the cost of house building, in terms of

815
wages and materials, as compared with the increase in the price of new houses? Will be confirm or deny that the increase in the price of new houses is running at almost three times the rate of the increase in wages and the cost of materials?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, of course we are not satisfied with the ill-effects of inflation, and that is why we are trying so strenuously to combat it.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what action the Government propose to take over property speculators who buy up old property, take advantage of the repair grants and then sell the property at a great profit?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is another question, which we have discussed extensively on other occasions.

PREMIUM BOND PRIZES
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will resist any proposals to increase the biggest premium bond prizes beyond their present levels.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, experience of running the Premium Savings Bond Scheme has shown that it needs a boost from time to time to stimulate investment and that an increase in the size and number of the top prizes is one of the ways of effectively stimulating sales. For this reason Her Majesty's Government have the structure of the prize draw constantly under review.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that the Premium Savings Bond Scheme is not the same as a national lottery or a football pool, and that huge, sensational prizes would not be in accordance with the spirit or the intention of the Premium Savings Bond Scheme?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am well aware that there are many different
816
views on this subject, especially the views held by my noble friend; and they will certainly be taken into account.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in spite of having been a founder investor I have never been fortunate in the draw; that there are thousands like me, and that we should prefer many more smaller prizes than more even bigger prizes?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I can only express my condolences to the noble Baroness and hope that she will continue to keep trying. But I take her point, and it will certainly be borne in mind.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us think that national lotteries for worthwhile purposes would be better than an extension of the Premium Bond Scheme?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords. As the noble Lord probably knows, there is a departmental committee sitting on the question of lotteries.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, is there available the result of any research that would indicate which stimulates investment in these schemes more, larger prizes or a larger number of smaller prizes?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, all I know is what I have said, that the larger prizes certainly stimulate investment. I am not sure whether there is any evidence for the other alternative.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, with respect, if there are no results from research available, on what criteria does the Minister make the statement that larger prizes stimulate investment? I myself, and a good many other people, feel that a larger number of much smaller prizes would stimulate it far more than a smaller number of much larger prizes.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is just the controversy that exists, and it is up to the National Savings Committee, to whom we look for advice, to advise what they think is best.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, will the Minister agree that with more prizes of lower value more people would participate, to the benefit of the scheme?
LORD ABERDARE: Again, my Lords, this is the matter that we are discussing—which is the more attractive to people, big prizes or a lot of small prizes?
LORD SLATER: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is advisable for this matter to be further considered by the National Savings Committee, in view of his statement that the bigger the prize the greater the stimulus? It is quite obvious that Members of this House are coming down on the side of the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, who asked for more prizes.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the National Savings Committee are well aware of all these views, and will take them into account. But there is no intention at the moment of increasing the prizes.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to suggest to the National Savings Committee that they should avail themselves of the assistance of one of the opinion polls, to discover what is the opinion of the public on this matter?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I shall certainly draw that suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, when he talks about stimulating investing (I think that is what he said), that "investing" is, I believe, the word used by the promoters of the football pools in encouraging people, in their words, to "invest in the pools"?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not aware of that, but I am sure, if my noble friend says that, that that is what they do.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, as representing Welsh Nonconformists, whether he approves of this form of behaviour?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, these are not my personal views that I am expressing.

ECONOMIC EXPANSION AND MONEY SUPPLY
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they reconcile the Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will not tolerate an interference with the re-expansion of economic activity by any restriction on the money supply with the resolution IV, No. 702, of the Council of Ministers of the Common Market of November 6, 1972, according to which Member States are obliged to reduce "progressively the rate of expansion in the money supply" by taking prompt action on the following: "restrictive action on interest rates, liquidity and the volume of credit"; resolutions to which Her Majesty's Government's representatives are reported to have consented.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, there is no inconsistency between the policy of Her Majesty's Government and the resolution on measures to be taken against inflation that has been adopted by the Community's Council of Ministers. The resolution associates the acceding countries with the objectives of reducing inflation, without committing them to the particular measures set out in a number of the Articles, including Article 4. Nevertheless, the Government intend to maintain the progress made in recent months in moderating the growth of money and credit, from the very fast rates recorded earlier this year to rates consistent with their objective for the growth of the economy.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the Minister realise how delighted I am with that Answer, because it shows quite clearly that the Government have no intention of implementing the resolutions of the European Council? It therefore completely bears out our contention that we have subscribed to things to which we cannot hold, just as we have subscribed to the snake in the tunnel and the snake slipped.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I do not realise that at all, and it is not the case. The noble Lord will realise that monetary and budgetary policies remain the responsibility of national Governments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that monetary policy has a major role to play in the battle against inflation, and that he would wish to see the effects of the standstill on prices reflected in the money supply figures. But a very restrictive monetary policy would not be the appropriate method of dealing with the present inflationary pressures, and would involve unacceptable costs in terms of higher unemployment and lost output.

GOLD CONTROL IN BRITAIN AND THE E.E.C.
2.54 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: 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 after January 1, 1973, it will be possible for British citizens if they wish, to buy and hold gold as an investment and whether the rules in this respect will be similar in all European Economic Community countries.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, United Kingdom residents other than authorised dealers may not hold or carry out transactions in gold bullion unless they have the consent of the Treasury. United Kingdom residents are, however, able to deal freely in gold coins. The United Kingdom's accession to the E.E.C. on January 1, 1973, does not carry any obligation to change the present control; and it is not our intention to do so. But, as with all exchange controls, it will be kept under regular review. The present members of the E.E.C. do not restrict dealings in gold within their own countries, though some do restrict the movement of gold with other countries.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask whether the Mint is continuing to produce gold sovereigns which the Bank
820
of England are selling to our compatriots in the Common Market, and will this not raise difficulties in the free movement of goods and persons under the Treaty of Rome?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid I must ask the noble Lord to give me notice of that rather detailed question. The Question on the Order Paper refers to British citizens buying and holding gold. I am afraid that without notice I cannot answer his further question, but perhaps the noble Lord would like to write to me; or I will write to him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders No. 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the House rises for the Christmas Recess; and that Government business do have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other business during the same period.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, before we pass this Motion, may I ask which item of legislation it is proposed to take on one day?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, in particular, the Post Office (Borrowing) Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of that question, can the noble Lord be specific? Is that the only Bill for which the noble Lord intends to use this power?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords; I cannot say that specifically at the moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will have words through the unofficial channels to see that we have some clarity on this matter.
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords; I certainly will.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved. That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the National Health Service Re-organisation Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order, viz.:—

Clauses 1 to 6,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 7 to 15,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 16 to 39.

Schedule 3,

Clauses 40 to 56,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clause 57.—(Lord Aberdare.)

BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, we shall be happy to co-operate in this, as in all other aspects of the passage of this Bill through the House, although some of us have been labouring under considerable difficulties owing to delays in the Christmas post. I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can tell the House whether it has been possible for him to come to some agreement about a slight rearrangement of the Marshalled List, which we have discussed. The problem is that one of the Amendments down to Schedule 1 would pre-empt the general debate on Clause 9, if we were to take it in the order as at present shown on the List.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In fact, I have had words with my noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and I am grateful for their co-operation. I understand that they are willing not to move their Amendment to Schedule 1, but to wait until we come to the relevant clause, which I think is Clause 9. We can then discuss their Amendment and, if they are not satisfied, they can if they wish put down another Amendment at a later stage.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the
822
action which he has taken, and particularly to the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for helping the House in this way. I am sure that it will facilitate the progress of the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Reorganisation of National Health Service]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS SEROTA: Since this first short and seemingly simply clause places the onerous duty of arranging the reorganisation and the unification of the National Health Service in accordance with the provisions of the Bill entirely on the shoulders of the Secretary of State, may I ask the Minister whether he could, at the outset of our deliberations, give the Committee an account of the steps towards reorganisation which have already been taken in advance of the publication of the Bill, and how it is intended to proceed in the coming months? I have already indicated, during our Second Reading debate, that in our view the Bill has come a year too late to give really adequate time to prepare for the major changes which are involved. Although it is admittedly difficult at this early stage to predict when it might receive Royal Assent, even if everyone concerned co-operates to make reasonable progress, as we all agree is necessary to bring to an end as soon as possible the uncertainties which many staff have experienced, it now seems very unlikely that the Bill will reach the Statute Book before the early summer.
Presumably the Secretary of State cannot pre-empt the decisions of Parliament

823
on the nature, the powers and the composition of the new authorities, so they cannot be appointed, I take it, or begin to take executive decisions effectively on the whole range of vital issues involved, including the very important question of senior staff appointments, until the late summer and the autumn. That will be only some seven or eight months, at the very most, before the appointed day. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm this, especially in view of the rumour, referred to during our Second Reading debate, which the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, called "an ugly rumour", that letters are already going out to chairmen of large companies to see whether they have people available to sit on Area or Regional Health Authorities. If this rumour is correct, may I ask the Minister whether the Secretary of State is similarly in process of consulting professional organisations, the universities, the trade unions, staff associations and, indeed, the voluntary movement; and, if not, when he intends to do so?
May I also ask about the situation in relation to the members of the existing authorities who were due to retire this year? Is their period of office being automatically extended to maintain continuity and to reduce unnecessary disturbance at this stage, as is so in the case of the parallel reorganisation of local government? I was very surprised to hear, only last week, of a case locally in which a very long-serving member of a Hospital Board, who was coming to the end of the three-year term of office, was not to be renewed for this further last year, and I know that many noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, as I recall it, pointed out during our Second Reading debate that the reorganisation will in any event drastically reduce the number of lay people at present involved at different levels of the management of this Service. It would scarcely seem necessary to add insult to injury by making further changes at this time.
I am of course aware, from the circulars which the noble Lord has kindly let me see recently, of the steps which have already been taken to establish joint liaison committees with existing Health Authorities, both at regional and area level, and of the very detailed instruct
824
tions they have received from the Department about how to set about undertaking the initial preparatory work and the consultations which are needed to prepare for as smooth a transition as possible. This in itself will be no mean task for the members of the staff involved, in addition to their normal duties of maintaining the existing services, and I am sure that the burden on them will grow in the months to come. Unfortunately, owing to the delay in coming to decisions about the very difficult issues involved in the organisation of the Health Service in London until mid-November, the joint liaison committees have not yet been set up for that area—the area where the problems will be most complex of all, and where the problems of the changeover will be extremely difficult. Could the noble Lord tell the Committee how and when it proposed to establish joint liaison committee machinery in the Greater London area?
As one who experienced a major reorganisation, serving both on the existing authority and also on the newly formed one, I speak with some feeling on this question of the problems of the transition, and I am only too conscious of what these changes involve, first in terms of preparation and then in actual decision-making in the very short time that will now be available before the new authorities are appointed. Fortunately, as the noble Lord the Minister rightly pointed out in our Second Reading debate, relatively few people will be involved in carrying this operation through over the Service as a whole. For the vast majority of the staff in the Health Service, April 1, 1974 will come and go, and all that will result will be a change in the heading, of the notepaper, at least initially. I therefore do not wish to exaggerate the size of the problem in any way: it is already quite large enough, and will fall very heavily indeed on the shoulders of relatively few people. But I think it would help the Committee, and especially the staff of the Service, if the noble Lord could at least outline the plans that he and his colleagues have in mind for the corning year to fulfil the duty which this clause of the Bill places fairly and squarely on the Secretary of State, and, through him, on the staff of his Department, who undoubtedly will be bearing the brunt of it.
3.8 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Baroness has raised several matters. She began by asking me about the steps that have already been taken; and I think she knows as well as I do some of the fairly thorough researches, discussions and schemes that are in progress and have been in progress for some time. There is always a difficulty. Some of us would perhaps have liked things to advance more quickly, but, on the other hand, the more quickly they move the less time there is for discussion and consultation. But I think she will acknowledge that we have been doing our utmost to get the widest possible consultations on the new Service. She knows that various training schemes have been in progress—inter-professional schemes. The noble Baroness has herself mentioned the joint liaison committees, which are rapidly assembling the facts so that once the Area Health Authorities come into being they will be at least knowledgeable about the factual matters in the area which is their responsibility; and I can confirm to her that joint liaison committees in London are now in process of being set up.
The noble Baroness knows, as she preceded me in this particular job, the difficulties that London presents. All I can say is that, with the help of all those concerned, we have been having regular meetings and exhaustive discussions about London; and it is my opinion that, although it has taken some time, the expenditure of that time has been well worth while and we now understand each other's point of view much better. We hope that the proposals we put forward for London will prove satisfactory. The noble Baroness referred to what the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, I thought rather unfortunately, called "ugly rumours", but this is one area in which we have also been thinking ahead. Frankly, we have been thinking about the future membership of these bodies, without any commitment anywhere; and we have naturally been talking to all degrees and all sorts of people who might be able to help, including the bodies representing employees, the trade unions, just as much as anybody else.
I am sorry to hear that the noble Baroness has a particular case in mind of someone who is not to be reappointed
826
for the last year. I was surprised to hear that, and I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness could give me details. The Secretary of State is responsible only for the appointments at regional and board of governors level, and certainly at that level, in so far as I have any say in the matter, I have been hopeful that anybody who had only a further year should serve until the end of the present National Health Service scheme. I think I have answered the questions which the noble Baroness asked me, I hope satisfactorily.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his explanation to the Committee. I am sure he will agree that in the coming months the maximum communication, particularly to staff, will be of immense value in this context. I particularly welcomed seeing a copy of the Department's latest journal called N.H.S. Reorganisation News. I hope that copies will go to all staff, so that they are kept fully informed of all developments, and also to members of health authorities. I think that the main area which must continue to concern us, although I am sure that the noble Lord will say that this is a matter for the staff commission, will be the timing of senior appointments at area and regional level. After my London experience, which I have just referred to, where after all we were considering only a very small part of the country, I do not see how someone appointed, say, to a very senior post in Bristol region could continue his work in Manchester and Newcastle for the period of the overlap. But I appreciate that these are points that the staff commission will have to consider in consultation with the Department. I mention them now because I think is is important for us all to be aware of some of the problems which we shall be considering during the progress of the Bill, and particularly those that affect the individual positions of staff in service.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [General powers and duties of Secretary of State to provide Services.]
3.12 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("he considers") and insert ("are").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and if your Lordships would agree I would couple with it Amendment No. 2; and Amendment No. 5, which is down in the names of some of my noble friends, raises the same issue. This is a Bill of major importance and it is far from the intention of my noble friends or myself to raise tiresome, futile, drafting points at the outset. The actual wording to which the Amendments relate is complex, but I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will be able to tell the Committee that the words are the draftsman's method of ensuring that all the powers which within any reasonable ambit could be said to be desirable are vested in the Secretary of State. I say no more about the language, but it was thought by my noble friends and myself that it would perhaps be of value at this very early stage in the debate, for a reason that I will give, by means of these Amendments, designed to be probing Amendments, to invite the noble Lord to state with rather more precision the views of the Government on some aspects of the Bill referred to during Second Reading and of which I should like to remind the Committee.
In her stringent criticisms of the Bill during Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Serota pointed out, as the Committee will probably agree quite rightly, that this Bill is in the nature of an enabling Bill. Its provisions are general in scope; they are designed to confer powers to set up new authorities within the ambit of the three-tier or, if one includes the districts, the four-tier system. But, of necessity—this is not a point of criticism—the drafting of the Bill does not fill out in any real detail precisely what the three or four tiers are to do. At any rate, that would be the submission which would come from this side of the Committee. In those circumstances it was thought by my noble friends and myself that it would be useful in enabling the Committee to decide on later Amendments to have an opportunity to think over what the Government intend with regard to these various aspects of the Bill to which I should like to call attention.
I apprehend that most of us who have endeavoured to prepare ourselves for this
828
debate, in particular those like myself who have little expertise in these matters, will have made a careful comparison between the second Green Paper published by the last Government and the White Papers published by the present Government in August of this year. There are, of course, very many points of resemblance; but if one tries to isolate the major point of difference between the proposals of the last Government for the purpose of reorganising the Health Service and those contained in the White Paper and now set out in the Bill, and explained in his full and careful speech on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, it might be said to be this. The last Government were much more anxious, by the arrangements which they proposed to introduce, to secure that there should be a full measure of cooperation by local authorities in the functioning of the new authorities which were to be set up.
Criticism of the Bill during the Second Reading came from this side of the Committee on the basis that little and wholly inadequate provision was made in the Bill for such co-operation by local authorities. I am sure it is a matter on which we are all agreed that in our national social arrangements the work by local government—local democracy, if I may so describe it—is of inestimable value, particularly when one is constructing and seeking to operate an enormously important service of this sort which touches directly every single citizen in the community. Unless there is a strong reason for excluding them, it is desirable in principle in the highest degree to enable members of local authorities to co-operate actively in the formation of policy and taking decisions in so far as it is possible so to do.
I think I am right in saying that the criticism on that topic focused very largely on the composition of the Regional Health Authorities. The first point I should like to put to the noble Lord is this. I should be grateful if he could give us some more detail as to the Government's thinking on the actual place of the Regional Authorities. There are to be 14 of them; their membership is to be prescribed, in effect, by the Secretary of State, after certain consultations. If one looks for a comprehensive statement as to their function in the Govern-

829
ment's White Papers and in the noble Lord's speech, probably it is most comprehensively summed up by the noble Lord in this passage from his speech:
"The region will be responsible for major planning decisions and for co-ordination between areas for the allocation of resources and general supervision of their use, and for the provision of certain services too specialised to be provided by individual areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/12/72; col. 12.]
The difficulty in which we on this side find ourselves is to try to estimate, with that description, how usefully the Regional Health Authorities can function with the composition of their membership which is proposed by the Bill. We are anxious—and this anxiety was expressed from this side during the Second Reading debate—about whether these Regional Health Authorities which are interposed between the Secretary of State and the Area Health Authorities may become something of what in other contexts is described as an eminence grise. They will be—I do not want to overstate the case—perhaps shadowy, rather remote bodies with (again I do not mean this in any offensive sense) a rather elitist, oligarchical composition. At any rate, that is the risk. They will in due course perhaps become so regarded and one will be faced with, as it were, a third tier not really undertaking its functions and not fully appreciated by the actual patient, the member of the public, who sooner or later in the course of his life must have recourse to this great Service of which we are all so extremely proud.
I should be grateful in those circumstances if, as the first request I would put to him, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would be kind enough to elaborate rather more in detail the parts I cited from his speech; and in elaboraing it, so that it will enable us to think over what his answer is, to deal rather more fully with the criticisms that have been made that these bodies may become too remote, too divorced from the life of the average person who participates either as a worker in or a partaker of the benefits of this system.
If I try to isolate the other matters on which I should like to request information of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the next I would go to would be the Area Authorities. As I understood from the noble Lord's speech, it was intended that the specific number of local authority
830
appointees in the Area Authorities should normally be four. There are 90 Area Authorities and 14 Regional Area Authorities. Is a membership of four in the composition of the Area Authorities satisfactory? Is it sufficiently large to ensure adequate participation by the local authorities and the public at large? Closely allied with that question, I go to the community health councils on which I should like to put these questions to the noble Lord. As I read his closing speech in the Second Reading debate, I understood him to say that after listening to the debate it was his view that in the course of the Committee stage we could improve the community health councils. I thought that that meant (though perhaps I misunderstood him) that he had in mind the possibility of accepting Amendments in order to counter the broad criticism made that they will be effete and parlous bodies, being, in fact, dependent upon the Area Health Authorities. That is the third point.
The fourth point, which I put on the same basis, relates to the Health Commissioner. As I read the relevant Schedule, if it is a question of clinical judgment all inquiry is precluded. That surely cannot be quite satisfactory. There should not be that absolute bar. On this side we accept at once that it would be ridiculous to subject every doctor's decision to possible inquiry by the Health Commissioner; for that would bring the whole system to a standstill almost immediately. We propose nothing of that sort; but the noble Lord will have noticed that we have put down Amendments to the scope of the possible inquiry by the Commissioner which we hope will go, as it were, some way to meet the point I have sought to make of the inquiry being too limited and which will at the same time avoid the danger of unduly inhibiting the proper functioning of the Health Service. Clearly, it must function properly; and, clearly, what doctors decide must not be subject always to the risk of inquiry by an outside body. Nevertheless, would not the noble Lord agree that the present drafting is a little too restrictive and that something on the lines that we propose would be desirable?
Those are the questions on which I seek information in the first Amendment. They are probing questions and are put

831
to the Minister in a genuine desire to facilitate the processes of the debate on which we are embarked. That is our intention in putting them down and we shall be grateful for any information which the noble Lord can give. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I must say that I find it difficult to answer the noble Lord. He has almost moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 130 en bloc; whereas I had studied this Amendment and had taken the view that it was a small point, though a very important one.
LORD STOW HILL: I plead guilty. I trust that the noble Lord will forgive me.
LORD ABERDARE: I will forgive the noble Lord for that. I had better say, while we are on the wording of the Amendment, that we could not accept it as it stands because it would mean that the extent of the Nationalised Health Service would be a matter for potential litigation and ultimate decision by the courts since it would remove the Secretary of State's discretion as to what he wished to do and what he did not wish to do in given circumstances. It would become a matter for legal decision. I am sure that this is very far from the minds of the noble Lord and his noble friends.
But as it is a probing Amendment perhaps it would be less than courteous of me if I did not try to give (necessarily somewhat briefly, because we shall be Going into all these matters in detail in the course of the Committee stage), some overall answer to the four questions that he put. So far as the Regional Authorities are concerned, I hope we shall be talking about their functions in detail later. We believe that the regional tier is necessary. We do not think it would be easy or advantageous for the Secretary of State to deal directly with some 90 Area Health Authorities. We believe that the regional tier has very specific duties, and I gave some account of them at Second Reading. The region is not in any way an eminence grise; it is a very important tier in the chain of responsibility from the Secretary of State to the Area Authorities.
We have based these Regional Authorities on the sort of geographical areas
832
at present covered by the Regional Hospital Boards, because these are accepted entities; they have forward looking plans for future hospital development. That, I think, is the best way of carrying forward a reorganised Service. But we intend that the regions should have specific duties to perform. On the other hand, we have said that the Area Health Authorities will be the main executive authorities and although the devolution of responsibility goes from the Secretary of State, to the regions, to the areas, there is provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to stipulate certain services which either shall or shall not be reserved to the regions or to the areas. So to that extent we hope that there will be full devolution of the executive services of running the areas.
He went on to criticise the number of local authority members for the areas. We fully value the co-operation of local authorities in the areas. Obviously it is essential when one is running a health service that there should be the closest co-operation with the social services, housing, education and the environmental health services. It was for that reason that, in the first place, we were determined to have Area Health Authorities to correspond exactly with the counties and metropolitan districts; and it was for that reason that, as a complete exception to the normal rule, where we have arranged for the Secretary of State to nominate the members of the region and for the region to nominate the members of the area, we provide in the case of local authorities that they should appoint their own members to the Area Health Authority. We thought, and we still think, that four is about the right number within a total of what will probably be about 15. There will be slight modifications. The reason why this is not in the Bill is to give flexibility, and in certain cases there will need to be more than four local authority members. One case, for example, would be in London, where a number of boroughs have to be combined into an area and there would obviously be a case for increasing the number of local authority members. But as a general guideline, we have felt it right to stipulate that the local authority should have the right to nominate four members to the Area Health Authority.
The noble and learned Lord asked me about community health councils. We

833
shall certainly be coming to a detailed discussion of the community health councils. This is a brand-new concept, and when I said that I hoped that in Committee we should be able to improve on what we have put into the Bill, I was simply saying that, with the assistance of your Lordships' views, we might well be able to make various suggestions that may be thought better than those we have put forward: because we are willing to take any advice on this matter that seems sensible.
On the Health Commissioners, again I think we ought to wait until we can just discuss that matter in more detail. General matters of clinical judgment are excluded from the Health Service Commissioners' remit, as I think, rightly and necessarily. But all matters that may involve doctors, if they are matters of administration and not of clinical judgment, will of course be within the remit of the Health Commissioners.
I hope that I have helped the noble Lord. As I said, his speech came to me as rather a shock, but I hope I have done something to help him forward.
LORD STOW HILL: If I may say so, the noble Lord has answered me royally and amply, and I am most grateful to him. I apologise sincerely to the noble Lord for moving the Amendment in a form which he did not quite expect, but in the light of the fact that this is largely an enabling Bill, I thought it would be useful at the outset to ascertain what the Government's thinking was, and the criticisms which were directed to it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Has my noble friend withdrawn both the Amendments? Did he not move two?
LORD STOW HILL: I did not move the second Amendment, but in accordance with custom and your Lordships' rules, I asked whether I might explain the reasons for that Amendment. I only moved the first Amendment and not the second one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.35 p.m.
LORD BROCK LORD BROCK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, after ("other") insert ("lawful").
The noble Lord said: Clause 2(1)(b) states that the Secretary of State shall have power
"to do any other thing whatsoever which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of such a duty".
We wish to insert the word "lawful" after the word "other", so that the sentence will read:
"shall have power…to do any other lawful thing whatsoever which is calculated to facilitate."
and so on. As it reads at present, anything that the Minister does is lawful. His power is not even limited to doing things which are lawful apart from this Bill. It would seem only proper that he should not be permitted to do things that apart from this Bill are not lawful. In the National Health Service Act 1946 there is no such all-embracing power as "anything whatsoever". These are very strong words. It is noteworthy that there is nothing similar in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, passed as recently as August 1972. In fact, the Scottish Act refers specifically to powers conferred in the original 1946 Act. Why then does the Bill designed for England propose such all-embracing powers as "anything whatsoever"?
I suggest that explanation and amplification is needed. Is it that the English are a ruder and rougher race than the Scots and need greater powers of control or possible disciplining? Is it that Her Majesty's Government think that Scotland will be controlled by a lighter rein than England? Or perhaps it is that later perusal and assessment of the Scottish Act has caused Her Majesty's Government to regret the less severely controlling powers that will apply to that country. Whatsoever be the cause, I suggest that your Lordships should await an explanation of this apparent tougher attitude to what many might think is a softer southern scene and does not merit such a heavy yoke. The insertion of the word "lawful" could serve as a mollifying Amendment and would lessen the severity of the Secretary of State doing anything whatsoever that he wishes to do. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEKQuite briefly, and keeping to the point, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord has said. When he referred back to the Amendment which would be appropriate here

835
as exemplification, under the words "anything he considers", the Secretary of State can do anything that he considers and here do anything whatsoever. We seem to be throwing the pitch so wide that there will be need for about five ombudsmen as this business develops. As we go along with the entire pattern of the Bill, which is to change management, we shall have all management and no services if we are not careful.
LORD HAWKE: Can my noble friend tell me what happens if the Secretary of State does something that is unlawful?
LORD ABERDARE: I will try to. This is a complementary general power to do things which are not themselves services. Services come under Clause 2(1)(a). This is a power to provide things which are ancillary to the provision of services, including, for example, the provision of residential accommodation and other facilities for staff, and arrangements for obtaining advice from other statutory sources on the planning and development of the Service. Hitherto it has been implicit that the existing National Health Service Acts confer a power to do these incidental things in the discharge of the Secretary of State's Health Service duties. But this has not been entirely satisfactory, and the clause defines expressly the subsidiary powers in terms similar to those that were used in the Local Government Act.
So far as the Amendment is concerned, it would depend on the interpretation of the word "lawful" which the noble Lord wishes to insert. Although in the last resort this would naturally be a matter for the courts, it appears that it could be possible to interpret it in two ways: either as enabling the Secretary of State only to do what it is already lawful for him to do, without the power that he has now in Clause 2(1)(b), or as limiting his power only to those things which are not expressly unlawful. In so far as the insertion of "lawful" suggests that the power in this clause has to be construed as enabling the Secretary of State only to do what it is already lawful for him to do, this would be objectionable, because it would lose the whole point of the subsection, which is to give him subsidiary powers. In so far as the word is construed as limiting the power to do only
836
such things as are not made unlawful by some other statutory provision or principle of common law, then it is not necessary, because there is an accepted principle of construction of Statutes that when an Act of Parliament refers to a thing being done, it is to be taken as referring to the thing being done lawfully.
As I said, the wording of this clause is based on Section 111(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. That gave a similar subsidiary power to local authorities, but subject to the provisions of the Act or of any other enactment passed before or after the Act. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will feel that what the Secretary of State does will be lawful and intended to help the Health Service by providing additional requirements outside the strict provisions of the Health Service.
LORD PLATT: As my name appears on this Amendment I should just like to press the Minister a little further. He has quoted the Local Government Act: I have not looked that up. I am taking no particular side on this issue. I am sure that what we all want is to give the Secretary of State the right powers, and no more than that. Is it really usual in Parliamentary drafting to give somebody the power to do any other thing whatsoever? This power seems extraordinarily wide. But if I am assured that this wording is used in other Acts and that it means explicitly something lawful, I shall be quite satisfied.
LORD ABERDARE: This is in fact a legal point and I do not feel altogether competent to explain it fully, but the reason for it is that there is something in law called ejusdem generis which is a principle of construction that where the words "any other" appear between two sets of things, the meaning to be attributed to the second set of things is limited by treating the words "any other" as meaning "any other similar". The draftsman has deliberately avoided the application of this rule by putting the word "whatsoever" after the other things. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD BROCK: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I should like to ask why Scotland is not exposed to this wording.
LORD ABERDARE: I will certainly inquire the reason for that from my right

837
honourable friend. I am afraid I cannot say at the moment why Scotland did not feel that this was necessary. As I say, it has always been thought to be implicit in the Health Service Acts that the Secretary of State has these powers. We are trying to make it explicit in this Act.
LORD BROCK: I thank the Minister for his explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.44 p.m.
LORD BROCK LORD BROCK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page I, line 19, at end insert—
("Provided always that nothing done by the Secretary of State under this power shall limit the freedom of a member of any profession in the performance of his professional duties; and provided also that nothing done by the Secretary of State under this power shall be or authorise any breach of contract or infringement of any right legally vested in any person body or corporation.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the insertion of a rather long sentence. The first part is intended to protect fully the clinical freedom of doctors, and the absolute desirability of this would be accepted without question by most people. Certainly a patient undergoing treatment would not wish to think that what his doctor advises or proposes to do to help in his treatment should be in any way influenced or modified by an edict from above; that is to say, from administrative or official sources. There is no evidence, intimation or even suspicion that the present Minister has any but good intentions towards the clinical freedom of doctors, but we have to think of a possible successor who might not have such good intentions. It could be that in the future the medical profession might have cause to regret its reliance on good intentions only. For that reason, it would seem wiser to have this assurance of clinical freedom inserted into the Act. The second part of the Amendment really rests upon the same reasons as the desire for the insertion of "lawful" in Amendment 1. I beg to move.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to say one word in support of the first part of the Amendment. I am not very interested in the second part of it. I think it is rather important that it should be
838
made clear in the Act that the clinical freedom of the profession should not be interfered with. I am sure there is no danger of that under the present Administration, and there would be none under any Government that one can see in the future. But, after all, this Act will govern things for a very long time and one wants to be sure of what will happen in the far distant future. Therefore I should like to see something of this kind put into the Bill, to protect what is a possibility at some future time.
LORD BROWN: First, I should like to make a short comment. When we were discussing scientific research I was a little worried about claims by the medical profession to have such complete discretion over research. This is another emanation of the medical profession, which seeks to ensure that nothing shall be done to limit the freedom of a member of the profession in the performance of his professional duties. Of course, everyone works under constraints, and if this were construed as written it would result in the Secretary of State's being unable to refuse a tenfold expansion of the accommodation required by members of the medical profession, because they would say that unless they had this it would interfere with their professional duties. It would be quite impossible to give anybody complete freedom in the exercise of his professional duties "without limitation". That is what it says, but I imagine it does not mean that; it means complete freedom in his diagnostic and therapeutic responsibilities and within the terms of the resources available—or something like that. The proposal would have been welcome had that condition been there, but it is not there.
LORD HAWKE: Does the noble Lord, Lord Brock, wish this provision to apply only to the medical profession?—because, so far as I can see, it would apply to any other profession, and it is part of the duties of the Secretary of State to provide hospital accommodation, which would involve surveyors, architects and goodness knows what else. I think that the Amendment is defective in this respect.
LORD ABERDARE: I agree with my noble friend Lord Hawke on this matter. Indeed, it seems that a member of any.

839
profession could have this provision applied to him, and certainly it would apply to architects, engineers and all those other professional people who are involved in the Service. That is obviously not what the noble Lord is really after. However, I should like to give to him, the House and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, an absolute assurance that the Secretary of State does not wish to interfere in any way with the clinical freedom of the medical profession in the performance of their professional duties. It was not thought necessary to write this into the 1946 Act, and the principle has never been questioned. Your Lordships will have seen in the Introduction to the White Paper that the Secretary of State confirmed that the Government accepted the clinical freedom of the medical profession to do as they think best for the health of their patients. We think it would be undesirable to accept an Amendment which might leave the Secretary of State open to challenge on questions of general policy or control of the Service in matters not directly related to clinical judgment: and I think that this might happen under the present Amendment of the noble Lord. The Amendment illustrates the difficulty that arises in attempting to provide a definition of "clinical freedom" which can be clearly set out in legal terms in such a way as to avoid ambiguity or conflict over interpretation. The concept of a practitioner's clinical freedom is quite clearly understood, and any problems that arise can, in our opinion, best be sorted out, as they have been in the past, by discussion between the Secretary of State and the professions concerned.
'The second part of the noble Lord's Amendment which relates to contracts and legal rights is not necessary. There is a well-established presumption in the courts that the Legislature does not intend to permit encroachment upon existing rights further than clearly appears from the enactment. There cannot be said to be any clear, unambiguous terms in Clause 2(1) conferring on the Secretary of State any power to break or authorise a breach of contract or to infringe any legally vested rights; therefore it is not necessary for this provision to be in the Bill. So I hope, with that assurance, that the clinical rights of the medical profess
840
sion will indeed be respected, and in view of the difficulty of writing it into legal terms, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BROCK: I thank the Minister for his reply. I should like to take this matter back and consider improving the wording. I appreciate the looseness of the wording that has been pointed out to me. I therefore may return to the matter on the Report stage. In the meantime, I would ask the Committee's permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 7, after ("and") insert ("(except in Greater London)").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 standing in my name, and, with the leave of your Lordships, it might be convenient if I also spoke to Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 which also stand in my name. Your Lordships will no doubt be relieved to know that they all go to the same subject. Clause 2 places upon the Secretary of State the duty, among others, of providing an ambulance service and, as I am sure most of your Lordships know, so far as London is concerned—and my Amendments really go to London, although they would, if accepted, apply to the rest of the country—the present ambulance service is provided by the Greater London Council. The powers under which this service is provided are derived from Section 45 of the London Government Act 1963. In effect, this section will be repealed in Schedule 5 to the Bill.
It is worth noting that the London Government Act 1963 recognised the ambulance service so far as London is concerned as components of a strategic regional service, and the ambulance service was put in charge of what became the Greater London Council, and not in charge of the various London boroughs, the local health authorities for the area. In this time and in these days, when the local authorities are having more responsibility thrust upon them, it is, to say the least, ironic that London is to lose its ambulance service, which for over

841
forty years it has in effect administered so well.
LORD ABERDARE: If the noble Earl will forgive my intervention, London is not to lose the ambulance service. I hope he will not go on record as saying that. That the Greater London Council would transfer it to the Health Service is, I think, what he meant.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I take my noble friend's point, but I am not sure that it is a valid one, for reasons which I shall come to. London may not lose the service in name but it may well lose it in effect. As I understand it, the ambulance service—and for the moment I shall not call it "the London Ambulance Service"—will be kept intact, administered by one of the four Greater London regional authorities on behalf of all of them, acting as some form of agent. They are, I suppose, one might say, the authorities of Kent or Essex, or Surrey or Hertfordshire, all of which will, as it were, extend into the middle of London. One can imagine—if, for instance, it was the authority of Kent which became the agent—that its preoccupation would extend from the Isle of Thanet to the middle of London. Although I have no doubt that there will be set up arrangements, and probably a committee which will consider all these matters, it is not difficult to envisage that London would come off fairly badly, or at least it would be not as good as it is now, when the affairs of the area were considered as a whole.
My argument starts from the basic premise that there should be no change in an organisation such as the London Ambulance Service unless it is inefficient in itself; or, secondly, that it can be made even more efficient; or, thirdly, that the service can be maintained as efficiently as before but in a more economic form. I do not suppose anybody would allege that the London Ambulance Service is inefficient. But there are cases where, if it is taken away from the care of the Greater London Council, which administers it now, it will lead at least to less efficiency; probably to greater cost—certainly capital cost. One could mention a number of examples of this. The first perhaps would be intercommunication with other services provided by the
842
Greater London Council at the moment, such as the Fire Service. Very close liaison exists between these various London services so that if, for instance, there is an emergency or a disaster or some great accident or fire, all the resources of the Council can be deployed as quickly as possible to help the victims or indeed anybody else who needs help. That, in my submission, is one reason for keeping the status quo.
Another matter, which concerns purely efficiency and cost, relates to the maintenance and the service of vehicles. There are about 1,000 vehicles which require the support of a fully equipped motor vehicle engineering facility—that is to say, 1,000 vehicles in the ambulance service. The Greater London Council has in fact a fleet of very nearly 3,000 vehicles of all kinds and has acquired much experience and expertise as to both maintenance of the vehicles themselves and the design of new ones. So far as I know, none of the present Metropolitan Regional Health Boards maintain any department such as the supplies department of the Greater London Council which is engaged in design; nor do they have these well equipped and highly expert teams of persons who equip and maintain these ambulances. I have no doubt that the same facilities could be set up by other people, by these new authorities, but it would be expensive and it would take time.
Another matter, of course, which can be argued is that if the Minister is in effect to be responsible for the Health Service he should be responsible for all parts of it, including the supply of all ambulances and the capital cost in relation thereto. My answer to that argument. if it is going to be raised, is perhaps twofold. First, ambulances do not necessarily come within the aegis of the Department. Secondly, even if they do, London stands alone: Greater London is by far the biggest conurbation, almost in the world, certainly in this country. The problems presented to an ambulance service, both locally and, as it were, to the area as a whole, are peculiar to London, and in my submission there is no reason why, even if ambulances in other areas are to be nationalised, the London Ambulance Service should not be left on its own.

843
May I finally throw out this point to my noble friend for his possible consideration? If, in spite of all these reasons which I have advanced, it is necessary for the Government, so to speak, to be responsible for the financial running and production of the ambulance service in London, it might well be that some sort of compromise could be reached by which the Greater London Council became, as it were, the agent for the Government in running the London Ambulance Service. By that means, I suggest, the Government would have the control they want yet the Service would continue with the efficiency which it has displayed all through these years; and Londoners, at any rate, as I suggest, would have rather greater confidence in the future. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has presented a powerful case and, if I may say so, has presented it most persuasively. I must confess that I envy him his powers of persuasion. I hope that what he has said, except for the final part (which I believe if all else fails is the ultimate), the powerful and persuasive case which he has presented, will commend itself to the Minister.
This is not a political matter in the Party political sense. The G.L.C. are under the control of the Government's friends at the present time. I have no doubt that if the Labour Party had been in control they would have been coming forward with a plea to your Lordships' House through one of us to do precisely the same kind of thing that the Committee is now being asked to do. Therefore I believe there is a special case for the Government to give their sympathetic consideration to the major plea that this service should be left with the Greater London Council. There is no criticism of the manner in which the Greater London Council, under both Parties, and the L.C.C. before that, have administered the ambulance service. Both the major political Parties are proud of what they have achieved in this direction in London. Both feel that any change means, not improvement but possibly—and I put it no higher than that—putting at risk a standard which was achieved and a standard which is of the very highest.
844
May I put this further point to the Minister? In the Second Reading debate the point was made—indeed, it is the object of many of the Amendments that have been tabled for consideration by the Committee—that we ought to do all we can to secure democratic control of the service. In the case of the ambulance service in London we have that democratic control, and there is no substitute by way of democratic machinery that I think anybody can advance that is likely to commend itself as an improvement on what now prevails.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, drew attention to the fact that the intention appears to be that London will be divided into four regions, but that the London Ambulance Service, recognising the necessity for keeping it under one head, shall be administered by one of these four regions. I do not know whether I have understood the position (I think I have) in regard to London; I hope I have with regard to the rest of the country. I believe that this will be unique in the country. Therefore I am wondering whether the Government, recognising the necessity for keeping the control for the whole of London under one body and being intent on achieving this throughout the rest of the country, will see that here in London is a unique way in which it may be done, the position having been established that there exists an efficient service. Everybody commends it for its efficiency. As the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, it is working well; leave it alone.
I cannot see what the Government stand to lose; and financially I think the National Health Service stands to gain. I cannot see that there can be any saving in capital cost if the ambulance service is transferred to the Health Service; I cannot see that there can be any reduction in running costs, unless the Government take up the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in his closing remarks, and use the G.L.C. as, so to speak, an agent. There appears to me little to commend that idea. Without thinking of it further (and I must say the noble Earl took me slightly unawares when he brought out that suggestion), if the Government recognise virtue in that I should have thought it incontestable that they would recognise the virtue of leaving the service with the Greater London Council; letting the G.L.C. continue doing the job themselves, answer-

845
able to the community, the standard of their service being judged, assessed, approved or disapproved of by the community at large.
But may I put to the noble Lord something that does concern me; namely, the question of the reaction on staffs in the London Ambulance Service—because this is not just a matter of drivers? The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, referred to the manner in which the G.L.C. have been able to cater for the needs of the ambulance service, as it were, in common with the Fire Service and the other services. I think the number of vehicles they administer is somewhat in excess of 2,000.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The figure is 3,000.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Well, 2,000 plus the ambulance service—3,000, or whatever the figure is. If the ambulances are taken away, there will clearly be redundant staff with the G.L.C. Is it intended that some of the maintenance staff and the purchasing staff shall be moved over? As I see it, that would call for costly new building, the development of a maintenance service that would call for recruitment of experts, men who are qualified to do the job properly; and the ambulance service is a highly specialised one. What do the Government intend with regard to that matter?
I hope the Government will seriously consider accepting the proposals made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. Perhaps I should say that, so far as I am able to assess the position, if the Government do not concede this they are at least likely to be pressed very vigorously throughout this House and, I would surmise, throughout the other House. I should like to think that this is one of the changes in the Bill for which your Lordships will be able to claim credit.
4.18 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I have listened with great care and attention to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and by my noble friend who moved this Amendment with great eloquence. But I cannot say that I am personally convinced, even by his eloquence. It seems to me to go to the root of the whole of the reorganisation
846
that we are seeking to bring about. After all, the underlying object of this Bill is to unify the Health Service, to put an end to the tripartite system of the Health Service which has led to difficulties and a lack of co-ordination hitherto.
One part of that tripartite structure consists of the personal health services, which are at present the responsibility of the local authorities; and these include the ambulance service. No one is criticising these local authority services or is saying that they have been badly run—certainly not the ambulance service, and certainly not the personal health services. All we are saying is that we believe that in the future, for the more efficient use of the skills of those concerned in the health services, these local authority services should be integrated with the others. And we have said—as did the second Green Paper of Lord Garnsworthy's Government before, that the ambulance services should form part of the new National Health Service. Therefore, if that is accepted, what we are really arguing about in my noble friend's Amendment is simply that an exception should be made in the case of London. I feel that that would not be advisable.
I grant that the ambulance service is well run by the G.L.C., but we have no intention of breaking up the present London service. My noble friend was not quite clear—nor, I believe, was the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy—what our intentions are. Our intentions are that the ambulance service should remain a London Ambulance Service, covering the whole of London. It will be run by a committee on which will be represented the four London regions over some of whose territory the service will be operating. There is no question of Kent having anything to do with it. Kent will be an Area Health Authority of its own and will run its own ambulance service, because in general the ambulance services are the responsibility of the Area Health Authority. But in this case there will be a joint ambulance service in order to retain the excellent service that there is at the moment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said: that there will be a committee. But is that going to be put in the Bill?
LORD ABERDARE: No. The administrative arrangements for the whole of the Bill, the setting up of the management arrangements, are not included in the Bill, but I can give the noble Lord an assurance that that is what is going to happen. He said that other noble Lords had mentioned that one Regional Health Authority would be responsible. But this, of course, would be for the day-to-day routine management of the Service; the operational management would come under a joint committee. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked me whether that was unique. Not necessarily. It could well be that in other large conurbations there would be advantage in having a single ambulance service—for example for the whole of Manchester or Birmingham. But again these are matters which we can discuss. What we want to do is to find the best ambulance service organisation to cover the various areas of the country. Normally the ambulance service will be the responsibility of the area, but where there are positive advantages in keeping an ambulance service for the whole of a larger conurbation that will be done.
May I say further—and this is an important point also—that although there is no criticism of the way in which the Greater London Council has run the service, we must acknowledge that much of the efficiency of it is due to the Chief Ambulance Officer and his staff, and they will be transferred completely. I am quite sure that they will continue to give the same excellent service that they have done hitherto. At present, the London Ambulance Service meets the emergency requirements of the London area and receives also requests from hospitals and G.P.s to move patients with medical need. It does not play any part in the social services. Some ambulance services do, but the London Ambulance Service does not: it is entirely concerned with health needs and is involved in conveying to and from hospitals and other National Health Service treatment centres. At present, these hospitals and general practitioners making routine demands on the ambulance service have no responsibility or concern for it and its problems. But if we transfer the London Ambulance Service to the National Health Service this will ensure that both those who are making demands on the service and those
848
who provide it are within the same organisation. We believe, therefore, that there will be better opportunities for more effective and co-ordinated management arrangements so that ambulance requirements are met as effectively as possible. In particular, closer working relationships should be possible in the field of hospital admissions and discharges and outpatient appointments. For example, another very particular sphere where it is vital to have the full co-operation of the ambulance service is in the accident and emergency departments.
Those are the reasons why, for the full provision of health services, we feel that the ambulance service has a very vital part to play as part of the unified new Health Service, and we are sure that in the arrangements that we are making the service will remain and retain its present excellent standards and that we shall certainly not upset its present efficiency.
There is one other point that I forgot to mention and that I hope will help the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. Subject to that overall transfer of responsibility, we certainly hope that we shall be able to continue to rely on the Greater London Council for the provision of maintenance and support services in matters such as vehicle maintenance and the provision of radio communications, at any rate for the next few years. Discussions are in train to that end, and I am sure that if my noble friend felt that further conversations on these lines would be helpful, that is something we should certainly wish to continue. But on the overall question of the policy I feel that the ambulance service is a vital part of the health services, and London is just as important in the provision of these services as are other parts of the country. On a point of principle. therefore, we ought to include the London Ambulance Service within the National Health Service.
LORD PARGITER: Before the noble Lord sits down, will be say, on the actual cost to the service (it will be wholly chargeable to the National Health Service, but over and above the grant-in-aid which is now paid by the Government), whether the Government want to take more money back? In other words, will they want to take something at the expense of the ratepayer.
LORD ABERDARE: I can assure noble Lords that we will not take anything at the expense of the ratepayer.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the very courteous and detailed replies that he has given to questions put to him by me. May I say—and I hope he will not mind my doing so—that while I was listening to him I developed a tremendous sense of sympathy for him in that he is being asked to defend something on which, if he was on this side of the House, he would be taking up much the same attitude as we are doing. I sincerely hope that his noble friend Lord Mansfield will not be over-easily persuaded by the thinking that appears to have gone into the production of these proposals. It seems to me that the main point that the Government are making is, "We want a unified Service". The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mansfield, would achieve a unified ambulance service in London. "Well," say the Government, "that is fine: we give an assurance, although it is not in the Bill, that we will take steps to do this. We will have a committee from the four London regions." What an unnecessarily cumbersome piece of machinery! What an unnecessary piece of machinery at all! If the Government, not with something included in the Bill, but by way of an administrative action, have to go out of their way to set up something to take the place of the Greater London Council, why undertake the exercise'? The noble Lord himself has given a fairly clear indication that there is no criticism whatsoever of the standard of service being given under the Greater London Council. Indeed, he hopes that they will get that degree of co-operation from the G.L.C. that will enable the very same high standard to be maintained. If the G.L.C. are called on to do this but really do not have the responsibility, then when they face the electorate—noble Lords should be under no illusion about this—they will have to account for a service for which they have become responsible but for which they feel that they do not have the power to be responsible at the present time. I very much hope that before this debate continues the Minister, who is usually as helpful as one could expect a noble Lord in his position to
850
be, will indicate that there might be some further thinking on the matter, for it seems to me that this is likely to be one of the big issues to confront the Committee.
LORD REIGATE: I apologise for detaining your Lordships at a moment when the Committee may wish to come to a decision on this important series of Amendments. I should like first to congratulate my noble friend on having drawn attention to what seems to be an appalling weakness in the Bill regarding the arrangements which the Government have laid down for Greater London. I had expected that we would advert to this theme later in our consideration of the Bill, but already it has become obvious that the arrangements in London are less than perfect. I thought it was restrained of the noble Earl in moving the Amendment, when referring to the London Government Act, not to draw attention to the fact that the Minister who put that measure through the House of Commons was in fact the present Secretary of State, who might be described as the architect and even the author of Greater London. If London really is to be divided into four Metropolitan Regional Boards and then we are to have a committee to run the ambulance services, it only shows that the basic thinking on the organisation of London is entirely wrong. I would only say, finally, how strongly I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthv, when he said that if a thing works well let it alone. Who am I to quarrel with that impeccable Tory doctrine'?
LORD FISKE: May I raise a further small question which I hope it will be possible for the Minister to answer'? I was alarmed to hear that he is still to look to the G.L.C. to do much of the servicing and maintenance. In the servicing and maintenance workshops of the G.L.C.—and of the L.C.C. before it—many of the prototypes of ambulances which are now in common use throughout the country were evolved. In other words, my question is a simple one: what, in these rather mixed circumstances, will become of research into such matters as new engines for ambulances, new fabrics for ambulance bodies, new ways of loading and unloading, new types of wheels and similar considerations? These were the subjects of continuous

851
research by the G.L.C. and the L.C.C. before it. I can only think that in the set-up that the Minister is proposing this work will come to a halt—that is, unless some arrangement has been made to ensure its continuance. If such an arrangement has been made, may we be told about it?
LORD ABERDARE: I think that noble Lords are rather neglecting the fact that all that is said about the London Ambulance Service could apply perfectly well to the health departments of the local authorities. Many of them work very well. What we are doing in this Bill is bringing all the health services together and I do not think one could expect to get the full benefits of reorganisation in London for the Health Service unless the London Ambulance Service was an integral part of it. I certainly do not accept the proposition of my noble friend Lord Reigate that this is less than perfect. It is trying to retain the excellent ambulance service that covers the whole of London but to combine with it an integration with those who actually put the demands on it—namely, the doctors, hospitals and patients. These will all be part of the Health Service and it seems extraordinary to suggest that we should leave the Ambulance Service outside this concept and I would find it very difficult to go further than that.
As for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, I take his point and I am sure that it is something that obviously must not be neglected in future. We are simply saying that it would be rather ridiculous to start building new depots, even if we had the time to do so, and start completely afresh on the maintenance side. We would rather, at least at present, make some sort of agency arrangement on that basis whereby the G.L.C. can continue to give the service which it has previously given. On the general principle, however, I find it difficult to be more helpful, although if I could enter into further discussions with my noble friend, if he thought that that would be useful in view of what had been said in this debate, I should be perfectly happy to discuss the matter further with him. As I say, I would find it difficult to concede what is a basic principle of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am bound to say that I found my noble friend's attitude less than happy over this matter; I go further and say that I found it disappointing. This is the first major Bill to come before your Lordships' House first—at any rate since I became a Member—rather than going to the other place first. Without being offensive to the movers of other Amendments, this is the first substantial Amendment in this first Bill, and if I may say so my noble friend is behaving as if we were at the tail end of the Session with no time left to consider anything.
My noble friend says that this question of ambulances, and of London ambulances in particular, goes to the root of reorganisation. He goes on to say, "The Committee which will administer the whole new re-organisation of ambulances is not in the Bill but I assure you that there will be one." He then goes a little further and says that he will need most of the staff. I must add in parenthesis that if it is anything like the staff of the Central Criminal Court when it was nationalised, it will desert en bloc. At any rate, he will need the staff and the complicated electronic apparatus to run the whole thing, which is at present administered by the G.L.C., and all of this still goes to the root of reorganisation. I have considered the matter with, I hope, the due diffidence that befits my station in your Lordships' House and I am afraid that I am not prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I will leave it to your Lordships to do what is best.
LORD ABERDARE: Before my noble friend decides on that course, may I remind him that I suggested that although I found it difficult to accept the principles of the Amendment, I offered to have further talks with him about it? I slightly resent his imputation that I am pushing your Lordships through lack of time. That did not enter into the issue. We have plenty of time to go on considering these matters. I am simply indicating that in my view this is a fundamental question. It is difficult for me to help my noble friend further, but I am quite willing to go on talking about it if that is what he would like to do.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Is the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, saying that he is

853
prepared to look further into this matter with an open mind; in other words, that there is no question here of the issue being decided and that the talks which he might have with his noble friend will be really meaningful in that they will take cognisance of the points that have been raised this afternoon in the atmosphere of strong feeling which has attended our consideration of this Amendment? If that is the undertaking which the noble Lord is giving, I feel that it might commend itself to your Lordships. If not, then there are a number of other questions which must be raised because this is a very important matter. We are this afternoon discussing developments in the Service that are not in the Bill and we should not fail to explore them thoroughly before disposing of the issue. If the Minister is giving the kind of undertaking that I have suggested would be reasonable, his noble friend may feel sufficiently satisfied.
LORD ABERDARE: I would hope that I had. I cannot go back on what I said, that I think the general principles of the Bill indicate that one should bring all the ambulance services within the National Health Service. But I can give every other undertaking that the noble Lord mentions. I am certainly prepared to discuss it further. The one thing we have got is time. If the noble Earl would like to have further discussions, I should certainly be pleased to do so.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: In the circumstances, I would be less than generous if I did not ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. May I just say that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has put it so much better than I did that I wish it were him doing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("service") to end of line 18.
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment in my name. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took together with Amendment No. 8 Amendments Nos. 9 and 11; Amendment No. 8, as your Lordships will see, is really a paving Amendment for No. 9, and they hang together, I think well. The purpose of
854
these Amendments is to establish where the responsibility lies for genuine aftercare. The Bill lays down that it will be the duty of the Secretary of State to provide facilities, but we are anxious to know what this really indicates. Does it indicate accommodation as well as services? And we are particularly anxious to know how the local authorities' concurrent powers fit in here.
The whole trend of modern medicine is, first, to prevent people from having to go to hospital, and, secondly, when they are there, to get them out and back into the community as soon as possible, but in a way that is satisfactory both to the patients and to the community. Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) deals with people in need of help, like geriatric cases, like recovering alcoholics, like the mentally handicapped. I can remember, very clearly, as a member of a hospital management committee of a mental hospital when the 1959 Act was passed, how we welcomed it, how we felt that this was the great opening up of the mental hospitals. But we were overwhelmingly aware of the almost desperate need for community care, for what nowadays we call halfway houses or hostels, for those people who do not need to be hospitalised but are not able to cope with the realities of life completely and who cannot be thrown back on their hard-pressed relatives, who are often people least able to help them. Then such places hardly existed, and even now they hardly do, and the responsibility fell on the local authorities. They were very short of money, they were very short of staff, and they had to cope with the unpopularity that always exists of providing such places. Hostels for the recovery of alcoholics or mentally handicapped people, open prisons, things of that kind, are always popular in theory but they are never popular in your own town. So we think it right that the Secretary of State should assume responsibility financially for these facilities and also should help to designate where these places should be, always, of course, in close co-operation with the local authorities.
There is another consideration which makes it essential that this should be a national service. Most members of the Committee will be familiar with the magnificent work done by the National Association for Mental Health, the Rich-

855
mond Fellowship, and many other voluntary organisations. Indeed the work of the voluntary organisations in this field is almost beyond praise. But they themselves would be the first to agree that what is needed is a general pooling of experience, an interchange of staff, for instance, which would mean better conditions for the staff—an interchange of ideas of all kinds. Of course, what is desperately needed is a central departmental grant to promote the work nationally. It is indeed true to say that there are many patients who would be far better out of hospitals but who have to stay in hospitals because up to now the State has paid for hospital services but not for adequate after-care.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, on Second Reading of this Bill, said that it appeared almost as though some local authorities were unwilling to spend money from the ratepayers to assist a service that was founded by the State. That is a very understandable sentiment. We agree with the intentions of the Bill to make the provision of these preventive and aftercare facilities the duty and the responsibility of the Secretary of State. We think that these halfway houses and hostels should be part of a national programme and that they need the authority of the Secretary of State and his financial assistance behind them. We have put down these Amendments, first, because we think our wording makes the situation more definite; second, because we should like to know whether there is any national scheme which will provide accommodation and services; and, third, because we hope the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, can explain to us just what will be the relationship between his Department and the local authorities, both now, in the intervening years before 1974, and afterwards. I beg to move.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: May I say one word in support of this Amendment, taking the analogy of the penal world. Curiously enough—and this is the only way in which this is true—the penal world is ahead of the health world by about ten years. Something like ten years ago the provision of after-care was nationalised, very properly, and ever since it was done, without being very good it has been somewhat better.
856
The noble Baroness is absolutely right in suggesting that this is by far the most important aspect which must be brought into the present time. Most of the treatment, et cetera which goes on in institutions is already highly developed, and it is a question of improving it. After-care for the ill, particularly the mentally ill, hardly exists. People know very little about how to do it. The only way serious progress will be made is, first, by having a national plan, and, second, by having a national slice of the Budget. My noble friend has made these two proposals. I think she is absolutely right, and I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
4.40 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I must confess I was wondering what these Amendments were designed to achieve. Perhaps I had better say a word as to why the original wording is in the sense that it is, why the words which the noble Baroness seeks to remove are there. They were put there to limit the scope of the powers of the Secretary of State to make charges as closely as possible to the existing powers of local health authorities to charge for services provided under Section 12 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. We did not wish to make radical changes in the charging provisions of this Bill. It seemed inappropriate to do so. Therefore, this particular description of the services was put in for that purpose. That was one of the purposes. Secondly, it provides a pointer as to which facilities of the kind referred to in the paragraph, lines 11 and 12, the Secretary of State might regard as appropriate as part of the health services. The expression used in the subsection,
"the care of persons suffering from illness and the after-care of persons who have suffered from illness …".
is very wide, and includes what are at present and will in future be the responsibility of social services departments of local authorities.
What the noble Baroness is touching on is the very vital subject of collaboration between the social services and the health services, and this is a cause which we share utterly with her. It is one of the guiding principles that has affected the whole of the arrangements that we are making in the Bill. As I said earlier, it is the reason why we believe there

857
should be Area Health Authorities matching the local authorities. It is the reason why we set up various committees to work on the future collaboration arrangements between these two bodies. Like her, I very much hope that we shall achieve improved collaboration and improved services in this field which lies between the two. I am hopeful about the new health care groups within the district management arrangements. These will be groups of practising professional people concerned with patients suffering from a specific sort of illness, for example, there might be a health care group for the mentally ill. These would consist not only of consultants and general practitioners, but also of nurses and other professional people and, indeed, social workers. Again, the community physician surely has a big part to play in this kind of work. He will be associated with these health care groups. We have made it very clear that, although we used to call these groups "patient care groups", they are not directed solely to the needs of those who suffer and are ill, but to the whole community which the district is responsible for looking after. So we are providing preventive services just as much as treating the patient once he has fallen ill.
With regard to the noble Baroness's point about financial arrangements, these are a little difficult because while, in the case of local authorities, we hope to find extra monies for them under the rate support grant—and we have indeed done so—the way in which they spend their money is their own concern and we can do no more than persuade. But the fact that in the Bill there will be a duty laid upon the Health Authority and the local authority to co-operate, and the fact that there will be a committee set up between them to ensure that there is joint planning, will go some way towards meeting what the noble Baroness has in mind. I hope that, as we go through the Bill, we can discuss further examples so that we can ensure the close linking of the social services and the health services. I took careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said, and I am sure there is scope for this kind of halfway house or hostel, or whatever one likes to call it.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I am indeed grateful for the
858
most courteous way in which the noble Lord has dealt with this Amendment, but I am still a little puzzled. Health care groups and community physicians are admirable in themselves, but I do not quite see how they are to provide actual accommodation and facilities of that kind. I quite understand about the move towards co-operation between the different services, which we shall be discussing when we come to Clause 10; but I wonder whether the noble Lord can be a little more precise about more being done under the new reorganised Health Service than was possible in the past.
LORD ABERDARE: I cannot promise any more money under the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill, but what I was trying to say was that with the pressures that should build up to give higher priority to services of this sort, by producing health care groups which will be working on these problems, by having a community physician who will be advising his district or his area as to the priorities, there will therefore be a switch of rather more resources into community care than there has been up to the present moment. That is as far as I can go. I hope that this will turn out to be so.
BARONESS SEROTA: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for slightly prolonging this debate, but these Amendments were designed—perhaps inadequately, but quite sincerely—to elicit and clarify the intentions of the Government in relation to what we all agree has proved to be one of the most difficult areas of definition of responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, rightly said that when we come to Clause 10 we shall be considering these issues further in terms of the detailed co-operation between the Health Authority and the local authority, but I am still not quite clear. Am I right in understanding from the Bill, as he has explained it, that in future the Health Authorities and the local authorities will have concurrent powers to provide residential accommodation with the Health Authorities providing for those who could leave hospital but are still in need of continuous medical or nursing care, and the local authorities providing social care and support for those who could stay in the community if they had such help. Is that the position as a result of the transfer

859
under Clause 2? Are they both to have concurrent powers? I understand fully what the noble Lord has said about the different methods of financing, and we understand that this is a problem. But we are anxious to discover this afternoon whether the authorities have concurrent powers.
LORD ABERDARE: I do not think I should describe them as concurrent powers. They each have powers to provide certain kinds of services. The social services provide for those who do not require medical attention, and the health services provide the sort of homes where medical attention is continuously required. So I do not think that anything in this Bill will change the present division of responsibilities. But of course they come very close together in the middle, and we hope that with the collaboration of the two authorities we shall get greater concentration at that point.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We agree not only the fact that they come close together; but that there is this very difficult issue of the overlap. But I must press this point a little further. When the noble Lord said that this Bill does not change the position, did he mean that the present powers and responsibilities of the hospital authorities remain as they have been? I have in mind the difficulties which hospital authorities have had in the past in providing residential accommodation in the community. Many noble Lords will be aware, for example, of the pioneering steps that the Wessex region has taken to provide residential accommodation right in the community and not within the periphery of the hospital. Perhaps they have done that using powers which were not necessarily fully theirs; but they have done it and they have shown the way. I want to be quite sure that, in the future, Health Authorities will be able to continue to make this kind of provision available.
LORD ABERDARE: This Bill does not in any way affect the present powers of the hospital service. All that this section of the Bill is concerned with is transferring to Health Authorities those functions which are at present part of the functions of local authorities.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: As very few mental hospitals, for instance, have any very clearly laid down plans for the after-care of patients, and as I am still not absolutely clear about what my noble friend described as the "concurrent powers", I am rather loath to withdraw my Amendment. In doing so, I ought perhaps to warn the noble Lord that we may return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: May I say a word about this matter? I have found that the people who have been doing what we are asking for in regard to a community home or place of residence for those who can be discharged from psychiatric hospitals have been nearly always voluntary bodies and not the local authorities.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful for those remarks from my noble friend. We appreciate the help of voluntary bodies and they are, in fact, mentioned in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.52 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 9A:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("(f) comprehensive medical, dental and nursing services for Her Majesty's prisons and borstals in place of arrangements of a kind which immediately before the passing of this Act it was the function of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to provide;")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment comes as rather tangential to the main stream of the Bill; but it is none the less important and, I think, none the less directly relevant to the Bill which is supposed to deal with the reorganisation of the National Health Service. As part of that reorganisation (and, we think, a part that for the whole of history has been outside the National Health Service but should be brought into it), I am proposing a complete merger. I am proposing that the Prison Medical Service should become a part of the National Health Service. There was impressive support for this view given over eight years ago when the Gwynn Committee reported on the organisation of the Prison Medical Service; and in fact the Institution of Psychiatry, the National Association for Mental Health, the Royal College of

861
Physicians, and the Royal Medico-Psychological Association all recommended complete integration. But the Committee, supported by the B.M.A. and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, decided otherwise. Even so, they made it clear that their decision was not binding for all time and should be seen as a temporary one. I quote their words:
"The organisation may well need to be reviewed and adapted in the light of future developments."
They say that their recommendations may hold for some time to come ". We think that the time has come and that eight years is about it. We think that this is the appropriate moment and this is the appropriate Bill on which to raise the question.
It may be that I owe the Minister an apology for not having raised this matter on Second Reading, but unfortunately I could not get here. My guilt is somewhat assuaged by the fact that my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek referred to the matter in passing and also a good deal assuaged by the fact that when I asked the Minister's colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, an Unstarred Question on prison conditions about a month ago, I gave him verbal notice that I was going to raise this point. But I was finally cowed by the ticking of the clock and did not do so. So I have no doubt that the noble Viscount had a neatly docketed brief which he will pass to the Minister and I hope that this is enough apology to cover the situation.
In the last eight years a good deal has happened in the penal field, not least of which is that two of the signatories to this Report have changed their minds. I will not go into details; but if the noble Lord wants them I will give them. In any case, the Report is essentially by doctors and administrators about the administration of doctors. The patients are mentioned, and then obliquely, in only three out of the 35 paragraphs. I do not say this as a special criticism because the problem is basically administrative, but its correct solution could do much to help the prisons and it is with that that we must concern ourselves.
One of the most arid and agonising things about prison is the pressure to destroy the personality and individuality. It is the business of prison administrators
862
to resist this, to counter this, whenever they see a chance. A man's relationship with his doctor can be and should be a personal, individual and satisfactory one. I confide totally in my own doctor; so do my family. He responds with total confidence in his hopes or fears as to our welfare. This is a personal strength to us and something that I think a man can ill do without. That is why the family doctor must always be the cornerstone of any Health Service. Yet the administrative arrangements in prison are such that the man is most unlikely to find this sort of relationship there. It seems to me that if the doctor he found there were a doctor like any other doctor instead of one of a class apart employed by his "enemies", the prison authorities, something might be done; but as it is, it is a "we—they" situation which gives the man very little chance of forming the kind of relationship we are speaking of and gives the doctor little chance of behaving in the way that he would probably like to behave.
The old type of prison doctor in the 19th century, like the old Army "sawbones", was expected to keep malingerers at work and to take their heartbeats when they were being flogged. I hasten to say that there is nothing of this attitude in the modern Prison Medical Service, but the machinery is exactly the same as it then was. It is not surprising that the opportunities for a prisoner to make the kind of relationship with a prison doctor which he would make with his family doctor if he were living at home very rarely exist. Of course, in the end it is the man that counts, and a good doctor under this system is better than a bad doctor under any system into which we may change the present one. But this is the argument used: that excellence is what is required is often used as an excuse for leaving machinery rusty and inefficient; and I do not think we should let this happen.
So much for the consumer, for the man I am concerned to benefit. But there are also strong administrative arguments. In particular, there is the wider career structure, the easier exchange of views and information between the minority prison group and their peers, the wider field from which to choose specialists and the elimination of rivalry and jealousies which have certainly existed. The present

863
service is isolated, and in my opinion suffers from isolation. The Gwynn Committee recommended that there should be a beginning in breaking down these barriers by making a number of joint appointments between the two services. In the eight years there have been, I think, only six, which does not look like a very successful breaking down of barriers. The career of forensic medicine will always be one for specialists, as are radiology and the job of those who administer anesthetics so that fact can be no reason why it should not be included within the system as a whole.
The balance of administrative advantage is a matter of opinion but the balance of human advantage is overwhelmingly in favour of a change of this kind. I think it may be said that this is a question about which the Butler Committee will surely have something to say. If we leave it open, of course they will: but if we decide it now they will not need to. It seems to me that this Bill is the right place to make a change of this kind. It seems to me that the arguments on the administrative side may be overwhelmingly outweighed by those on the human side. I hope very much that the Minister will feel able to accept this Amendment, or at least that it is of sufficient importance for him to look at it further.I beg to move.
5.0 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: I rise to support this Amendment which has been so persuasively moved by my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I do so because this is something which I have thought and said for at least 20 years. What I think first interested me in the point was the number of cases I heard where a convicted man was obviously to some extent mental, and where the judge said, "It is said that you need psychiatric treatment. Any psychiatric treatment that you need you will receive in prison."I am quite sure that any judges who said that did not know that that was not true, because had they known it would have been a very cruel thing to say. I think they ought to have known what I knew, which was that there were only two part-time psychiatrists in the whole of the British Prison Medical Service. To obtain their services you
864
had first to get a prisoner transferred to Wormwood Scrubs, and unless he had a really long sentence there was always such a queue at Wormwood Scrubs that it was usually impracticable to get such a transfer.
In the last 20 years, of course, there have been great improvements in the Prison Medical Service, and I should be the first to acknowledge that. Now, quite a high proportion of those in the service have at least a diploma in mental health. But I could never understand why it should not be part of the National Health Service. I suppose that these are the only members of the community who are not entitled to the privileges of the National Health Service. Most of them have been paying their insurance constributions all their lives, and they are very much in the hands of the prison medical officer. I have received complaints fairly recently of the very short nature of the examination in prisons, and there seems to me to be no real reason why the Prison Medical Service should not be part of the National Health Service and, in particular, why a prisoner should be entirely deprived of any independent medical advice. About a fortnight ago I was at a conference which considered conditions of imprisonment, and the committee on which I served was composed mainly of judges, magistrates, probation officers, prison welfare officers and so forth. One of their unanimous resolutions was: "In our view the Prison Medical Service should form part of the National Health Service and prisoners should have a right to independent medical advice." For these reasons I support the Amendment moved by my noble friend.
5.3 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, need not apologise for having introduced this Amendment, though I must confess that I have not had a great deal of time to study it, as it was put on the Marshalled List only, I think, on Friday. But I certainly think it a subject that we should consider most carefully. Of course it would be possible to put the provision into the Bill, but we feel that this represents a fairly major organisational change and that, before we embark on it, we ought to enter into rather more exhaustive

865
consultations and consideration before putting it into legislation.
We believe that in recent years the Prison Medical Service has made considerable advances, and this was acknowledged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. At present it is able to provide quite extensive cover for the medical, dental and nursing needs of the persons in its care. It works in close liaison with the National Health Service and is free to call for assistance when required. The noble Lord mentioned only a few joint appointments but my advice is that many doctors and dentists from the Health Service are employed on a sessional or part-time basis to assist in the prisons. It has seemed to us important that the care of those in prison should be in the hands of persons specially recruited and trained to deal with the additional problems peculiar to the penal situation and to the nature of those in prison. The Prison Medical Service now has 110 full-time medical officers, two-thirds of them with specialist qualifications. They are able to ensure that medical and custodial requirements are met in a humane and acceptable way, with proper regard to modern standards of practice. Similarly, the nursing needs are dealt with by trained prison hospital officers complemented by nursing sisters under the direction of a matron-in-chief. On the other hand, dental services, as the noble Lord will be aware, are provided from the Health Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, mentioned the 1964 Working Party on the organisation of the Prison Medical Service, which studied the whole situation and made certain recommendations for its future development which have now been implemented. In particular, the posts of consultant, forensic psychiatrists, working between the Health Service and the Prison Service jointly, were initiated with great success. Also a Standing Medical Advisory Committee was suggested and is now in operation. So, while there is no doubt room for improvement, I believe that the Prison Medical Service at present is well staffed, has good morale and, with the increasing facilities for planning provision being made available, is providing effective medical cover. The noble Lord mentioned the work of Lord Butler's Committee on the treatment of the mentally abnormal
866
offender. Obviously this will have implications for the future work of the Prison Medical Service in the psychiatric field, but I should not have thought it right, as I said at the beginning, to introduce a major reorganisation like this without the fullest consultation. Having said that, I must say that I am impressed by what has been said by the noble Lords and perhaps I may be allowed to consider the matter. Obviously, it brings in a Department other than my own, so I think it would be best if I could talk it over further and we debated it at a later stage.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE:The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said even more than I hoped he would. I do not think that at this stage one could expect this Amendment to be accepted, and the fact that the noble Lord does not reject it outright is as much as my noble and learned friend and I could hope. I would point out that all previous considerations which have been raised about this matter have been concerned with the convenience of the administration, and the point which I wanted to make, and which my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner was trying to make, was about the relationship of a doctor to his patients. That has nothing to do with the administration or the institution in which the patient is. It is a personal and intimate relationship. It is that which is lost, and it is that for which we have to try to work. But in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.9 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I do not think that we should allow this clause to pass without some reference to another aspect of health care in this country to which I think no reference was made during the Second Reading debate. I refer to something rather wider in its impact than the very important element of health care referred to by my noble friends, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord Gardiner; that is, occupational health. We are at some disadvantage because we have not yet debated the Report of the Committee, under the chairmanship of the

867
noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, on Safety and Health at Work. I fully recognise that your Lordships' House, together with another place, passed last Session an Act relating to the Employment Medical Advisory Service, which set out a certain pattern for at least part of the care of people at work. But I do not think we should remain silent about a very large aspect of health care in this country.
I have been studying Chapter 12, the relevant chapter in the Robens Report, on the organisation of occupational medicine, and without any disrespect to that Committee I must say that I think they were stronger on safety than on health. I was far from convinced on reading that Report that they had gone adequately into the relationship between health, care at work and general community medicine. One can understand that they may have felt that this was not part of their remit. But it seems to me that they were rather cavalier in their comment in paragraph 380 of that Report, where they said:
"The argument that occupational medicine should be organised within the framework of the National Health Service is really a secondary issue".
Well, from their point of view it may have been a secondary issue. But they went on to admit that:
"Any fundamental reorganisation of general medicine would provide an opportunity for further consideration of the place of occupational medicine within the administrative structure".
It seems to me a little odd that we should have had no reference whatever to that in the introductory speeches and consideration of the Bill that is now before us. There is a strong body of opinion—in spite of what the Robens Committee may have felt—that the place for occupational medicine is within the National Health Service. It is true of course, as they argue, that, whatever system of administration one chooses, there is bound to be what they call an interface between the health and the occupational or industrial aspects of it, and that therefore, however carefully one devised one's administrative system, one would never get a complete identification. This one must freely admit. But, to my mind, there is a strong case for suggesting that if the Government, in the Bill now before us, were capable of taking
868
over the School Health Service, they might at the same time have taken over the Employment Medical Advisory Service. I believe that if they had been prepared to face this we should have had a much stronger position for the staff, both at doctor and at nursing level, because they would have felt that they were much more secure in their professional work as part of the great National Health Service.
We are all well aware that there are departmental problems here. This is one of the reasons why the Prison Medical Service was not included in the Bill: the Home Office do not want to give it up. When one comes to the occupational health service, the same applies: the Department of Employment do not want to give it up. I know perfectly well that in the previous Administration Mrs. Castle did not want to give it up; and she did not. I assume—though I have no intimate knowledge of the present Administration—that Mr. Macmillan does not want to give it up. But that is not necessarily an overriding reason for maintaining the occupational health service as a separate organisation.
We have no specific Amendment down; therefore I should not in the least hold it against the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, if he did not wish to reply to my remarks now. We felt, however, that we should at least put the Committee on notice that at a later stage when we perhaps have had a little more time for further consultation and when, frankly, the Government Front Bench have had time for further consultation, we may put down an Amendment on this matter so that we can discuss a considerable area of health care which we believe ought at least to be considered in a Bill which purports to reorganise in a comprehensive fashion the National Health Service of this country.
LORD ABERDARE: I feel that it would be discourteous of me not to reply to the noble Baroness, who has put her point so lucidly. It is true, as she said, that the Employment Medical Advisory Services have only recently been the subject of an Act of Parliament, and we have no intention at present of providing an occupational health service under the National Health Service. The fact is that the Secretary of State, under his qualified duty to provide medical, dental,

869
nursing and ambulance services, is not limited to a particular place, and therefore this includes the provision of services at a hospital, in-patients' homes, or indeed in any other place. This, for example, covers the scene of a major accident. So if the Secretary of State were to consider it necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, then the duty would also extend to the provision of services at places of employment.
As I say, there is at present no intention of going as far as this. As the noble Baroness knows, the Department of Employment organised the Employment Medical Advisory Services to carry out duties in connection with occupational hazards, such as working conditions and toxic hazards, including some routine medical inspections. Some firms provide privately the equivalent of a general practitioner service—and indeed we have been under pressure to take over responsibility for these services—but hitherto they have been regarded as a duplication of existing National Health Service primary care services, which in this country are provided on a home basis. So it will be a matter for the future to decide on priorities and where medical care is best provided. I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, and we can certainly discuss this subject further.
Clause 2 agreed to.
5.17 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Establishment of National Health Service Training Board
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a National Health Service Training Board to meet the training needs of the unified service in England and Wales."
The noble Baroness said: I am proposing this new clause in the belief that the proposed reorganisation of the Health Service presents us with an excellent opportunity to establish new national machinery to plan and co-ordinate all aspects of staff training and development for the unified Service, other than of course education and training leading to professional qualification. Many of your Lordships are familiar with the various aspects of the staff training arrangements in the National Health Service, which reflect in many ways its historical develop-
870
ment. They have evolved slowly and somewhat eratically over time as new needs have been revealed in a rapidly changing Service. Until comparatively recently, it is fair to say that they have consisted in the main of unco-ordinated, separately organised specialist systems for the different professions and staff interests who are concerned in the delivery of health care services, and they are all rapidly becoming irrelevant in the context of the training demands of an integrated Health Service such as we are seeking to build through the provisions of this Bill. One thinks of Cogwheel, Salmon, Zuckerman, and most recently of the excellent Report of the Committee on Nursing under the chairmanship of Professor Asa Briggs, which have all contributed to the recognition in the White Paper that in future most induction in-service, post-professional, and particularly management, training will need to be of a multi-disciplinary nature in the Service itself and closely related to the local authority social services, with which staff will need to co-operate at all levels to provide reciprocal and complementary services.
I believe that there is now a clearly demonstrated case for a major reappraisal of all our existing training programmes and the development of new ones, both for the period of transition, which will certainly last beyond April 1, 1974, and for the long-term development of a truly integrated Service. I therefore welcomed the statement—I believe it was in paragraph 150 of the White Paper—that comprehensive arrangements for all aspects of the personnel function (including training) must be developed. I was also glad to learn from the White Paper that the Department's own resources were being strengthened for this purpose. The White Paper went on to outline the proposals to establish an Advisory National Health Service Training Council, working with a linked series of advisory committees to provide co-ordinated advice to the Secretary of State. I have very great regard for the work undertaken up to now by the National Staff Committee, the hospital administrators, the clerical staff and the nursing staff committee, which are now apparently to be reconstituted on a wider basis as part of the proposed new series of advisory committees and which will move in alongside the personnel staff of the Department.
I also congratulate the Department on mounting these special courses to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has referred this afternoon, to assist staff to prepare for the period of the transition through the integrated health care management courses and special courses for medical administrators. Perhaps, since I have certain connections with some of the institutions providing these courses, I had better not praise them too highly; but at least I speak with first-hand knowledge of the value that these ad hoc courses have been to the staff who have been able to participate in them.
I believe that all this experience and activity in the last year or so will undoubtedly make a very useful and practical contribution to the longer-term training programmes that will be needed. Taken together, they have shown above all the urgent need for a new, vigorous and dynamic National Health Service Training Council, with executive powers of its own and direct responsibilities for developing training programmes over the range of health care staff needs. I see it as being a fairly compact body composed of Health Service authorities, with direct representation from the staff and including people with special knowledge and experience of training and education programmes in the Health and Social Services. Such a council must have real organisational independence and the necessary highly-skilled specialist management if the complex task involved in developing comprehensive training programmes over the whole range of the Services concerned is to be forcefully and effectively tackled.
The Advisory Council envisaged by the Government in the White Paper is quite a different kind of animal from the one that I believe to be essential for the development of multi-disciplinary staff training in this critical stage of the organisation of the unified Health Service. I therefore hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this new clause. Its main purpose, after all, is only to strengthen and make real the objectives which we all share in this very special area of concern; namely, to assist staff of all kinds to utilise to the full the new opportunities which the Service will present. I very much hope that the Government will consider this alterna-
872
tive of an independent statutory training council to the Advisory Council assisted by a series of committees which was envisaged in the White Paper. I beg to move.
5.24 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I can readily agree with the noble Baroness: we share the same objectives, and we are equally keen to see positive personnel policies developing in the Service, and also to give the related training which is so essential to it. The noble Baroness referred to the courses at present provided to enable staff from all three branches of the Service to extend their understanding and develop their expertise; and I should like to express my thanks to her, and to those others who play such a leading part in these very excellent courses. But I hope that, on further consideration, she may feel that we have already provided a fairly extensive system of advisory committees for the future.
We should not like to go as far as setting up a new training board, independent of the Service itself. In fact I can only repeat some words that I used on November 29, 1971, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. When we are considering a training council it does not mean that we are looking for something like a new industrial training board, building up a separate organisation of its own. We do not think this would be appropriate to the reorganised Service. In fact we are proceeding on the lines set out in paragraph 150 of the White Paper and in the corresponding paragraph of the Welsh White Paper. A start has already been made on consultations to establish two of the linked staff advisory committees mentioned in those paragraphs—that is, the National Staff Committee and the National Nursing Staff Committee. These committees, with others to be set up later, will co-ordinate the advice given to the Secretary of State on aspects of recruitment, manpower planning, training and career development of staff in the National Health Service.
The National Health Service Training Council, which is envisaged in the White Paper, is to work with those staff advisory committees and thus ensure compatibility of training arrangements. The Training Council will advise on the proper development of staff training and will respect the special needs of professional

873
staff. We do not think it would be right to embody such a Council in legislation, when it forms only a part, though an important one, of comprehensive personnel machinery.
The problem is that there are already a number of statutory and other bodies concerned with training for the major professions in the National Health Service, and their existence would make it difficult to provide additional, all-embracing statutory provision of the type suggested by the noble Baroness. We think that our proposals for a Training Council, which are less formal than what she has suggested, are better suited to the needs of the National Health Service and its staff in the immediate future. I recognise the noble Baroness's sincerity. I hope that she will agree not to press this Amendment and will appreciate that we can achieve our common aims through the existing committees and those which are to be set up in the future, with the new Training Council to coordinate the work of these committees and those other statutory committees that already exist for the various professions.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Lord has referred to paragraph 150 of the White Paper. It was the later sentences of that paragraph which were quoted by my noble friend Lady Serota that encouraged us to think that this Amendment would be welcome and acceptable, in the sense that it gives real meaning to what is said in that paragraph. The noble Lord referred to assurances which he gave to me some time ago, but I think he will be aware that the Stall Side of the Whitley Council have been urging for a very long time that a central training body should be established. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has asked the Committee, and particularly those of us on this side, to accept that what he has said is sufficient by way of indication and assurance that this matter will not be overlooked.
My noble friend asked—and, if we are going to consider accepting assurances, it is important we should have an assurance beyond question on this one—that in regard to any training council or training board that may be set up the staff shall not only be represented on it but shall have the right themselves to
874
appoint their representatives. I put this as something quite distinct from the staff organisations making nominations and the Secretary of State choosing to appoint as he thinks fit. If the staff are to have confidence not only in the training council but in advisory committees (and, if I may, I will touch on advisory committees a little more presently) they will do so only if they have confidence in the persons who represent them. The one sure way of securing that confidence is to leave them to appoint their own representatives.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, says there is a great deal in the Bill about advisory committees. So far as I know, there is not very much in the Bill about advisory committees of the kind which are the subject of these Amendments.
LORD ABERDARE: I do not think I said, "in the Bill", did I? I was speaking about the White Paper.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The White Paper. Well, we are concerned with the Bill. I am glad the noble Lord is willing to concede there is little in the Bill about advisory committees of this kind. This is a matter of some concern. There is one weakness of this Bill—it is a weakness recognised by most noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading; it is certainly a weakness which is referred to when one is in conversation with Members of your Lordships' House—and that is its very vagueness; how much is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State; how little is conceded as a matter of right. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to recognise that the substance of these Amendments is well worthy of most serious consideration by the Government. I have a feeling that, unless some awareness of this problem is shown from the Front Bench opposite, it will remain a problem throughout the passage of this Bill. I should like to feel that we can make a constructive contribution, one that will be satisfying. We shall need the good will of the staffs throughout the piece—not merely at the present time but so far as we can look forward in the future. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Aberdare, will be able to give further consideration to this matter.
LORD ABERDARE: Certainly I will. As the noble Lord has said, it is a most

875
important point. I should like to consider carefully the proposals which he has put forward and perhaps to talk to the noble Baroness later on about our plans for the National Health Service Training Council. If that will satisfy her, I will certainly undertake to carry the matter further on those lines.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am always happy to talk to the noble Lord about any subject, and particularly about this one. I must confess to being very disappointed with his reply. It was exactly what I feared it might be, and, as my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy said, it would have been so nice to be surprised. If this is to be the pattern of our Committee stage we shall have a very long Report stage indeed because I am anxious about the organisation and structure of the training arrangements for the Service. I realise that these Amendments went down only last week. Perhaps we have had too short a time between Second Reading and Committee stage. I should like to think that the noble Lord is going to consider my proposal seriously because I am convinced that we shall not have the dynamic training organisation that the Service needs at this moment if we accept the noble Lord's series of linked advisory committees, advising and advisory councils, who then advise the Secretary of State. In view of the noble Lord's assurance, I will not force this Amendment to a vote to-day, but in withdrawing it I would urge him as powerfully as I can to take it seriously. This is a matter of prime concern to the Service of the future, and it is not good enough simply to waffle along as we have done in the past. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.35 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Establishment of National Health Service Advisory Service
". It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish and maintain a National Health Advisory Service for England and Wales."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the
876
name of my noble friends and myself. I do so because it is of importance to all of us in considering the new arrangements for the Health Service to discover what are the Government's intentions with regard to what I think was one of the most successful innovations of my right honourable friend Mr. Crossman, the last Minister of Health; namely, the Hospital Advisory Service. The terms of the new clause indicate that we would hope that under the new dispensation the work of this advisory service should be extended to cover not only hospitals but other aspects of the reorganised Health Service. If I might remind your Lordships, the Hospital Advisory Service was established in 1969 following the scandal at the Ely Hospital for mentally handicapped patients. The shock of the revelations at Ely was particularly close to any of us who happened to be in the Welsh Office as Ministers at the time, and that shock had a very profound effect not least upon the Minister then responsible, Mr. Crossman. He felt that it was essential, if such a situation were to be avoided, that there should be an independent body established, to cover both England and Wales, reporting to the two Secretaries of State concerned—and reporting directly—so that the Ministers concerned could feel that they had independent advice coming to them directly, on the one hand, and, on the other hand. that the Health Service could benefit by professional advice (I stress the word "professional") from persons who were normally engaged within the Service themselves, and that this advice should be not merely critical but in every possible way helpful. The terms of reference, if I might remind your Lordships, were
"by constructive criticism and by propagating good practices and new ideas, to help to improve the management and patient care in individual hospitals, excluding matters of clinical judgment, and in the Hospital Service as a whole: and to advise the Secretary of State for Social Services about conditions in hospitals in England and the Secretary of State for Wales about conditions in hospitals in Wales".
Since its establishment the Hospital Advisory Service has published two reports—because, in addition to the detailed reports which go both to the establishments themselves and to the Department, it is part of the duty of the Director of the Hospital Advisory Ser-

877
vice also to submit an annual report, which is published—and it is quite clear from the two reports which so far have emerged from this service that it is doing absolutely invaluable work in exactly the way in which was hoped and expected of it. If I may quote from the Foreword, signed by the Secretaries of State, in July, 1972, they say:
"This report gives us an insight into the sympathetic and effective methods used. These indicate an originality essential to an organisation which sets out not to find fault with performance but much more to promote improvement in any of the numerous factors which may impede it, and they reflect the enthusiasm of all those who take part in the work of this service".
That, after all, from two senior Secretaries of State is quite high praise.
The method adopted of working in teams is part of the originality displayed in this organisation, and as the announcement of the appointment of the Hospital Advisory Service indicated, the members of the teams are seconded from their normal employment in the National Health Service. In other words, they are not employed in this particular type of work for life. To my mind, that is a very sensible thing. Admittedly in another sphere, in education, we have a different pattern; we have Her Majesty's Inspectors who, once they have reached that exalted standard, remain H.M.I.s for the rest of their professional lives. But frankly I think that in the National Health Service, and particularly in a Service which changes rapidly in many aspects, it is better that one should have this pattern of those who, for a period, have this very particular duty but after they have done it for maybe one, two, or a slightly longer period of years, then return to their normal professional work, having themselves no doubt learned a great deal as well as having conveyed much to others.
Therefore we think that this experiment has proved itself; that the general lines on which it was conceived were right and effective; that it should now be extended to the totality of the Health Service, with any necessary modifications, and that it therefore merits inclusion in the Bill which is before us so that it is given some statutory form. In its present form, of course, it was a purely administrative decision to set it up but the main principles: that is, that it should be independent of both Departments, the
878
English and the Welsh; that it should have direct access to the Ministers and that its reports should be published; that its staff should be mainly on secondment (although I would not necessarily say exclusively on secondment) we believe are all right and proper and we hope that if the proposed new clause is accepted by the Government it will be on the understanding that these principles are maintained. I beg to move.
5.44 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: As the noble Baroness has said, the present N.H.S. Hospital Advisory Service, which operates in both England and Wales and is responsible directly to the two Secretaries of State, is concerned only with the hospital services and at present gives advice on services in psychiatric (including mental handicap) and geriatric hospital services only. It was set up, as the noble Baroness has told your Lordships, by administrative action, and its terms of reference and field of operation can be varied by the Secretaries of State in the light of changing needs and circumstances. I would certainly join with her in paying tribute to the valuable work the Hospital Advisory Service has done, and to her own Government for having initiated the Service.
We fully accept the need to provide suitable mechanisms for assessing the services provided for patients and the conditions in hospitals. A variety of methods will need to be used, related to the needs of the particular aspects of the reorganised Health Service. We do not think it would be appropriate to impose on the Secretaries of State a statutory duty to use one particular method while not mentioning others. They already have sufficient powers under the Bill to provide for services to be assessed and for advice to be given on them, either by a service modelled on the present Hospital Advisory Service or by other methods.
The intention of the Secretaries of State is to maintain the Hospital Advisory Service in its present form until the reorganisation of the Health Service has taken place, after which they propose to discuss its future with the new Health Authorities and the professional interests concerned. This will need to be considered in relation to the other mechanisms for monitoring the services in the

879
reorganised and integrated National Health Service. Therefore I hope the noble Baroness will feel that we are aware of the value of this Hospital Advisory Service, but that, rather than write it into the Bill, we should prefer to leave it to the decisions of the Secretaries of State at a later date when they can discuss it fully with the new Health Authorities who will be directly involved.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am grateful for the speech that has just been made by the noble Lord, but a point occurs to me. It is already sticking out a mile that we are taking the Bill too near to all the White Papers that have been turned out. Things are in a state of flux: I am not saying, this in a derogatory sense, but it is on such a vast scale. It seems to me that in the remarks which have just been made by the Minister there is an idea that the Government will accept some form of words such as my noble friend has moved from the Front Bench. We are going to take this Bill through this Committee, and maybe through the Report stage also, with things not being clear in the minds of the Ministry—and I repeat that I say that in no derogatory sense. I know the noble Lord the Minister is overwhelmed with a large job of work for his Ministry, and I wish him well in it. But I hope that some of these things will be put before this House more explicity than we have had them un to the moment.
LORD ABERDARE: I take that point, and I will certainly do my best to make everything explicit. In this case the difficulty is that the Hospital Advisory Service works as well as it does only because it has been accepted by the health authorities, and by the medical profession and others, and it would be quite wrong to perpetuate it in a Bill until an opportunity has been given to discuss with the new authorities and with the medical profession further developments that might be appropriate for it.
BARONESS SEROTA: In all the consultations that have taken place in regard to the new legislation has the noble Lord, or any of his Ministerial colleagues, ever entered into consultations with the professions concerned about the possibility of extending the scope of the Hospital Advisory Service?
LORD ABERDARE: Not so far as I know. I do not think it has been considered that the time is yet appropriate for expanding the work of the present Hospital Advisory Service.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure the noble Lord will realise the great difficulty in which we are placed in a situation of this kind. It is all very well for him to say that "when the times comes "and" in due course" we shall have consultations with the new authorities. But if one has no anchor point, and if there is nothing whatever in the Statute, even by reference, it means that everything then passes entirely from our surveillance in Parliament. However enthusiastic we may be about the Hospital Advisory Service as it is, and however much we may wish to have it extended, we shall have no occasion whatever to consider it if there is no mention of it anywhere in the Bill or in a Schedule. This frankly worries me.
I can see it perfectly from the point of view of the Minister, but I hope that he can see it from the point of view of Parliament. If one has something, which admittedly was an innovation started by administrative action but which appears to have proved itself to be something of value, and if one then goes and discusses it with the new authorities there is bound to be a certain apprehension that possibly in this hierarchical system, which worries some of us, some over-formalised monitoring system may be proposed which really would not meet the kind of situation for which the Hospital Advisory Service was devised.
I do not propose to press this matter to a vote; this is not the sort of issue on which we really want to vote. I ask your Lordships who are concerned with services of this kind to think carefully between now and the next stage about this type of issue. If we have something which seems to many of us to have been a singularly useful innovation, we should at least seek to safeguard it. I do not mean that we should make it immutable in its present form; and the new clause as drafted is as wide as it could be, leaving immense discretion to the Ministers concerned as to the precise way in which it might be administered. We at least have here a point of reference which I feel is of value, and I therefore ask the

881
Minister seriously to reconsider this matter because we are asking
"… the Secretary of State to establish and maintain a National Health Service Advisory Service for England and Wales."
The clause could hardly be broader than that. It does not seek to trammel Ministers as to the precise way in which it is organised or administered. We would of course hope that the principles so far adopted would be continued, but we do not want to attempt to tie Ministers in perpetuity.
Frankly, I would have thought that the noble Lord could accept a new clause drafted in such broad terms. Although, as I say, I do not propose at this time to press the matter to a Division, I have every expectation that if we do not press it the subject will be raised in another place. This would seem to be an issue on which your Lordships might well give a lead. However, if the Minister dots not feel able to go further, and I appreciate that he may not be able to do so.—
LORD PLATT: May I remind the noble Baroness—
BARONESS WHITE: If the noble Lord, Lord Platt, wishes to intervene, I had better wait to seek leave to withdraw the suggested new clause.
LORD PLATT: I had intended to intervene immediately following the remarks which the noble Baroness is now making.
BARONESS WHITE: If the noble Lord waits till that point, and after I have sought leave to withdraw the suggested new clause, he may find himself in some difficulty in trying to intervene. Perhaps he would care to speak now and I will make some final comments after he has spoken.
LORD PLATT: I appreciate that the point the noble Baroness is now making is important, but I suggest with respect that the new clause would not secure the aim she has in mind. Although I am not an expert Parliamentary draftsman, I suggest that the new clause is too wide to achieve any purpose at all. I could not agree to a proposition which simply left the Secretary of State with power to do anything he liked in the way of handling advisory services. The noble Baroness's proposition would not appear to secure the continuation of the very
882
useful Hospital Advisory Service about which so much has been said.
BARONESS WHITE: If the noble Lord, Lord Platt, would care to draft a more detailed and specific Amendment for Report, I should be more than happy to consider it. In the present circumstances it seems that I cannot do other than seek leave to withdraw my suggested new clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Medical and dental service for pupils]:
5.55 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 36, at the end insert ("provided that the teachers shall not be required to undertake any duties connected with such inspections, other than the assembling of the pupils.")
The noble Lord said: We come to the clause which deals with medical and dental services for pupils, which in subsection (1) lays on the Secretary of State
… the duty … to make provision for the medical and dental inspection at appropriate intervals of pupils in attendance at schools maintained by local education authorities and for the medical and dental treatment of such pupils."
Let me say at the outset that it is important that we get this part of the Bill as right as we possibly can. It is appropriate that we should pay tribute to the tremendously valuable work which has been done over long years by the School Medical Service. Many people living to-day have all too little appreciation of what they owe to this Service for having detected defects and troubles of one kind and another. The Service has probably been under strain in parts of the country in the last few years, but one can say without doubt that generally speaking it has represented a remarkably successful and wonderful job of work on the part of local education authorities throughout the country. As a nation, we should be aware of what we owe this Service. If this Bill becomes an Act the situation will be changed considerably. We hope that we shall get things right. Indeed, I hope that we succeed in securing some improvements. I assure the Committee that the contribution of my noble friends to the consideration of this clause will be as constructive and helpful as possible.
The Amendment is intended to make clear the limit of teachers' responsibilities in regard to medical and dental attendances at appropriate intervals at schools. Teachers have undertaken, and at the present time are undertaking, many duties which, strictly speaking, do not come within their terms of engagement. They go beyond the strict call of duty in many ways, giving help which is time-consuming and which often imposes self-inflicted real burdens. How much individual children owe—indeed, how much society owes—to teachers who have such a tremendous sense of responsibility to their pupils is incalculable. Many people owe an immeasurable debt to dedicated teachers in this as in so many other fields. It is that sense of moral responsibility on the part of teachers which accounts for the support that is most effective, particularly in the medical and dental services, and not least because it is voluntary.
I stress that aspect because it is this involvement on the part of dedicated teachers on a voluntary basis that is responsible for so much that is successful by way of tasks that are freely undertaken but which go beyond professional obligation. Indeed, the interest and service that flows from this voluntary involvement is something that legislation cannot ensure and should not attempt to ensure. It is important to recognise limitations in regard to professional obligation. I say this after consulting with what is, I believe, the largest professional body which speaks for teachers, and it is felt by them that this Amendment should be written into the Bill. Looked at strictly in terms of a Health Service, that Service ought to cope with all the clerical work; the organisation of facilities, including parental interest; all the follow-up work; and the making of whatever contacts may be necessary—indeed, the entire administrative process. It may be said that there is nothing in the Bill that lays that duty on teachers. As I said, the largest staff organisation which speaks for teachers feels that the limitation of obligation on the part of teachers in this particular respect ought to be written into the Bill.
May I say here, speaking from experience, that I well recall teachers saying how much difficulty there has been in the
884
past in securing the co-operation of parents when John Willie has been seen by the dentist. There has been difficulty sometimes in getting the co-operation of parents when some trouble has been diagnosed by the doctor. Perhaps too easily we would say that any teacher worth his or her salt would recognise that that is something which they ought to do. Left to their own inclinations, as I have said, they do a very great deal that they are not under an obligation to do but, excepting that they may give over and beyond the call of duty, it has been a very difficult matter, even when teachers have been very conscientious, to ensure that children get the treatment which they ought to have. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when he comes to speak on this Amendment will be able to assure us that the Health Service will be able to cope more effectively in future than it has been doing in the past. If he is able to give that assurance it will be welcome, because we are very anxious to get this part of the Bill as right as we possibly can. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am interested in this Amendment because the desired object of the Bill, which is to provide the framework for the new Health Service, is to improve on the past. Keeping myself strictly to the terms of the Amendment without meandering too far out of order, may I say that the purpose here is not only medical but also dental attention, and we are asking that the function of a teacher should be limited to that of assembly. From experience, I believe that it is absolutely necessary after the assembly for a nurse to be present with the doctor. There are all kinds of reasons. There are different stages in the life of a child when the presence of the nurse, and sometimes the parent, creates confidence.
May I point out that so far as the dental and the medical inspections are concerned, specific training is needed today. A tribute has been paid to the Health Service in schools. A tribute has been paid to the dental service. I reiterate and endorse that tribute, but I know that the dental service and the medical service for schools is undermanned. It is the ugly duckling of the profession because conditions and salaries have not been appropriate in relation to those of their

885
colleagues in other parts of the profession, despite the fact that these dedicated men and women in dentistry and in the medical service are making as great a contribution to the men and women of the future as that of any doctor or surgeon who attends to us when, years later, we may have to be in hospital. Consequently. when we are building up this framework at the base of the pyramid of health, as I said the other day, money will have to be spent to get the appropriate recruits, and with those recruits the nursing profession should be brought in and properly rewarded so that the burden does not always fall upon teachers—as it used to do in some of the rural schools in the past—to try to spot deformities or deterioration in the health or condition of the children.
I hope also that in this framework (I do not know if the opportunity for amendment will come) we shall do something about this damnable propaganda all the time which is ruining the teeth of the children of Britain. They are worse to-day generally than they were 20 years' ago through the overt 'hyperbole which is used on television to describe sweets. More sweets per head are eaten in Britain than in any other country in the world, and if the dental profession were asked about the condition of our children's teeth to-day they would say they are probably the worst of any (I do not of course mean of dentistry service) because children are bulging themselves out with masses of sweets.
That is a slight diversion, but it is worth calling attention to it, because we are building up a framework of health, and part of that framework of health is to protect the public and the children—I do not mean in a motherly or paternal fashion—from the ruination of their own teeth. One day we may have the courage to do something about fluoride. I do not say we should add fluoride in the national water supply, but there should be a fluoride provision for the children in school supplies, in the drinking water which the children get at school (as they have with school milk), provided that the teachers agree. Consequently, this Amendment by my noble friend opens a vista in this framework of health. I sincerely hope that the Ministry will agree that the job should be done properly and that every school should have a room
886
where the doctor and dentist can have privacy—not, as I have known, an examination that takes place in the cloakroom, where wet coats have been hanging up, with the doctor or dentist a few yards away having to examine the child there. There should be a surgery or place of inspection in every school where the dentist, nurse and doctor can examine the children in privacy.
6.8 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for paying tribute to the school health service. This is one of the things in this country which has been proof positive that we really try to look after children from as young an age as we can. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, had every right to say that the service has worked; and because it has worked pretty well we ought to pay tribute to it when we have the chance. In this connection, may I make it clear that Clause 3 gives to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services the same duties and powers in relation to services for pupils as local education authorities have at present. There is no intention that under this clause teachers should be required in any sense to service the school inspection arrangements under the new arrangements.
I should, however, like to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said when he talked about the things which teachers do in a voluntary capacity, for I genuinely believe that this Amendment might prevent them from doing what they, as professional people, might wish to do. So far as the routine aspects of school medical inspections are concerned, certainly one would not expect teachers to do more than see that their pupils arrived for inspection. There are various nursing, clerical and other ancillary staff present at medical inspections and involved in those inspections. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, about facilities, it is stated in black and white in Clause 3 that in this particular case the duty is upon the Secretary of State to provide the treatment and inspection facilities. It will therefore be

887
the people on that side who will undertake such duties as filling in records and screening work and helping with the examination and with the equipment.
But teachers, school doctors and nurses generally attach a good deal of importance to the maintenance of close and continuous ties between the school and the school health services, not just at medical inspections but throughout the year. Teachers, as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, quite rightly acknowledged may well wish to have the opportunity at inspections to discuss with the doctor or nurse general health questions, or points about an individual child who perhaps the teacher knows a great deal better than anyone else. In this situation teachers in nursery and primary schools and special schools may also wish to be present, at any rate for a few moments, to reassure and help their own children, and to facilitate communication with the doctors or nurses, if they know that difficulties will arise; for instance, if a child is deaf, inarticulate, or is in any way severely handicaped. I am sure the teaching profession would consider that on some occasions they have an important part to play in the inspection process and would regard this as something with which they would wish to be identified.
A further point has to be borne in mind; namely, that the essential feature of the new arrangements is that there should be good co-operation at all levels Section 48(4) of the Education Act 1944 will in essence remain; it provides that every local education authority shall make arrangements for encouraging and assisting pupils to take advantage of the facilities for medical and dental inspection and treatment. The arrangements which local education authorities have been expected to make under this subsection have in fact never been defined; they are for local discretion in the light of particular circumstances. But I suggest that it could be argued that the professional co-operation of the teacher can be in a sense an aspect of the fulfilment by the local education authorities of this duty under this subsection.
I would therefore urge your Lordships not to accept this specific Amendment, but to leave it to the good sense of local education authorities and school and Area
888
Health Authorities and school doctors and nurses to see that teachers are able to do all that is professionally required of them, without this developing into an obligation which goes further than that. May I reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that the Bill makes it clear that the responsibility for inspection and treatment rests on the Secretary of State, and I am sure it would not be the wish of Area Health Authorities or local education authorities that teachers should personally be involved with any of the routine questions to do with medical examination.
I appreciate the reason for this Amendment. What I hope I have communicated to the Committee is that there is no requirement written into this clause which will extend the duties or powers of the teaching profession in connection with school medical inspections, but that in the spirit of section 48(4) of the Education Act 1944, which still in essence stands, I believe this Amendment would be unduly restrictive.
LORD AUCKLAND: I have listened with great interest to the proceedings on this debate. This is not an aspect of the Bill with which I am personally very much acquainted. But one thing is absolutely certain; that is that the importance of this clause depends on team work. It is not solely a question of whether or not the teacher should assemble the children; the whole thing boils down to the root source, which is where the parents can help, too. I think it very important that there should be the closest possible liaison between parents, the school doctor, the teacher, and, if necessary, the family doctor. Mention was made of children who are deaf. Of course, many deaf children are at special schools, particularly if they are severely handicapped in this respect.
I hope my noble friend will give further consideration to the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has moved. I quite see that in its present form it is not perhaps completely satisfactory; indeed, I am not sure that in its present form it can be made to work. But I think there is some substance in it. Co-operation between parents, teachers and all the authorities is essential to make this scheme work properly.
6.15 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead,

889
for the very careful statement—I think it was carefully prepared—with which he replied, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for what he has said. After listening as closely as I could to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, may I say that I think it needs studying very carefully, because there is a considerable degree of ambiguity about it. He spoke about leaving it to the good sense of the local education authorities and others involved in the service of education to do all that is professionally required of them. We are talking about this particular clause in this particular Bill.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, and I am grateful to him, laid stress on the fact that if this Amendment were carried then it would lay on the Health Service the obligation to ensure that all the things to which the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, so rightly referred, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, himself, were carried out. Teachers can ensure that pupils attend for examination and they can ensure that they attend for treatment. That is a fairly considerable undertaking in co-operation. What is unreasonable is to say, "You may be professionally required", or "there may, by implication, be some professional obligation to go beyond that, to keep contact with the parent ". May I say, and I think probably it meets the point, that usually, if they are bothered about a youngster, head teachers will instruct the educational welfare officer to call at the home. I do not think there can be any question of expecting teachers to go so far as to be quite sure that parents cooperate and do all that they ought to do. It is sometimes difficult to persuade parents that Johnnie ought to be sent to school on the day the inspection is due. There is a difficulty there. If teachers co-operate in assembling pupils for inspection and treatment, they are making quite a contribution.
But I am positive that teachers, of their own goodwill, will do a very great deal more than perform professional obligation. May I say this very frankly to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—of this he will be as aware as I am and possibly more so—that where teachers are concerned a climate has developed in demonstrating the limit of obligation. I should be very sorry if in the passage of this Bill we failed to take advantage of the
890
opportunity to recognise that they have a limited obligation in regard to what is involved in this clause.
I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that what I am saying is based on a feeling on the part of teachers. This is an issue where we want no confrontation, but I think the noble Lord could have given a much more satisfactory assurance than lie has given. I should have been prepared to withdraw the Amendment and leave the matter, if his assurance had been complete in the sense that it recognised that there was a limitation to the responsibility of teachers, and if that limitation were in the terms of the Amendment. I should have accepted that without its being written into the Bill. I do not at the moment feel inclined to press the matter to a Division this evening, but I am inclined to return to the matter at Report stage, after giving the Minister an opportunity of thinking further about it. If a similar Amendment is tabled at Report stage, he may be able to give a little better assurance than he has done so far. On the other hand. the noble Lord may now feel that he can give a quite explicit assurance which would meet the principle of the Amendment.
LORD BELSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, used the expression "limit of obligation" and said, during his second speech, that a head teacher who is worried about a pupil will often go to the educational welfare officer, who will follow up the case. The noble Lord has touched precisely on the sort of point which worries me very much about this Amendment. It is just possible that this Amendment could preclude that process. It could be said that under this Amendment that is the sort of process which a head teacher either need not or should not follow. What I am saying is that the process which the noble Lord has put forward as being usual for a normal, compassionate head teacher is something which should continue; and if anybody in the teaching profession feels that that profession is being imposed upon there is the joint collaborative machinery between local authorities and the new Area Health Authorities where these matters can be threshed out. I realise that this is not an easy problem, and I am perfectly ready indeed, this is surely the whole point of

891
a Committee stage—to listen carefully and learn from what other noble Lords have said. But I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, to be so good as to look carefully at the Report of what has been said and, if he feels that we have not got it right, the matter can be returned to at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.23 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) of this clause states that the Secretary of State, in arranging for the medical and dental treatment of pupils, may, by arrangement with any local educational authority or with the proprietor of any educational establishment which is not maintained by the local educational authority, make provision accordingly. It seems to us that the word "may" here indicates a discretion which would be undesirable if it were exercised, in the sense that something which ought to be done might not be done. The word "shall" is much more clear, much more explicit and puts beyond any doubt the duty of the Secretary of State. In a word, it makes it what it ought to be in this connection—an obligatory activity. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: I ventured to suggest to the Committee a few moments ago that the purpose of Clause 3 is to transfer the duties and powers under present educational legislation, without adding to or subtracting from anything which exists at the moment. It will place a duty where a power has existed earlier. On those grounds, I am afraid that I am not in a position to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. But may I ask for guidance from the noble Lord? It seems to me that this Amendment hangs together with some of the other Amendments between Nos. 20 and 26, because, as the noble Lord himself has said, it would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide services for senior pupils, for what I call Section 56 children, and also for independent direct grant schools
892
after arrangement with the proprietors. I do not want to appear to be too unforthcoming in saying that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and may we know a little more of the noble Lord's thinking and whether he wishes to take any other Amendments with this one?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Not at this stage, although I have it in mind to take some of the Amendments together. But may I say that this has not been an easy matter to deal with, and I should have been obliged if the noble Lord had approached me about it before we met this afternoon. Let me tell him of some of the difficulties which have had to be faced. I did not receive a copy of the Marshalled List until I reached your Lordships' House this afternoon. We are not accustomed to meeting on Mondays, and it would have been impossible to get in touch with a Government Department over the weekend, if one had wished to do so. I certainly have no desire to take up the time of the Committee in moving Amendments separately, but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will recognise that we have had a comparatively short period of time in which to work since the Bill was issued. This is the first time that we have taken a Bill of this size before the other place and we really have had a stint on our hands. I shall co-operate as much as I possibly can, but I hope that the noble Lord will be as tolerant of the procedural difficulties which arise as a result of our approach to the matter, as we have been of the very difficult situation in which we have been placed in considering the Bill.
LORD BELSTEAD: Perhaps I owe the noble Lord an apology. I am sorry if I appeared to be hectoring in my tone, and I did not wish to be, but I thought it might be for the better understanding of this group of Amendments if they were considered together. Perhaps it is better if we take them one by one, and certainly I shall be guided by the noble Lord. Several times this morning, I attempted to get in touch with the noble Lord and with his noble friend Lady Serota, but I regret to say that I was unsuccessful. I feel sure that it was my mistake, and nobody else's, to put that point to the noble Lord.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that I did

893
not appear to be resenting any hectoring, because I know that the noble Lord did not intend it. I was trying to explain a very real difficulty. As regards this morning, my noble friend was fully engaged and I was attending court all the morning, but when I arrived home I had no indication that anybody had been ringing my telephone, although someone was there for most of the time. I said at the outset that Clause 3 is extremely important, and I therefore think that we ought not to consider doing anything which would rush our consideration. But, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 39, leave out line 39 and insert—
("(a) make arrangements with each local education authority for the provision by that authority in the area of the authority of").
The noble Lord said: Clause 3(2)(a) calls on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for medical or dental inspection by arrangement with any local education authority. Like so much in this Bill, the words "any local education authority "lack the provision that the circumstances call for. They are vague where they need not be vague, vague where there ought to be clarity beyond question. There can be no question that "any" should be "each". The wording of the Amendment is intended quite seriously to be helpful. Without seeking to demonstrate that at length, I hope it will commend itself to the Government. I hope the Committee will see the virtue in it. I beg to move.
LORD BROCK: My interest in this Amendment lies in the words "in the area of the authority of". The medical officers of health are to be moved from local authority employment to the new Health Authority; but the local authorities will still need advice on various matters, as is instanced in this Amendment. It was feared that they might seek to obtain medical advice from other medical sources and it is desirable that they should continue to obtain advice from those from whom they have always obtained it and who will be employed by the Health Authority. Already we see an opportunity being created for local authorities
894
to recruit new medical staff. This will stultify the whole question of the reorganisation of the National Health Service.
LORD BELSTEAD: If I read correctly the clause as it would be amended, this Amendment would transfer to the local authorities a responsibility for the Health Service, for senior pupils, for the Section 56 children and for direct grant and independent schools, by arrangement. The Joint Working Party on collaboration was, I think, definite, although there were dissenting voices, that this should not be so. I apprehend that it would really be the opposite of co-operation if certain educational sectors became the responsibility of education and other sectors became the responsibility of health. It is with that in mind that I must say roundly that while I am sorry not to be helpful, it seems to me that if this Amendment were accepted it would completely alter the intention of Clause 3(2)(a) as printed, which proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power to make provision. Moreover, the Amendment would in fact place a duty on the local authority. Your Lordships may wish to debate the principle of this matter later in depth when we come to Amendment No. 27; but at the moment I am afraid that I really cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons given. I do not think I am in a position to give an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brock, because the Amendment is not mine.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord. In the light of what he has said, and since I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("provision for any").
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendments No. 23 and No. 23A. The effect of these two Amendments would be that subsection (2)(a) would begin:
"by arrangement with any local education authority, make medical and dental inspection and treatment of—"
It seems to me that this would help ensure that the National Health Service would have an obligation to continue what the local authorities have sought to achieve; that is to say, the need to ensure that the contribution, both direct and indirect, made by the school health service in the educational process is encouraged to continue to develop—which has been, and is, as I understand it, the aim of the local authority associations. The purpose of these Amendments is to further that. I hope the Amendments will commend themselves to the Committee, for I believe their effect is to provide a more explicit wording and help ensure a medical service which will meet all the health needs, not only of inspection but also of treatment of all those young persons whose education may be affected by health defects which ought to be rectified. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: I must apologise to the Committee in that I am not entirely sure that the intention of the noble Lord would be served by the acceptance of these Amendments. The noble Lord said that the intention is that the National Health Service should be, and should be seen to be, continuing the good work of the school health service. I should like to take these Amendments away and look at them, and if the intentions of the noble Lord are achieved by the passage of these Amendments, then, if I can be of any service in accepting them I will do so. At the moment, I cannot see that they achieve this object. I am also not too sure that their insertion would leave the text grammatical.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: It would be churlish of me not to say that I am very grateful for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.39 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 41, at end insert ("and medical counselling with psychiatric psycho-therapeutic and nursing support of").
The noble Lord said. I hope the Committee will be patient with me. I had prepared to move this Amendment separately, but the whole lot will not take over long. The clause as worded provides
896
for medical and dental inspection and/or treatment. Increasingly it is being appreciated that mental health is as important as physical health; and in the world of education, perhaps more than elsewhere. I think it is only to be stated in the Committee to-night to be seen as obvious. One might say that good as is the service of the child guidance clinics at present, a great deal more needs to be done. Earlier this afternoon one or two speakers referred to the difficulties of the school medical service. So far as child guidance clinics are concerned, it has been doing wonderful work. My one criticism would be that it has all too frequently been carrying far too heavy a load. I am thinking of incidents within my own knowledge and experience where young people have needed not only advice but a great deal of help and support because of behaviour problems.
Those behaviour problems arise for a variety of reasons. One is tempted to think and to say that the parents ought to accept responsibility and do something about it. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, was right when he said that parents ought to be playing a part. It would be much easier if we could rely on all parents doing so. One of the difficulties of ensuring that we get a satisfactory school health service is that children who most need parents with a sense of responsibility do not have them. The parents do not understand all that is involved. They do not understand the handicap imposed on a child because of their failure. I do not think this is a deliberate failure but an unconscious failure, and something to be regretted. This is one of the difficulties and something that I had in mind when I moved an Amendment recently about putting a limit on the obligation of the teacher.
I do not know how to secure the cooperation of parents who do not begin to understand. I am certain that we ought to do everything possible to see that the child does not suffer because the parent lacks understanding or is unwilling to accept the responsibility. In my experience the maladjusted child is nearly always the product of a maladjusted home. The fact that the home environment is unsatisfactory is all too often not appreciated until a child has been in trouble. It may be detected when truancy occurs or something a very great

897
deal more serious. There is thus raised the issue of who is to be responsible for giving attention to the maladjusted home. For some years I have been chairman of a school for maladjusted children. It is an expensive specialisation of the service of education. The pupil-teacher ratio has to be very favourable and the care staff of a high standard.
If I am going wide in moving this Amendment I hope that the Committee will be patient with me. I am doing my best to bring into play all the forces involved in securing a Health Service which will enable a child to take full advantage of the opportunities made available by the local education authority. Section 48 of the 1944 Education Act, as amended by the 1953 Act, provides for medical and dental inspections, for the oversight of individual children and for advice which may be given to their parents. I think I have it right when I refer to "advice which may be given to their parents". This clause would be strengthened, thus ensuring that the help in overcoming the handicaps of mental illness as much as medical and physical illness would be adequate. I believe that gives effect to the view of the Society of Education Officers who issued a memorandum in which they stated that they wished to put on record the view that there will be a continuing need for local education authorities to run a child guidance service in conjunction with the school psychological service. It would serve to emphasise the role of the local education authorities in relation to child guidance services, and indeed beyond them to older pupils and students. If I have gone a little wide it is only from a desire to be helpful in the sense of not missing out anything which ought to be said about this aspect of the National Health Service as it applies to those in full-time education.
LORD AUCKLAND: Since the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has mentioned my name in this connection may I say that I have a great deal of sympathy with his object in moving the Amendment. I cannot speak with the same experience in education as he can and I am not a justice of the peace. But my wife sits on our local Bench and periodically a child of the type mentioned by the noble Lord appears before the court. I take his point about parents. There are all too
898
many parents who will not fulfil their obligations in this connection. Because of that I think we are in a great deal of difficulty over the Amendment. Psychiatric treatment and the allied forms of treatment are different from the ordinary dental and medical inspection. Here I think is the problem: how far can one make it mandatory for a child to receive this kind of treatment without either parental consent and co-operation or that of the family doctor. That, I think, is the real dilemma.
Clearly, there are children who are in need of psychiatric treatment but in some cases if children know that a companion has received this kind of treatment they will damn the child and probably make the situation worse. I may be talking out of turn, but it seems an important point. Serving as I do on the house committee of one of the several mental hospitals situated in that part of Surrey where I live, I have studied the problem of mental health so far as I can. I hope that the Government will give some thought to the very important implications behind this Amendment, notwithstanding the inherent difficulties which it presents.
6.48 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: I do not know that I am particularly competent to be drawn into a discussion on the child guidance services. Several noble Lords are, but I do not think that I can be numbered among them. But, as a result of what I have heard, I think I ought to say that I know it is not envisaged that there will be any change in the present child guidance arrangements, other than those which may develop as part of agreement and consideration by local education authorities, Area Health Authorities and social service departments about the most effective ways of organising these services in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, referred to maladjusted children. I thought he was going to say more about special education. Perhaps for the Record I ought to say that Sections 33 and 34 of the 1944 Education Act remain on the Statute Book, and local education authorities still have the powers connected with these sections. The noble Lord asked who would be responsible for the homes of the maladjusted children. As I am sure many noble Lords will be

899
aware, Section 111 of the Local Government Act is in force. That gives local authorities power,
"to do anything which is calculated to facilitate or is conducive or incidental to the discharge of any of their functions."
Here again I would imagine that the collaborative machinery comes into play—exactly who is to do what. I should have thought—and I speak off the cuff here—that the kind of things the noble Lord has in mind would very probably be conducive to et cetera and fall within the purview of Section 111. But on this point, in case I have it wrong, I will write to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Auckland.
Finally, perhaps I may just say that, like my noble friend Lord Auckland, I have sympathy with the objective of this particular Amendment. I must, however, give a reply which is often given in Committee, but which I think the noble Lord would be willing to accept; namely, that it is not really necessary. The Amendment is assumed in the terms "medical treatment" or "treatment" which are to be found in the Bill.
I think that the discussion we have had has been extremely useful. I have given an undertaking to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Auckland to write on a particular point, but we will look most carefully at all that has been said on this matter, and if there are revealed any weaknesses on any other points, I will certainly undertake to include them in the letter that I write.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the sympathy that he has shown in listening and giving consideration to what has been said. I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for his support. I am sure the Committee knows of the great interest that he takes in these matters, and I am glad that he has intervened in the way lie has. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to Section 111 of the Local Government Act. I think the powers given to local authorities there are quite general.
I had it in mind to return to this question on Amendment No. 26, but perhaps I could refer to it while I am now on my feet. That Amendment says:
900
Page 3, line 10, at end insert—("and
(c) shall direct the relevant Area Health Authority to engage and second to the local education authority all such staff as may be reasonably necessary to enable such local education authority to make such provision")
Having regard to what the noble Lord has said, perhaps I ought not to voice all the remarks that I have prepared in connection with that Amendment, which I think has considerable relevance to what he said. I hope his indication that he will look at this present Amendment means that he will look also at that particular aspect, because if the L.E.A.s are to carry out the services to which the noble Lord drew attention, then clearly they will need specialist staff. Will they be engaged; or will they be seconded? I will not press the noble Lord now, but I should be grateful if he will think about this and give some indication in his letter of the Government's thinking on it. It is obviously a matter to which, if necessary, we can return on the Report stage, and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 42, after ("pupils") insert ("and students").
The noble Lord said: It seems to me that this Amendment raises a somewhat different aspect of the school health service. The White Paper and the Bill appear to be silent on the question of the provision of free medical treatment for the over 19-year-old students, and the intentions of the Government, so far as I am aware, are not known: they are certainly not known to me. If the Government have intentions, perhaps the Committee as a whole would like to know what they are. So it would appear at this stage to be advisable to get this provision written into the Bill.
The primary object is the prevention of educational failure in the sphere of higher education. If left to an Area Health Authority, there is reason to fear that this class of person would not receive the same consideration and priority as should be the case if he or she were catered for within the framework of the service specially designed to meet the needs of those within the responsibility

901
of the local education authorities. If full advantage is to be taken of the educational opportunities offered, it seems logical to do everything possible to ensure the physical and mental well being of students over 19 as of pupils under that age. It is probably unnecessary for me to draw attention to the fact that I am speaking of students who come under the umbrella of the local education authorities; I am not raising the issue of people at university. The Government's intentions in regard to those appear to be reasonably clear, and I think they are as well defined as we could expect at this stage. I beg to move.
6.56 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: I explained to the Committee at the outset that Clause 3 lays upon the Secretary of State the same duties and powers as local education authorities have at present. I suppose it could be argued that, strictly speaking, it is unnecessary for the obligation which my right honourable friend is accepting towards pupils to be spelt out in such detail, but it was felt that it was only right that in respect of a service which is at present provided by local education authorities it should be made absolutely clear in legislation that it is the intention that this service shall continue. But we have thought it reasonable that the obligations and powers specified in legislation should not go further than those which at present rest with the local education authorities.
This does not rule out the possibility of special arrangements being made in future, under the National Health Service, which are not specifically provided for. As I have already indicated, the Secretary of State's general Health Service powers are pretty broad, and are as defined in Section 1 of the National Health Service Act 1946. Your Lordships will notice that all that is contained in Clause 3 is "without prejudice" to those 1946 powers. The Secretary of State has ample powers to provide services to meet the needs of any group of the population, and he is not prevented by the terms of this clause from looking at the health needs of students. I submit to the Committee that this in itself marks an improvement on the present situation. As your Lordships may know, at present, because local education authorities have health powers in Section 48 which are
902
limited in terms to pupils under the age of 19, there have been limitations on the extent to which L.E.As. could use their general education powers to organise health services for the student population.
Perhaps I may say just a brief word on what I mean by health services for students. Many L.E.A.s have felt that it was appropriate to ensure that provision was available under the general practitioner services for students who were resident away from home. It was also felt that they could see that provision was made for medical advice for their student population. But it has not been possible for L.E.A.s to go as far as perhaps some would have wished to go in providing an integrated service to meet all these needs. As I have tried to indicate in these last few words, the situation after 1974, from a statutory position, will be different. First, as I have said, there will be no statutory inhibition on Area Health Authorities. There will also not be the same inhibition on L.E.A.s. The repeal of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 48 will make it possible—I put it no higher than that—for L.E.A.s to consider the health requirements and welfare of students in so far as they consider that their educational powers enable them to do so.
Your Lordships will remember that these powers, as given expression in Section 111 of the Local Government Act, are wide. That Act makes it quite clear that the local authority—and I quote:
"shall have power to do anything that is calculated to facilitate or is conducive or incidental to the discharge of any of their functions."
Therefore there will be powers for L.E.A.s (who will be concerned with students as students) and for the National Health Service (which is concerned with the health of the students, as it is going to be concerned with all other sections of the community) to come together and decide what services or co-ordination of services are required by students in higher educational establishments, and how these can best be provided.
I hope that that statement will be of some assistance to the Committee. We think it right that there should be this freedom, and that it is wrong that at this stage there should be an obligation imposed for the immediate introduction after 1974 of what would in effect be a new

903
Service. There are a variety of views on the nature of services required by students and on the extent to which they require services different from others in their age groups. There is considerable variation in the various arrangements in any area for the provision of further and higher education, and there will also be different views about the extent to which additional resources should be made available for student health needs as compared with the health needs of other sectors of the community. We are therefore sure that the right approach here is the one for which the Bill provides; that here is an open situation in which the matter can be considered and explored further by Area Health Authorities and local education authorities together, in the context of all the other varying considerations.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the kindly way in which he has replied and for the understanding he has shown. He has made a statement of some length. My inclination is to see little but virtue in what he has said this evening, but I hope he will understand if I say that I should like an opportunity of reading his speech. I have taken advice from people engaged in education—education officers and others—and in the light of what they said to me I tabled the Amendments. My feeling at the moment is that probably the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has completely met the point in what he has said; but perhaps we may return to it at Report stage if a reading of what he said indicates that the position is not quite so good as I think it is. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.3 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert—
("(3A) For the avoidance of doubt, and without prejudice to the provisions of section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, it is hereby declared that every local education authority shall have power to make arrangements for the provision of such facilities (so far as they are not provided by the Secretary of State) for free medical or dental treatment, as they may consider desirable or expedient—

(a) for pupils in attendance at any school or college maintained by them or at any
904
educational establishment, other than a school, which is so maintained; and

(b) with the consent of the proprietor of any school or other educational establishment in their area which is not maintained by them, and upon such financial and other terms, if any, as may be determined by agreement between the authority and that proprietor, for pupils (being junior pupils or senior pupils) in attendance at that school or establishment:

Provided that any arrangements made under this subsection in respect of any pupil referred to in paragraph (b) above shall be such as to secure, so far as is practicable, that the expense incurred by the authority in connection with the provision under the arrangements of any facility shall not exceed the expense which would have been incurred by them in the provision thereof if the pupil had been a pupil at a school maintained by them.
(3B) In its application to local education authorities in Greater London the last fore-going subsection shall have effect as if the reference in paragraph (a) thereof to pupils included a reference to any persons who have attained the age of 19 years and for whom full-time or part-time education is provided in pursuance of paragraph (a) of section 41 of the Education Act 1944.")
The noble Lord said: I think I can be a little more helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on this Amendment and say that in speaking to it I also propose to speak to Amendments 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33. I hope that course will commend itself to the Committee. It may seem that this Amendment covers some of the ground we have already touched upon, but I think it will be appreciated as I develop what I have to say that this is rather different. These Amendments to Clause 3 are intended to deal with a number of points about which the Inner London Education Authority is very concerned—points affecting the school health service generally and the student health service in London in particular. The service at present provided by the ILEA for Inner London schools will be largely transferred to and divided between the four new Regional Authorities, and will be administered by some seven Area Health Authorities, three of them concerned only with Inner London, and four of them with both Inner and Outer London.
Clause 3 of the Bill places on the Secretary of State the duty of providing for the medical and dental inspection and treatment of pupils in schools maintained by local education authorities, as has been said previously this afternoon. The removal of an efficiently run service from

905
democratic control is to be regretted; but one appreciates that a wholly independent school service cannot effectively be provided in isolation from an otherwise unified Health Service. Nevertheless, an authority such as the ILEA would wish there to be provision in the Bill for reserve powers, for the avoidance of doubt whether such powers would exist at common law and under the Local Government Act 1972; whether it could make some independent provision of services which were thought to be important and which the Area Health Authority was unable or even, in some circumstances, unwilling to supply.
In these Amendments to Clause 3, the suggested new subsection (3A) seeks to enable local education authorities to provide for pupils at all schools and educational establishments maintained by them such facilities for medical treatment as may appear to them to be appropriate, over and above the provision made by the Secretary of State. Examples of the facilities which are currently provided by the Inner London Educational Authority under its present school health service but which might not be available, or available to the same extent, under the reorganised Health Service are facilities for child guidance, speech therapy and recuperative holidays. Recuperative holidays are an aspect of the Service which we have not touched upon so far. Another example of the need for the suggested power is a case where a local education authority might consider that a standard hearing aid provided under the Health Service was not the right instrument for a particular child. In the Inner London Education Authority area, the availability of such facilities might in future vary as between schools and different localities because of the proposals that a number of Regional Health Authorities will each be concerned with a different part of that area. I submit that the Authority ought to be able to secure uniformity of available facilities for pupils throughout its area, notwithstanding differences of approach between Regional Health Authorities who will be concerned with different parts of that area.
Paragraph (b) of the suggested subsection (3A) would extend this supplementing power of local education authorities for the benefit of those pupils at schools
906
and establishments not maintained by the authorities for whom the authorities are currently empowered by Section 78 of the Education Act 1944 to provide medical and dental treatment. ILEA have Private Act powers under Section 56 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1968, enabling them to provide free medical treatment for persons over the age of 19 for whom full-time or part-time education is provided by the Authority. These Private Act powers depend for their effect on Section 48(3) of the 1944 Act, which is scheduled for repeal in this Bill. It is thus extremely doubtful, in the view of the Authority, whether they would have the power in future to provide a student health service. I have taken note of what the noble Lord said earlier, but it is right that the Committee should be aware of the feeling of the ILEA in regard to this matter. They have not come to this view lightly and have done so on the best advice obtainable to them. When speaking on Amendment No. 25 I touched on the absence from the White Paper and the Bill of provision for free medical treatment for the over 19-year-old student, and I do not want to go over that again.
The subject matter covered by these Amendments is very much a London one, partly because of the special powers granted to London but also because of the great number of students attending ILEA colleges. The Authority feel entitled to point out the difficulty of getting a number of Area Health Authorities to co-ordinate their plans to develop a comprehensive new service in the first years of their existence; yet there seems to be a need for rapid expansion. It is reasonable to ask for specific powers to be spelt out in the Bill enabling London education authorities to run a student health service. The only alternative, in the view of the Authority as the result of the advice they have had, seems to be to promote a new Private Act of Parliament; but this could not now be done so that it could be enforced by the time the present reorganisation Bill is likely to come into effect. The proposed new subsection (3B) to Clause 3 is based upon Section 56 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1968; it would enable the authority to provide facilities in the nature of their present student

907
health services, to the extent that these facilities are not provided by the Secretary of State. I apologise if I have taken some little time, though I have a feeling that I have probably sketched over the matter rather more lightly than the Committee will appreciate. I am speaking here this evening after taking counsel with those who speak for the ILEA, and I trust that the content of the Amendments will be acceptable to the Minister. I beg to move.
7.13 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has hung both parts of this Amendment on to the particular position of the Inner London Education Authority. May I make just one thing clear to the Committee? We ought to be clear that the first part of the Amendment, which would put a new subsection (3A) into the Bill, would provide powers and duties for all local education authorities concurrent with the National Health Service as they are proposed in the Bill. What I am saying is that if the first part of this Amendment were accepted not only would it leave it open to local education authorities to provide an alternative service; but it would also have the effect that it would not leave the same incentive for Area Health Authorities to take a positive attitude to the responsibilities for the health of their school children.
The noble Lord, quite understandably, drew the attention of the Committee to the particular boundaries difficulty which there may be in Inner and Outer London. He held that the Inner London Education Authority would be at a disadvantage. What I am submitting to the Committee is that the difficulty here is that there is no question that the first part of the Amendment is drawn a very great deal wider than Inner London. In saying that, I am bearing in mind the conclusions which were contained in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Paper which was put forward as the First Report of the School Health Service Sub-committee of the Working Party on collaboration. The majority view there really was conclusive. It was that the responsibility for school health in a reorganised Service should lie with the Health Service.
I admit, immediately, however, that that Report went on to recommend that
908
legislation should not prevent local education authorities from making direct arrangements in exceptional cases. This view has naturally been taken into account in drafting the Bill, as of course has the view of the Note of Dissent which was appended to that Report. Our view, as it has come out from that consideration, is that Section 111, to which we have already referred, of the Local Government Act 1972 gives wide enough powers to local education authorities when for educational reasons they consider it essential to provide services, without in any way detracting from the overall responsibility of Area Health Authorities.
May I refer specifically to some of the points which were worrying the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy? To give just these practical examples: local education authorities' own powers would seem to give them ample scope if they felt that hearing or sight problems were interfering with educational progress, to arrange for the examination or screening of children, and also to take whatever steps they might think necessary to ensure that treatment was provided. I think that education authorities will also have full powers, both under their general educational functions and under more specific functions, to obtain whatever advice, guidance and treatment they consider essential for children who are failing to make progress at school, whether for physical reasons or for reasons that might be associated with behavioural problems or mental disturbance. It is not envisaged, as I have said before, that there shall be any change in the child guidance arrangements.
When the noble Lord referred to hearing aids he made me feel that perhaps I ought to put on record now that the Government clearly recognise that there are special problems with certain hearing aids, and also I think with splinter-proof glasses. These are all problems which the Government are looking into and about which there will be consultation if it seems there may be a case for asking L.E.A.s to continue to make this kind of provision. I do not think, on this particular point, that that should allow the Committee to accept such a very wide-ranging Amendment as this is, but it is important that that should come up under this Amendment as well.

909
My noble friend Lord Auckland spoke about looking on all the new arrangements from a team point of view. Overlying the whole Bill is the range of cooperation which is to be provided. May I remind the Committee that the function of the joint consultative committees will be precisely to examine the needs of each area, the plans of the Area Health Authority and the corresponding local authorities, and to advise on the planning and operation of services in matters of common concern. There are collaborative arrangements to which we shall be coming in the Bill, I think I am right in saying, to provide for the appointment of joint consultative committees between A.H.A.s and local authorities. Your Lordships will have noticed that specifically in the table the Inner London Education Authority is written into the Bill. There will be collaborative arrangements for sub-committees; there will be collaborative arrangements for making reports to the Secretary of State; and the National Health Service of course is under a duty to make staff and services available so far as is reasonably necessary and practicable. I only remind the Committee of this as a backdrop to what we are considering in resisting, as I am afraid I am, the first part of the noble Lord's Amendment.
The noble Lord has come to the second part of his Amendment, which is new subsection (3B). What I have said on Amendment 25, when I spoke at some length, will in future leave it open to Area Health Authorities and local education authorities jointly to consider how the health care needs of students can best be met. What I think I ought to say to the Committee is that there have so far been only very informal discussions between the officers of the Inner London Education Authority, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science about the future of the services for students which the Inner London Education Authority have just introduced. There is no doubt that these discussions will have to be continued. But the general principle of the Bill is that property held or staff employed wholly or mainly for the purpose of transferred functions will be transferred. There are, however, provisions whereby the Secretary of State can modify this general principle. I suggest that the future of
910
services which the ILEA are making for students will have to be reviewed in relation to these provisions.
May I conclude by saying that I have looked carefully at the second part of the noble Lord's Amendment because I realise that we are talking about something very important; namely, local government powers which Parliament saw fit to agree to. I believe that there is an advantage in this matter of a unified National Health Service. As I said on a previous Amendment, the combined effect of Section 1 of the 1946 Act and Clause 1 of this Bill is that the National Health Service has a duty towards all sections of the community through a unified service. Local authorities and A.H.A.s will be able to discuss a multitude of problems through the joint consultative committees. The local authority voices will be heard on their family practitioner committees and there will of course be local authority representation at area level. This is why the Bill leaves open this particular matter in Inner London.
If an education authority wants to go further into the provision of health services for its students there are, as I have said, Section 111 powers, and if Inner London feels that this is not enough then of course it might be necessary to return to the avenue of a local Act. Your Lordships may say that this reply would nullify the existing local Act powers of the G.L.C. in this respect. This may be so but in the light of a reorganised service, with opportunities for consultation and facilities for transfer of staff and property, it would hardly be reasonable to expect this one exception before the provisions of the Act have been given an opportunity to work.
Secondly, may I just tell the Committee that discussions on a very informal basis have been going ahead between D.H.S.S. and D.E.S. and the Inner London Education Authority and it is the view of the Government that these discussions should be continued.
7.22 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the detail of his reply. As always, lie is extremely courteous and persuasive, and because he is so persuasive it is not always a simple matter to separate the wheat

911
from the chaff. I have a suspicion that he has been blowing quite a bit of chaff across the table. There may be some wheat there but it will require a reading of what he has said to discriminate between the good and the not so good; that which can be accepted and that which may be rejected.
The noble Lord seems to query that this Bill will nullify the special powers enjoyed in London. I thought he was raising a question—
LORD BELSTEAD: No, I was not.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Lord was not, and he does accept that in point of fact it will nullify those powers. Good! The purpose of these Amendments is not to ensure that London is left out of the Service but that London enjoys reserve powers. If in point of fact the reorganised Service does not provide what Inner London wants—indeed I think it goes beyond that, because the whole of London is covered at the present time in regard to the enjoyment of powers, but I will return to that in a moment—London will have a quite different kind of organisation from that which existed previously. I do not want to dwell on what was earlier debated in the Committee; that is, the shape of the structure for controlling the service in London.
The Bill proposes four regions. I think it is quite possible that some child, some pupil, some student, somewhere will fall through these four nets. Instead of having a unified service—and we are talking a great deal about a unified service—so far as London is concerned there is going to be a break up of the service. It will no longer be a unified service in the sense that the school health service has been. I quite agree that when the noble Lord speaks about a unified service he is speaking about something different, but I think this is the point of time when we ought to be doubly careful. Everybody is agreed that the health service for the pupil at school and for the student should be as good as we can make it. This is the time to be doubly sure that nobody can fall through the four nets—if I may so refer to the new type of organisation that is to exist.
I stress that this is a request for reserve powers. The noble Lord speaks about
912
further consultation, but if we do not get this matter right while the Bill is passing through this House it will perhaps be too late when it becomes an Act. The noble Lord also spoke about Section 111 of the Local Government Act. I should have checked this, and I hope I may be excused for raising a query which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may be able to answer off the cuff. He may have touched on it and I may have missed it, but the situation in London is unique (is it not?) in that we have a local education authority which is itself not the body of local government in the generally accepted sense of the term. Will ILEA enjoy all the powers that flow from Section 111 of the Local Government Act? It may be that the answer is a simple "Yes", in which case there is nothing more to be said in regard to that particular point. I shall be surprised if the noble Lord is unable to answer without difficulty.
In the light of what he has said, and unless he has something further to add, I have the feeling that we shall have to return to this matter at Report stage. For my part, I shall need to take advice from those who understand the law much better than I do. I am very much of a layman, doing my best, but in regard to matters such as this I must depend on the advice of experts.
LORD BELSTEAD: I should like to reply to the noble Lord on three points. The first is that I have listened, as I think we all have, very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said about falling through the four nets. I should like to be allowed to consider that point; but in fairness to the Government I must just point out that this is not the effect of the first part of Amendment No. 27.
The noble Lord asked me, secondly, whether the Inner London Education Authority would enjoy all the powers flowing from Section 111. I think, off the cuff, the answer is definitely, "Yes". It was under that apprehension that I gave the noble Lord quite a full reply, identifying the deaf, the slow learners, and so forth, who could be looked after by a local education authority. I will check on this immediately, and if by any chance I am wrong I will undertake to let the noble Lord know within the next 24

913
hours. I am sorry that I can only give an off the cuff answer but I am pretty certain that I have the answer right.
Thirdly, it would be wrong, after the talk of the wheat and the chaff, if I did not accent that I have not given the noble Lord satisfaction on the Amendment which he seeks to make to subsection (3). What in essence I have said is that this is something which should be looked at by the new Area Health Authorities in consultation with the Inner London Education Authority because there are ramifications here which go beyond Inner London. If the noble Lord is prepared to accept my reply at this stage, to recognise that perhaps we do not see entirely eye to eye on the whole Amendment, but to give an opportunity for both sides to look at this matter again, perhaps we could leave this Amendment.
BARONESS SEROTA: Following on what the noble Lord has said, I wonder whether, when he is looking at the four regional nets to which my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy referred, he will also look at the shape of the area nets that are proposed in the London area. I make this point particularly in relation to the services of the ILEA because, as the noble Lord will be aware, according to the proposed arrangements there will be certain Area Health Authorities in London that will consist partly of an Inner London borough and partly of an outer London one; and in Inner London the borough is not the education authority (in such cases, of course, it is the ILEA), whereas in outer London the position will be different. This is a factor which affects the organisation of the Service and I should be grateful if the Minister would bear this in mind when he is considering the question as a whole.
LORD BELSTEAD: I will certainly do that.
LORD HYLTON: May I ask my noble friend for an assurance that no existing service provided by the ILEA will be dismantled when this Bill becomes law, bearing in mind that it is likely that children living in one health area or region will be going to school in another? This was precisely the reason why the ILEA was invented in the first place. It would be a very unconservative thing to do to take
914
away powers from the ILEA and give them to newly invented Health Authorities.
LORD BELSTEAD: As some of your Lordships will know better than I do, there is a provision in an earlier Local Government Act that allows pupils to cross not only boundaries from Inner to Outer London, and vice-versa, but also from counties neighbouring outer London into outer London boroughs. We are therefore talking about pupils who in these cases travel a great deal. I cannot give the assurance for which my noble friend asked—I recognise why he asked it—because this will be a matter for the Area Health Authorities in consultation with the ILEA. This is set out in Clause 10, and it will be for them to consider. It is not for the Government to consider and I think that great umbrage would be taken if the Government were to lay down the law in matters of this kind.
LORD HYLTON: Why should any consultation be necessary? Surely an existing service can be preserved.
LORD BELSTEAD: Indeed it can; but it is not for the Government to lay down that it should be so.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I wish the noble Lord meant what he just said—
LORD BELSTEAD: Oh?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Yes, and I hope he will read what he said in the OFFICIAL REPORT because if he will concede that, he will concede everything that is sought. However, it would not be fair to catch him on the chance use of a few words in that way. I am sure that the Committee as a whole appreciates the trouble the Minister is taking to try to deal with the points that are being made, though I am not sure that lie is meeting the wishes that are being expressed.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his intervention. It raises the whole question of follow-up and it is leaving a great deal to chance, bearing in mind that too much is being left to chance. I hope that the Minister will contact his right honourable friend about this issue. London is unique in this country, in terms of the size of population and the type of local government structure. There is a to-ing and fro-ing which does not happen in any other part of the coun-

915
try and that is inevitable in this area. It is usually a matter of choice when it happens outside the Metropolis, but it is happening here all the time and the ramifications are such that the Government are not entitled to say that they can easily be satisfied or that the proposals in this Bill will meet the unique situation in London.
I re-emphasise the point I made earlier—namely, that this is a request for reserve powers. Perhaps a part of the main Amendment is undesirable or the lesser Amendments are not acceptable. I appreciate that the noble Lord intends to give these matters further thought, but I should like to feel that the Government will themselves do some positive thinking about this and appreciate the concern that exists not only on this side of the Committee but on the Benches opposite. I do not believe that this is a Party political matter. When I supported the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, earlier, I was told by his noble friend Lord Reigate that I had been expounding good Tory philosophy by saying that if something was working well it should be left alone. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is putting the matter in a rather different way from that of the Government. He is not speaking as a Socialist from these Benches but is saying from the Conservative side of the Committee, "Here in London we have something that is working well. Why interfere with it at a time when you cannot satisfy us that your scheme is foolproof?". The ILEA are saying, "Please give us reserve powers which will enable us to deal with those who fall through your nets." I do not think that anyone who is in any way familiar with the London service can feel anything but concern lest young people will fall through the nets. That concern is bound to be felt unless the clause is amended.
As I said, we shall read carefully what the noble Lord said, and shall take advice from those who are able to examine this matter and appreciate it more fully than I am capable of doing at the present time. It is to be hoped that the Government will return with something positive on Report. If not, my noble friends and I may wish to return to it, though not, as I say in any Party sense because this is not a Party political issue. For the
916
present, however, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.39 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 19 and insert—
("(4) It shall be the duty of local education authorities in relation to county schools and of the managers and governors of voluntary schools in relation to those schools").
The noble Lord said: Clause 3(4) provides:
"It shall be the duty of the managers and governors of schools maintained by local education authorities to make available to the Secretary of State such accommodation as is appropriate for the purpose of assisting him to make such provision as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section for pupils in attendance at the schools."
The point of concern is the fact that the managers and governors of schools maintained by L.E.A.s are given the duty to make the accommodation available. In general, this accords with a recommendation made by the School Health Service Sub-committee of the Working Party on Collaboration, except that they proposed that L.E.A.s should make the accommodation available; and that would seem to be more appropriate.
I may say that I have discussed this matter with a number of people in the service of education, and I believe I am representing the point of view of the Inner London Education Authority, as well as the point of view of chief education officers who have themselves given a great deal of thought to this matter. I know that the I.L.E.A. feel that they should be involved under the subsection with regard to county schools, that is to say, premises which they have established and maintain, as distinct from those premises which have been established by other persons: voluntary schools, aided, special agreement and controlled schools. That is their view, as I understand it; and it is also the view of a number of other people in other local education authority departments in the country. I do not think this is a matter of great substance, but I should like to feel, as I hope this will be the last Amendment on which I shall be speaking here this evening, that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the opportunity to be

917
completely forthcoming and to say, "I am pleased to tell the Committee that I will accept this Amendment". I am quite certain that it would be an improvement. It is pretty meaningless to call on school governors and managers, because everybody knows that, outside the special cases I have mentioned, it is the local education authority which in fact provides the building and has to see that things are done. At this point I propose to sit down, optimistic in the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will enjoy himself and say: "There is no need to talk further about this Amendment. I am pleased to accept it". I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: The schools, of course, are already required by the Standards of School Premises Regulations to have suitable accommodation available for medical inspection and treatment of pupils during school hours. It was with that fact in mind that the duty of making this accommodation available under Clause 3(4) was assigned in this Bill to the managers or governors of a maintained school. I would just say this: increasingly to-day there is a wish for more voluntary participation, and one way in which this can be achieved in public life is through the work of managers and governors of schools. After the bricks and mortar have been made available we are talking here about the administrative responsibility of making the premises available.
I must say that, having read the Bill, I felt perhaps we had got it right and that this could have been well handled by managers and governors who would consult with the headmaster or the headmistress concerned. On the other hand, the noble Lord has fastened on to a point. It is true that it is the authorities who maintain the schools. One has to comb through all the articles of government and rules of management to discover the true answer, but I believe it is true, that the majority give oversight of the actual occupation of the premises to authorities themselves. If we are to meet the noble Lord what we shall have to do is to ask the local authority associations what they think about it. The noble Lord says that he knows that some people in local government would very much like to see this, but we shall have to ask local authority associations what
918
they think. I undertake to do this, and if we get a favourable reply, and unless anything else has cropped up to change minds between now and Report stage, I hope perhaps to be able to meet the noble Lord on this Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful Ito the noble Lord. He will appreciate that I did not claim to be speaking for the associations. I hope that he gets the answer I should like him to get. He has been as generous as he possibly can, and if I allowed myself a burst of almost unrestrained optimism, I enjoyed it for the brief moment. I believe that I am entitled to be reasonably optimistic that as a result of my moving this Amendment something may come out of it that will be very much like what this Amendment aimed at achieving. I should like to thank the noble Lord for being so forthcoming and helpful.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Before the noble Lord actually withdraws his Amendment, I wonder whether the Minister would also undertake to consult those bodies such as C.A.S.E. which have a particular interest in strengthening the powers of managers and governors.
LORD BELSTEAD: I cannot give the noble Lord an unequivocal undertaking about this, but what I should like to do (the noble Lord and I correspond on various matters educational from time to time) is to look at this. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, an undertaking but I should like to be able to say to the noble Lord what I feel it is right to do in this case. Certainly I would not brush aside what the noble Lord has said to me. There was the point which I put to the House, that people want more participation, and I believe that this was something with which the noble Lord agreed.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I had no idea that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, wished to raise that matter or I myself would have gone a little more deeply into the question of how often governors and managers meet and how much they are involved in day-to-day administration. Those of us who know much about it are under no illusion. We know that it is the L.E.A. who will have to do this, if it is going to be

919
done, whatever may be set out on paper. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BELSTEAD: In case noble Lords think that I have simply been blown hither and thither by a wind, may I say that the reason I came down on the side' of saying that I hoped to meet the noble Lord was that when one combs through the articles of government and rules of management one finds that what the noble Lord says is true; the oversight of the actual occupation of the premises is, in the majority of cases, with the local education authorities. It was for this reason that I felt I should try to meet the noble Lord on this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: As we are about to move on to a new clause which is concerned with family planning, and to which a number of important Amendments have been put down, and as we already have further business this evening, I would move, if it is convenient to the Committee, that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Aberdare.)
BARONESS SEROTA: I very much hope that the Committee will agree to the Motion which the noble Lord has just moved. I hope he feels that we have made good progress to-day. I must say that I am delighted, although it has taken us nearly five hours, that we have ended on a note to an Amendment which for once did not have the heading in capital letters. "Resist".
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

PROBATION SERVICE SALARY SCALES
7.48 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL LORD WELLS-PESTELL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the deep resentment in the Probation Service at the implementation of the A and B salary scales for probation officers recommended in the Butterworth Report. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with some regret that I ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, because along with a good many of my friends in the Probation Service we are not unmindful of the understanding and the sympathy which the noble Lord, the Minister who will be replying, has shown to the Probation Service. That is true of his predecessor also, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. We had hoped that with the setting up of the Butterworth Inquiry—whose Report the noble Lord, the Minister, I am sure will say, the National Association of Probation Officers said they would accept—this would be the end of many difficulties in that particular Service. Perhaps I ought to have asked your Lordships in a proper Motion to examine the Butterworth Report, but I did not do so because I thought it would be more appropriate to ask your Lordships to consider just one aspect of the Butterworth Report which is causing grave anxiety and, to put it quite bluntly, deep resentment in the Probation Service at the present time.
I have known the Probation Service intimately for forty years. Long before the war I spent some years in that Service. I think it is true to say that until two or three years ago it was comparatively little known, because it was very much a silent service, but to-day, for the first time in its history—and I regret this very much indeed—a large number of probation officers have gone on strike for one day, and many of them have visited the precincts of the Houses of Parliament.
I want to confine myself, as I said, to one aspect of the Butterworth Report, which, in an attempt—and I am quite prepared to believe it was a sincere attempt—to try to deal with the salary situation, has introduced into the Probation Service something which I believe is quite intolerable: and I mean what I say

921
when I say "intolerable". The Butterworth Inquiry was set up by the then Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Robert Carr, in December, 1971. If your Lordships will allow me just to paraphrase its major term of reference, it was: to carry out a fact-finding inquiry into the work of basic and senior grade probation officers and that of grades of social workers of broadly comparable salary levels employed by local authorities and hospital authorities, and to evaluate and compare the work of those groups. It was further charged with the responsibility to make recommendations in respect of the Probation Service in time for negotiations for a pay settlement operative from July 1, 1972. And, broadly speaking, it has discharged both those responsibilities, I accept.
The Butterworth Inquiry paid considerable tribute to the work of probation officers. It drew attention to the fact that in recent years the work has gone far beyond that of probation work as we understand it. It has brought in the after-care of people discharged from detention centres, from borstal institutions, from various other penal establishments, even to taking on parole. If I may be allowed to refer to the Minister as my noble friend, he has said in this House on more than one occasion, as his colleague has said in another place, that the working of the Criminal Justice Act will depend to a very large extent, if not entirely, upon the goodwill and the dedication to service of the probation officers.
What the Butterworth Report has done is to introduce an A and B scale of salary for the main grade officer, and it has become necessary, therefore, for somebody to lay down the kind of criteria by which one can progress from Scale A to Scale B. One of the criteria is that one has to be in the Probation Service for a minimum of three years, it has been said possibly five years, before one can be considered for promotion to the B scale; and only then when that person is held to meet a number of other requirements in relation to qualities and characteristics. I want your Lordships to ask yourselves what must be the position when you get two properly qualified probation officers working in the same office, in the same court, dealing with precisely the same kind of delinquents, but one on
922
the A scale, which is the lower scale, and the other on the B scale. Because that is the situation; those are main grade probation officers.
All through the country at the moment, not only here in Inner London, probation officers who were originally on the same level—besic grade or main grade officers, on the same salary scale—now find themselves sorted into sheep and goats, where one is getting a much lower scale than the other for doing precisely the same kind of work. Can your Lordships visualise anything more calculated to cause annoyance, frustration and resentment? For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody could introduce a system like that without realising the devastation that it would cause in the Probation Service. I can understand the chairman of the Butterworth Inquiry being so unfamliar with the Probation Service as to make a recommendation of that kind, but, if my noble friend the Minister will allow me to say so, I cannot understand how anyone at the Home Office could countenance bringing it into operation. I should have thought that the people in the Probation Department at the Home Office would have had sufficient working knowledge both of the Probation Service and the people in it to realise that that was dynamite; and yet they have done it.
If I am going to be told that it is really a sincere effort to sort out the sheep from the goats, those who are not as good as some others, may I point out to your Lordships that after one has been admitted into the Probation Service and has served for a year as a probation officer one's appointment has to be ratified and confirmed. That is done by the senior probation officer who has had the main grade probation officer under his supervision for one year, has given him a certain amount of in-service training, a certain amount of continuous training during that year. At the end of the year the senior probation officer, with the asistant principal probation officer for the region, then decide whether this person has made the grade, whether he really has the competence, the ability, the personality and all the characteristics that are necessary for him to fulfil his role as a probation officer; and if the answer is "Yes", that person is confirmed in

923
his appointment. Subsequently, in the course of time, the Home Office inspectors catch up on fairly new entrants, and they are subject to Home Office inspection from the Probation Department And on that, too, they continue, or something else happens to them.
Having gone through all this, every one of them without a single exception, somebody comes along and says, "Ah, but you see, we are now going to make an attempt to assess that some of these basic grade officers"—or, as the Report calls them, main grade officers—" are better than others, and we are going to have two classes of main grade officers, one on an A scale and the other on a B scale". I have never known this silent service to be so seething and so frustrated as they are at the present moment, a service which, almost without exception, everybody knows has given good measure, pressed down and overflowing.
The Inner London Probation and After-Care Committee consists, as do most such Committees, of Crown Court judges, stipendiary magistrates and lay magistrates and is, in a sense, the employing authority. It is very much opposed to the A and B scales and although that may not be the position in the whole of the country, it is certainly true so far as Inner London is concerned. As I think my noble friend the Minister will agree, never in any of the negotiations that have taken place between the Probation Officers' Association and the employing authority has it been suggested by either side that there should be so divisive a scheme as two scales for people doing precisely the same work, under the same conditions, in the same place and in the same field. Quite recently, at Wallington in Surrey, four of a team of eight probation officers resigned. It is true that they have done much better for themselves as area officers and senior welfare officers in the local authority, but they are a loss to the Probation Service at a time when we can ill afford to lose any of them.
I do not want to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily, and I am hoping that those who are to follow will mention points that I have deliberately left out. But I find it extremely difficult to understand that anyone who has a responsibility for this Service—and I lay
924
the responsibility fairly and squarely at the door of the Home Office—could countenance such a practice as this. I want to be perfectly fair, and I know that this Government have been very concerned about the Probation Service. It is only fair to say that since they have been in government they have viewed this matter with some concern and understanding, and I have reason to know the lengths to which certain people, including the Minister himself, must have gone to meet certain difficulties in the past. But I hope that they will look at this particular matter again.
I am sure that the noble Viscount, the Minister, will say that matters have gone too far to do anything; but I wonder whether I may make a suggestion which I hope not only he but the Home Office itself will seriously consider. I might be prepared to accept that the situation has gone too far to make a fresh start, but perhaps the noble Viscount could say, if not to-night in the not too distant future, that this disastrous A scale will in future apply to people in the Probation Service only during their first three years, and that after that they will automatically go on to the B scale. I do not know whether I am helping him off the hook in any way, but I like to think that I am. That may be the only way of solving this matter to the satisfaction of the Probation Service which, as I said, is at the moment in a state of deep resentment and discontent.
8.5 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I propose to take up only three or four minutes, but I want to support warmly everything that my noble friend has said. Undoubtedly, he has brought before us a very real problem. One has only to reflect upon what he has told us about the strike in London to-day, to realise that there must be a very deep and bitter feeling among the probation officers. I doubt very much whether more than 10 or 20 per cent. of those in the Service would stay in the Service if they were concerned only with money. They have a very real sense of vocation and for them to strike means that there must be something very seriously and basically wrong with the present position.
I can understand that Mr. Butterworth and his colleagues were right in two respects about the salary scale of the

925
main grade of probation officers. First, I can see that they would consider that, even with the proposed increase which they recommended and which has now been accepted, the salary scale of the main grade of probation officers is still too low, both absolutely and comparatively; and, secondly, that the career prospects, the promotion prospects, are especially limited and that the possible year after year of service which can face an officer before he has a chance of going up another rung could be most discouraging. I imagine that the concept of this A and B grade was an attempt to do something about both these considerations but, with all respect to the Committee, I believe they have fallen back on a poorly thought out solution. It is, I would almost say, a facile solution. I cannot think that in practice it can work out well from any point of view.
If I were a principal probation officer I know how I would view this present scheme. I would implement it rather like the Chinese general, of whom we have heard so much, who baptised all his troops with a hose pipe. I would recommend all of my main probation officers as Grade B, and that would be that. I would not try this invidious selection that is required by the Report's proposals. As my noble friend said it is quite intolerable in most cases that an officer should be asked to make a selection of this kind. Maybe the noble Viscount can tell us what in fact has happened since the implementation of this Report. What proportion of the main grade probation officers are now on the A and B scales respectively?
I shall not go over the ground which my noble friend has so thoroughly covered; but with the arguments already advanced and with those to be advanced by the right reverend Prelate, and with the clear evidence that where the hose pipe technique has not been used there is a very real and serious grievance, I hope that the noble Viscount can respond to the plea of my noble friend. I hope that he will tell us that he is bringing his enormous gifts—and I mean that genuinely and sincerely—to bear on this problem and will see whether he can devise something which would sort out this unsatisfactory situation.
8.9 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this debate because, although I can claim no kind of authority or expertise, and indeed must confess to a very deep ignorance of the Butterworth inquiry, I am moved by personal considerations. It so happens that two of my children have been trained in the social welfare services, and although neither is a probation officer I have had the opportunity of knowing many of their friends and contemporaries who are. Knowing that this subject was coming up to-day and that I was attending this House, one of those young people persuaded me to go to another part of this building to meet a considerable group of 120, mostly young, people who had come to press their views on this subject of the differential pay scale. I listened to them carefully, because there is almost no group of young people whom I would regard as more completely disinterested in their own personal welfare, in their career structures and in all the rest of the apparatus of ambition, than most of the young probation officers that I know. But they care desperately about the Service which they have joined. Therefore I felt that any complaints that they were making were additionally deserving of being heard.
Although up till about three o'clock this afternoon I knew next to nothing about the subject, I did feel that the four objections which were advanced against this differential pay structure were such that I ought not to keep silent as this opportunity to-day occurs: first, that the differential pay is unjust; secondly, that it is subjective; thirdly, that is is divisive; and. fourthly, that it is dissuasive. They believe it to be unjust because it means, as noble Lords who have spoken before me have pointed out, that people with equal qualifications and experience performing the same tasks are getting widely differing salaries. Secondly, this is a too subjective division because the assessment of the competence upon which the differential is to be made, they feel (I find) is too tied to the sort of temptations to pay too much attention to what your superiors expect of you as distinct from what you think it is right to do.

927
In a Service of this kind, it is really essential that there should be the minimum temptation to people to look over their shoulders in this way. People should be trusted to take an unpopular line, to try to show that a personal judgment they have made that such-and-such a person is trustworthy is something in which they are prepared to back their judgment. They feel that the sort of temptation which would make it all too easy to pay attention to what is expected of you rather than what you think is right should, wherever possible, be eliminated from the whole framework in which they operate. They consider that this presents them with a temptation which was not present under the former pattern.
Thirdly, that it is divisive. We have heard already that it has created within the Service a differentiation which did not previously exist in the same way. I have no nostrums to suggest how this might be overcome, but I bear testament to the fact that some people have discovered in the last few months that a new element of divisiveness has come into the Service of which they are so proud which was not there before. Finally, they maintain that these factors do nothing to stop wastage and might well accelerate resignations at points where, as your Lordships know, the need is for more and not fewer in the Probation Service.
It is because I felt that this group of young people, whose disinterest always seemed to me to be beyond question, were undoubtedly feeling very strongly on that matter, that I thought it right, in spite of my lack of qualifications otherwise, to intervene in this debate.
8.14 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to add a word from these Benches because I was, for many years, a chairman of probation committees and all my life I have had to do with probation officers in addition to many other people doing professional social work. Like the right reverend Prelate, I have not read the Butterworth Report. It is true to say there were always differential payments in the Service, but they were based on experience. The chief probation officer obviously was paid far more than a recruit into the Service. What impressed me in the speech
928
of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was the fact that this proposal does not differentiate between someone with much more experience than another, but between two people with similar experience. I am sure that that is not the way to encourage people to join the Probation Service.
I know from experience how short we are of good probation officers. I believe that everything the Home Office can do they should do to encourage people to come into the Probation Service. When I was for some years on a Committee at the Home Office, the Long-Term Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, the Home Office was the Department which was most keen about the Probation Service. They were 100 per cent. behind it and were continually working to improve the conditions. I feel that it is an odd coincidence that to-day we should be discussing something which seems to point to an attitude by the Home Office which, in my experience, was not the attitude they displayed in those days. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that there is some sufficiently good reason why this attitude has changed.
8.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, this is a sad story. I remember that when I was at university I found that Mr. Butterworth, in his post as Dean of my college, was in a position to constrain me from some of my more evil pursuits. Little did I think that one day I should stand up in Parliament to defend some of his deliberations against attacks which have been laid against them to-day. As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, we must all have hoped that his Report would bring a certain satisfaction. I confess that if people do not like the two ranges of salaries that he has suggested, I do not think that I am myself sufficiently gifted to produce an alternative to what was a very detailed, very technical and, as I read it, very skilled Inquiry. After all, Scale A—and we are talking about these two scales primarily in this debate—is equal to the nationally-negotiated scale for basic grade local authority social workers after last July. Scale B is a higher one but linked with the scale on which most senior social workers in the local authority departments are paid.

929
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, says that this is a facile solution. The right reverend Prelate produces four unappetising epithets, if I may put it that way, for the solution; but although the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has confined his Question to the A and B scales I cannot do justice to my former Dean unless I try to put the matter in context. This debate, on its face, talks about the Probation Service, but the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, very fairly read out the reference, the remit, of the Butterworth Committee, which was over a broader sphere of workers in this sort of (but not precisely the same) work. I think, therefore, one must bear in mind what Mr. Butterworth was doing. He had this fact-finding Inquiry into the work of the basic and senior grade probation officers and also the grades of social workers, the very people of whom the right reverend Prelate's family are part these days. He was asked to find out whether the situation was that there were broadly comparable salary levels for those employed by local authorities and hospital authorities; and he was asked to evaluate and compare the work of these groups and to make recommendations concerning an appropriate relationship between the pay of the three Services concerned.
He came to the conclusion with his assessor that the only practical method of establishing pay relativities was to take the existing salary in the local authority service and relate it to the others. That is in paragraph 212 of the Report. He thought that that was necessary because the local authority social services and the social work departments contained well over half of all the staff in the total range of people with whom he was concerned. There had just been the July salary agreement in that particular sphere, and over the years it had become the practice to make comparisons with local authority scales. Finally, he pointed out that there was a similarity of fundamental scales—they might be developed differently later—across all these three professions that he was examining.
My Lords, he certainly recognised the difficulty of the approach because at that stage the Probation Service had a uniform grade structure, fixed salary scales, whereas the local authorities had a much more flexible grade and pay system.
930
But he thought it was only practicable and equitable in the future to link these matters of pay together, so far as he could. He went in for a detailed evaluation of the position of the various services and evaluated a cross-section of the jobs, and he concluded that there was a clearly discernible difference between the job size of the experienced main grade probation officer and what might have been thought to be the corresponding level of social work. I set it out in the table as a result, first of all, of the structure that has resulted from his Report and the local authority social worker pay award of July. One sees the intricate cross-relationship of the two. One sees the scale for the local authority social worker which corresponds with the A scale of the probation officer that he suggested. One sees how this cross-relates and to some degree overlaps the AP4 scale of local authorities. That, in turn, overlaps the AP5 scale. Both of those are rather wider than the probation officer B scale that he recommended; and above those, in turn, we have the SO1 and SO2 local authority scales, neither of which corresponds exactly, in the view of Mr. Butterworth, with the senior probation officer who comes in between the SO1 and SO2 in the local authority.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Viscount is making a very detailed analysis and I hesitate to interrupt him. But he quoted, I thought rather disapprovingly, my use of the term "facile". I was not saying that it was facile to correlate the scales of the work done or the salaries paid in the Probation Service, on the one hand, and the Hospital Service, on the other. What I was saying was facile was this idea that a principal probation officer should, on his own initiative, with no real criteria, say that one man is an A grade and another man is a B grade.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount, but I wonder whether he would be generous enough to allow me to ask him this question. Is he really saying that there exists any other sphere of social work in which people are employed in the same grade and getting two different scales of salary? I say that there is not; and this, with very great respect, is the point at issue.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, first, if I have misquoted the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I apologise. I am coming on to this aspect in a moment. As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I think that as I elaborate my speech (I am trying to explain the situation to the House because the intricacies of it are considerable. I know that the noble Lord knows them, but it may be that there are others here who do not) it will be seen that here we have a situation where Mr. Butterworth and his Committee were looking, not simply at the Probation Service, not simply at the service where he was suggesting that there should be two scales—I am coming on in a moment to whether they are exactly the same job—but at the whole subject across the board. He was trying to cross-relate and cross-evaluate the different jobs of the three different branches of what are I think sister services or brother services, or whatever it may be. It was this I was trying to explain at the time. I know that the matter is very complicated, but what is clearly shown, I think, is that it is not possible to find an exact parallel in the local authority social worker field to determine the pay of the main grade probation officer.
That does not necessarily mean to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that one has then to have the two parallel salaries. But there were other reasons for this. There are distinctions, and I would say that if you tend to concentrate solely on the Probation Service A and B scales without taking into account that sort of background in the local authority and hospital field you have not the whole picture before you, and you are not looking at the same thing that Mr. Butterworth and his colleagues were doing when they prepared this Report which is now under criticism.
My Lords, he explained the rationale for the two probation officer salary scales. Briefly, he said that there were three main factors that influenced the recommendation. The first was the discernible difference of job size, which I have mentioned already, and which emerged from the evaluation exercise. Then there was the career prospects of new entrants, which in the case of the Probation Service were thought to be less favourable than for those going into social work, and
932
which led to the wastage rate mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell in connection with Wallington just now. This is a modern occasion for it, but the wastage rate was well known before and is one of the reasons why the Committee were appointed.
Then the probation officers expressed discontent at the absence of any way of improving their pay while still undertaking case work, which is not quite the same situation as in the fecal authority field where one find in some cases a better mixture of case work and supervisory work. After all, many probation officers wanted to stay, even when in a high grade in the senior status, doing case work and not getting involved in too much paper and "admin". So he recommended the creation of the new section of the main grade with a high rate of pay, and he suggested that movement to it should be open to all probation officers who completed the three years' service mentioned by the noble Lord and whose experience and performance (and I think this is important) justified that recognition. He set out the reasons for this. He saw it as a recognition,
"of the all-round professional skills which an experienced officer developed to perform the full range of duties demanded of the service."
And he saw the B scale as providing,
"an improved salary ceiling for competent, dedicated main grade officers who wish to continue in work which satisfies them and is of value both to their clients and to society at large."
That is the case work, in the view of those people who prefer that.
He recognised that the detailed procedure, which also has been under criticism today, would have to be negotiated with the joint negotiating committee. He thought, however, that there would be an annual selection and that this would be determined for each probation officer, not by the senior probation officer but by a panel appointed by the probation committee for that purpose and for that area. It may have been a recommendation, but the appointment was in the first place to be by the committee of the probation area. I take the point about the Inner London Area. If this authority do not like the whole scheme, then it may not work particularly well in that area. But it was the panel that was intended to

933
make the selection. He did, however, think that there should be a common standard, so far as possible, and that is why we brought in the notion of the Home Office Inspectorate to advise upon this.
Finally, the Report said:
"In view of the standards which we confidently expect to be applied, we would not anticipate that more than a minority of officers would be appointed before five years' service."
That is not the same as the noble Lord's, "Everybody on to B scale after three years." The Report went on:
"We would not, however, wish any restriction to be placed on the number in B grade. Suitability and the minimum of three years' service would be the only criteria."
Those were the only criteria laid down in the Report. I am afraid they have had to be elaborated, and one needs to look at the history of what happened then before one judges finally on this matter.
The joint negotiating committee considered the Report. Certainly it was clear fairly early on that the two scales were controversial. Initially, the Staff Side from the National Association of Probation Officers were reluctant to accept the idea: they thought, like the right reverend Prelate and his advisers, that it was divisive; and they also thought that it did not follow logically from the Butterworth Report. But eventually the Staff Side accepted the principle of two main grades, and they agreed on the salary scales. It is this agreement that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—and I am sorry that this should have occurred—says is intolerable.
Both sides of the Committee—that is to say, the employers, who are primarily the probation committee, not the Home Office, and the Staff Side—agreed that part of the B scale should be in expectation of an officer who has all-round competence over the full range of work, or who is a specialist and exercising a high level of individual responsibility. So, at any rate in the theory of the thing, there is no suggestion that it should be two people doing exactly the same job, with exactly the same experience and the same responsibility, one of whom is on A and one on B. The noble Lord gave the impression that there were sheep and goats—in fact he said so. I suppose the only reason for a man's being a temporary goat under the original proposals
934
was that at that particular moment he had not the specialised knowledge or experience and had to wait for the next annual review. This is the idea that underlay it, and this is the idea that was accepted by the N.A.P.O. and the Staff Side at that time.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is one point arising out of what the noble Viscount has said. Although he has given us a criterion which is reasonable so far as promotion from one grade to the other is concerned, paragraph 222 of the Report states that the recommendation will
"create an improved salary ceiling for competent and dedicated main grade officers".
This would appear to divide people into those who are dedicated and competent and those who are incompetent and not dedicated.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has probably missed the point. Some of the probation officers, very senior and experienced, wanted to get ahead on the pay scale without surrendering their case work responsibility. They wanted to get on to the senior level, as it were, without being bogged down in the office with paper and "admin". They were fascinated by and skilled in the case work side, and they found that in that area their level of promotion was blocked, because if they wanted promotion inevitably it meant taking on a great deal of paper work and office work. I think that is what this paragraph is about rather than the connotation put upon it by the noble Lord.
That is what the Committee side said in their Report. But of course the detailed criteria always envisaged something as having to be drawn up based on professional assessments, and it was here in the negotiations that the Home Office Inspectorate was brought in to give professional advice. A selection procedure was drawn up for the initial phase covering the selection of officers eligible with effect from last July, and under this procedure decisions as to whether a particular officer should be on A or on B scale were left for the local probation after-care committees. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that I cannot give him a full picture of the proportions, because this process is still being carried

935
out; it is not yet completed. Although some areas have come to an agreement on this matter, there are others where it is still under negotiation, and I cannot give the noble Lord a country-wide picture of the results at this moment.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether there is any intention of laying down anything in the way of a proportion in the ratio of A to B in any given office or district?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No; I do not think it will be worked in terms of proportion. But I think somebody who promoted the entire Probation Service, lock, stock and barrel, would be going against the spirit of the agreement which had been reached. I should expect to find repercussions, if somebody tried to do that. No fixed proportion, as such, has been laid down. I think one should try to take the spirit of the matter as it has been set out.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount this question. If the National Association of Probation Officers have accepted this situation and it is to be left to the probation and after-care committees to make the final decision as to whether or not the person is going on the B scale, will the Home Office accept the decision of the probation and after-care committee, or do they reserve the right through their inspectors to veto any such decision?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think it is in terms of veto. I think I said a little earlier in my speech that one wishes to try to get uniformity across the country. Supposing one had a situation where in one area the probation and after-care committee had recommended X per cent. of their staff to go on to the B scale, and in another area the committee had represented 2X per cent., then I think at that stage the Inspectorate would intervene, not to veto, but to suggest to those concerned that there may be inconsistencies as between one area and another which the committee themselves would like to look at again. I do not think it turns up in terms in the form of a veto; it turns up in the form of advice in the way that I have just been saying. That is the monitoring role that the Home
936
Office Inspectorate have been trying to carry out.
The Report was published on August 10, and I seem to remember saying something in the House at about that time. The joint negotiating committee began to consider its recommendations at once. It worked very hard, and agreement was reached on September 19 on both sides, the Staff Side and the Probation Committee side. That was broadcast a few days later. The Government are in a position whereby the Home Secretary prescribes the pay arrangements: and we had been pressed by the National Association beforehand, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, to give an assurance that we would accept what Butterworth said. I do not think we could have said in advance at that stage that we would definitely accept it. But after the Report was published the Government announced, on August 18—that is, 10 days after the Report was published—that we accepted in principle what Butterworth said, and a large increase in pay was indeed involved.
There were of course the subsequent negotiations on detail. My right honourable friend has kept in touch with this matter as it has gone along, and when the agreement was reached in September he was able to accept it: and that is why he made these statutory rules which gave effect to the agreement on November 1. They are only rules—they can be altered—but they have been made as a result of that agreement. Meanwhile, there has been trouble in the Probation Service. I will not go into the details of it; it is probably well known to those Members of the House who have been following this matter. It was not until December 13 that the representatives of the National Executive Committee of N.A.P.O. came to my right honourable friend and made known to him officially the facts of the votes, the special meeting and all these events of the last two or three weeks. Of course, one does not quite know whether the vote taken at the meeting at which the "no confidence" motion was passed was entirely representative, in view of the numbers of people eligible to come and those who were there.
I note that in the terms of his Question the noble Lord. Lord Wells-Pestell, says that there is "deep resentment".

937
That may or may not be so, but he is closer to the matter, perhaps, than I shall ever be. If it is the case, I shall certainly take note of what he says about this being the attitude of the whole Service—not only in London but elsewhere. I hope the position is not quite so black as it has been painted, but I will take note of what the noble Lord says about this "deep resentment".
What nobody has asked to-day is what action the Government will take specifically about this dissatisfaction. I must comment that if that question had been asked I should have been bound to say that officially we have been aware of this dissatisfaction, contrary to the previous agreement, for only about a week. There has been the suggestion that I should say to-night what we are going to do about the "disastrous A Scale" as it has been called—that is, the suggestion that one has to wait three years before automatically getting on to B. But, my Lords, I really think that in view of the pressure by the Staff Side to accept Butterworth, the acceptance of Butterworth by the Government very soon after it was announced, the agreement between the Staff Side and the Probation Committee Side when this matter was negotiated, not only in principle but also on the subsequent details, for me to come forward now, within a week, and say what is to be done about it is a little ambitious, even for those who have been kind enough to be as flattering to me as they have been this evening. But if one wants quick reverses in these matters one has to bear in mind that in pay matters the findings of an independent inquiry such as this not infrequently leave some of those affected by them dissatisfied, as also do the settlements negotiated on behalf of employers and employees by their elected representatives in other fields as well.
If it were a habit of Governments lightly to set aside the recommendations of an independent inquiry such as this, or to tear up a settlement which has been responsibly negotiated by representatives of the National Association of Probation Officers and the employing Probation Committee, then I think we should be in deep trouble. What I can do is to pass on to my right honourable friend, and indeed also to my honourable friends who
938
are concerned in the day-to-day workings of this Service, what has been said here to-night. I think we are aware of the disquiet. The noble Lord has asked a very moderate Question: he has asked whether we are aware of the "deep resentment", and although I would not have got away with it at the beginning, I think at the end I can simply answer, "Yes".
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down—I realise I have no right of reply so perhaps I might use that phrase in order to say that, although there are wide differences between us, I am extremely grateful to him for his very full reply and for his courteous and understanding way of handling this matter.

  CHURCH BUILDINGS IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
  CHURCH BUILDINGS IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
  SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE OUTBREAK
  SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE OUTBREAK