Sitting of 10 February 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
    MILFORD DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.
    SOLIHULL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time and committed.
    WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Student Unions
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has for ensuring that no students are obliged to contribute to student union funds out of their own or their families' resources, or to belong to the National Union of Students, against their wishes, during the next academic year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): The proposals in the con-
    1530
    sultative document would enable students to opt out of local union membership on conscience grounds, or, under an alternative possibility, would make membership wholly voluntary. Any changes in present arrangements for financing the unions will not come into effect until the academic year 1973–74.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is rather what I thought. Is not it a worrying situation? Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly in the light of the Industrial Relations Act, it is indefensible that any student should be obliged, as a condition of obtaining a degree, to belong to the National Union of Students against his wishes, or that any student should be obliged to contribute to the financing of a student union out of his own resources. although he may not wish to do so?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: These matters are all part of the general consultations. It would hardly seem wise to extract this item, upon which I well understand there are strong feelings, from the much wider matters under discussion and in respect of which my right hon. Friend, I think with general approval, acceded to the representations made widely to her that she should delay the changes coming into effect until the academic year I have mentioned.

    Outward Bound Courses
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, prior to the raising of the school leaving age, she will consult the Service Departments with a view to providing short courses of the Outward Bound type, particularly for children of less academic inclination, as an optional part of the school curriculum in the final year.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Curricular matters are the responsibility of local education authorities, governors and managers of schools and teachers, all of whom can initiate such requests for assistance as they may feel are necessary. There are five Outward Bound schools run by the Outward Bound Trust and over 200 centres in England and Wales offering facilities for this kind of pursuit.
    Mr. Hunt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this suggestion came originally from a teacher in my constituency, who, like many other members of his profession, is worried about the possibility of disciplinary problems arising in the extra school year? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if implemented on a national scale, the proposal would do something to siphon off the more high-spirited youngsters, and perhaps at the same time provide them with useful vocational guidance?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I had hoped that I had indicated to my hon. Friend that there are facilities for such a course. He and his inquirers may be helped by a survey by the Department of local education authority centres, to be published in a few weeks.

    Minor Works School Programme (London)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage cut in the minor works school programme for primary and junior schools in the Inner London Education Authority area, which will take effect in the next financial year.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The minor works programme is for projects costing less than £40,000 at primary and secondary schools and other educational establishments. It is for the Inner London Education Authority to decide within its overall allocation on the resources to be devoted to primary schools.
    Mr. Cox: Will the hon. Gentleman deny that there is to be a cut of at least 25 per cent. in the minor works programmes in inner London from the beginning of the new financial year'? Is not that a scandalous decision in view of the repeated talk we hear of the Government's supposed concern about primary and junior education? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the effect the cut will have on worthwhile projects that would benefit both teachers and children? May I finally say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is of interest to my constituents and to other people in inner London. If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt as to the reaction of head teachers, teachers and parents, may I invite him to come into my constituency and meet them?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: If I had been asked about the overall minor works programme I should have given the answer, of course. I substantially confirm the figure given by the hon. Gentleman, though the allocations to the various schools or types of school is a matter for I.L.E.A. It will also be of general interest not only to the hon. Gentleman's constituents but to many others that primary school numbers are falling in inner London. For example, only 20 per cent. of London's primary classes now have more than 35 pupils. My right hon. Friend has to consider the situation in the whole country.

    Primary Schools (Temporary Structures)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will approve the replacement of primary schools in development areas, which were put up after World War I as temporary structures, while there is a surplus of building labour in such areas.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have already authorised additional capital expenditure in development areas and the Government are continuing to examine the possibility of further additions to mitigate unemployment, and to improve outdated schools.
    Mr. Tilney: Could not the replacement of out-of-date primary schools rank as being of equal importance with the removal of dereliction in such areas? Would my right hon. Friend discuss the subject of grants for this work with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in the meantime could not plans be finalised so that we may take advantage of the good building weather?
    Mrs. Thatcher: As my hon. Friend knows, Liverpool has had a very good primary school replacement programme—16 primary schools are being replaced during the period 1972–74. I know that he has a particular case in mind and I will consider it for the next programme.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: What does the right hon. Lady mean by "authorised"? Is she aware that there are far too many dilapidated schools not just in development areas but in the intermediate areas, too? Is it not time that she considered doing something even if it is only to help reduce unemployment?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have announced a special programme of help for development areas. The hon. Gentleman knows that the school replacement programme is the biggest we have ever had.

    Schools Meals
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children were taking school meals on the last date for which figures are available; and what was the figure 12 months earlier.
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children are now taking school meals and what this figure represents, as a percentage of the total prior to the last increase in charges.
    Mrs. Thatcher: On a day in October, 1971, 4,658,000 pupils in maintained schools in England and Wales took the school meal: this represents 90·5 per cent. of the corresponding figure for October, 1970, which was 5,148,000.
    Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Lady aware that that is a thoroughly shocking, miserable answer? Could she say whether the story is true that she has appointed a new public relations officer whose job it will be to convince the country that she is human after all? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is plenty more to come. Is she further aware that she is regarded as the meanest member of a thoroughly reactionary Government, and if she wants to know the reason why, she should start by asking the thousands of children who have lost their school meals and milk?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman does not perhaps appreciate that secondary school milk was withdrawn by his party when in Government, an action which was supported by most hon. Members opposite, who trooped through the Lobby in support of their Government.
    Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Lady now prepared to admit that the number of children taking school meals will never return to its former level? Is she aware that many children are going from breakfast time to evening meal without anything to eat or drink? Before any further increase is proposed in the charges, will
    1534
    she see that a thorough inquiry into the school meals service is carried out?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman should know that there is no need for any child to go from breakfast to evening meal without anything to eat. There are about 800,000 children receiving free school meals. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any case in the category he has described, he should draw attention to the free school meal service.
    Mr. John E. B. Hill: Do not these figures show that the usual trends are repeating themselves and, as might be expected, after an increase in the price of food there is a sharp falling off and later there is a recovery, thereby demonstrating that, even at the new price, school meals are extremely good value? Is this not true under both Labour and Conservative Administrations?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The present school meal is extremely good value at 12p. More children have returned to taking the full school meal in primary schools than have done so in secondary schools. I believe that this has to do with the changing attitude towards a school meal and changing fashions in what school children at secondary schools want for the midday meal.
    Mr.. Edward Short: Does the right hon. Lady not view with some alarm a drop of 1 million in the number of children taking school meals at a time when there are 1 million unemployed? Does she not believe that this will have some dietary and social consequences? What does she intend to do?
    Mrs. Thatcher: A fall from 5,148,000 to 4,658,000 is not a drop of 1 million but a drop of half a million, so the right lion. Gentleman is 100 per cent. wrong. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy is monitoring what has been happening consequent upon the changes in school meals and milk provision.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this problem is not a matter of quantum alone and that nutrition is equally important? In the case of the densely populated industrial areas in the Midlands, why should the

    1535
    children not have a diet of fresh vegetables from the Vale of Evesham, which would do them much more good than all this propaganda about quantum?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that parents will take note of what my hon. Friend said and will purchase vegetables and fruit from the Vale of Evesham.
    Mr. Armstrong: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that this is a serious matter and that a number of children who are entitled to free meals do not receive them for various reasons? Is this not a national disgrace? Is she aware that there are a number of children whose parents incomes are just above the scale laid down and who are thereby denied a free meal? Does she not take a serious view of the fact that fewer children are taking advantage of the meals provided at schools?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Dealing with free school meals. 805,000 were served in October, 1971. The income limits for free school meals have been raised so that more parents can—and more do—take advantage of them.

    School Milk
    Mr. David Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make regulations to require that children not receiving free school milk should be regularly examined to ensure that they do not suffer brain damage due to lead poisoning.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. The Chief Medical Officer has recently advised all medical officers of health, including principal school medical officers, about possible hazards from excessive amounts of lead in food, the atmosphere, water and soil, and has asked them to consider, particularly in the case of young children, what investigations should be undertaken.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is the right hon. Lady aware that that is not a very satisfactory answer? Is she further aware of the warning recently issued by Professor Bryce-Smith of Reading University that the withdrawal of school milk from young children has increased the danger from lead poisoning which can lead to irreversible brain damage in children? Is she further aware that Professor Bryce-Smith has pointed out that in urban areas
    1536
    in the United States 25 per cent. of children suffer brain damage due to lead poisoning? Will she now recognise the protective effects of free school milk, reverse her stupid, ridiculous and criminal policy and restore free school milk to children?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Children who have a health requirement will get free school milk up to the age of 11. Over the age of 11 withdrawal was made complete and total by the last Government.
    Miss Lestor: Would the right hon. Lady like me to send her a copy of the Press cutting dealing with this question of lead poisoning, because I think she has missed the point? The point is that milk is one of the few protections against lead poisoning and that we now live in a lead-contaminated society. If children are to be examined after they have lead poisoning, it is too late to do anything about it. Does she realise that this is why the question of restoring school milk, particularly for young children, is so vital?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We are very much aware of the dangers of lead poisoning and that is why the Chief Medical Officer recently circularised all medical officers of health and school medical officers on this subject.

    James Committee (Report)
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her programme of consultations on the James Report.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the nature and manner of the consultations she is going to hold on the James Report on teacher education and training.
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether she will undertake to make a statement to the House when she has concluded her consultations on the James Report;
    (2) how long she proposes to allow for the completion of consultations on the James Report.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science

    1537
    when she intends to announce her policy on the recommendations contained in the James Report on the training of teachers.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have made it clear that I intend to allow time for the issues raised by the report to be widely considered and debated. I hope to initiate consultations not later than Easter, but, while I am anxious to avoid delay, I cannot say at this stage how long they are likely to take or how soon thereafter I shall be able to reach conclusions or announce them to the House.
    Mr. Lane: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the consultations will be thorough in every respect, so that changes in teacher education and training can be properly considered in the wider context of possible changes in the shape of higher education as a whole, and not only in the teacher training sector?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The consultations will be very thorough indeed. I gladly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have already identified more than 30 organisations whose views will have to be taken formally before we reach any conclusion.
    Mr. Willey: While we have to accept the James Report as the basis of the consultations and the reorganisation of teacher training, does the right hon. Lady appreciate that in some fundamental aspects the report is wholly unacceptable? Will she concentrate the early consultations arid discussions upon these points, so that positive and constructive proposals can be put forward for further discussion?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am reserving my views on the James Report. Those who come to me to consult are in no way limited in the views they wish to express.
    Mr. Moyle: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that rapid implementation of the James Report will lead to an increase in the number of students at colleges of education who will not go in for teaching, to a reduction in the supply of teachers and to a consequent danger to teaching standards? Will she bear these points in mind during the consultations?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I will take all advice into account and bear in mind what those who are consulted say about the
    1538
    report. Those who are not formally consulted are at liberty to send in their views now that they have the report.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the Minister ensure that whatever decision she comes to on the reform of teacher training based on the James Report will be backed by sufficient money to enable it to work properly?
    Mrs. Thatcher: On the whole, the Conservative Government have been very successful in getting more money for educational purposes.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will place in the libraries of the House of Commons, the Department of Education and Science and at least a dozen educational institutions, copies of the oral and written evidence presented to the James Committee on teacher education; and if she will publish this evidence as a parliamentary paper as soon as possible.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. Much of the evidence was given orally and in confidence and was not recorded verbatim.
    Mr. Spearing: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that if the written evidence is not published, the consultation cannot be as thorough-going as she says? Does she not agree that the report has wide implications and appears to be based on many assumptions which will not find universal acceptance?
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, I do not think that failure to publish confidential evidence will limit the consultations. I cannot publish evidence which was given on the undertaking that it would not be published. The evidence given by the area training organisations is available on direct application to the organisations concerned.
    Mr. Edward Short: The James Report shares with the Rothschild Report the characteristic of making a great many assertions which are, as far as we can see, completely unsupported by evidence. This is most unsatisfactory. Will not the right hon. Lady reconsider her decision and at least publish the written evidence?
    Mrs. Thatcher: No. To publish part of the evidence would give a false impression. That would be the worst of all possible worlds. I cannot publish evidence which I undertook not to publish.

    Young Volunteers
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what support she will be giving to the young volunteers during the next financial year; and what advice she is giving to local authorities about continuing to give support to groups of young volunteers in their areas.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have offered a grant of approximately £75,000 to the Young Volunteer Force Foundation. A grant of £17,500 has been allocated to the Community Service Volunteers. Applications from other organisations in this field are under consideration. I am most anxious that local authorities should continue to give active support to the voluntary youth organisations in their areas.
    Mrs. Short: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply, but does she not agree that certain local authorities—for example, Wolverhampton, which has allowed only £2,000 this year for young volunteers working in the area—are being far too stingy? Does she not also agree that young people are doing valuable social work and thereby relieving local authorities of much expenditure? Will she not therefore encourage local authorities, or perhaps send out a directive to them asking them to be more generous?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am only too happy to encourage local authorities to spend more on this work. I hope that we have given a lead in putting up the grants to both these organisations.
    Dame Irene Ward: Does my right hon. Friend receive reports from local authorities on how the money is spent? If she does not, will she seek them and have them placed in the Library of the House, to enable hon. Members to know how the money is spent?
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, I do not have reports on how the money is spent. The P.E.P. is doing a review of the work of many of the voluntary organisations before any increases in grants can be considered. In the meantime, special applications for grants are being met. I fully appreciate the youth work that is being done and I have a great admiration for it.
    Mr. Moyle: I pay tribute to the work of the young volunteer service, but does the right hon. Lady recall that the last Government grant to this body was spread over three years to allow it to plan ahead? Will she make a similar arrangement this year and also substantially increase the grant? I think the right hon. Lady will admit that the young volunteers are in considerable demand all over the country and there is a danger that the service may have to cut back its work.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have offered to keep the grant in real terms at its present value for a period of three years. This is the single biggest grant to any youth organisation, and other youth organisations doing work which is just as excellent would like similar increases.

    University Undergraduate Places
    Dr. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science for what total of university undergraduate places she is planning by the end of the 1972 to 1977 quinquennium.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: My right hon. Friend will take decisions on university development in the 1972–77 quinquennium after considering the advice of the University Grants Committee, which she expects to receive shortly.
    Dr. Marshall: In making those further deliberations will the Secretary of State bear in mind the need for an increase in the number of medical students which, among other things, would enable the establishment of a new medical school at Hull University?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I have, naturally, noticed the documented proposals in respect of Hull University, on which I make no comment. These are all relevant matters for discussion.

    Truancy
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations have been made to her from local education authorities regarding the problem of truancy in secondary schools.
    Mrs. Thatcher: None.
    Mr. O'Halloran: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the growing problem of truancy in inner London? Will she arrange for closer liaison between childparent-teacher organisations and local authorities to deal with truancy?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I believe that the best educational results are obtained when there is maximum co-operation between parents and teachers and local education authorities. The Inner London Education Authority is very much aware of the problem of truancy, and that authority is in the best position to deal with truancy in its own area.
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to consider producing statistics on this problem so that we may discover how serious it is?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Truancy is a notoriously difficult subject upon which to get accurate statistics. Had it been an easier subject on which to obtain statistics we should already have done so. So far no national statistics have been available, and I doubt whether we could get accurate statistics.
    Mr. Marks: Is it not time the right hon. Lady stopped washing her hands of this serious problem and initiated in her Department research into avoidable absence from school?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Naturally, we are all concerned about avoidable absence from school. Some local authorities have figures—Manchester is one—but this is a problem for the local education authority and the individual school to deal with, often in conjunction with the social services.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us feel that the new attitude towards marriage, and especially the attitude towards divorce, is having an adverse effect on many of the children from broken homes? Would she look into this aspect, since it is the home that matters?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I agree. If we could sort out some of the problems that occur in the home, we should be well on the way to solving many of the problems in our society. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the problem is easier to pose than it is to solve.

    Violence in Schools
    Sir Gilbert Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has yet decided how she can best make a contribution towards preventing violence in schools and dealing with it when it occurs.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Evidence gained through the normal activities of the inspectorate suggests that this problem is mainly confined to a few areas. I believe it is best dealt with by the teachers, governors and local education authorities.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has she received any representations from local education authorities about this problem?
    Mrs. Thatcher: No. And when we sent out a circular to the local authorities in connection with the raising of the school leaving age, very few mentioned this as one of their problems. Obviously this problem occurs, but it is by no means confined to the schools. One of the reasons for the existence of some violence in our schools is that there is a lot of violence in society, and possibly the violence in society is the cause of some of the violence in schools.
    Mr. David Stoddart: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in future her policy may lead to increased violence in schools? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I draw her attention to the warning issued by Professor Bryce-Smith that lead poisoning in children can lead to emotional disturbances, cruelty and violence in children. Will she not reconsider her policy and re-introduce free school milk to prevent children suffering brain damage?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman struggled very hard with that supplementary. The policy of spending a great deal more money on primary schools—more money than has ever been spent before—will help to deal with some of the problems in the primary schools, and our policy of raising the school leaving age will give many children opportunities they have not had before.
    Mr. Lane: In preparing for the raising of the school leaving age, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as the date draws near, the problem of discipline

    1543
    is one of the main anxieties of many teachers>
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir. I also have that in mind. I believe the fact that we are getting an increasing number of teachers coming into the schools will help to alleviate that problem, since children will receive more individual attention from teachers.

    Refreshments in Schools
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will give further guidance to local education authorities on the supply of refreshments other than school milk and meals, because of continuing uncertainty.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. Authorities which are in doubt about the interpretation of the regulations should seek guidance from their own legal advisers.
    Mr. Marks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Manchester Education Authority is now giving nutritional drinks to children receiving free dinners at a rate of 1p per week—they were getting them for nothing until the right hon. Lady circularised local authorities—and to other children at 5p a week? Will she not urge all local authorities to do the same and avoid the worst parts of her Educational (Milk) Act; or, alternatively, will she now get rid of that Act, which I am sure a great many people on both sides of the House, and certainly the local councils, want to get rid of?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I noticed that when a poll was taken by a local paper in Merthyr Tydvil, a proportion of two to one was against free milk in schools.

    Transport for Schoolchildren
    Mr. Terry Davisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities use their powers to provide transport for schoolchildren, in circumstances where they are not obliged to do so.
    Mrs. Thatcher: This information is not collected by my Department.
    Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. Lady aware that some local authorities seem to have a policy of never providing school transport when they are not obliged to do so, however difficult or dangerous may be the journey to school?
    Mrs. ThatcherLocal education authorities have a very wide discretion. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman exact figures. If I had had them, I would have given them to him. We know of a number of local education authorities who make exceptions and give transport costs for shorter walking distances than those laid down in the Act. In addition, a large number give discretionary allowances in individual cases. A circular was issued some time ago asking local education authorities to have regard to this matter, especially where there were problems of safety.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to have a comprehensive review not only of the mileage question, involving the two or three miles distance limit but also of the catchment areas which are used in bringing children to primary schools. The situation is a nonsense, particularly in view of my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis). I am sure the time has come for a review to take place.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think we could initiate a comprehensive review of that kind without consulting local education authorities. These authorities have recently indicated that they, too, are worried about this problem.
    Miss Lestor: I support the idea of a comprehensive review. If the right hon. Lady is prepared to consider this matter in consultation with local authorities, will she also bear in mind the fact that many bus companies—and this certainly applies in my constituency—are now not allowing half fares before 9.30 a.m.? This means that many children who do not qualify for free travel because they are within the limits laid down must pay full fare to get to school. This is a considerable hardship to many parents.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am very well aware of most of the problems connected with school transport, but I must point out that many of these problems are local and that local education authorities are there to know local problems. Most of them are every bit as aware of the safety problems as are we at headquarters.
    24. Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she

    1545
    will seek to amend the regulations governing the conveyance of schoolchildren to and from school in the light of modern traffic conditions.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities already have discretionary powers which enable them to provide transport to school where they consider traffic conditions dangerous.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the regulations under which local authorities operate were laid down at the time of her illustrious predecessor, Dame Florence Horsbrugh, and that, if for no other reason, a change is appropriate under the present régime? Is she aware, further, that the regulations are totally out of date in the light of modern traffic conditions, and that the withdrawal of many rural bus services and the closing of many rural primary schools are exacerbating the difficulties? In any review of the situation, will provision be made for parents to state their views, in addition to those of local authorities?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The regulations allow complete discretion to local education authorities within the statutory distances. The total amount of money spent on the provision of school transport up and down the country is now £28 million a year. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the closure of schools, he will know that permission to close some small primary schools in Cornwall has been withheld pending consideration of the transport problems.
    Mr. John E. B. Hill: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that an increase in traffic, especially in rural areas, can suddenly import a new factor of danger into village surroundings? Will she have discussions with the Department of the Environment about the possibility of requiring very heavy lorries to keep to certain routes and not to take short cuts through villages? This has a great bearing on the safety of children.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that heavy lorries going through narrow winding lanes have a great bearing on the safety of children. Local authorities themselves should be aware of the problem, and I should expect them to take the necessary action, if need be.
    Mr. Edward Short: While it is true that local authorities have discretion
    1546
    within the regulations, it is the right hon. Lady who makes the regulations. Is she aware that there are two new factors affecting transport for school children? One is the reorganising of schools into larger units, resulting in many more children having to travel further to school. The other is the steep rise in bus fares and, in places like London, the ending of cheap fares for children. Will not the right hon. Lady agree to the suggestion about an inquiry, with the help of local authorities, into the problem of school transport?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am prepared to look at the possibility of an inquiry. I know that this causes considerable problems. But this is one of those areas where local education authorities themselves have enormous discretion and can deal with the problems.

    Secondary Education (Dudley)
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she will be replying to representations she has received with respect to the reorganisation of secondary education within the county borough of Dudley.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have received a complaint that the Dudley Local Education Authority has acted unreasonably in removing from office certain governors of Dudley Grammar School. I will announce my decision as soon as possible.
    Dr. Gilbert: May I put it to the right hon. Lady that she has had the reply from the local education authority for more than a month now? The objections were in before Christmas. The only effect of her continued delay in passing any judgment on the scheme is to prolong the uncertainty of parents in the county borough, whichever view they may take of the ultimate proposals. May I urge the right hon. Lady to be a little more speedy?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am not sure the hon. Gentleman has in mind the same case as that to which I referred in my answer. It relates to the Dudley Grammar School, When the hon. Gentleman refers to "proposals", we understand that to be in the sense of changing the character of a school. The Question to which I replied had nothing to do with changing the character of a school, but with changing the governors of a school.
    Dr. Gilbert: That is the necessary prerequisite.

    Education Facilities (Sex Discrimination)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will take steps to withdraw immediately all official circulars to local education authorities which have the effect of discriminating against the provision of educational facilities for girls as against boy pupils.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I know of no such circulars.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I apologise to the right hon. Lady; she no doubt knows what she is—say whether she has replied to communications from the National Joint Committee of Working Men's Organisations in respect of discrimination against girls in the provision of science facilities in schools? Does that situation still apply? Has she issued a recent circular to local education authorities on this matter to say that they must not discriminate? Will she make similar representations to the universities in respect of access to medical faculties by female students?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I must say that I take great exception to the hon. Gentleman's mistake at the beginning of his supplementary question. As for his request, I believe he is referring to a building bulletin which was published 18 years ago and which is now both out of date and out of print. There have been 12 secondary school building bulletins since that time. We do not impose regulations on local education authorities about how they arrange the space within the school building in relation to particular subjects. I shall shortly be replying to the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of that unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Nursery School Places
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many additional nursery school places have been provided by local authorities since June, 1970.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Since June, 1970, the provision of nearly 7,800 additional places in nursery schools and classes in socially-deprived areas of England has been approved under the urban programme.
    Mr. Meacher: Despite that figure, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the total number of nursery school places is at present disgracefully inadequate and that such places are grossly maldistributed? Is he also aware that in some local authorities there are 165 times as many nursery school places per thousand children aged five as in other local authorities, many of which provide no places at all? Will he take steps to ensure that all local authorities provide at least a certain minimum number of places, in view of the importance attached to this provision by Plowden?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The essence of the proposals under the urban programme is that there is discrimination in respect of certain areas of special need.
    Mr. Barry Jones: What representations has the Minister had from the teachers' unions on this subject? Is not it likely that the cost of implementing the James Report will push nursery schools right to the back of the queue?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: That is not necessarily the case. Before long, local authorities—not local education authorities—will be asked to make further proposals under the programme of which I have spoken.
    Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind the national campaign to pressurise the Government into an expansion in the provision of nursery schools, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his Government have now abandoned the proposal being discussed among hon. Members opposite that any expansion in nursery schools should be accompanied by charges to parents?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am limiting my answer to the urban programme. There is no suggestion of charges in respect of the programme of which I am talking.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of nursery schools has been helped considerably by the halving of selective employment tax?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: This is one of many examples of the way in which Government policy is interlocking.

    Dyslexia
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she is now taking on the recommendations about dyslexia made by her advisory committee on handicapped children.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am seeking the views of the local authority and teachers' associations on the Committee's recommendations for identifying children with reading difficulties and providing special help for them.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the right hon. Lady seek to consult parents as well and, in the light of this report, try to ensure that special remedial teaching is available to children who were formerly known as dyslexic children but who have been rechristened by the report children with special reading difficulties?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I shall be pleased to hear from parents, especially from those who have children with reading problems. My aim is to ensure that provision is available for all children with reading difficulties. I think that that was the aim of the report, too.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Lady look again at the problem raised during the Adjournment debate recently about the education of autistic children, and review the provisions now being made not only for dyslexic children but also for autistic children?
    Mrs. Thatcher: A circular was sent out recently asking local education authorities to give details of the provision made for autistic children in their areas. Full answers to the circular are not yet available.

  NORTH-WEST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for a further meeting with the North-West Industrial Development Association.
  The Prime Minister (Mx. Edward Heath): None, Sir. I have arranged to
  1550
  meet the Merseyside Advisory Committee on Unemployment when I am in Liverpool tomorrow.
  Mr. Meacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole of the North West now has unemployment rates which previously would have justified immediately the granting of intermediate area status? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that the Government contribution to the region is thoroughly inadequate since, although the region has the oldest industrial infrastructure in the country and the biggest concentration of substandard houses, public investment is still no more than adequate? What does the Prime Minister intend doing to remedy the problems on the scale required?
  The Prime Minister: I discussed these problems with the North-West Industrial Development Association, and I pointed out the reasons why we differentiate between types of area. I discussed these matters on Tuesday afternoon in answer to other supplementary questions. Tomorrow I shall concentrate on the problems of Merseyside.
  Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when we welcome him in Merseyside tomorrow, our lack of amenity as well as our unemployment, and that both could be lessened by a massive public work which the Government alone could undertake, such as the multi-purpose and probably profitable reclamation of the Dee?
  The Prime Minister: I am prepared to discuss that tomorrow evening, if the point is raised.
  Mr. Heffer: When the Prime Minister discusses the great problem of unemployment on Merseyside, will he indicate to the advisory committee whether the Government have any plans to assist in the redevelopment of old schools, the housing programme, roads, and various buildings which are required in Liverpool, in view of the extremely high level of unemployment among building workers in the area? Will the Prime Minister say clearly what the Government intend to do to assist Merseyside in this direction?
  The Prime Minister: I am prepared to discuss these problems with the advisory committee tomorrow. That

  1551
  is the purpose of my visit. This Government, after all, have undertaken the biggest programme for the replacement of old primary schools that any Government of this country have ever undertaken, in addition to the £160 million that we are spending on infrastructure in the development areas.

  COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry on the subject of the dispute between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: There is already very close co-ordination between these and all other Departments concerned. The Government's position was fully set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in the debate on Tuesday.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that the co-ordination between these two Departments, or any others for that matter, has produced a deceitful, insulting offer which can be best summed up as today's Financial Times has put it, that this new offer, like the last, is still within the unofficial Government pay guide lines of around 7 per cent. or 8 per cent.? What kind of special treatment is that?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is to answer a Private Notice Question at the end of Questions about the discussions which are going on. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the offer made by the National Coal Board last night of a minimum wage of £22 a week is £2 above that for which the T.U.C. has asked as a minimum wage——
  Mr. Skinner: This is supposed to be a special case.
  The Prime Minister: What is more, the new offer would put average earnings in the industry substantially above the
  1552
  average earnings of other industrial workers in the country.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, on the matter of co-ordination between Departments in this critical situation of fuel supplies, that millions of householders living in smoke-controlled areas can no longer get supplies of solid smokeless fuel? May they, therefore, be relieved under the Emergency Regulations of any liabilities which they would ordinarily have to burn only certain fuels?
  The Prime Minister: That is a question which I will ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider and to give urgent guidance upon.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr. O'Halloranasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Government of Northern Ireland.
  The Prime Minister: I met Mr. Faulkner in London on 4th February when, as part of our regular discussions, we reviewed the current situation in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. O'Halloran: Further to Press speculation regarding a political solution in Northern Ireland, is it possible for the Prime Minister to spell out to us his proposals for this solution?
  The Prime Minister: The House knows that we have been working for a political solution as intensively as we can. The House also knows of the difficulties in the way of that solution. I do not at this time wish to discuss any individual proposals which might be considered in that respect.
  Mr. Orme: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread speculation both in this country and abroad about imminent Government proposals? Because of the seriousness of the situation, will he tell the House when the Government will make these proposals public to the nation?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot be responsible for speculation of various kinds. I understand that it is bound to happen, but I cannot be responsible for individual proposals which are made in

  1553
  the Press or elsewhere. When the Government have further proposals to make I will, of course, tell the House.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is it not a lamentable but blunt fact that procrastination and delay by groups in Northern Ireland who refuse to come to talks may contribute to the condemning to death of yet another innocent civilian or another member of the security forces?
  The Prime Minister: That is undoubtedly true. In a speech in Harrogate on Sunday I asked that they should reconsider the position in the light of the existing situation in Northern Ireland. There cannot be a more open offer than that.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite all the tragic happenings in Ireland, we should continue to impress upon everyone concerned that there is no solution in violence in Ireland? In my view, the most important aspect to get fruitful talks going in Ireland is the Government's consideration of internment. Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the overwhelming majority of people, both in Ireland and in this country, the tremendous areas of agreement we have between us in trade, economic and social factors in order that they may become better informed about our attitude towards peace?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. I well understand the importance of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we fully support the condemnation of violence which he has made and the desire that there should be greater understanding both north and south of the Border and with Britain. Certainly I have done everything possible to try to get a better understanding between the Republic of Eire and Northern Ireland in the discussions which I have had with the Prime Minister of Eire. We shall continue to do that. We must also recognise that there are and will remain people who do not want a political solution, except the immediate unification of the whole of Ireland. Therefore, whatever political solutions are put forward and accepted, there will still be those who wish to break them up.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: In considering these matters, will my right hon. Friend continue to bear in mind that any initiative
  1554
  and any proposals which are prepared must also be broadly acceptable to the majority?
  The Prime Minister: I think that it is sometimes overlooked that immense restraint has been exercised by the majority community in Northern Ireland. They are to be admired for the steadfastness which they have shown in very difficult conditions. Both major parties—I think that I can fairly say all parties—in this House have said that change can be brought about only by consent, if change is required, in anything affecting the 1949 Act. All parties in this House are committed to that.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: While we accept that the Prime Minister cannot be responsible for Press speculation, there is speculation and speculation. Because daily we are being treated to a blow-by-blow account of what purports to go on in Cabinet Committee meetings, would it not be in the best interests of everybody concerned that we should have an early statement?
  The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there has been guidance in this way or a blow-by-blow account of Cabinet Committee meetings.—[Interruption.]—I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is always ready to believe that everything in the newspapers comes from a Government source, which is based on his previous experience in office. This is no longer the case. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that, if we have any proposals to make, I will make a statement as early as possible.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister whether he will now dismiss the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Davis: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am distinctly surprised at the rejection of my most moderate request? Is it not absolutely pathetic that the Foreign Secretary should simply have grovelled at the feet of Smith over the detention of the Todds and other African

  1555
  leaders? Should he not speak out for the cause of democracy as far as this country is concerned?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. I should have thought that this was a serious matter which ought to be given full consideration. The hon. Gentleman knows, as well as the whole of his party, that his right hon. Friend, when Prime Minister, was unable to insist on anything in Rhodesia. He could not stop the execution of Rhodesian Africans in 1968, he could not stop the expulsion from Rhodesia of Labour Members of this House in 1966, and he could not stop the Rhodesian authorities banning British journalists in 1966. Therefore, I think that there must be a recognition of the limitations on the power of any Government in this country.
  Mr. Sandys: Is it not a fact that no one in public life in this country is more widely respected and trusted than the Foreign Secretary?
  The Prime Minister: I think that that is the case.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Agreeing with the right lion. Gentleman that Rhodesia, like Northern Ireland, is a serious matter, and therefore not a subject for cheap jibes by him, will he now answer this question: has he received any explanation satisfactory to him from Mr. Ian Smith of the arrest and solitary confinement of Mr. Garfield Todd?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has told the House that the answer is "No"—and nor have I. I have no more power to insist on it than had the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman has repeated what the Foreign Secretary said about the executions, is he aware that at this moment of time he is in a special relationship with Mr. Smith on the ground that they are jointly commending an agreement about which there may be disagreement in this country or in Rhodesia? Will he at least insist that the undertakings given of normal political activities should be honoured by Mr. Smith? The right hon. Gentleman is in a position, which in 1966 no one in this country was in. Will he
  1556
  therefore insist on this and make it clear to Mr. Smith that if he behaves in this way and insists on police state conditions when the Pearce Commission is operating, this House must judge that we cannot trust him to carry out that agreement when he is no longer on his best behaviour?
  The Prime Minister: Lord Pearce and his Commission are the judges of whether conditions exist in which they can carry out their work. That remains the position, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has told the House before. Lord Pearce is of the opinion that he and his Commission can carry on their work, and that is for them to decide.
  Mr. Tapsell: While fully recognising the limitation of our power in Rhodesia, would it not now be appropriate, in the light of Lord Pearce's latest statement about the detention of Mr. Todd and Miss Todd, that we should formally ask Mr. Smith at least to release them should they wish to return to this country?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that there has been any indication that they wish to return to this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Her Majesty's Government cannot insist that Mr. Garfield Todd or Miss Todd should wish to come back to this country. Therefore, what Lord Pearce has made clear is that he has to make his own judgment on the detention of Mr. Todd and Miss Todd.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish to the House all his exchanges with Mr. Smith on this and all other aspects of the negotiations, as I did in November, 1965, and again following the talks on H.M.S. "Tiger"? Will he now published what he has said to Mr. Smith on this incident and what reply he has had?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman always published his documents after negotiations had broken down. At the moment, the Pearce Commission is carrying out the testing under the fifth principle. We must await the Pearce Commission's report.
  Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us do not go as far as the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) in calling for the

  1557
  Foreign Secretary's resignation? We believe it should be a question of all or nothing? Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who have a very great affection for the Foreign Secretary do not exactly regard Rhodesia as being his finest hour? Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister about two matters. As the Prime Minister would, I am sure, he the first to accept, on the question of Rhodesia at least my loyalty to the Crown in the face of a rebellion has never been in doubt. My first question—[Interruption.]—if the tribal instincts of the right hon. Gentleman's back benchers can be temporarily controlled—is what has happened to the proposed all-party delegation which the Foreign Secretary favoured? Second, in view of Mr. Smith's clear statement on 25th November last year in the Rhodesian Parliament that if the package were rejected the 1969 Amendment would continue, and so would sanctions, may we take it that it is likewise the view of Her Majesty's Government that in the event of the settlement being accepted —[HON. MEMBERS: "Rejected."]—this Parliament would continue with sanctions?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in communication with Mr. Smith about the all-party delegation, and I understand that there have been talks on this issue with hon. Members of this House. My right hon. Friend remains of the view that it is desirable for the all-party delegation to go there. On the question about what happens if the settlement is agreed, obviously action will have to follow in respect of sanctions. That would be a matter not only for us but also for the United Nations. The mandatory sanctions were imposed by the United Nations and it is obviously a matter which concerns them. As for the right hon. Gentleman's position, we know also that he did not achieve his finest hour over Rhodesia and that he will not be contented until he can bomb both black and white alike.
  Mr. Thorpe: As the Prime Minister has made the rather grave allegation that a Member of this House—now or at any previous time—advocated a measure which would have resulted in the death or the likelihood of death of any black or white citizen in Rhodesia, would he be kind enough to tell the House how
  1558
  he thinks that the destruction of a railway line in the middle of a deserted desert, where there was no population within 300 miles, is likely to achieve that objective?
  The Prime Minister: Quite apart from the right hon. Gentleman's own purposes—and I do not accept that the results would have been as he described——
  Mr. Kaufman: You killed 14 Africans.
  The Prime Minister:—there have been a number of hon. Members who have urged the use of force and conquest in Rhodesia.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as there were 13 deaths recently in Northern Ireland, which he regards as a subject for jokes in the House this afternoon——
  The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
  Mr. Harold Wilson:—and as there were 14 deaths last month in Rhodesia, which he regards as an occasion for cheap party points against the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, whether he will now withdraw the allegations lie has just made? Second, will he now answer a serious question in a serious way? As he referred to the all-party delegation and as our members of the delegation have been known to the Government for 10 days, will he say when we shall hear that the delegation will be received in Rhodesia and when it will leave for Rhodesia?
  The Prime Minister: I have told the House that my right lion. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in communication with Salisbury about the parliamentary delegation. As soon as he receives the reply, all parties in the House will be told. That is a perfectly clear position. Concerning the right hon. Gentleman's other remarks, I have never at any time made jokes or jibes about deaths in Northern Ireland or in Rhodesia. What I am saying is that the right lion. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party wanted to bomb part of Rhodesia to get a settlement, and that I cannot accept. The right hon. Gentleman's distortions are such that he is quite unfit to be even Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. In the course of the last five minutes the Prime Minister has made two totally separate allegations. The second allegation was that one Member of this House was prepared to bomb certain sections of Rhodesia, which, in my case, I totally accept. The first allegation, to which I take the strongest possible exception, is that the Prime Minister suggested that one Member of this House, namely myself, was prepared to take action to kill white or black Rhodesians. I totally reject that. I suggest, as a matter of order, that it is an outrageous allegation to make, and if the Prime Minister, who has already amended his first allegation by making a second, will now come clean, I challenge him to withdraw.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of order.
  Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order. May I ask——
  Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a matter of order for me.
  Mr. Thorpe: On a fresh point of order. I hope that whatever may be the outcome, you, Mr. Speaker, will be the decider of this, and not the chorus opposite. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule whether it is in order for one hon. Member of this House to accuse another hon. Member of advocating policies to kill Her Majesty's subjects?
  Mr. Speaker: I am advised that this is not a matter of order. Right hon. and hon. Members must carry responsibility for their statements. There is no matter of order here. Mr. Harold Lever.
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. If that is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you explain to the House what is?
  Mr. Speaker: I will not have the slightest hesitation in Ruling the hon. and gallant Member out of order if I think it appropriate.
  Mr. Farr: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on an entirely different point? Is there a way in which the House can be protected from garrulous and repetitive interventions by the Leader of the Opposition, who was
  1560
  called no fewer than four times on Question No. Q4, when many hon. Members on both sides sought unsuccessfully to catch your eye?
  Mr. Speaker: I have just been asked to rule what is in order. I have no hesitation in Ruling that what the hon. Member has just raised is not a matter of order.

COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
Mr. Harold Lever(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on his meeting yesterday with the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Yesterday morning I met, separately, representatives of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.
After establishing that the position of both parties remained unchanged, I suggested to each in turn that they might consider resuming talks on the basis that if a settlement ran for a Period longer than 12 months this might provide a possibility for some improvement in the cash offer. I also suggested that if this were accepted, talks might be held in a joint meeting under my Department's chairmanship. The board agreed to this suggestion, as did the union representatives after consulting their executive.
In the joint talks which followed yesterday evening, the board said that, for an 18-month agreement from the date of resumption of work, it was prepared to offer an increase of £3 a week on the basic rate of all surface workers and £3·50 a week on the rate for those employed underground on the 1955 Day Wage Agreement. This means that the lowest paid worker underground would receive a minimum of £22·50 for a full week, compared with £19 at the moment.
In addition, a guaranteed minimum of £22 a week would be established for the lowest paid surface workers, which would have provided an increase of £4 a week on the present minimum of £18. For workers on the coal face and other "task workers" as they are called, the board proposed an increase of £2·75 a week, providing a new basic rate for

1561
face workers of £32·75 compared with £30 at the moment. The board was also prepared to discuss adjustments of certain differentials.
At the conclusion of these joint talks I again met the board and the union separately. The union representatives told me that they would be reporting the board's proposals to their executive this morning and that they hoped that the executive would agree to further joint discussions. The board told me that it would certainly be ready to meet the union again.
This morning, I understand, the N.U.M. executive rejected the board's new proposals but agreed that further joint talks should be held with the board. These are now taking place at my Department.
Mr. Lever: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very full statement. I would not of course want to say anything which might be in the least degree prejudicial to the negotiations which are being held. However, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the Government and the board do not go into these negotiations inhibited or encumbered by any postures so far taken. I would also urge upon the miners that they do not allow the emotions, which have been very understandably inflamed by recent events, to deter them from the earnest search for the just and honourable settlement which the nation's needs require.
Mr. Carr: I am grateful both for the spirit and for the content of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is right that I should leave it there.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has just said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not attempting to close down this questioning. I am just asking for a measure of restraint. My view is that there can be a fairly wide debate next Monday, on all these matters.
Mr. Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, although the talks are continuing, the new offer by the National Coal Board in many respects is worse than the previous one? It is not inaccurate to claim that it is an 18-month agree-
1562
ment? In essence, it is a 22-month agreement, because the award starts on the commencement of work, whereas the previous offer was retrospective to November. Does the right hon. Gentleman also realise that the differential between working underground and working on the surface would now be 50p?
Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Coal Board has knocked out of the package, for example, the question of the additional week's holiday or the five rest days? Is he aware that the national executive unanimously rejected this offer? Therefore, without prejudicing the negotiations, I hope that the Secretary of State will impress on the board that the miners want a better offer and not an offer which is worse than the previous one.
Mr. Carr: I want to try, if I can, to confine my remarks entirely to facts and not deal in opinions.
Mr. Eadie: I gave facts.
Mr. Carr: I said in my statement that the board would be prepared to discuss further matters regarding differentials, so may I leave differentials at that point? The hon. Member referred to this being, in effect, a 22-month agreement. Talks are going on. No doubt, if this is one of the matters which the union wishes to negotiate further with the board, for all I know they may be raising this sort of point now. But I cannot usefully comment on it.
The question is one of fact. I do not believe that the lion. Gentleman is right in saying that this could conceivably be represented as a worse offer. The effect is that, in the first 12 months, the National Coal Board would be adding some £48 million to its wage bill, rather than £32 million. That is the total sum involved in the first 12 of the 18 months. In other words, the board is prepared, in return for what it believes to be the genuine benefits of a long-term agreement, to sustain a very much bigger immediate financial strain. That is a fact which ought to be accepted and understood by the House and the country.
I do not believe that an offer which gives—or which would have given if it had been accepted—a substantial extra cash payment immediately to all miners can really be described as a worse offer,

1563
particularly when the absolute minimum guaranteed is £22 for the lowest paid, or £2 above the T.U.C.'s own target for minimum pay.
Mr. Redmond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members, at least on this side of the House, are receiving letters from constituents urging as urgent as possible a settlement of the coal strike, but that running through many of them is the fear, particularly on the part of pensioners, that the price of coal will rise —[Interruption.]—a matter about which they are very worried indeed?
Mr. Carr: I am aware of that. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will not expect me to comment further, except perhaps to mention that these are the sort of considerations which I have had in mind in all our debates and when answering Questions on this subject, particularly when I have talked about the difficult double duty which this or any Government have in dealing with a problem of this kind.
Mr. Harold Lever: In this connection, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep in mind what has been frequently pressed on him in the House, namely, the need to reconsider the balance sheet position of the N.C.B. and deal with the interest burden which, if relieved, would prevent the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. R edmond)?
Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry referred to this matter when replying to the debate the night before last.
Mr. Swain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the offer made yesterday is at least £2 less than the last three settlements made to private enterprise industries? Apart from Chrysler and the Ansell Brewery of Birmingham, I could quote such settlements at length. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that this is an honest offer to the miners; or is he again putting forward a confidence trick to "con" the miners back down the pits? If so, I assure him that he does not have a cat in hell's chance of succeeding.
Mr. Carr: In a system of free collective bargaining, which I believe the hon.
1564
Gentleman and the unions support, there will always be variable amounts, some larger and some smaller, regardless of what anybody may think of the merits. This matter is under further discussion, and I therefore think that I should not comment further. However, I do not believe that one can describe as derisory an offer which includes £4 a week extra for the lowest paid——
Mr. Swain: It does not.
Mr. Carr:—£3·50 a week extra for the next lowest paid, £3·00 extra a week for those in the middle range and an additional £2·75 a week for those at the top of the scale. There may be—indeed, there are—strong differences of opinion about whether these sums are adequate, but by any normal average standards they are surely high rather than low additions.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to help me in this matter. Is had to decide whether or not to allow this Private Notice Question. I thought that there was a strong reason for not allowing it, because negotiations were still continuing. I decided to allow it. We have been told that negotiations are still continuing. I must, therefore, ask hon. Members not to persist—[Interruption.]—with this issue.
Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While agreeing, as we all do, with your advice to the House, may I ask if we are to take what you said earlier about next Monday's debate as indicating that you will allow the debate to go beyond just the question of whether emergency powers are needed and the terms of the Instrument concerned? Will hon. Members be able to discuss the situation which has arisen and why it has arisen, including the whole question of any negotiations which are taking place this week and which may or may not be taking place next week?
Mr. Speaker: My provisional feeling—I have not yet had an opportunity to examine the matter closely—is that the background must be relevant and must, those circumstances, that the House will now allow me to call the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy therefore, be discussable. I hope, in

1565
Jenkins) to ask the next Private Notice Question.
Mr. Skinner: A lot of us represent miners.

FUEL SUPPLIES (DISTRIBUTION)
Mr. Roy Jenkins(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about the instructions given to distributing depots such as the Saltley Yard of the West Midlands Gas Board about the operation of the Government's priority system for the distribution of fuel supplies.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): No such instructions have been issued to the gas boards. Depots such as the Saltley Yard make deliveries to solid fuel merchants and wholesalers and not to final consumers The National Coal Board and retail merchants are responsible for the distribution of solid fuels. They, with the help of local authorities and doctors, are operating the arrangements described by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in his statement of 9th January, which are designed to reduce the danger of hardship to priority consumers such as the aged and sick and to ensure supplies for essential services. The final distribution to consumers of coke from the Saltley Depot is covered by these arrangements.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware of what has happened today—namely, that the Chief Constable of Birmingham has decided to close the yard—and does not this make nonsense of the insensitive complacency which the Home Secretary displayed yesterday by refusing to discuss the operation of a priority system?
Surely the Secretary of State can take some initiative to see that the Chairman of the West Midlands Gas Board discusses these matters. I am informed that he has today refused to discuss them both with a group of Birmingham city councillors and with leaders of the N.U.M. The depot has been closed and we have a continuing danger of strife and the possibility of injury and even
1566
death. We do not have in operation a priority system for hospitals, for the old and for those who are most in need.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take some initiative to ensure that sensible measures are taken—measures which the union leaders will accept—to remove this exacerbating situation and get in operation a priority system such as he himself outlined at the beginning of the strike?
Mr. Davies: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have made that charge against my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] The truth is that the closure of the depot is not in any sense due to any insensitive complacency of his. It is due to the fact that picketing at this depot has been carried beyond the point of reasonable peaceful picketing— [Interruption.]—and to the fact that the police, in the exercise of their duty, advised the manager of the depot to close it because of the virtual obstruction of the right of people to work, brought about by a degree of picketing not in conformity with the law.
Mrs. Doris Fisher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one gets the impression from his observations that the West Midlands Gas Board has been particularly provocative—for example, by opening the yard for Sunday trading last weekend? Does he know that Sunday trading has not taken place for many years? Would he agree that that was a particularly provocative action on the part of that board, bearing in mind that the pickets who are there from all over the country are obviously operating in an extremely emotionally charged situation?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that -for the West Midlands Gas Board to speed up this process of emotionalism— [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] One would have imagined that the Secretary of State would have taken careful note of the action of this Board—[Interruption.] I am not finished yet. I know the area very well indeed, perhaps better than anyone on the Government Benches.
It is clear from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) said that there is danger to life and limb in the area because——
Hon. Members: Too long.
Mr. William Hamilton: It is my hon. Friend's constituency that she is talking about.
Mrs. Fisher: There is danger to life and limb because the picketing is taking place at the junction with a main arterial road out of the city, and it is the main link with the M5. The danger to life and limb therefore arises from the situation at the power station. For this reason one would have thought that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would have had much closer contact—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am coming to the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I emphasise that this power station is in my constituency. The question I am asking is: what power has the Secretary of State, when dealing with the situation at the West Midlands Gas Board, over the Chief Constable of Birmingham?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady said that she was coming to her question. I hope she will come to it, and indeed, conclude it.
An Hon. Member: In any half-hour now.
Mrs. Fisher: I thought I heard a loud answer from the Government Front Bench. I imagine the right hon. Gentleman said that he had answered that question, so I will ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry——
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an accepted rule in this House that questions should be reasonably short? Why are Opposition hon. Members allowed to go on for ever when an hon. Member on the Government side would be stopped after a few seconds?
Mr. Speaker: Of course it is the hope of the Chair that supplementary questions will be as concise as possible.
An Hon. Member: We seem to be on Third Reading now.
Mrs. Fisher: I think you would accept, Mr. Speaker, that I am not the most garrulous of hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: Not usually.
Mrs. Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned, and this is the question I want to put—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Fisher: The question I want to put is this. Today the yard is closed; what guarantee can the Secretary of State give to the House that it will be closed except for the essential supplies which the National Union of Mineworkers' officials have given an undertaking to Members of Parliament that they will allow—to hospitals, old-age pensioners—to be taken out of the yard?
Mr. William Hamilton: Answer, and be brief.
Mr. Davies: I shall certainly try to detain the House as little as possible. The guarantee lies in the success of the voluntary response by the distributing industry to the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry which has given rise to effective action by the distributing industry to look after priority customers in preference to any other customers. This is the guarantee. No other guarantee in the case of a depot such as this, which is serving no one but the merchants and the wholesalers, has any effect at all.
Mr. Tom Boardman: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that as to picketing there can be no distinction whatever concerning the purpose of the journey and that picketing must be peaceful whether transport is waiting to go through the picket line for a purpose which has the approval of the union, or not?
Mr. Davies: Yes. Perhaps I should recall the words in the Donovan Committee Report on the subject of picketing:
"It should be recalled that the prime objects of picketing are to make known the existence of the facts of the dispute and peacefully to persuade persons to abstain from working. Obstruction or intimidation of those wishing to work is unlawful."
Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the West Midlands Gas Board told me yesterday that sales of coke from this gas works last week were considerably higher than in previous weeks? Is not this prima facie evidence that lorries, some of which I saw myself, coming long distances

1569
from Devon and Cornwall to get supplies are a great provocation to miners who are trying to carry out normal picketing duty?
Is the Secretary of State not aware that under the terms of his right hon. Friend's circular of 9th January similar plants—the Coalite Company at Granthorpe and the Barnsley Coking Company and the Doncaster Coke Company at Markham—are all working priority schemes satisfactorily? Why is it that the West Midlands Gas Board, as a fuel supplier at Saltley, has not been requested by the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the same priority arrangements as those which are working satisfactorily everywhere else in the country? Why do we now have a situation in which priority cases are getting no coke out of the yard at all? Is it not a fact that the Chief Constable of Birmingham has shown more sense than has been shown by the entire Government Front Bench?
Mr. Davies: No. Once more the hon. Gentleman mis-states the situation. All the depots to which he has referred are delivering to the final consumer whereas this yard delivers to merchants and wholesalers and the ultimate destination of the fuel would not be known. Those at the Saltley yard would not have knowledge of something which it is not within their capacity to know.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be getting into the realm of debate. I have indicated that these matters can be dealt with on Monday. Mr. Harold Wilson, Business Question.
Mr. Harold Wilson rose——
Mr. Denis Howell: With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, there were 10,000 pickets from the whole of the Birmingham industry there this morning, and I am informed that they will be there in larger numbers on Monday. With great respect to you, may I point out that we have had only three supplementary questions from this side of the House on a matter of major industrial concern? Will you, Mr. Speaker, please reconsider your Ruling that further supplementary questions relating to this industrial situation and strife arising from the Government's decision ought not to be allowed today?
Mr. Speaker: The difficulty of the Chair is that the purpose of a question is to elicit information, not to enable debating points to be made, and it seems to me that we have reached the position where the information has been given and we should not go on to debating points.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Following your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I endeavour to elicit some information? The depot is closed at the present time—[Interruption.] I am putting a question to the Secretary of State; I suggest that he might listen to the question which I am putting to him. Presumably it is the
desire of the Government——
Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Members: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) is already on a point of order.
Mr. Fell: The right hon. Gentleman was not on a point of order. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that you had already called the Leader of the Opposition to ask about business for next week and that that had brought what has become a debate to an end.
Mr. Speaker: Order, I have now called the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins).
Mr. Roy Jenkins: As you, Mr. Speaker, are aware, although the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is not, I did not rise to a point of order. I rose to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, if it is the desire of the Government to get this depot open, he will not seriously consider whether it is not possible, by intelligent discussion with the gas board, to get an ad hoc system of priorities operating which would be accepted by all concerned.
Mr. Davies: Again, simply seeking to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's desire to elicit facts, I point out that any arrangements which have been entered into with the depots distributing solid fuel to consumers with regard to the limitation on output to priority consumers alone have been entered into on a strictly voluntary basis between them and the National Union of Mineworkers. This is not a matter, therefore, for me. It is a matter for others.
Mr. Sandys: Since this yard has now had to be closed, are we to understand that the police have had to abandon their responsibility for preventing illegal obstruction? If so, what action are the Government going to take?
Mr. Davies: It was the judgment of the chief constable that the situation which obtained today was not one which allowed of the depot continuing its normal task. That situation arose as a result of what can only be characterised as unlawful picketing. It is to be hoped, and I sincerely do hope, that there will not be a continuation of that situation and that the depot will re-open largely with a view to supplying all those who are most in need, and those are the priority cases of the sick and the like.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I will allow one more question.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Is it a fact that the total quantity of stock left in the depot is about 40,000 tons? Bearing in mind that it is almost certain that the shortage will continue for a fortnight after the strike—even if the strike is by any chance settled within the next day or two—is it not urgent to carry out a scheme of priorities? Would not this avoid the sort of disturbances which we have seen during the last week, which are disrupting my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher)? Is not this a matter of using common sense in the priorities of distribution, quite apart from creating disturbance and provocation?
Mr. Davies: Yes, and it is, of course, for that reason that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry instituted just such a system on 9th January.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Harold Wilson—Business Question.
Mr. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The National Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers met today and discussed this very serious situation. I understand why you have tailed hon. Members from Birmingham, but many of us belong to the N.U.M. and
1572
I and my colleagues have to go back to our constituencies this weekend and try to contain a very explosive situation. All we require from the Ministers responsible today is the application of a bit of common sense and not just talk about contractors and dealers. The National Executive of the N.U.M. does not want this depot to close. What it wants to see is a proper distribution of the fuel there. This is a flash point, not just for Birmingham but for the whole of the union, stretching from Scotland to Kent. If we cannot tell our people something this weekend that will satisfy them, we shall have a very difficult job to contain their anger.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr. McGuire: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You have said that the exchanges were becoming a debate instead of the eliciting of information. With respect, I do not think that you have allowed enough hon. Members to put questions, because the issue of profiteering in the general situation has not been put to the Secretary of State. I can tell him through you that there is general anxiety about the question of merchants taking advantage of the situation and profiteering. I want to ask what he is doing about that.
Mr. SpeakerOrder. I understand the anxieties of hon. Members. But we have already been discussing these two Private Notice Questions for 40 minutes. I have indicated that Monday's debate will be pretty wide. The point which the hon. Gentleman has just made can be made then. I must warn the House that if every time I allow a Private Notice Question I am to be expected to allow 25 or 30 minutes of supplementary questions, I will not allow Private Notice Questions until I am ordered to.
Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would have raised this matter as a point of order had no Private Notice Question been asked. The country is in a state of emergency. I turn to you, as guardian of back-bench rights in this House. This matter cannot be debated on the Floor of the House for the next 72 hours at least. As a consequence, we have before us 72 hours of a possible flash point situation in the country. I

1573
ask you, through your good offices as Speaker of this House, to try to get some sensible answers from Ministers so that we can go back to our constituencies this weekend satisfied that we can do our best in the interests of the nation.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) have attempted to put forward a constructive proposal for a solution of a very dangerous problem. We have been told by the Home Secretary that this is a problem for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that it is a problem for the Secretary of State for Employment. May I ask your guidance as to where this proposal might be rightly made?
Mr. Speaker: I am certain that the Ministers concerned will have noted the discussion. It really is not something for me to rule upon as a matter of order.
Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, we are in difficulty by virtue of the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is placing responsibility for this matter anywhere except on his own shoulders. Advice from the right hon. Gentleman is what the Chairman of the West Midlands Gas Board has said he is prepared to accept. How can this matter be pursued? Yesterday, it was not possible for you to accept a Motion for a debate under Standing Order No. 9. I make no complaint about that, as I well understand your difficulties. But as a result a serious situation has arisen today in which most of industry in Birmingham has closed down and not fewer than 10,000 workers have marched to the depot to give support to the miners. You have referred to the possibility of a debate next Monday. They have given notice that a much more widespread stoppage will be pursued on Monday, which will mean that not fewer than 20,000 workers will be disrupting the industry of Birmingham, with all that that means to policemen in particular and to the miners'
1574
pickets. Is it not possible to have a debate today or to pursue questions now in order that something might be done which would stop the dislocation next Monday? Otherwise, Monday's debate will be held after the horse has left the stable.
Mr. Speaker: These points have been put very forcibly today, and I do not think that repetition will give them any more force. Mr. Harold Wilson—Business Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY.—Consideration of the Message on behalf of The Queen and of the Motion to approve the Emergency Regulations.
Remaining stages of the Transport (Grants) Bill.
TUESDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY, WEDNESDAY, 16TH FEBRUARY, THURSDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY.—Second Reading of the European Communities Bill.
FRIDAY, I 8TH FEBRUARY.—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY.—Supply (12th allotted day): Debate on a topic to be announced.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from any part of the House to extend the debate on the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill by one hour on the earlier evenings before the day of the vote, and will he give consideration to that suggestion if it is put to him? Secondly, having heard, as he will have, the exchanges on Rhodesia this afternoon, will he undertake to do his best to get a statement in the House next week about the suggestion for an all-party mission which was put forward a very long time ago? Would he not agree that the House has shown great forbearance in wanting to debate the

1575
unwarrantable exclusion from Rhodesia of hon. and right hon. Members of this House as well as former Members, lawyers and others needed for the work of the Commission? The principle of an all-party mission has been accepted, however reluctantly, provided that this House and not Mr. Smith decides who goes. In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to do his best to make a statement next week on when the all-party mission will leave, because the Commission is rapidly approaching the end of its timetable?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I have not received any representations so far, but I am very ready to discuss any such representations through the usual channels or from any part of the House. On the second point, I note what the right hon. Gentleman says and I will be in contact with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I recognise my own responsibility in this matter as Leader of the House, as far as parliamentary delegations are concerned, and will certainly continue to have discussions through the usual channels. No one is more anxious than I am to see that this matter comes to a sensible and proper conclusion.
Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in considering the business for next week bear in mind the need for a ministerial statement, immediately or as soon as it can be made, on the serious situation that has arisen from the unauthorised and premature publication of what purport to be the findings of a committee of inquiry into alleged malpractices at the Whittingham mental hospital in my constituency? Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services told this House, in answer to my Question last week, that he hopes to publish these findings in the form of a Command Paper on 15th February? Is he further aware that today a medical journal published allegations of scandalous misconduct including allegations that doctors have deliberately neglected the mentally sick and have stolen thousands of pounds belonging to patients, and that these allegations hang like a threat over the reputations and the future of many people connected with the hospital? Will he
1576
please see if we can have a statement from the Minister concerned, if possible tomorrow?
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly correct. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services promised that this report would be published next Tuesday, 15th February. As a result of what I heard was published today I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and he will make an oral statement to the House on Tuesday next, the day the report is published.
Mr. C. Pannell: The Leader of the House will be aware that there are two Motions on the Order Paper, one which reflects on the conduct of Mr. Speaker.
[That this House dissents from the intention of Mr. Speaker to address the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed by a style and title which he has disclaimed and therefore has no right to use; notes the assurances in the House by the Leader of the House and Mr. Attorney-General, respectively, during the second reading of the Peerage Bill in June 1963 that the effect of the Bill on the rules of the House would be that a Member disclaiming a peerage would be a commoner and would be described in the records of the House as Mr.: notes also that these were accepted as correct statements of the effect of the Bill by the House at that time: and regrets that, by reversing the decision of his predecessor which was made in the light of these statements and the advice then given to him by those officially concerned. Mr. Speaker should have impinged upon the privileges of both Houses.]
and one which reflects on the nobility of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lord Lambton).
[That the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, having disclaimed his peerage, has no right to be addressed in this House by any of the titles pertaining to that peerage.]
The right hon. Gentleman will understand with me that they should not be allowed to clutter up the Order Paper for any longer time than is necessary, out of respect to Mr. Speaker particularly. Could he, therefore, indicate what he proposes to do about that Motion at the earliest possible date?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way he has put his question. I know he would feel, with me, that when time is provided for a debate on such a Motion it should be of reasonably short duration, but equally it should be at a reasonable hour. I believe the right hon. Gentleman equally would accept that it would be difficult for me to provide such a short time at a reasonable hour next week. I will, however, undertake to provide such a debate at a reasonable hour the week after next.
Dame Joan Vickers: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the three-day debate on the European Communities Bill, whether he can give the House any indication of how this is to be conducted and which Ministers are to answer on respective days?
Mr. Whitelaw: I can do so, but not at this moment. I shall be pleased to make sure that the hon. Lady receives this information, and also the House.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House accept that legislation about the European Communities that he will be asking the House to consider next week, and possibly in subsequent weeks, is unique in the sense that it involves an alteration in the powers and rights of this House of Commons, and that, therefore, a special duty falls upon him, as Leader of the House, to ensure that every Member of Parliament who wishes to participate in those debates will have opportunity to do so? Does he recognise that that will not be the case unless he withdraws or abandons some of the legislation that he is now seeking to push into Committees upstairs? Does he recognise that the log-jam which is occurring through attempting to push those Measures through is bad enough already but that the strain on hon. Members of this House and, even more important, the denial of the right to Members of this House to participate in the debates on the European Communities, will be intolerable if they proceed on this basis? Therefore, will he review the whole of this question and come forward with proposals which will enable that log-jam to be broken by the withdrawal of some Measures to enable
1578
Members of Parliament to participate in this unique debate?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am always nervous of accepting that anything in this House or in this country is absolutely unique, for that is a very dangerous thing to say. One can almost always find a precedent for everything. I do not dispute in substance what the hon. Gentleman says. I am prepared to consider all these particular matters when it comes to further stages of the Bill, and I will certainly do so.
Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the significance of delegated legislation, particularly under Clause 2 of the European Communities legislation, is causing widespread interest in this House, and, therefore, could he find time next week to make a statement indicating that he is himself prepared to suggest that an instruction goes from this House to the Joint Select Committee now sitting on delegated legislation that it should report to this House the evidence it takes after each sitting?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am naturally very well aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I wish to help the House in this matter in every way I can, and I will certainly do so. I am not sure, however, that I would favour giving an instruction to a Joint Select Committee. If that were to be done it would certainly not be within my power, though no doubt it would be within the power of the House if it wished to do so. I would not like to go so far, nor do I think that to publish the oral evidence after each sitting would necessarily be desirable. I have already said that this Committee will certainly look carefully into this matter as far as delegated legislation of one sort is concerned. I am considering the other sort set out in the European Communities Bill, and I am very anxious to ensure that the House has all the opportunities it correctly should have. I am quite convinced we shall be able to ensure that.
Mr. Grimond: Would the Leader of the House, as spokesman for the whole House, represent to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it is surely the custom of the House where an hon. or right hon. Gentleman makes a very

1579
damaging personal and, as it proves, inaccurate allegation about another right hon. Gentleman and that other right hon. Gentleman repudiates this convincingly that the right hon. Gentleman who has made the allegation should take an early opportunity of withdrawing it?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. More: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement next week about the parliamentary machinery which the Government have in mind, if the European Communities Bill becomes law, to deal with such things as the mandatory regulations coming from the European authorities, or does he accept the conclusion of a pro-Market correspondent from Nuffield College, Oxford, in today's issue of The Times that the best we can hope for is for Parliament to be kept in the picture, as in Germany?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am most anxious that the best procedures for the House should be worked out. The House will probably wish to work them out for itself. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have something to say about that during the debate. For the future, I am only too anxious, in discussion with all parties, to make sure that we have the best procedure to deal with such questions.
Mr. John Mendelson: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make an early statement, either tomorrow or very early next week, on whether he is taking steps to obtain the release of Mr. Garfield Todd? Surely the Government must have seen the reports and heard the statement of Mrs. Todd on television about the seriously deteriorating state of Mr. Todd's health. Is it not now a debt of honour of this country and the Government to see that he is not further detained? Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to do what he can to make an early statement?
Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for me to comment on the substance of these matters. I shall make sure that what the
1580
hon. Gentleman has represented is passed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I cannot undertake that there will be a statement next week, but I shall certainly make the appropriate representations.
Mr. Jennings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vote next Thursday night is widely and wisely regarded as being as much a matter of principle as the vote on 28th October? As we on this side were then allowed a free vote, is my right hon. Friend suggesting to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the same procedure should be followed next Thursday night?
Mr. Whitelaw: These are not matters for me, with regard to either side of the House.
Mr. William Hamilton: Have the Government fixed a definite date for the debate on the possibility of televising the proceedings of the House? If so, on what basis will it take place?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have not fixed a definite date. I am prepared to have discussions through the usual channels as to how best such a Motion might be moved. As it is a matter for the House as a whole, it is probably right that it should be moved by back benchers who have already signified their desire that the proceedings should be televised. That is the basis of my thoughts at present, but I have fixed no date.
Dame Irene Ward: When we are discussing the emergency regulations on Monday, may the House be told in a little more detail whether the priority people in all parts of the country are receiving consideration for heating? We spent a long time this afternoon discussing the position of Birmingham. I am much more interested in what is happening on the North-East Coast, and I think other hon. Members would like to know whether the old, the sick, those in hospitals and the young are being looked after satisfactorily in other parts of the country.
Mr. Whitelaw: I agree that these are immensely important matters in which my hon. Friend takes a very special interest. I shall draw what she says to the attention of my right hon. Friends most closely concerned.
Mr. Donald Stewart: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Motion No. 145 standing in my name, concerning Polaris bases on the Clyde?
[That this House congratulates Glasgow Corporation on their motion deploring the continued presence in the Clyde of nuclear bases and urging immediate steps for their removal; and contrasts that attitude with the criminal indifference of successive Conservative and Labour governments to the safety of a large section of the population of Scotland.]
The appalling threat constituted by the bases, even of an accidental disaster, has hung over people there for many years and has been aggravated by the statement of the American authorities that many of their personnel are taking drugs. Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate to see that the most densely populated part of Scotland and its people cease to be decoy ducks for what is primarily English and American defence?
Mr. Whitelaw: I, naturally, cannot be asked to comment one way or the other, or to accept some of the premises of the hon. Gentleman's question, and I cannot agree that his Motion is acceptable. I cannot give time for a debate on it next week.
Mr. Fell: As one of the signatories of the Motion concerning Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). But does my right hon. Friend realise that the House cannot go on in the way it has in the past two or three weeks, and that at a stage like this it is up to the House to set an example of good manners and proper procedure? Until the House does. I do not intend to be a party to taking that Motion off the Order Paper.
Mr. Whitelaw: Neither I nor any other hon. or right hon. Member would wish to he other than most forward in desiring to ensure that our procedures, both in debate and at Questions, are fully and permanently upheld. I am extremely sensitive to the fact that when there are difficulties the House should set an example to the country as a whole, and I very much hope that we shall do so.
Mr. Maclennan: Last week the right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider my complaint that an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland had rejected the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that the Second Scottish Standing Committee should consider forthwith law reform proposals made by the Law Commission. Has he now investigated the question? Will he bring forward important law reform measures which are wanted by the Scottish legal profession and the general public in Scotland?
Mr. Whitelaw: As I promised, I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the remarks made last week. He has noted them, and accepts the willingness of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members to have law reform Bills taken in the Second Scottish Standing Committee. There are no such Bills before the House, but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My right hon. Friend will have noted the report of the Select Committee on Procedure recommending radical changes in the procedure for electing the Speaker. Since no one can know how soon it may be necessary to elect a new Speaker, will my right hon. Friend tell us how soon he intends that that report should be debated and how soon he intends to introduce Motions? It would obviously put the House in an impossible position if through the death or incapacity of Mr. Speaker, or for some other reasons, it became necessary to elect a new Speaker under procedures that have been resoundingly condemned by the Select Committee, but the House was precluded from entertaining Motions to alter its procedure in advance of the fresh election.
Mr. Whitelaw: The report has only just been received by the House. As it is very much a matter for the House as a whole, my first desire is to have discussions through the usual channels to find the basis on which it might be best to proceed. Naturally, I would always wish to bring forward such discussions and proposals resulting from them as quickly as possible. I think I have shown my desire to respond urgently to the Select Committee's reports. But I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say

1583
that that urgency in no way reflects any views on the present occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Shore: May I revert to next week's business and the three-day debate on the European Communities Bill. Recalling that only 48 hours ago there were published 10 volumes of treaties to which we shall be acceding under, I believe, Clause 1 of that Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there are any more to which we are supposed to be acceding which have yet to be published and made available to the House before the debate? When does he intend to see to it that all the regulations and directives passed since November, 1971, are translated and made available to the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: I can be perfectly clear in answering that. I believe that this House has all the necessary documents for it to proceed to a Second Reading of the Bill next week.
Mr. Wilkinson: Would my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Home Secretary at the earliest moment about the rights and status of Pakistan nationals resident in this country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Secretary said in a Parliamentary Answer last week that until the 1948 Nationality Act was amended there would be no change in their status? It would give great confidence to my constituents and other Pakistan nationals to know that it is the intention of the Government to safeguard their present position by legislation.
Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly note what my hon. Friend has said and I will call it to the attention of my right hon. Friends most closely concerned.
Mr. English: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Money and Ways and Means Resolutions attached to the European Communities Bill are unique? Is he aware that normally such Resolutions restrict the natural desire of back benches to spend the country's money, yet in this case one grants away the power to appropriate expenditure and the other the power to tax? In such circumstances does he not agree that the limitation of three quarters of
1584
an hour's debate imposed by Standing Order is inappropriate? Would he provide an open-ended debate on all of the Resolutions which are so remarkable?
Mr. Whitelaw: Again I would simply reaffirm the remarks I made about anything being unique. Under our present procedures the Ways and Means Resolution is open-ended while the other Resolution is limited.
Mr. Lipton: For the sake of the safety of hon. Members and visitors, will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that the wail of the Terrace is now only 3 ft. above the 'level of the Terrace and it is quite likely that hon. Members or visitors, including children, will fall into the river from the Terrace one of these days? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that a 3 ft. wall is adequate, and will he take additional steps to ensure the safety of visitors?
Mr. Whitelaw: I noticed the hon. Gentleman's Question on the Order Paper yesterday and I spent some time yesterday morning wondering what was the purpose behind it. Now that he has exposed it to me I have to say that I think the height of the Terrace wall as now planned should give adequate protection to hon. and right hon. Members and their visitors under all normal circumstances.
Sir C. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am still worried about the Motion criticising Mr. Speaker? Does he recall that in the old days these Motions were sometimes put down in a temporary anger and then withdrawn, but they had to be debated within a very short time so that they could be got off the Order Paper? May I ask my right hon. Friend to hasten this debate so that we can dispose of this Motion?
Mr. Whitelaw: I did say to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that I was bringing this forward the week after next. The House accepts, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that it would be right for this to come on at a reasonable hour. I explained to the right hon. Gentleman and the House why it would be impossible to come on next week. I am bringing it on as early as I can at the sort of hour that I think is reasonable.
Mr. Stallard: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day Motion No. 177 standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends?
[That this House, seriously alarmed by the recent rapid deterioration in the situation in Northern Ireland and the ever-increasing death and injury rolls of civilians, soldiers, policemen and security forces, is of the opinion that firm measures must be taken immediately to relieve tension, and create an atmosphere in which permanent solutions could be discussed; and demands that the British Government takes the following immediate steps, namely, to transfer control of security measures to Westminster forthwith, suspend the Northern Ireland Government for 12 months and appoint an all-party Northern Ireland Commission to administer meanwhile, to end internment and release or bring to trial detainees and internees, and initiate all-party talks immediately to discuss permanent solutions.]
This Motion concerns the ever-increasing seriousness of the Northern Ireland situation. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this matter was discussed recently in the House almost always as a result of some emergency in the Six Counties. Will he consider, in view of the constructive atmosphere that seems to prevail in some quarters at present, making time available next week for a debate on this Motion?
Mr. Whitelaw: I would certainly wish to respond to the hon. Gentleman and say that I hope that a constructive atmosphere will prevail in many places on this difficult and worrying situation. I could not promise time for a debate next week but I will say to the hon. Gentleman that when it seems right and suitable for this House to have an opportunity to debate the subject constructively I and my right hon. Friends most closely concerned will be only too pleased to give the House that opportunity.
Mr. Carter: When in the near future will it be possible to have a debate on the Rothschild and Dainton proposals?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say at the moment although I very much recognise the importance of the reports and the considerable controversy over them. I
1586
also accept that these discussions should at some time be transferred from the correspondence columns of The Times to this House.
Mr. William Price: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the strange situation that arose last Friday at the end of a very short debate on hare coursing when the Government failed to carry their own Adjournment Motion? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason for that was that there was an overwhelming number of people in the House who wanted to continue the debate and bring this matter to a conclusion? In view of the feeling on this matter in the House, as evidenced by over 100 hon. Members on all sides signing early-day Motion No. 166, would the right hon. Gentleman consider meeting the wishes of the majority and enabling us to reach a proper conclusion on this subject?
[That this House urges the Government to introduce legislation to ban live hare coursing.]
Mr. Whitelaw: In my experience of the House all sorts of things happen in Private Members' time on Friday afternoons. One factor last Friday was that it was particularly important for the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) to take place. I have always stuck to one simple principle about Private Members' Bills, and I intend to adhere to it. It is that I cannot offer any Government time for them in any way. They must take their proper chance in accordance with the rules for Private Members' business during the time for Private Members' business. I have found that to be a valuable rule to follow since I became Leader of the House, and I fear I do not intend departing from it now.
Mr. George Cunningham: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day Motion No. 174?
[That this House condemns the Minister of State for Defence for his refusal to inform the hon. Member for Islington, South-West, upon the latter's request, in which countries British armed forces personnel are serving on secondment; reminds the Minister that Parliament, which authorises the cost of British

1587
forces, cannot be refused information on its application; regards the Minister's refusal as an aberration but one which reflects a dangerous trend for Parliamentary Government; and instructs the Minister to supply forthwith the information requested.]
This concerns the amazing but serious refusal of the Minister of State for Defence to tell me in which countries British seconded military personnel are serving. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider using his own good offices, as he has sometimes done in the past to bring Ministers to their senses when they are not treating back benchers properly? If he fails, although I do not think he will, can he offer me any opportunity to debate a small but important constitutional point?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to accept that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence needs bringing to his senses. I will however consult with him on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's Motion. I am afraid that I could not give time for a debate but I undertake to
1588
find out the position from my right hon. Friend.

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

1. Sierra Leone Republic Act, 1972.

2. Island of Rockall Act, 1972.

3. Ministerial and other Salaries Act, 1972.

4. National Insurance Regulations (Validation) Act, 1972.

5. Local Employment Act, 1972.

6. Summer Time Act, 1972.

7. Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation Act, 1972.

And to the following Measures, passed tinder the provision of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Admission to Holy Communion Measure, 1972.

Repair of Benefice Buildings Measure, 1972.

Benefices Measure, 1972.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.49 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) is hoping to catch your eye to speak next in the debate. I hope that he and the House will forgive the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate who has to be in Scotland today and is unable to be here. I hope and believe that the differences between the Scottish and the English and Welsh provisions of the Bill are not so complex and sophisticated as to leave me entirely breathless. If that should happen, I shall have the benefit of the support, guidance and advice of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, who can guide me through any Scottish mazes that the hon. and learned Gentleman might discover.
  The Bill was foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the parliamentary Session. It gives effect to the recommendations of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid in the Report which was published on behalf of that Committee in January, 1970, on the better provision of legal advice and assistance. I am sure the whole House will agree that it is right for me to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the members who continue to serve on that Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. and noble Friend Baroness Emmet of Amberley, for the continuing surveillance they maintatin over the condition of the legal aid scheme.
  The Bill has two Parts and two distinct objectives. First, it implements what has come to be universally known as the Law Society's £25 scheme, whereby solicitors may give, within the same financial limits as apply within the main legal aid
  1590
  scheme, legal advice and assistance, apart from help in litigation of the kind that has become known as legal aid. Secondly, it enables the two Law Societies within the terms of approved schemes under the relevant Statutes to employ solicitors in an advisory liaison service to local organisations that are concerned in the giving of advice or guidance, no doubt in the first instance to the Citizens Advice Bureaux, of which there are more than 500, and to other bodies run by organisations such as the Family Welfare Association, the Marriage Guidance Council, and so on. Secondly, the Law Societies are empowered by Part II of the Bill to provide, where they are required, centres of employed solicitors who may themselves give the advice and assistance offered under the £25 scheme or under the ordinary legal aid scheme.
  The House will know, particularly those hon. Members who are present, that the need for legislation of this kind has for some years been identified as a proper and important one, principally on two grounds. First, the legal aid scheme concentrated too much on litigation and not enough on advice apart from litigation. It was not necessarily intended to, but that has been the effect. The second ground is that the legal services available under the existing scheme may not have been sufficiently well known, or sufficiently financially available so far as advice is concerned, to a large—generally the poorer—section of the community. The concentration on litigation and the lack of availability of wider services are the two factors which justify the changes.
  It would not be helpful for me to trace the reasons why this situation has developed from the provisions of the 1949 Act. Suffice to say that Sections 5 and 7, which were designed to cover advise as opposed to legal aid, have not proved as effective as was hoped. This was because of the limitation of the matters in respect of which assistance could be given under Section 5, and the limited range of people whose income would qualify for assistance under Section 7.
  In April, 1967 the Legal Aid Advisory Committee reported the request that it had made to the Law Society for an

  1591
  investigation to be made of the ways in which people could be encouraged—
  ". .to seek legal advice under the scheme at the earliest stage and not, as appears to be the case now, only when proceedings are inevitable."
  In response to that request, within 12 months, in February 1968, the Law Society produced its first report, and it was then that the £25 scheme first saw the light of day.
  Within 12 months of the publication of the first Law Society Report, the Conservative lawyers and the Society of Labour Lawyers in the same month produced reports of committees which had considered this problem amongst other things. The report of the Society of Conservative Lawyers was called "Rough Justice".
  The Conservative lawyers' committee had the advantage of being presided over by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and of including his neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and his near neighbour, now the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle).
  The Committee of the Society of Labour Lawyers, whose report was entitled "Justice for All", did not have the advantage of parliamentary participation but it was a distinguished committee presided over by someone whom elsewhere I regard as my learned friend, Mr. Morris Finer, Q.C.
  Soon after those reports were on the table, in 1969 Justice with the characteristically energetic enthusiasm of Justice's Secretary, Mr. Tom Sargant, organised a get together of the authors of these three proposals, the Society of Labour Lawyers, the Conservative Lawyers and the Law Society. That gathering, along with other thought and deliberation, led to the production by the Law Society in July, 1969, of a second memorandum, which also went to the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. The former Lord Chancellor invited the Legal Aid Advisory Committee to consider the whole package of reports which had by then been generated and, by the beginning of 1970, the recommendations which form the subject of the Bill had been made by the Legal Aid Advisory Committee.
  1592
  The House may be so overcome by the lineage and antecedents of the proposals contained in the Bill as to feel it is scarcely necessary for me to embark on a detailed explanation of them. But I am sure it is right for me to offer a short exposition of how the legislative bones will uphold the distinguished all-party proposals to which I have referred.
  The first part of the Bill implements the £25 scheme. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, within days of the Government taking office, drew the attention of his colleagues in another place to his own enthusiasm for the £25 scheme. He said on 9th July that, of all the schemes which he had seen to fill an admitted gap it was that scheme which attracted him most, personally. He has not sought to conceal his continuing enthusiasm for the Bill which arrives in this place with his blessing.
  The main purpose of the £25 scheme is to make legal advice and assistance available to the group of people to whom legal aid is now available on much the same terms. It is to make it available to those with a disposable income—that means income after having made the disregards with which the House will be familiar under the existing scheme—of less than £950 a year. That is stated in the Bill as amounting to an income of £20 per week or less. As a result of the Assessment of Resources Regulations, which the House considered last year, there is automatic provision for a disregard of £104 in addition to the £950 in the legal aid scheme. So the £20 a week, give or take the odd pound, produces the same base figure, and it is over the same ground that the Bill seeks to make advice and assistance available.
  The nature of the advice and assistance which are covered is advice by solicitor or by counsel on the particular circumstances of a client's case; advice on any necessary action and the taking of action short of taking part in proceedings. In other words, before proceedings, solicitors will be able to write letters to the court or tribunal and, if it is necessary to go to the extent of proceedings, then the legal aid scheme will be available at that stage for those proceedings as well.
  There is one important extension embodied in Clause 2(4) of the Bill based on a suggestion which was originated by

  1593
  a former member of the county court bench. It provides that in proceedings in magistrates' or county courts advice or assistance may be given, at the request of the court, by any solicitor present in the precincts of the court to any person who is taking part in, or about to take part, in proceedings before such a court. The effect of that provision will go some way towards meeting one of the suggestions made by the other Justice report, under the chairmanship of Mr. Rex Church, on litigants in person. It suggested that legal aid should be available to litigants in person at any stage before any court, if the court thought that it was a good idea. This proposal extends not to the High Court but to the county court or magistrates' court where a litigant is appearing in person and would benefit from advice and guidance from a qualified lawyer. By Clause 2(4) the court will be free to suggest that a lawyer then present should advise that person.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: In regard to Clause 2(3), which is in a sense connected with the hon. and learned Gentleman's present remarks, does he not feel that one of the most important points in criminal proceedings when an accused person should be represented is during his first attendance at court? Although an accused person can be represented at a police station or perhaps on an identification parade, under the provisions of the Bill he may not be represented at court unless the court directs that the accused person is in urgent need of representation. Is this not an anomaly which should be cured?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member is anticipating another point which I shall be making on the provisions of Clause 2(4). He has suggested two of the ways in which legal assistance can be available to somebody at the various stages to which he has referred, but the proposal which will automatically secure the availability of legal advice for somebody in custody at a magistrates' court is contained in another Justice report. The provision of legal representation for unrepresented people in magistrates' courts—the duty solicitor proposal—canvassed in the Society of Labour Lawyers' Report, applies in some ways to Scotland.
  The provisions of Clause 2(4) at least go so far as to make it possible for a
  1594
  court, when confronted with a person coming before it, to suggest that he should seek and receive advice and assistance from a lawyer then present in the court precincts. I acknowledge that it does not go so far as the Scottish provisions in so far as they are available, but it goes some way to meet that point. It would enable a person who is given advice or assistance under Clause 2(4) to receive advice on how to plead and whether to make an application for bail on the question of whether he should ask for an adjournment and, in a civil case, on how to dispose of a particular argument. Perhaps one case which has caused trouble to both sides is in the matter of rent arrears where the difficulty has continued because one side or other has not been given any advice in the nature of the dispute. That kind of case is met to some extent, though I accept not fully met, by the Clause 2(4) provisions.
  Clause 3 makes plain that assistance under the Bill cannot be made available beyond the sum of £25-worth of legal services, save that the area committee, which is the appropriate authority, may authorise additional expenditure; and save that in the territory covered by the legal aid scheme the client can always proceed to apply for a legal aid certificate—whether a limited or full certificate, as the case may be.
  The nature of the contribution provided for in Clause 4 and in the First Schedule are parallel to those provided for in the legal aid scheme, save that in rough terms the obligations for £25-worth of legal advice and assistance tinder the Bill would not exceed two ordinary monthly contributions under a legal aid certificate.
  If one takes as an example somebody earning £12 a week disposable income, he would pay no more than £1 contribution all-told.
  Somebody with no more than £20 a week disposable income would pay no more than £12 all-told. This is a modest contribution compared with that payable under a certificate. The costs the solicitor does not recover by way of a contribution from somebody able to make such a contribution can be recovered so far as possible from any sums recovered from a third party under the ordinary legal aid scheme, and beyond

  1595
  that as to any unrecovered balance from the legal aid fund.
  Clause 7 enables each of the Law Societies to employ solicitors to give advice and assistance, secondly to give legal aid, and thirdly to liaise with local organisations of the kind mentioned in Clause 7. If it is asked what is meant by the word "liaise", perhaps I should say that under Clause 7(2) this extends to the advising of organisations on how to cope with their problems; promoting contacts between those organisations and solicitors who work in their neighbourhood; choosing or recommending solicitors, such as writing notes of introduction to them, and, finally, giving oral advice to applicants to those organisations. That is the nature of the liaison services which can be carried out under this part of the Bill.
  Perhaps I should say something about the financing of the Bill's proposals. It has been difficult to assess the cost of the £25 scheme under the Part I proposals. The House will remember many previous examples involving the 1965 Rent Act, the Race Relations Act and matters pertaining to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in which pre-estimating of the volume of services to be required has been extremely difficult. Generally people have tended to over-estimate the extent to which citizens would take advantage of that kind of scheme. With this qualification, the estimate is on the basis of 400,000 applicants per year under the Part I provisions, involving a figure of between £1·6 million and £2·65 million in a full year.
  On Part II the position is even more at large, though on a more modest scale. There is no assessment in the Financial Memorandum of the cost of Part II. It is not immediately proposed to set up any employed solicitors until it is seen how the £25 scheme works towards filling the gap. I say this advisedly because of one important factor. The New Law Journal has taken a breathless interest in the proceedings on this Bill, complaining last week that the Bill was promised only shortly. I hope it was impressed by the fact that the Bill was introduced on the same day as that Journal appeared and that it is now being discussed here. I mean no dis-
  1596
  respect to the New Law Journal, because it is taking a close interest in this important topic. In commenting on the legal aid and legal advice centres, it said that the advent of the £25 scheme is seen by many of the working party on new centres to be likely to provide a substantial amount of money for the running of centres which will make them somewhat more viable than they appear to be at present. The availability of the £25 scheme will be an important new source of finance to existing centres of various kinds.
  The need for a liaison service of solicitors employed by the Law Society may become apparent at an early stage. The estimated cost for a liaison officer, including his secretary and office, is put at about £7,000 per annum. If one considers the possible cost of a centre or unit at which the Law Society was employing people sufficient to give advice, advice and assistance, or even advice, assistance and legal aid, it might range between £13,500 and perhaps as much as £50,000 a year. But the figures can vary between those limits.
  I hope that the House will feel that I have given a sufficient exposition of the purposes of the Bill. I do not think that anyone who is familiar with the way in which the subject has developed over the last 20 years or so will regard this or any other Bill as the last word on the reform and modernisation of our legal aid advice and assistance services. However, this represents a clear, firm and effective response to proposals which were agreed by all the parties concerned. It is a response which has been designed to meet a universally acknowledged need. It is on that basis that I commend the Bill.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: On behalf of the Opposition, I want to welcome the Bill and to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tributes that the hon. and learned Gentleman has paid to the advisory committee and all others concerned. From the point of view of this side of the House, the Bill is more constructive than some of those to which the Solicitor-General has nut his hand recently.
  In case the point is missed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member

  1597
  for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) announced to the House on 14th May, 1970, that the then Labour Government would have liked to implement the present £25 scheme for legal advice during the then parliamentary Session. Unfortunately, the reins of power slipped from his grasp before that undertaking to complete the matter in the following Session could be fulfilled. Therefore it is a matter of satisfaction to right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House that the present Government have taken up the torch, albeit in their second legislative Session.
  The fact that there has been early action on this matter may be connected, as the hon. and learned Gentleman hinted, with the identification generally of shortcomings in the existing legal advice schemes which are reflected in the all-party nature of the submissions made by the Society of Labour Lawyers and by the Committee of Conservative Lawyers. Obviously there was a good deal of common ground between the two reports and some common conclusions were reached. The report of the advisory committee paid tribute to both and also to the Law Society, whose memoranda ultimately were largely the basis of the Bill.
  However, I want to take this opportunity to pay a further special tribute to the Society of Labour Lawyers. After all, it was its advocacy of neighbourhood law centres which originally met with an embattled resistance from the establishment of the legal profession and which appears now to have crumbled somewhat and opened the door rather favourably to the prospects of law reform in the future. I am happy that the Government are amongst the converts to the view that some form of neighbourhood legal service should be embodied in the Bill, and perhaps I can press the hon. and learned Gentleman to illuminate us a little further on this aspect.
  It is common ground between the two sides that there is a vast unmet need for legal advice. The legal advice columns of popular newspapers and magazines bear witness to it. Every hon. Member who conducts a constituency surgery knows it to be the case that there is a vast untapped well of legal need which is not being met. Social workers, on whom society is increasingly dependent in
  1598
  welfare matters, stumble amongst a welter of minor legal problems which cry out for professional advice.
  This problem of unmet legal need has a qualitative and a quantitative aspect. The qualitative aspect is expressed by the Society of Labour Lawyers as a combination of ignorance and fear on the part of those whose need at present is not met. The ignorance is often ignorance that the problem with which they are grappling is a legal problem or that there is a legal remedy to it. The fear is often an inarticulate fear of the professional lawyer as an indifferent and alien establishment figure.
  One of the difficulties is that deprived families, unlike middle-class ones, have no background of experience of the family lawyer on which they can draw. In the absence of such a concept, it is essential to build up the image of a friendly neighbourhood lawyer who somehow can help them. That is the sort of picture that we have to create. It does not exist at the moment, and the background of experience from which it might emerge does not exist. We must not underestimate the importance of this, not only for welfare purposes, which are of vital importance, but also to maintain and extend democratic values in an increasingly complicated and centralised society.
  The quantitative aspect of the unmet legal need is the fact that many of our urban housing schemes are unsolicitored deserts. There are no lawyers for miles around. Those in need of help have neither the opportunity, because of working hours, nor perhaps the self-confidence to make the necessary expedition to the nearest solicitor's office, which may be some distance away. It is here that the need for a neighbourhood law service is of special relevance.
  I express doubt whether the problem of these unsolicitored deserts is adequately met by the proposals in Part II of the Bill. First, it may be said that under the Law Society such facilities will be too closely tied to the apron strings of the legal profession's establishment and not give the necessary independence to develop and adapt according to the needs of localities. Secondly, it may be said that existing centres such as citizens advice bureaux may not be much more accessible to those who live in legal deserts than solicitors' offices. That is

  1599
  one reason why I say that the proposals in Part II may be inadequate.
  The Conservative lawyers, in their pamphlet "Rough Justice", suggested capital grants in an attempt to deal with this territorial aspect. That is a difficult concept, and perhaps it is not a very attractive one at present, although it appears to grapple more effectively with this problem of unsolicitored deserts, with which the present proposals do not cope.
  I refer to one criticism which is often made of the idea of a neighbourhood law service. It is often said that it excludes choice and so excludes the development of a true solicitor-client relationship. That criticism shows a rather abysmal failure to grasp the full magnitude of the existing problem of unmet legal needs. Perhaps I might give the analogy of the elector's choice in a one-party state. He may be able to vote only for or against a single parliamentary candidate, but at least he has a choice. It may not be an advanced form of democracy, but it is better than no democracy at all.
  In the legal sphere the substance of the position now is that those deprived people who live in unsolicitored deserts have no choice, so there is no possibility of setting up any kind of solicitor-client relationship. That serves to identify the magnitude of the problem. Let us therefore have some choice at the start.
  The basic need is to bring the law to the people; to humanise the law and to bring the lawyer within the reach of the poor. In view of the widespread suspicion against lawyers both inside and outside the House, it is right to point out that this is a different matter from bringing the poor within the grasp of the lawyer. The financial arrangements must be seen to be generous to the needy rather than to the legal profession. The Bill seems to operate in that way in its financial arrangements.
  I turn now to one or two aspects of the provisions of the Bill. First, I should like to refer to the financial point upon which I have touched. Are the provisions of Clause 1 realistic at present? The £25 advice scheme was first mooted, or the first rumblings were heard, in 1966, although it was 1967 when it was widely
  1600
  talked about. That is six years ago. Presumably £25 now is worth considerably less than it was six years ago. Therefore, is this figure of £25 realistic? For reasons which I have just mentioned, the figure should be realistic rather than overgenerous. I am glad that the Government have power under the Bill to raise the figure. This seems advisable. However, I wonder whether the initial figure is realistic.
  This is even more important when dealing with disposable capital in Clause 1(b). I do not quarrel with the disposable income in Clause 1(a). However, I wonder whether £125 in Clause 1(b) is a realistic figure with which to start. The cutoff point at the moment for the regular, standard or ordinary legal aid is a disposable capital of £500. It would seem more realistic if the Bill started with the same figure. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he is to wind up the debate, will explain why £125 has been chosen and the reasons, if any, for rejecting £500, which is the cut-off for ordinary legal aid.
  The Solicitor-General rather indicated that the disregards under Clause 1 would be much the same as the disregards under the legal aid regulations. Will he confirm this or, if this is not the case, give us some indication of the kind of disregards which will operate? There has been some speculation that the disregards might be more generous under this Bill than under the present legal aid regulations. We on this side of the House hope that that is so.
  I have seen an estimate that under the scheme proposed in the Bill 60 per cent. of applicants are expected to obtain legal advice free. Will the Government confirm that estimate? If so, will they go further and agree that in principle some percentage, such as 60 per cent.—certainly over 50 per cent. —of applicants for legal advice ought to receive free aid? This would be some guide about the cut-off figures which ought to operate.
  Criticism has been aired about the provisions of Clause 2. The emphasis appears to be on the negotiating power; not on the power to represent a client. Advice and assistance can be given and negotiations can be undertaken on behalf of a client, but the help stops short of

  1601
  starting proceedings. That requires recourse to the ordinary legal aid scheme. There is force in the criticism that this deprives the legal advice scheme of teeth—the effective sanction of immediate proceedings. This is unfortunate. The Advisory Committee attached some importance to the possibility that the £25 legal advice scheme might offer hope of help with small claims in the consumer sphere. It seems obvious that there ought to he immediate sanctions, not the delayed sanctions which the ordinary legal aid scheme will bring after its application, and so on. In the consumer sphere such immediate sanction may be called for. The value of a claim may be small, so the amount of public expenditure involved in following up legal advice may also be small.
  The present legal aid scheme provides that the advice authorised should be given by solicitors in ordinary practice. Is the same limitation to apply to proceedings under the Bill? If so, it would appear to be a limitation on the possible evolution of the neighbourhood law centre or the liaison service of solicitors employed by the Law Society. I hope that the Government will tell us what the position is in this regard.
  Will Clause 2, which is drafted in fairly wide terms, but terms which are a little vague, extend, for example, to the kind of assistance that a solicitor might give in drafting a will for a client? On one view of the wording of the Clause, this might come within it. However, doubt has been expressed and it would be helpful to have that point clarified.
  Clause 2(1)(a) makes explicit reference to the application of English law or of Scots law:
  "…English law (where the advice is given in England or Wales) or of Scots law (where the advice is given in Scotland)".
  I can understand why express mention has been made of the two jurisdictions. However, it would be unfortunate if the clarification which the mention of English law, on the one hand, or of Scots law, on the other, were to operate to exclude a legal adviser under the £25 scheme giving an obvious piece of information about the law of the other jurisdiction or, to take a germane point, about the law of the Common Market, which we are to enter. On the face of it, it would be improper within the scheme for a Scots
  1602
  solicitor to give advice on English law or for an English solicitor to give advice on Scots law, although that would not create much of a practical obstacle. Is it intended to put up a new and artificial barrier where at present none exists?
  Normally, there is no difficulty about a solicitor in England giving advice, which could be verified by his correspondent in Scotland, on the effect of something in Scotland, or vice versa. What is more acute and may be more important still is the question of advice to people about their rights after we enter the Common Market. Plainly somebody might want to know about his rights regarding the obtaining of work in another Common Market country. The question might be whether it is a matter for the domestic law of the United Kingdom or whether it extends beyond it. I hope that in Committee the Clause will be presented in a way which avoids this type of criticism.
  Clause 2(3)(b) contains an obscure provision which touches on the point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) so eloquently intervened. On one reading it brings into the operation of subsection (3), which deals with courts, tribunals or statutory inquiries, the provisions of subsection (4). On one reading of these two subsections it appears that it is possible that a solicitor might, at the request of a tribunal, to be asked to give legal advice or even represent a client within the provisions of subsection (4). This is a very important matter. If that is what these two subsections together do, it is a very important first step towards getting legal representation for clients at tribunals. The situation is far from clear about what is intended by the existing wording of the two subsections. I hope that we may have clarification about that.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him, but I should find it difficult to clarify the doubt if I did not understand what the doubt was. As it seems to me subsection (3) extends to permit the solicitor to give assistance
  "by taking on his behalf any step in the institution or conduct"
  in the ways set out from line 25 to line 30, and it is only in that respect that preliminary assistance in the way I have discussed—letter before action, and letter

  1603
  to the court—can be given in respect of a tribunal. Subsection (4) deals with the separate and self-contained thing of the extent to which representation can be provided on request by the court—the magistrates' court or the county court. There seem to be two distinct provisions and subsection (3) limits plainly the extent of the pre-litigation help to be given before tribunals. If the hon. and learned Member understands it differently, perhaps he could say why.
  Mr. Murray: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman but disappointed with the answer. It is clear that in Committee the Opposition will have to press for tribunals to be expressly included. Certainly I had the impression that they were to be excluded from the benefits of subsection (4). But I am grateful for the clarification.
  Regarding Clause 2(4), is it the Government's intention that the provisions of that subsection will cover bail applications as well as advice upon the right to bail? I hope that is so. Once again, it is subject to what I would regard as the rather unfortunate qualification that the request has to come from the court. If that is so, if it is to be applied to bail applications as well as to advice on the right to bail, why have the Government not seized this opportunity to provide legal assistance as well as legal advice to persons who have been refused bail and who may have good grounds to have the refusal of bail reviewed? That is a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central has raised previously. I think he raised it on a Private Member's Motion on 18th June, 1971. Together with the point he previously made to the Solicitor-General, this point requires an answer. Why have the Government not seized this opportunity to deal with what we in Scotland call bail appeals, to provide legal assistance and legal aid? Second, why have they not taken the opportunity of ensuring that persons appearing for the first time in criminal courts obtain representation? I warmly concur in my hon. Friend's observations on that point. It seems essential at that stage to ensure not only legal advice but also legal representation. It may be too late after that.
  The Solicitor-General has made it quite clear that what is intended by Clause
  1604
  2(4) is something of the nature of the dock brief system. That is not adequate and will not meet the required need. He referred to the system of duty solicitors which exists in Scotland. I shall not take the House into any of the mazes of Scottish legal peculiarities. But in connection with that, I would point out that we have a long tradition in Scotland of voluntary legal aid for poor people. It has always been the case—this is generally known—that legal advice has never been withheld from the poor in Scotland because of lack of means. In modern times, with criminal legal aid in operation, that is part of a very effective system run by the solicitors themselves in the major sheriff courts in Scotland, for criminal and civil matters. On criminal matters there is a rota of legal aid practising solicitors, on a voluntary basis. This is operated in such a way that there is always a duty solicitor available for each sitting of the criminal courts, which means that even under the existing legal aid scheme it is very difficult for a person who deserves legal aid not to have advice, at least cursory advice, from the duty solicitor, or at least to be asked whether he wants to be represented, what the grounds are, and whether there is a prima facie case which will permit legal aid. I commend that system to the Government.
  If Clause 2(4) does not allow or is not wide enough to allow that same system to operate in England and Wales, I hope that in Committee amendments will be made to enable that. Subsection (4) as it stands would operate reasonably well in Scotland in terms of the concept of the duty solicitor. But it would be more unfortunate if, because of a system which we have voluntarily in Scotland, this were to operate in a way more favourable to litigants than is the case in England and Wales.
  I conclude my remarks on that point by saying that the criticism of the dock brief system does not apply in the Scottish scene. Being duty solicitors, there is always someone there. If the duty solicitor discovered that someone appearing before the court, an accused person in a criminal matter, needed immediate representation under the £25 scheme, it would be possible no doubt to inform the clerk of the court, and no doubt the court would then know

  1605
  that this was a case in which there was some merit, and the court may make the request. If this is the way it is to be done, that would help. The general criticism would be that the well-known failings of the dock brief system should not be perpetuated in this country by the £25 legal advice scheme. The object of the Bill should be to help the needy client rather than to help the court. That is the object in the dock brief; it is for the assistance of the court. The Solicitor-General made clear that that is the philosophy of the subsection. But the Bill's purpose, the real philosophy, is to assist the client.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that this provision assists not only the court but obviously the client, and the dock brief system has from time immemorial existed for the assistance of the client? The assistance given to the court is implicit in the situation.
  Mr. Murray: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for that intervention. I did not mean to decry the dock brief system but merely to point out that it had failings and shortcomings. To underline the point, the point of commencement of the dock brief is a request by the court. It seems that the real philosophy of the Bill and of the recommendations of the two lawyers' committees, is that people in need ought to be at the forefront of the legal advice scheme. That is my only comment on it.
  The Solicitor-General: It is right, is it not, that the duty solicitor scheme in Scotland—I do not say this in any captious or critical sense—extends only to the sheriff courts and not to borough and J.P. courts, so that it should be acknowledged that Clause 2(4) will be extending to that lower tier of Scottish Courts something not covered by the duty solicitor scheme? There is a gap in the Scottish provision, although it has many features which repay study more widely.
  Mr. Murray: I entirely agree that that is the position and that there is an existing gap to be filled in regard to the magistrates' courts. But I would still make the qualification I have made. Although it meets the needs of the sheriff courts, when one considers what it would
  1606
  do for persons who have to appear before the burgh courts, which are much less busy courts than magistrates' courts in England, one can make the same criticism of the shortcomings of the subsection, and the fact that it is a dock brief and that it is for the magistrate to take the initiative. But I only too willingly acknowledge that this is a gap which will be covered afresh on the Scottish criminal scene.
  On Clause 3, I have already suggested that the figure of £25 may not be realistic. How has it been arrived at? What prospect is there of this figure being in operation for any length of time before it would have to be increased? Some solicitors have expressed fears about collections of contributions. There is an impression, possibly stemming from the Report of the Advisory Committee, that solicitors will have to collect in person. Is that so?
  There have been justifiable fears that, in a field where new ground is being broken, there is some doubt about whether it is wise or appropriate to include provisions, like the one in Clause 5(3), that charges and fees should constitute a first charge for the benefit of solicitors. It may be felt that such a provision is not appropriate or that it should be limited to claims in which the money value is not less than a stated limit, perhaps £50, so that no question would arise of a first charge for fees where the value of the claim was less than that.
  Part II introduces the structure, or the bones, of a legal advice service. The Solicitor-General has made it clear that it is not the intention of Part II to limit assistance to citizens' advice bureaux or analogous organisations. But is it intended to provide a structure which could be used to amplify existing neighbourhood legal advice centres? Is it, for example, the intention that legal advisers employed by the Law Society might be permanently seconded to suitable existing neighbourhood law centres?
  I hope that the limitation of such legal advisory personnel to the employment of the Law Society would not be used restrictively but rather in an exploratory way. Clearly, it is contemplated that legal advisers employed by the Law Society may become virtually members of the staff of citizens' advice bureaux.

  1607
  If it is going that far, and will also extend to the other bodies that the Solicitor-General mentioned, I hope that it is also contemplated that they may form the nucleus of neighbourhood law centres, either existing or proposed. There may be financial difficulties about this, but I hope that this power will be used as I have suggested.
  In this connection, I hope that the work which such legal advisers do will not be unduly restrictive. There is some suggestion in the wording of Clause 7 that they may be restricted to giving legal advice on a legal aid basis, that they will not be able to operate on a wider front. Perhaps this is not the correct interpretation of Clause 7, but it is a possible interpretation, and I hope that the Solicitor-General can confirm that the intention is to allow solicitors employed by the Law Society to give advice not only under the existing scheme but also where at present there is no provision for legal advice being given under either scheme.
  The Solicitor-General has pointed to one gap in the criminal field in Scotland. There will obviously still be a gap between what can be provided by the existing legal aid scheme and what can be provided by the new scheme. I hope that the legal advisers who are to be employed by the Law Society will not be restricted but will be able to give free advice to citizens' advice bureaux where that advice falls outwith the scheme—in other words, that they will be able to fill gaps and not be hidebound by the limitations of the Bill.
  There has been some fear that the limited provisions under Part II may foreclose the natural evolution of the neighbourhood law centres. The third leader of The Guardian today echoes this hope, that bold and imaginative leadership will operate rather than a restrictive approach.
  I have one fear. I notice that Clause 14(5) enables similar legislation to be enacted for Northern Ireland, but that otherwise Northern Ireland is not within the purview of the Bill. I accept that the question of whether similar provisions to the £25 legal advice scheme are introduced into Northern Ireland is a matter entirely for the Northern Ireland
  1608
  Government, but I hope that this Government will take active steps to encourage the Northern Ireland Government to introduce a parallel scheme, so that the United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland are not once again short of a civil liberty which operates in other parts of the country.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that the most urgent need in Northern Ireland at the moment is not for a legal aid scheme, but for freedom to provide a service to which it applies? Legal aid, for example, applies to the Brown Tribunal, but those who offer their service under this scheme are not able to appear and represent their clients.
  Mr. Murray: I agree with that; it underlines my criticism about the Bill—that it may stop short of what is adequate to meet the present need. I hope that I am wrong about that and that the Government will approach this matter in a sympathetic vein and will feel bound by the degree of consensus that the two committees of lawyers in the two major parties have shown in their preliminary work. I hope that, in Committee, if flaws do appear and my fears turn out to have some foundation, they will be flexible and open to approaches which will lead to the Bill being amended in such a way as to make it really efficient. I am sure that both sides of the House desire that.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for the fact that I did not hear the start of his speech. I also apologise in advance to him and to the House for the fact that I shall have to leave shortly after making my own. As the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill is also in session at the moment, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
  I was glad to be able to hear part of my hon. and learned Friend's reference to the history of this matter. I was glad that he included it, first because what we are doing now is the result of the pooling of a good deal of thought by both political bodies of lawyers and others. It is an occasion on which there has been rather more pooling and

  1609
  thought than there sometimes is, and out of all that has come this very sensible little Measure.
  It was also right to stress the historical side, because it stresses that all of this is a continuing process. The thinking which has resulted in what we are talking about today is part of a process which has been going on continuously, is going on continuously and must continue to go on continuously. Already, there is another report from the Conservative lawyers and for all I know there may be another one from the Society of Labour Lawyers. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend has yet seen the Conservative one. This report, which was produced just before this Measure, expressed the hope that a £25 scheme similar to this one would be introduced, but it went on to speak of other matters that should be considered if such a scheme was to work. It also spoke of factors which should receive consideration with a view to supplementing the limited advantages that might come from the scheme.
  One such recommendation, to which reference has been made, was that in the criminal courts those who wished it should have the opportunity to be represented at the earliest possible stage. The report pointed out that they might have been in custody overnight, might be in an extremely upset state and, in addition to being among the less articulate members of society, might be in an unkempt condition because of having been in custody overnight.
  People in this condition need advice and assistance at the earliest possible moment, and we must encourage the courts to think in these terms. We must also, of course, provide the facilities to enable this assistance and advice to be given, and the report recommended an extension of the rota solicitors' system operating in Scotland—something in the nature of a public defender—to ensure that someone is available in court at short notice to give that immediate advice which is of such importance.
  I am wholly in favour of what is being done by this Measure, and if the rest of what I have to say seems to point to defects inherent in it, that is only because I am specially anxious to see that what we are doing will work; and
  1610
  if it is to work, we must look at the difficulties and dangers inherent in the Bill and do our best to meet them in advance.
  The biggest danger lies in the fact that if it works, and the more it works, the more likely it is to overstretch the already much stretched resources at present available. The Law Society in England estimates that with the present amount of work, it will need another 5,000 qualified men and women and 9,000 legal executives. The Bar is equally stretched. It is vital that we increase the available resources as quickly as possible.
  I hope that we can with speed resolve the problem of legal education, preferably in accordance with the recommendations of another sub-committee of the Conservative lawyers, the Percival Committee, which is about to publish its third report. I hope that it will not be long before we develop the means necessary to train the personnel we need.
  We must be careful not to overstretch our resources in the worst possible way; that is, to the detriment of the people whom we are most trying to help. We must be careful not to divert too much of our limited resources to the most trivial work, which is a real danger because the smaller the work the more likely it is to come within the £25 limit.
  Herein lies a difficulty because, as every lawyer knows, what to the outsider seems a particularly technical matter is to the lawyer and his client a very human one. Every dispute between parties, whether or not it goes to court—I leave out the big commercial disputes, which represent a tiny proportion of the whole—is of enormous personal importance to the lay clients concerned.
  We must, therefore, keep a balance. On the one hand, we must recognise that this is not a dry, dull science but that we are dealing with human beings and their problems. We must not, because their problems seem small against the wider picture or against our ideas, necessarily regard them as trivial. On the other hand, the more we divert resources to the smaller matters, the less there will be available for the bigger ones. This is a danger that must be watched.
  The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King

  1611
  Murray) was right to say that there are many un-solicitored—his word—deserts. This is a problem to which the Committee which produced "Rough Justice" directed its attention, and I am sure that the authors of that document will wish to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks and will be obliged to him for his references to their suggestions.
  This is a real and practical problem. Because it is in these un-solicitored deserts that we find a great many of the people whom we are trying to reach—those to whom the law is something strange and who do not realise that we are human beings and understand human problems and want to help them if we can—the danger is that if we increase the pressure on those who have their practices outside those deserts, we shall, all other things being equal, make it that much less likely that they will move out of the lusher pastures into those deserts.
  I therefore hope that, within the professions and in Government circles, we will face up to this problem in advance. Do not let us allow it to happen and then say, "Oh dear. That is the opposite of what we wanted to do". Let us continue to try to meet it in advance. The difficulty, of course, is that we have the additional headache that there is much more risk of overstretching the resources that are available.
  I commend to all concerned the proposals put forward in "Rough Justice" and also in the latest report of the Hatfull Committee for inducing qualified people to go to areas where their services are particularly needed. Only if we make a start at remedying the deficiency which we recognise exists—we have recognised it for some time—shall we make more certain that not only is what we are doing by this Measure not aggravating the situation but that it is likely to achieve exactly what we want to achieve.
  Certainly we all want to bring the law closer to the people who need it but who cannot afford it. We also want to bring it to them at the earliest stage, before the damage is done. This is obvious when said, but is often not appreciated. We are operating in a sphere which is no different from that of, say, medicine. One hopes to go to the doctor before becoming hospitalised. Exactly the same should
  1612
  apply to the law. I stress this and no doubt others will do so. We lawyers have to get over to the lay public that we are not demons who terrify the life out of them when they come to see us and also that it is in their interests to come early. Then we may be able to provide some mild palliative instead of their being involved in difficult controversial matters later.
  I have only one other point, which is a small one, to raise now. I do not think it is a Committee point, but it may be raised there and, as I hope not to be on the Standing Committee, and as it is a point of principle, I think I should raise it now. It arises under Clause 6(3). That Clause applies regulation-making provisions of other Acts to the provisions of this Bill. At the end of subsection (3) are the words:
  "and those powers shall (without prejudice to their generality) be taken to include power to modify the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act in any manner for the purposes of the application of those provisions to advice or assistance "
  Without going into technical details, that looks to me like power to amend the provisions of the Act in an unspecified way by a regulation made under regulation-making power. I do not know of any similar provision in other Measures. That does not mean that there are not any, but they are not common. Whether this is a first precedent or not, it is a substantial departure from what I have always thought a distinction between a regulation and an amendment. To be legal, a regulation must be intra vires and must not go outside the enabling provisions of the Act.
  It appears that what is being done, here although the word, "amendment" is not used, is giving power by regulation to change the provisions, or the effect of the provisions, of the Act. I would very much hope that that would not be done and that at some stage the wording will be amended to make sure that the fear I have expressed is not a real one.
  The Solicitor-General: Is it not right to take account of the fact that the words to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred are qualified by paragraphs (a) and (b), in other words, a modification of the main provisions of the Act can be made only for the purpose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The Solicitor-General should not turn his back on the Chair.
  The Solicitor-General: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. and learned Friend has been addressing words of wisdom from behind me and therefore I turned towards him.
  The purpose for which the modification power can be used is that of applying it to applications by minors, or whatever the Scottish equivalent may be. That may set the mind of my hon. and learned Friend at rest.
  Mr. Percival: It does not, and only my desire to conclude my speech so that other hon. Members may have an opportunity of taking part in the debate prevented me from going into more detail. It is true that this provision can only amend provisions of the Act so far as they are referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), but that does not alter the fact that it is a power to amend provisions. Perhaps I may be able to pursue this point with my hon. and learned Friend between now and Committee stage.
  I believe the hon. and learned Member for Leith referred to Clause 5(4). The effect of Sub-Clauses 3 and 4 is, I believe, that in the case of a small recovery the solicitor may get the lot. There could be a case under these provisions as they stand in which the amount in issue and recovered is so small that it would all go in legal costs.
  Not only could resources in short supply be diverted to a trivial matter, but it would be possible for all that was recovered to go to the solicitor and the lay client may get nothing. That would be disastrous for the image of the profession and better relations between the profession and lay clients, better relations which we want to see developed. So I would hope that, although this would mean a departure from one of the fundamental principles which we have always observed in the Legal Aid and Advice Act so far, there would be some departure and that what was recovered would not all be gobbled up in costs.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: It is with some diffidence that anyone who is not a lawyer presumes to intervene in this
  1614
  debate, but I assure the House that I shall not stand for more than a few moments between hon. Members and further flows of legal wisdom.
  I simply want to ask one or two questions as an innocent non-lawyer about a matter which came to my attention fairly recently as a result of constituency experience. It is a matter which is not, so far as I can see, strictly within the confines of the Bill but it is certainly, I think, within the general area which we are discussing. I refer to the kind of inquiry which can be ordered by a regional hospital board or, I suppose, by the Minister when there is a complaint by a patient about ill-treatment, accident or something like that in a hospital. There is here in practice an anomaly which I think should be cleared up. I hope very much that the Solicitor-General can say a word or two about it.
  I learned about it because a constituent of mine had a very serious accident in a hospital. I need not name the hospital today because I shall be dealing with it more fully in a debate on the Adjournment fairly soon. The legal point arises in this way. My constituent originally consulted a solicitor and the solicitor took counsel's opinion and out of voluntary generosity did not charge anything to my constituent. But when eventually we got the regional hospital board to agree to setting up an inquiry under the chairmanship of an independent barrister, my constituent was very grievously handicapped on this precise question of legal representation and legal costs at the public expense. This seems a very strange position. The Minister could not give us any advice on legal representation for my constituent at the inquiry because that is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the chairman of the inquiry and usually, apparently, he is not able or willing to give a ruling on that in advance.
  Secondly and equally important, the question of the costs of legal representation at the inquiry being met from public funds is a matter which is at the discretion of the Minister and he does not give a ruling on it in advance of the inquiry. Obviously it was impossible for my constituent, who is a member of a family of working people of modest means, to risk employing her own legal advisers.

  1615
  When we came to the inquiry—I sat through it for the two days it took and I must say that the chairman was admirable in his impartiality, his friendliness, his informality and so on—along the other side of the table were ranged a number of eminent counsel who were representing the hospital, the doctors and the nurses involved in the incident which has led to the inquiry. But, of course, my constituent was not represented personally by a lawyer. The doctors for the most part did not have to bother to attend the inquiry because they were represented, as I have said, by lawyers who were paid for at public expense, presumably by the regional hospital board.
  I must add in fairness that there was one counsel on our side of the table whom the regional hospital board's own legal adviser had engaged to, as it were, set the case before the chairman of the inquiry and his colleagues, to outline the whole case as impartially as he could, and that he was very helpful to us and from time to time accepted suggestions from my constituent and myself about questions that he might put to various witnesses. But he was not directly representing my constituent, and since he was in effect employed by the board I suppose that his first duty would be to the board if any clash of interest arose during the course of the inquiry.
  I believe that a committee on the procedure of these inquiries has been sitting for some time. I do not know whether it would be possible before the end of the debate for the Solicitor-General to find out from the Department of Health and Social Security whether that committee has yet reported and whether the report deals with this point concerning legal representation and costs at such inquiries. If it does, I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider making a small, simple Amendment to the Bill to cover the point I have made. If the report recommends some such extension of the law, and if it were agreeable to the Government, I cannot see that it would take very much time or cause very much difficulty to do so. I am obliged to have had the opportunity of making this point.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I join in the general welcome which has been
  1616
  given to the Bill. I was happy to hear the contribution by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) because it was a contribution by a Member of the House who, as he himself said, was speaking not as a lawyer. It is a good thing that in the welcome to the Bill there should be heard some other voice than that of a practising member of the legal profession, because although, on the face of it, this might appear to be a comparatively narrow and legal matter, it is nevertheless, one of great public importance in national welfare.
  It is all too easy sometimes for hon. Members and the public to say, "This is a legal matter and we will leave it to the lawyers." But this is an important extension of the Welfare State. Whereas when we are discussing medical matters hon. Members flock in to express their views because everyone recognises the vital importance to the general and individual well-being of health and, therefore, the National Health Service, it is not always so generally recognised how important it is for the common weal and the well-being of the individual that people should have ready access to legal advice to be able to obtain redress of their grievances.
  I suppose that there is not a Member of the House who does not hold regular surgeries and advice bureaux in his constituency, and we all know full well what appalling damage can be done to people who can become obsessed with grievances when they do not have a means of remedying them. Sometimes the legal advice may only indicate that they have no grievance for which the law has a remedy; sometimes it will put them in a position to obtain redress for a genuine grievance. For that reason, the steps taken since the war and since the inception of the Legal Aid and Advice Scheme have been in their way as important as any of the steps which have been taken in welfare generally.
  The Bill fulfills a most useful function in that it enables people who have not the means to consult a solicitor, or are frightened that they have not the means, nevertheless to consult one and to obtain ready access at the expense of the tax-payer if that is necessary for the redress of their grievances. In saying that, I pay tribute to the enormous work which

  1617
  has been done in filling this lacuna in our welfare services over many years by the legal aid centres which exist all over the country and where most important work has been done on a purely voluntary basis, usually by young lawyers setting out on their careers. My experience in this was with the Cambridge University centre at Cambridge House, the work of which is well known, and there are many other such centres in London—for example, the Mary Ward centre—and elsewhere. For many years they have done what is now proposed to be done by solicitors or, under Part II of the scheme, by the employment of solicitors by the Law Society.
  I remember that when the legal advice scheme came into operation it was thought that there would possibly be no more room for organisations such as the "poor man's lawyers" at Cambridge House and elsewhere. We were disabused of that. They have continued to fulfil a most important function and to give invaluable aid and advice. I imagine that even when the Bill becomes law there may well still be work for these organisations and I hope very much that they will do the work as local organisations under Clause 7.
  The other aspect of this matter which is of the greatest importance, and is the basis of my own work, is that constantly in my constituency when I have seen people who have legal problems—I am sure that this is the experience of all of us—I have said that there are really problems about which they should see a solicitor. But I have found that people are terrified sometimes of the possible costs of doing so. This important measure of reform should remove that fear from the minds of very many people.
  I do not propose at this stage to take up any time with what I might call Committee points. I give the Bill a general welcome. The financial provisions and the financial limits for aid appear to me to be reasonable at this stage. Having regard to the aid to be given, short of obtaining a proper legal aid certificate, which would be the natural end of the process if a person received advice in a matter in which he thought he might have to litigate and proceeded to do so, the limits of £125
  1618
  on disposable capital and of £20 on income are reasonable. I am glad, however, that there are provisions in the Bill, and we welcome them, for increasing those limits if necessary and if the value of money changes.
  Finally, I would like to think I welcome the Bill also as a Measure which implements a pledge which the Conservative Party gave when in opposition and on which, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has said, the Society of Conservative Lawyers did a great deal of work when we were in opposition. I should like to recall to the House that that work was really instigated by a speech made by my right hon Friend the Prime Minister to that society some years ago, before the Conservative Government were returned to power, and after which a great deal of research was done.
  My right hon. Friend took a very great personal interest in this section of public and social welfare. I welcome the Bill, therefore, as one more example of the fact that the Conservative Party in government is fulfilling its pledges in the field of welfare, and I commend it to the House and welcome it as a substantial legal reform.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Archer: This is by no means the first time in debates in this House that I have had the privilege of following the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), and it is not the first time that I find it difficult to dissent from most of what he said. He will not expect me to endorse unreservedly his last paragraph. I will refrain from making some of the more obvious comments because this is not, in substance, a party political matter.
  Like the hon. and learned Member, I begin by welcoming the Bill though no doubt the Solicitor-General will forgive me if my exuberance is not entirely unlimited. I was at first minded to say I welcomed the Bill rather as one might welcome the mace-bearer when one had expected the mayor, but perhaps that is unfair and I should say rather as one would welcome the mayor if one had expected him to bring the mayoress. The Solicitor-General said that the Bill was

  1619
  not the last word in solutions to the problems with which it attempts to deal. Certainly, so far as it goes I would seek to welcome it.
  The House is very jealous of the rights of individuals. We spend countless hours discussing those rights, sometimes not as lengthily as some of us would wish; but we spend a great deal of time doing so. We spend relatively little time in making available to people the means of implementing such rights as they have already, and these moments when some of us can give voice to such matters are precious. Incidentally, I join the hon. and learned Member for Solihull in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) on venturing as a lay Member into what looked rather like a lawyers' picnic. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. It is a great pity that more of our lay colleagues do not take part in these debates. Perfectly properly, from time to time they criticise the service that the legal profession gives to their constituents. We would welcome it if on occasions like this they seized the opportunity to come in and make their contribution, pointing out where the shoe pinches.
  I welcome the Bill as an important step forward in two respects. First, as the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has pointed out, it is sensible to have what we might call preventive medicine in the law, to make available legal advice to people before a situation has deteriorated into a major crisis, and particularly before they embark on litigation. Secondly, I welcome the Bill because those who have actually seen the existing legal aid scheme at work know that most ordinary litigants require legal assistance in actually completing an application for a legal advice certificate. One cannot pay too high a tribute to the enormous amount of work done by the solicitors' profession in assisting people to complete applications for legal aid certificates for which they themselves are not remunerated.
  Further, I cannot resist adding my voice to those that have expressed delight that the court is enabled to request advice and assistance for litigants in person, as recommended by the committee presided over by Mr. Rex Church. I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General will in
  1620
  due course read the rest of the report. There is a great deal in it which requires implementation, as some of us will seize the opportunity to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman from time to time, but we must not be ungrateful to him that we afforded a little.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: While welcoming that part of the Bill, may I ask whether my hon. and learned Friend thinks that there is not a great danger as the Bill is drawn that legal aid work will become the monopoly of one or two solicitors who practise in a particular court, and that that fact demonstrates the necessity for having a rota system rather than this?
  Mr. Archer: As my hon. Friend would rather expect, I agree with him on this matter. For the moment, however, it does not look as though we are to be given a rota system, and it would be a pity if the best were the enemy of the good. Perhaps for the moment we should contain ourselves in patience. The Solicitor-General rather disarmed us on this point because he admitted quite readily that Clause 2(4) was not as wide as he had hoped it might have been. When one receives that kind of admission from the benches opposite, it makes it very difficult for us to be too critical, but the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot stop us wishing, or seeking to consider Amendments in Committee.
  I rose principally to comment on three problems which the Bill still leaves untouched. The first is the extent of the purposes for which advice and aid will be available. Of course, this is not a Bill about legal representation, so one cannot carry too far the argument that it ought to have made provision for representation in certain tribunals. But certainly there is still a gap here, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) has mentioned. We have just had an example from my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. At a public inquiry in which a private individual may have a real and immediate interest, very often there is no provision by which he might have legal advice and assistance. All of us have at times taken part in public inquiries where the inquiry itself must have felt the need for that very keenly. Every day of the week there

  1621
  are rent tribunals, national insurance and other tribunals where rights of very great importance to the people who appear before them are decided and where legal advice and representation is not available to them.
  Secondly, even in those areas where the financial barriers are removed, there is still a great deal of work to be done in removing psychological barriers. The Bill seeks to implement the precept "Seek and ye shall find", but not many people in a certain type of situation are in a position to seek. Very often people do not recognise a legal problem when they meet one, or at least do not recognise it as a legal problem.
  Two or three years ago New Society published an article describing how 402 tenants in Islington had been interviewed, and 43 per cent. of them had never heard of the Rent Acts. So the beginning of this is the problem common to all the social services, the problem of non-take-up. But even those who recognise the need for legal assistance often find that it is just physically not there and that there is what others have called a legal desert. It is dealt with in the Conservative lawyers' document "Rough Justice", but it is also a matter on which we on this side have spent many hours of heartache.
  I recollect my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Sir A. Irvine) addressing a conference called by the Society of Labour Lawyers and pointing out that so far as he was aware there was not one practising solicitor in the whole of his constituency. It may be said that all people have to do is hop on a bus and go to a different area. But so often it is much more difficult, because it is not merely a different area but a different world. People have to have a day off from work and they feel that they must put on their best clothes and learn to speak the language spoken by the middle class rather than the working class. They are not quite sure what it will cost them and what sort of reception they will get.
  That was what lay behind the recommendation in the Society of Labour Lawyers' publication "Justice for All" that we might try to operate a scheme of local legal centres along the lines of the neighbourhood law firm, which in many areas of the United States performs such sterl-
  1622
  ing work. There people who come in will not find professional men wearing distinctive clothes. They will find people speaking substantially the same language, often people who live and operate and have their social life in the same community, and who do not appear to be going out of their way to erect a curtain between themselves and those who need their help.
  That is possibly what the writer of The Guardian leader today meant when he referred to bold and imaginative leadership in the implementation of Part II of the Bill. Perhaps we shall have another opportunity to discuss this matter in a fortnight, when the Private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is to be debated. But we should like to hear from the Government tonight that the problem has been appreciated.
  On page 7 of the Advisory Committee's Report, to which I too, would pay tribute, it was suggested that those responsible for running the scheme should consult relevant local organisations. We hope that it might even go further. There are already some schemes running very effectively, like the Centre at Notting Hill. We hope it will not be taken over from those who are running it already and that the Law Society will be content to enable it to continue with its work. We hope that existing centres of the kind mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull will also be allowed to continue unhampered, perhaps with a little assistance of the kind of which they themselves feel in need.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Cambridge House. My own experience lay with the Mary Ward Centre. I understand that Miss Pamela Liverman, who has for many years unselfishly and efficiently devoted so much time to the centre, is listening to the debate. I hope I may be forgiven for trespassing on the fringes of order, and paying tribute to the work she has done, which is appreciated by all who engage in this field. We hope that the legal aid secretaries referred to in the Law Society's memorandum as working closely with social workers in the area will come to learn the psychological and social needs.
  We might go even further. So often it is difficult to distinguish between the need for legal advice and other kinds of need. I remember a lady who used to

  1623
  help as a clerk in such a legal advice centre, one of whose substantial contributions was to look after the pets of people who seemed likely to disappear into prison in the fairly near future. It was not legal advice she was giving but it was very important work.
  I also remember the more sobering experience of a lady who came to me in the days when I used to offer legal advice at the Mary Ward Centre. She required legal advice in litigation in the county court against a neighbour. She won, and the legal problem was solved, but three weeks later she committed suicide. She was not merely seeking legal advice. Her request for it was really a cry for help. We hope that neighbourhood centres will not be merely places to which people can come for legal advice but will be places where they find a friendly atmosphere and the kind of help they need.
  Even when legal aid is available, and the financial and psychological problems are broken down, so often the kind of people at whom the Bill is aimed go to a lawyer only to find that he cannot give them the advice they seek because the subject was not covered in his training. The kind of problem that burns up so many ordinary people, who cannot just pick up a telephone and ring their accountant, or who do not meet knowledgeable friends at cocktail parties, lies for example in the kind of situation in which they are entitled to unemployment pay. There is a whole field here that has not been included in legal education, because it has never been thought of as law at all. This is not a matter for a legal advice Bill; it is something we must examine in the whole context of the service offered by the legal profession. I should be out of order if I tried to develop that theme now. But no legal advice Bill will in itself fill the whole gap about which I have tried to speak.
  There is a letter in today's edition of The Times from Mr. Nevil Johnson pointing out that one of the differences between the way in which we run our public administration and the way in which it is approached in some of the Continental countries is that we apply the ultra vires rule. We say that a public authority has no power to offer a particular service or take a particular decision unless it can be spelled directly
  1624
  out of the legal text, whereas on the Continent, on the whole, people take the view that a public authority can do whatever common sense seems to suggest is required in pursuit of the purpose for which it was set up. The ultra vires rule simply leads to the conclusion that before many tribunals people find themselves studying very closely a legal text. For example, it is often said that in a national insurance tribunal people do not need legal advice because it is only a personal kind of problem that is considered. But those who attend hear a vocabulary that must sound like Greek to them—references to regulation 7, sub-regulation 6, and so on.
  Mr. John Fraser: Lawyers!
  Mr. Archer: It is indeed a lawyers' vocabulary, arising directly from the application of the ultra vires rule. People in this country require such help perhaps far more than many others. A complete revision of our system of education is needed.
  I respectfully echo what the Solicitor-General said. The Bill is not the last word, but it is a very useful step forward in the direction in which many of us have been hoping the legal profession will go, that of directing its mind to meeting the actual needs of ordinary people in a complicated world.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. John Loveridge: The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) said he would welcome lay Members speaking more often in such debates as this. I am happy to oblige him.
  The Bill offers a most welcome extension to the service and help available to the public. We have heard that 400,000 people may take advantage of the opportunities it affords. I am glad to think that the burden of repayment will not be heavy upon them. Those earning only £11 a week will have to repay only £1, which cannot be said to be excessive.
  I am, however, concerned about the limit on capital. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) said that the limit was £500 for ordinary legal aid. I very much hope that the Government will reconsider the £125 limit in the Bill in

  1625
  due course. It is so low that it must discourage elderly people, for example. They have no way to make up capital out of future income. Moreover, are we not tempting those who apply to make wrongful statements? Everybody knows how often statements not believed to be correct have been made in applications for ordinary legal aid certificates. We should not encourage people to do that by making the amount too low.
  I hope that the Government will be able to implement Part II of the Bill as soon as possible.
  The Bill does not go as far as one might have hoped with the idea of having a public defender available in every court. I was glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General say that this was not an end to the Government's ideas about legal aid. I trust that more thought will be given to the idea of extending it to cases coming before tribunals. Many of these are much more complex than the simple cases in the magistrates' courts. I appreciated it earlier when the Government extended the principle and applied legal aid to the National Industrial Court.
  It is important that when the local organisations are set up and making introductions to solicitors under Clause 7(2)(b) they do not appear to be acting as introduction agents to solicitors to obtain more business. It is also important that when those introductions are made the local organisation should try to make it clear that there will not be any substantial extra private costs involved in any work that may come out of the introduction, otherwise people will find that they are paying costs to solicitors that they had not anticipated when they began the whole process. I hope that the oral advice will include help for applications for ordinary legal aid certificates and for bail.
  It is especially important for bail. There is nothing more difficult than an application for bail by someone appearing before a court. People do not know what they are doing if they are unaided and often the court is not quick enough to pick up what is happening. The police may say that they do not wish the application to be granted and the easiest thing is for the court to follow that path. This aspect is even more important than the defence in simple cases where the truth is readily
  1626
  perceived by the court and judgment follows accordingly.
  This is a splendid Bill. My constituents and people throughout the country will appreciate what has been done.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I support virtually everything that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Love-ridge) has said, particularly about bail. He spoke from his experience as a lay justice on what is, if I may say so, a progressive bench. I say it because my wife serves on that bench with him. I also share his views about the low capital limits and will wish to say something about that later, and about representations before tribunals, a point made not only by the hon. Member but by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). My hon. and learned Friend was eloquent in his testimony of the many difficulties experienced daily by ordinary folk in seeking legal redress to all sorts of problems which beset them.
  I declare my interest as a practising solicitor operating in a working-class area, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). I congratulate the Government on having introduced this long-awaited Measure the architect of which has been the legal profession. It is important that the profession should at all times identify itself with such a social need as this. It has done this over a number of years and to some extent this need is met. Legal aid is now recognised as a vital part of the fabric of our social services but is still not sufficiently extensive or sufficiently recognised by members of the public.
  The take-up is still relatively low as it is with many Social services. The legal profession has been concerned to extend the scope of legal aid and also to widen the knowledge of the public about legal aid provisions. That concern on the part of the profession is diametrically opposed to the widely-held public image of the profession. We often hear of the allegedly high conveyancing fees paid to solicitors but we rarely hear about work undertaken daily by many solicitors who practise in working-class areas. I do not think that any firm of solicitors will get very rich as a result of the operation of this Measure.

  1627
  Let me give a personal experience to show the kind of situation that can assail solicitors from time to time, when they are placed in the predicament of undertaking work for a client for no reward, possibly at a loss or just allowing the client to go his own way. There is a real dilemma. The solicitor has to make his practice pay and it would not be fair to expect him to undertake work without fees all day and every day. Some years ago on a Sunday morning I was telephoned and told that a lady who was a tenant in a house was being barricaded in by her landlord and it was essential that she should receive the protection of the courts there and then. There was a child in the house too. It was an appalling situation.
  I had to go through all the wretched drill about getting an injunction, preparing affidavits and all the rest. I had to take the commissioner for oaths down to the house and because the lady was on the first floor and could not get out, we had to hoist the affidavits and the Bible up to her in a bucket raised by a rope. She swore it from the first floor window, the commissioner appearing rather like Romeo and she like Juliet. Then it was lowered down to the ground. Then we had to go off to Sussex to see the judge in chambers and back again to serve the order on the landlord.
  That lady could not get legal aid on Sunday and there was no way of obtaining any costs from the Law Society because it had no power to make payment retrospectively. I do not regret having helped the lady but it is an impossible imposition to place on the legal profession as a whole and it is right that to some extent this position is now being remedied. In criminal cases it is abundantly plain that the really critical time for legal assistance is when a man is detained, perhaps even to attend an identification parade. Hitherto this assistance has not been available to the vast majority of people who could not afford to pay. I deeply regret that the Bill does not provide for a client to be represented at the first hearing, which is also a critical period of a trial. Perhaps the Government will give way on this in Committee.
  The provision that a magistrates' court or county court can ask a solicitor to
  1628
  represent someone who is appearing before the court is in general terms to be welcomed, but I have certain qualifications. The allocation of legal aid work should be seen to be done fairly and not appear to encourage a monopoly by one local firm. There is a danger that the local "attorney-general" may find that he is being asked to undertake more and more work to the exclusion of other solicitors practising in the locality. I do not think there are many unscrupulous lawyers who would resort to this, but there is the risk that some lawyers would simply hang around waiting for the court to appoint their firm to undertake work on behalf of a client. In spite of those qualifications, the idea is a good one, and I support it. A rota system would eradicate these difficulties and be infinitely preferable.
  I echo the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) on the necessity for legal aid to be made available at tribunals. The lives and interests of people today revolve to a great extent around the decisions of quasi-judicial tribunals, yet no legal aid is available for representation before tribunals. For some time past there has been canvassed the idea that surveyors should be available to represent people before rent assessment panels. Before rent assessment panels representation by surveyors is more important than representation by lawyers. Tenants are at a great disadvantage compared with landlords, particularly powerful landlords, when appearing before tribunals. In the absence of legal aid, and for other reasons, tenants try to overcome their difficulties by binding together into associations: this is the only way in which they can resist the pressures.
  Inquests make important decisions which can touch on civil claims, and legal aid should be extended to them. I do not know what impact the Brodrick Committee Report will have, but I can think of many people who have been prejudiced by not having legal representation at coroners' inquests.
  It is a pity that the Bill does not encompass representation in libel actions. Libel is excluded from legal aid, yet individual reputations can be seriously injured if not shattered. A person with

  1629
  inadequate financial resources is prevented from obtaining redress, and I hope the Government will give thought to this.
  Mr. John Fraser: Does my hon. Friend agree that people who are sued in defamation actions, for which they cannot obtain legal aid, may be put in considerable difficulty since although they have not initiated the proceedings they may successfully defend them and be considerably prejudiced?
  Mr. Davis: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I have certain reservations about slander actions but I think that libel should be included in the provision of legal aid.
  Last night on television I saw the "Man Alive" programme about bail. I have certain reservations about the programme, but it showed, as I tried to do in our debate on 18th June, the serious deficiencies in the operation of legal aid for bail. The Courts Act has remedied some of them because now, once a committal has taken place, an accused person may make application for bail to the Crown Court, but he cannot do so before committal. He cannot do so on an ordinary remand at a magistrates' court, and the inarticulate and generally deprived person who appears before the court cannot formulate the necessary arguments. Some magistrates' courts look into this matter in considerable detail, but others give it scant attention.
  My experience—and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) would share this view—is that there are many serious deficiencies that could be cured by proper representation at the right time. This is not happening and, as a result, the nation is paying. It costs between £23 and £25 a week to keep a person in prison awaiting trial, often in degrading circumstances. I hope that this is not the Government's last word but that they will consider granting legal aid for bail.
  The opinion has been expressed from both sides of the House that the capital limits are much too low. With respect to the Solicitor-General, he did not answer this point when it was put to him. The scheme could well founder because of this. The hon. Member for Hornchurch said that people would be tempted to make wrongful statements to get legal aid. Although one might say this situa-
  1630
  tion could arise in practice, I do not think it does. My experience in the main is that people making applications for legal aid are frank and are prepared to disclose truthfully their capital and income position. To limit this scheme to £125 when the full legal aid scheme works to a limit of £500 is completely illogical. We should be concerned to ensure that this advice scheme operates successfully and there is no point in introducing an advice scheme which has such a grave disadvantage from the outset.
  The Bill should contain a provision to give the Law Society discretion in civil cases to waive payments to the Legal Aid Fund on compassionate grounds.
  I recall a case involving a man who had undergone a serious accident in which he had sustained the most appalling injuries. He obtained legal aid to sue the defendants, his employers. The employers were not insured: they did not have to be insured by law in the circumstances of that case. It transpired after a very long time that the employers could not possibly pay any substantial damages to the man who had been injured beyond any sort of repair and who will suffer for the rest of his life. Had he been successful in the action, it is possible he would have recovered damages amounting to five figures or more. That man has lost his legal aid certificate because the Law Society says that the costs of the action will now be out of proportion having regard to what he was likely to recover, which is a miniscule sum because that is what the other side had offered.
  The present position is that the damages they would pay would go into the Legal Aid Fund and be eaten up by costs. This is a monstrous situation which means that this man can obtain no legal redress at all. The only people who received any benefit from it are the lawyers who are to be paid—and properly paid—for the work they have done. In circumstances such as those I have outlined the Law Society should be given discretion to waive payment into the Legal Aid Fund.
  Having voiced those criticisms, I must say that I feel the Bill will be widely welcomed by the public who must be made aware of its terms. It is important that full publicity should be given to

  1631
  this matter, or the whole advantage of the scheme will be lost. It will in the course of time enable neighbourhood law centres to be expanded, and this is all to the good. It will also demonstrate the proposition that in the main the legal profession, like other professions, is actuated by an ideal of service. This will bring help within the grasp of many more people in their hour of real need. It will bring oases to these unsolicited deserts about which so many people have spoken. It will indicate that the law is responding to the pressures imposed by modern society, and that is the function of the law.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I wish to express my regret that, because of my attendance in the Standing Committee on the Housing Finance Bill, I have not been present throughout the whole of this debate. I should like to have heard the opening speeches on both sides of the House. I am at any rate glad that I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). Like my hon. Friend I. too, practise as a solicitor and we use the facilities of legal aid to a substantial extent for the purpose of proceedings, and we also take advantage of the provisions which enable us to give advice to people with little means.
  There are few firms of solicitors who undertake this work. As the scale of remuneration stands at present, this work can only be done by a solicitor if he is willing to devote part of his time, energy and resources to a form of public service. Many solicitors are willing to give a certain amount of their energies in this way, but far too many have come to the conclusion that this work is so unremunerative and unsatisfactory that they are not willing to undertake it. Anybody who consults a Citizens Advice Bureau will find that this is so, and that in the central city areas, where overheads are high, there is a reluctance on the part of solicitors to undertake such work.
  I welcome the Bill, though I had hoped that its provisions would have gone much further. I wish to endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central. I. too, have had a case involving an eviction,
  1632
  of which I learned on a Saturday afternoon. I spent the entire week-end shuffling backwards and forwards getting affidavits written out in longhand, finding a commissioner to swear them, and then driving down to Sussex to get an injunction from a judge. I then had to get those injunctions stamped on the Monday morning. Not a penny of that work was eligible for payment out of the legal aid fund.
  Also, like my hon. Friend, I have a serious damages case for which we have a legal aid certificate. If the man were successful in that case, the damages would be likely to exceed £10,000. The liability in that case is 100 per cent. clear, and it occurred before there was compulsory insurance for employers. Therefore, it is probable that the maximum damages we shall be able to recover for this man will be measured in hundreds of pounds from an employer who is virtually insolvent. To recover even that sum, it has been necessary to sue an insolvent individual and an insolvent company. Inevitably the costs which will have been incurred will make immense inroads into the damages we recover. Therefore, I echo the plea for a waiver of the payment of costs into the Legal Aid Fund.
  I should like the Solicitor-General to consider extending the scope of the Legal Aid Fund so that it should cover the cost of attendance at the first hearing in criminal courts. I recently had a case in which I was instructed on Sunday on behalf of somebody who had been arrested on a charge of assault and where it was obvious that the man was in urgent need of medical treatment rather than a criminal prosecution. I spent the entire Monday morning at Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court, and the defendant clearly was unfit to plead. This became apparent to the magistrate when the defendant came into the witness box, and he was granted legal aid on the spot. We then took statements from five witnesses, corresponded with the prison medical officer and arranged for the man to be seen by a psychiatrist. This entailed a further attendance at court. This involved virtually two days' work and the total allowed for that case was £35. Although a solicitor is willing to undertake these individual cases, in present circumstances it is most unlikely that the great majority of solicitors will be

  1633
  willing to apply the kind of energies necessary to deal with such problems when they arise, especially in the exceptional and difficult case, unless the remuneration is to be at a level which will not mean the solicitor concerned losing money.
  Although solicitors are as willing as other members of the public to give a certain amount of public service in the form of charity, we shall not get an adequate scale of legal advice to the public if we rely on solicitors to do it. I hope that the Bill will be amended in Committee and extended thereafter so as to improve the facilities which can be provided by solicitors to the public at large. In view of the extremely high costs involved in operating a solicitor's firm, especially in central London, I hope that the scales of payment for the kind of work envisaged will be improved. I know from personal experience that it is extremely easy to find a solicitor's practice running into the red if one undertakes too much legally-aided work.
  I am apprehensive that Clause 5 will result in solicitors' charges being assessed at the old county court levels. If they are, solicitors will not take advantage of the Bill's provisions. I hope very much that they will. However, in central city areas where overheads are so high, we shall not solve the immense problem of the unmet need for adequate legal services unless we have a great extension of the neighbourhood law office.
  I am fortunate in that my constituency has the only neighbourhood law office in the country. I know the extent to which it has uncovered an immense need and helped to resolve it. I do not believe ultimately that private practice can provide the services intended by the Bill. It can contribute to their provision in a small degree. It cannot do very much more. Naturally, the great bulk of solicitors will spend most of their time on work which is more profitable. As I have said, a large number already refuse legal aid work, not only under the advice provisions but also work for litigation. That is regrettable, but one has to accept the facts of economic life. The services required will be provided efficiently in our central city areas only by a great extension of neighbourhood law services. I hope therefore that we shall see the
  1634
  implementation of Part II of the Bill as soon as possible.
  Having said all that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central, I want to reiterate the extent to which I welcome the Bill, even though I should have liked it to have gone further.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. Neville Sandelson: I wish to raise one point which arises out of Part II, Clause 7, and to ask the Solicitor-General whether he will consider the possibility of using members of the Bar in this capacity. At the moment, the provision relates to solicitors only. However, we have a pool of legal ability, especially among younger members of the Bar, which should not be ignored in this connection. Members of the Bar may be able to make a contribution in the various neighbourhoods in which they live and possibly outside their own residential areas because of their interest in assisting the public generally, and because of possible connections with organisations of one kind or another. I feel that the inclusion of members of the Bar could make the Bill that much more viable in its operation. I have in mind, too, that a lumber of members of the Bar who have considerable experience might feel that this kind of work was worth while. By it, they could make a contribution to the operation of a Bill which has already been described by other hon. Members as a very well worthwhile Measure. As a Labour lawyer I welcome it, and I congratulate the Government on its introduction.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Fraser: This has been a short debate, and I propose to deal with a number of the points which have been raised, including such germane matters as tribunals and one or two others which I hope that the Solicitor-General will bear in mind.
  More than one hon. Member asked that the Law Society should have a discretion in remitting costs. I think that the legal aid system is brought into disrepute when a person is awarded a modest sum by way of damages only to find subsequently that the whole of it is absorbed in costs. I have known this happen. In one case, the story was run by the Daily Mirror. I did not altogether

  1635
  agree with it. However, it was the solicitor in that case who got the opprobrium, and not the legal aid system. But the system is brought into disrepute where there is no discretion to waive costs.
  A number of hon. Members spoke about legal education. It is not directly concerned with the Bill. But there is a great need for practising lawyers to know more about matters like labour law, social security law, and so forth. I hope that the Bill's provisions concerning advice about proceedings before tribunals and advice on more general topics than matters of litigation will lead to those bodies which are responsible for the education of barristers and solicitors to include more of these subjects in their curricula. More of them should become examination subjects, in preference to such matters as settled land, which most lawyers hardly ever come across, especially if they practise in working-class neighbourhoods.
  Every hon. Member who has spoken has welcomed the Bill. Like others, I ought to declare my interest, in that I am a practising solicitor. Perhaps I might also pick up a remark made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) that there is something to be learned by the Government about the origins of the Bill. The last time that I debated with the Solicitor-General, we were discussing the Industrial Relations Bill. In that case, there was advice by a Royal Commission, from personnel officers and so forth. The Government chose to ignore advice from every other source, with the exception of Conservative lawyers. I am glad that on this occasion right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken on board advice from different political sources and have tried to make the best of it. That is the right approach on such a subject as this, and it is a pity that this has not been the Government's approach to other subjects.
  The Bill recognises that a modest amount of public expenditure can bring a great deal of public good. The expenditure under the Bill is estimated to be above £2·6 million in a year. The benefits can be quite enormous. Perhaps that same lesson should have been learned on
  1636
  matters like school milk and admission charges in respect of museums.
  The Bill really implements the intentions laid down by Parliament in the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. We on this side of the House are very proud of that legislation. It was part of the mammoth reconstruction of the social system undertaken between 1945 and 1951 by the first full-blooded Labour Government. It was part of that quiet revolution of social institutions which was intended to protect the ordinary man and woman from the rigours and pitfalls of everyday life against which there was no chance of their protecting themselves. Just as the National Health Service gave access to hospitals and medical facilities, so the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, protected people against the rigours of litigation and protected them when they needed to take proceedings for damages, and so on.
  I think that it will be agreed that Sections 5 and 7 of the 1949 Act were intended to extend to advice and assistance. It was a pity that those Sections were not implemented sooner. Indeed, I think that everyone would agree that there was a good deal of delay in implementing many of the provisions of the 1949 Act. At any rate, it had the purpose of ensuring that everybody had equality not only before the law, but when they got to court. That Act ensured that shortage of money and lack of means did not deprive people of the legal assistance which they needed. That Act and the subsequent legal aid system ensured that there was no difference in theory and practice on the principle that everybody was equal before the courts.
  It is interesting to reflect how many controversial murder cases, even since the war, involved the payment to a solicitor of only £5 for legal representation under the old system. I recall the first case in which I appeared at the Old Bailey as a solicitor. For preparing the case I was paid £2—I was defending a man on a charge of robbery with violence—and I think that I incurred two guineas disbursements. I had a considerable argument with the taxing clerk at the Old Bailey whether I had been extravagant in the defence of that man. There have been many cases involving people in serious and controversial murder charges whose solicitors have been

  1637
  remunerated to the extent of about £5 under the old system. It is important that everybody should not only have civil liberties, but the means to enforce them when they come before the courts.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General will indicate to the House when he proposes that Parts I and II of the Bill should come into operation. I was a little disappointed when he seemed to indicate that the implementation of Part II would come after the implementation of Part I. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean that. I hope that we shall be given an indication when the different parts of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be brought into force. We do not want the same experience we had with the 1949 Act of sometimes waiting a decade before its provisions were made operative.
  One point which has become clear from the debate is that the purpose of legal aid, especially the purpose of the Bill, is not to encourage litigation, but to encourage advice and assistance which will help to keep people out of the courts. I have always conceived it to be the lawyer's job—certainly the solicitor's job—to keep his client out of court, not to get him into court. I understand that Lloyd George made his reputation by taking only winners in his court cases. He was very wise. I recall being reminded that, compared with litigation, roulette can sometimes be a game of skill. That is the advice solicitors often give to their clients, because it is their job to keep their clients out of trouble and out of court. I welcome the Bill because it concentrates on the preventative as well as the gladiatorial aspects of legal advice.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General will assure us that the following kinds of situations are covered by the Bill. I am thinking particularly of matrimonial cases where it is much better to try to draft a separation or maintenance agreement with details about custody, access to the children, and so on, as that avoids the bitterness and recriminations which so often arise when parties fight the matter out in the magistrates' court. I am not sure whether the wording of Clause 2 covers this kind of situation. I hope that we shall have an assurance that it covers matters like the drafting of separation and maintenance agreements where
  1638
  that prevents the parties having to go to court.
  Likewise, I hope that advice and assistance will be available for negotiating accident claims with insurance companies for the purpose of trying to get such matters concluded quickly to the advantage of persons who have been injured. This would save the parties time, worry, and a lot of money, because they get their accident damages soon after the claim is made and not, when the matter has to go to court, perhaps two or three years later.
  I welcome the Bill because it provides these preventative services and the advice and assistance which will help to keep people out of the courts.
  I hope that the provisions of the Bill are also intended to cover matters where litigation is not contemplated, but where the right kind of advice could avoid a dispute many years hence. I am thinking of the drafting of wills. There are often situations where family relationships are so complicated that, unless somebody makes a will with a clear statement of what is to happen to his property on his death and the reasons for his making such provisions, there is likely to be litigation and a great deal of bitterness among relatives, and so on. That kind of problem can be solved if people can receive advice and assistance. I hope that, even where a person's means are modest, it will be possible for him to get help with the drafting of his will under this Bill.
  Many other problems are brought to solicitors almost every day which do not involve disputes. Sometimes people need advice about where to put a washing line, a dustbin or a fence. Solicitors spend a great deal of time dealing with disputes which follow from making the wrong decision even about what appear to be fairly trivial issues.
  I hope that there will be a good deal of publicity about the purpose of the Bill. The lawyer is not a gladiator, but a prevention officer. The lawyer's job ought to be seen by the public in the context of a fire officer whose job is to prevent fires taking place. The extent that he has to put out fires is, in a sense, a reflection upon the inadequacy of his efforts. Likewise, lawyers like to be seen as prevention officers.

  1639
  I turn now to some of the detailed provisions of the Bill. I will try not to repeat many of the points which have been made by other contributors to the debate. There has been an almost unanimous view from all who have taken part in the debate that the capital limit of £125 is far too small. I understand that the proposal to keep the disposable capital limit at £125 was not in the report of the Advisory Committee. It has somehow crept in without knowing its author.
  For example, it may be that somebody has £125 in the bank because he is about to go on holiday. Having paid his deposit on a holiday for himself, his wife and two children, a dispute may arise between himself and the travel company. That man may have had to save for a long time for that holiday. The disposable capital limit of £125 means that he would have to spend part of his holiday money to resolve the dispute. I hope that the view of most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, that the limit is too low, will be taken into account and that we shall see it increased to at least £300, which is the comparable social security capital disregard, and as high as £500 to bring it into line with the Legal Aid and Advice Scheme. The disposable capital limit in the 1949 Act was £75 at a time when the average income was £6·50 per week. So, even on the basis of upping it from the levels of income and capital in 1949, it would be fair to bring it up to a figure of about £500.
  I understand that Clause 2 covers such matters as the preparation of a written case for a tribunal and the drafting of documents, although it excludes instituting proceedings or steps in proceedings except for the purpose of settlement. The wording of the Clause does not make this absolutely clear. It should be made clear that a solicitor who undertakes work under the £25 scheme can draft documents, deal with matters like wills, try to prepare agreements, and go rather further than advice and assistance. I am thinking particularly of the proviso which follows paragraph (b) at the top of page 2:
  "and applies to any assistance given by a solicitor or, if and so far as may be necessary, by counsel to any person in taking any such
  1640
  steps as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection."
  Paragraph (b) relates to the taking and bringing of proceedings. I cannot understand why that extension to assistance does not apply to paragraph (a) which covers only general advice where no litigation is contemplated. I understand from the Law Society that it is the intention that the wording of the Bill should cover the drafting of documents and rather more than mere advice, whether that be oral or written. I hope that that can be made absolutely clear.
  I welcome the arrangements for the court to invite a solicitor before it to defend someone, as a sort of instant lawyer. The £25 scheme ought to extend to emergency cases, which often involve injunctions, so that if someone consults a solicitor and the case is on the following morning, the solicitor can, on his own initiative, spend up to £25 in representing that person in urgent and imminent proceedings, instead of sending the client to the court and saying, "Tell the judge that I am waiting in the precincts. If the judge requests me to appear I can, but unless he requests me to do so there is nothing I can do under the aid scheme." That is a little ludicrous. I hope that the £25 scheme can cover emergency situations, such as those that have been described in the debate.
  Part II of the Bill enables the Law Society to employ solicitors to assist advice bureaux. I do not see why barristers could not be employed by the Law Society to fulfil this function as well. There is a gap between barristers and the public in that barristers—this is no reflection on them—tend to be drawn from a higher social strata than solicitors. In their first year at the Bar, during which there has to be pupilage and it takes time to pick up briefs, barristers without any form of private income, find it difficult to succeed. I do not see why there should not be an extension of these opportunities of employment in advice bureaux for young barristers, thereby perhaps helping working-class barristers. In general, I hope that in future there will be much more interchange between the two professions than is the case with the artificial barriers which exist at present.
  Part II is intended to meet the gap that exists in legal assistance in many

  1641
  areas. The evidence of this gap is well documented in "Justice For All" and in "Rough Justice". Although we have one solicitor per 2,275 of the population, there are areas in London, such as Bethnal Green, which has only two firms for a population of 46,000, and Poplar, which has only one firm for a population of 68,000, where that gap is serious.
  Second, a gap exists because people do not always consult a solicitor, simply because they do not even perceive that they have a problem. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) mentioned some of the evidence from the Milner Holland Report. Of tenants actually involved in cases of illegal or unorthodox eviction, 68 per cent. had taken no legal advice. These were not theoretical matters; they were affected by unorthodox and illegal methods. Of tenants of unfurnished accommodation questioned in North London, 60 per cent. had never heard of the rent officer. I should have thought it absolutely essential that we try to bridge this gap. That is why we welcome the Bill.
  Another gap which is, perhaps, more imaginary than real is that between ordinary working people and professional men. It is what one could call a gap in the classes. I think it is imaginary because very often when a person goes to the local town hall, church hall or advice bureau, he will be seen by a solicitor or barrister. But somehow he is strange and alien, and there is a class feeling about him, when he is in his office, yet he is regarded as someone friendly and helpful at the local advice bureau. It is often an illusory gap but nevertheless it exists. That is why my hon. Friends and I are so keen to see help given to the neighbourhood law centres as well as the £25 scheme and the liaison officers. People very often prefer to go to a church hall or to their local, known community centre rather than to a lawyer's office. Also, their problem may not be only a legal problem. It may be a problem about social security which it is only afterwards perceived also has something to do with the law.
  There is a class distinction between a section of the public and lawyers. It is an imagined fear that one is dealing with someone different who will make one nervous, and one will be deferential and
  1642
  feel out of one's depth. This feeling undoubtedly exists but it could be overcome partly by publicity. Certainly television programmes such as "The Main Chance" have gone some way to alter the public image of the lawyer.
  I make a specific suggestion about this difference, this feeling of alienation. It is a great pity that barristers still wear wigs and growns in court. An ordinary member of the public going to the court for the first time and seeing his barrister sees that he is dealing with someone dressed up in wig and gown. If doctors held their surgeries dressed like apothecaries of the 17th century people could be put off visiting them. It is seen at its most ludicrous during House of Lords appeals, where the most distinguished judges in the world enter, like kindly uncles, in lounge suits and the barristers, especially leading counsel, dress like people from a Restoration comedy. This creates a problem in the mind of the public. Why do they dress up like that? It is not necessary. Many barristers regard it as uncomfortable. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Speaker, of course. But perhaps if we did away with wigs and growns it may do just that little something to remove the gap which seems to exist in the minds of some people between the legal profession and the public.
  Regarding liaison officers we welcome the proposals that liaison officers he employed by the Law Society, but that does not go far enough. There is still a need for a local legal centre. It is no good having liaison officers for one of those vast areas where there are no solicitors or advisers and where there is no one to liaise with. We should encourage local aid centres, and not regard the £25 scheme as an alternative to encouraging local legal centres. I know the difficulties put forward, such as who is to pay for these schemes. There are problems, but they could be put forward on an experimental basis. Perhaps all sorts of fields of public enterprise and community effort could be involved. Perhaps we have too much armchair theory and not enough experiment. Until we experiment we do not know whether something will work. That is why we have experimentation in the Criminal Justice Bill. We ought to experiment with the local advice centres, which will be integrated with advice on other aspects of social policy,

  1643
  for instance, advice on housing, hospitals and social security.
  Perhaps all local legal centres cannot be paid for by the Law Society or by funds provided under the Bill. It may be that some money ought to be found for these centres for their non-legal work under the Urban Aid Scheme or some other provision. I hope that experiments in providing and sustaining the existing neighbourhood law centres can go forward.
  I pay tribute to all those that have met the unmet demand and spent a great deal of their time advising the public who visit the citizens' advice bureaux and places like Cambridge House, the Mary Ward settlement, town halls and so on, for no reward. I pay tribute to the lawyers who do a great deal of unpaid legal work in their offices, taking on unremunerative cases and spending a great deal of their time advising on a non-payment basis or visiting the advice bureaux. The trade unions also play an important part in providing legal advice. The only trouble about all these efforts is that they are unevenly spread between members of one profession and in terms of area. That is why we badly need the Bill.
  I now want to turn to the things which are not in the Bill but which we would like to see added to it. I start with this quotation:
  "I regret that legal aid is not at present to be available before tribunals, which are numerous and varied in character and have a very great bearing on the life of the ordinary individual."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 1372.]
  We all agree wholeheartedly with that statement, which was made by Mr. Manningham-Buller, as he then was. It is almost a quarter of a century since those words were spoken by the proponents of the Legal Aid Bill in 1949, and that advice about the legal aid system has not yet been taken.
  The proposition that legal aid should be available before tribunals can be argued even more powerfully today than in 1949. Some examples have been given today—hospital tribunals and so on. Or someone may go before an industrial tribunal to obtain redundancy pay or damages for unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act. The amount
  1644
  involved in the latter case could be up to £4,160. It is ludicrous, especially if a question of law is involved, that legal aid will not be available then although it is available to someone claiming £30 or £40 in the county court. There is no rhyme or reason for this distinction. A great deal of money is involved also in public inquiries under Part III of the Housing Act of 1957, which may involve a great deal of money for a house-owner or even the typical widow landlord of a slum house.
  I know that the Law Society has objected to a legal aid scheme covering tribunals and I understand the problem, that if all tribunal cases were covered the work of the Law Society would be weighed down. There are difficulties in blanket provision, but at least we could say that the £25 scheme should cover representation at the tribunal as well as preparing for it. If a solicitor were willing not only to prepare the case but to appear for his client within the limits of the £25, I do not see why this should not be allowed.
  Then, perhaps, an application could be made for a formal legal aid certificate to the Law Society when there was a case before a tribunal involving a difficult point of law or in which the applicant was likely to be at considerable difficulty because there would be cross-examination or he was himself a disadvantaged person. I hope that we can give a lot more consideration to the almost unanimous view of hon. Members today that this should extend to tribunals.
  I also hope that legal aid can be extended to dealing with bail applications to a judge in chambers. There is far too uneven a record in bail applications before magistrates. If they could be reviewed more often by judges, there might not be so much inconsistency.
  I endorse what some of my hon. Friends have said, that the £25 scheme and the court solicitors' scheme should be readily available to deal with bail applications and that the inviting of the solicitor to make the application should be not only at the request of the court but also at the request of the person detained. His liberty is at stake and he should have legal aid, if only to deal with the question of a remand.
  I am also sorry that the Bill does not deal with the granting of legal aid in

  1645
  criminal cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) raised this point in a debate on 18th June, 1971, and figures have also been given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton. For instance, in West Midlands towns, there was a variation of refusals from 63 per cent. in one magistrates court to 3 per cent. in another. In London, it varies from Marlborough Street, which refuses 63 per cent. of applications, to Hampstead, which refuses 4 per cent. This is a quite unjustifiable difference of performance between one court and another.
  That debate was six months ago. Having made some inquiries recently, I understand that there is still grave dissatisfaction at the way in which legal aid applications are dealt with by the magistrates' courts. What happens in some courts is that, although a person risks a custodial sentence and is absolutely without means, the court keeps telling him to apply again. I understand that this happens in Camberwell Court. It is not good enough that a person should have to keep going back to the court to make his legal aid application, especially if it is ultimately granted. There is far too uneven a performance between one court and another; something should be done to create more fair, just and consistent attitudes.
  Every hon. Member has said that the Bill is welcome. It implements the intentions of Parliament in 1949 and I hope that it will, after receiving the Royal Assent, be put into force as quickly as possible. We hope that it will go a long way to meet the present unmet need for legal aid, although we must be constantly vigilant to see how well it does and to consider whether there are any other ways in which we can solve the problems of unmet legal advice, and even to discover new ways to discover problems.
  The Bill deals with procedural law, but the use that we make of legal aid, advice and assistance could apply to changes in the substantive law as well. This has been the experience in the United States, where the neighbourhood law firm is much more popular because it not only seeks to remedy existing grievances but tries to change the law itself. The difference between this country and the United
  1646
  States is that, by going to the Supreme Court, one can get really liberal law making. This is not the process in this country, which accounts for some of the differences in attitude.
  Already, things like legal aid advice centres in North Kensington have not only pointed to an unmet need for procedural help but have also pointed to defects in our substantive law. Perhaps we should first concentrate in some cases not on giving legal advice about existing problems but on changing the nature of our substantive law, so that the problems do not arise.
  For instance, by giving security of tenure to furnished tenants, we would remove the need for many people ever to go to a solicitor in the first place. Second, we discovered from giving legal advice that there was a need to change the substantive law and to make employers insure against accidents to their employees. We must therefore monitor our legal advice schemes and see whether they point to any need for a change.
  The Bill is to ensure equality before the law, but we must also be vigilant to see that the law provides for the individual equality in society. We welcome the Bill and we hope that it has a speedy passage and will be speedily implemented.
  7.50 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate.
  I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part for the general welcome they have given to the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) became a trifle tendentious in the opening of his speech, and if he would give me an undertaking that every Bill contained in the future programme of any future Labour Government, if any, will be acceptable to the society of Conservative lawyers I might be prepared to go along with some of his suggestions. However, this is a generally supported and generally welcomed Bill.
  One can say that almost nothing that has been said from either side of the House does not deserve careful study by everyone concerned with the working of our legal aid and advice system and the whole functioning of the legal profession and the courts.

  1647
  It is right that we should join in paying tribute to the lawyers, who have to some extent been the progenitors of the Measure, and I join in paying tribute to the many unpaid citizens who work in the agencies and bureaux of which we have been speaking. Many thousands of people ascertain advice made available by those agencies. Those who become involved in the tendering of that advice help to make more widely available the whole legal advice service.
  The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) tended to imply, I am sure inadvertently, that the provision of an unpaid legal service, which the profession in this country has generally followed, had been more faithfully provided north of the Border than south of it. If he were in his place I am sure he would agree that over the centuries lawyers throughout the country have given their services either free of charge or for very little reward, certainly until recently; and the criminal legal aid system which the hon. Member for Norwood mentioned is only one example of that.
  Before dealing with some of the more general points that have been raised in the debate perhaps I should correct an impression which I may have given in my intervention in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leith. I may have given the impression that after the Bill is implemented, in Scottish magisstrates' courts not only will legal advice be available under Clause 2 (4) but legal assistance will also be available. The position is that that will not follow from the Bill in Scottish magistrates' courts although it will follow in Scottish sheriff courts.
  The reason is that legal aid is not yet available in Scottish magistrates' courts, which deal with a much more humble and restrictive class of case than those dealt with in magistrates' courts south of the Border. I hope I have made it clear that the extension is to make advice and assistance available in sheriff courts and advice only available in Scottish magistrates' courts. This is in line with the existing state of the Scottish legal aid system.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) and the hon. Member for Norwood asked whether members of the Bar might not be
  1648
  involved in the provision of the services under Clause 7. As several hon. Members have acknowledged, members of the Bar have for many years taken part by, for example, attending at the Mary Ward and Cambridge House advice centres, at citizens advice bureaux and elsewhere. I cannot say anything more on this subject at present. I have no doubt that it will be considered by both professional bodies and that any further thought and response would need further consideration by others beyond the Bar Council and Law Society. I therefore simply note the proposal that was put forward in this connection.
  I pay tribute to the thoughtful contributions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). The speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull referred was made to the society of Conservative lawyers on 7th July, 1967.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport was right to stress the points made by a number of hon. Members about the desirability of considering possible extensions of the coverage of the legal aid and assistance scheme. He was right also to stress the importance of not over-stretching the limited resources of the legal professions, however one adjusts or expands the way in which they do their work.
  Several hon. Members mentioned the need for a more modern pattern of legal education. I do not want to comment on any particular set of remarks made by hon. Members on this subject because this has been a favourite hobby-horse of mine for a number of years. I am looking forward to reading the recommendations of the Percival Committee, points about which were trailed before the House by my hon. and learned Friend in his excellent contribution.
  Everyone is agreed on the need to tackle and prevent the impact of what have been called legal deserts. It should be remembered, though, that some of the legal deserts are in many ways deserts in other social senses as well. Some areas which lack the availability of solicitors or legal advice are often the same areas as those which lack the availability of adequate play space, preschool playgroups and so on—areas

  1649
  which, for example, as a result sometimes of advertent and sometimes of inadvertent social policies are single-class communities living in single type accommodation, largely municipal-owned, either presently or prospectively. When we speak of the necessity to ensure the proper distribution of legal services, we should also speak of the need to ensure that we are examining the much wider problem.
  There are no lawyers living in Tower Hamlets. Nor are there any doctors, teachers or dentists. If there are, there are only a few of them. There are, however, priests of all denominations. This is the problem of the community without the kind of leadership which comes from being a mixed community and these factors must be borne in mind if it is to be looked at on a wider front and not only in the context of legal aid.
  That is the sort of point to which I am sure all hon. Members will respond, just as they will welcome the fact that we have had two lay speakers in this debate, because the law is everybody's business and it is important that lay Members of the House and of other places put their points of view.
  The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) raised the important point of the availability of legal aid and assistance in respect of particular kinds of tribunal, and particularly the multiplicity of ways in which this point arises in connection with the hospital service. I am well aware of this sort of problem, having taken part in a number of such inquiries and tribunals. It is right that the hon. Gentleman should have drawn attention to this matter in a debate of this kind.
  The hon. Member for Barking then referred to the committee which was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to look into the question of complaints arising within the National Health Service. That committee is sitting under the chairmanship of my learned friend Mr. Michael Davies, Q.C. It has not yet reported. Whether or not the subject of legal aid and assistance at complaint bodies in the Health Service are within its terms of reference, I will see that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are brought to its attention.
  In the wider context of the availability or non-availability of legal aid for tri-
  1650
  bunals generally, a number of hon. Members argued the case for an extension of legal aid to a wide range of such tribunals. One is entitled to say that some of them need not be considered further now; for example on libel proceedings.
  The original recommendations of the Ruschcliffe Committee were against the availability of legal aid in such cases. That view was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee in its 17th Report and the question is being considered by a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Faulks. It is looking at the question of libel proceedings and we await its conclusions.
  Looking at the question of tribunals more generally, they have of course, become increasingly important in the sense of covering a wider range of topics, whether one looks at town planning, slum clearance inquiries or supplementary benefit appeal tribunals.
  The interesting thing is that there is a very substantial body of opinion, I should have thought growing rather than diminishing, which does not see a useful way forward in providing legal representation and legal aid in the traditional sense for such tribunals. The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee did not accept the case for legal representation before tribunals, except in the case of the Lands Tribunal, which it considered at the time of its 17th Report. The Bar Council argued this and, as the hon. Member for Norwood pointed out, the Law Society has advanced some arguments against it. Even the Francis Committee on the Rent Acts also said that there were substantial disadvantages about legal representation which one can summarise by saying that it would involve delay.
  It would not be for a lawyer to say "Hear, hear" to that, but it would militate strongly against the informality of proceedings. The committee acknowledged that the non-represented tenant needs assistance, but that kind of assistance comes from the tribunal itself. I think the House must acknowledge that although one is concerned about this and particular aspects of cases before tribunals, there is a respectable body of opinion which takes the opposite view.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Would not the Solicitor-General accept that some kinds

  1651
  of tribunal, particularly those dealing with national insurance, deal with matters which are highly technical? People who appear before them appreciate that on the other side there is a representative of the national insurance officer, usually with a very involved looking textbook, while on their side there is no one speaking for them who understands what is in issue.
  The Solicitor-General: I appreciate that point which has been canvassed. The point I am making is that there are different kinds of tribunal dealing with a whole range of circumstances. The question of representation with legal aid before tribunals was considered by the advisory committee not very long ago. The committee looked at this question case by case and last year I believe this House passed the last set of regulations applying legal aid to the whole area in respect of which the advisory committee recommended it. This does not mean that there should not be continuous consideration of this matter, but there are arguments the other way.
  Mr. John Fraser: Would the Solicitor-General agree that where a tribunal is dealing only with a point of law—for instance, some tribunals operating under social security provisions—legal aid should be available if the only point at issue is one of law?
  The Solicitor-General: I know that point can be advanced but I do not think that it was accepted by the committee. The question has been canvassed in so many places and on so many occasions that no one concerned could feel that he could disregard it for long. I cannot say more about it now save that the advice and assistance with which the Bill deals will enable anyone appearing before any of the tribunals we have been talking about to get such advice about how to present his case, how to send a letter to the tribunal and so on, which in a practical way he would not previously have been able to get. We are, therefore, advancing along the right road.
  There may be some possible misunderstanding about the capital limit of £125 and the £500 capital limit in the ordinary Legal Aid and Advice Scheme. The capital limits in the scheme generally were considered by the advisory commit-
  1652
  tee and reported on in April last year. The committee pointed out—this should not be overlooked—that in the ordinary legal aid scheme an assisted person contributes all his disposable capital above £125 and it may be that he is refused legal aid altogether if it is more than £500 and he can proceed without legal aid. The £125 in this scheme is not very different from the £125 limit in the other scheme because in this scheme the maximum contribution is of the amount I have indicated, £12. It is simply a question of whether someone with more than £125 should or should not be allowed to contribute £125 under this scheme. He cannot be required under this scheme to pay the entire cost of litigation. It is right to say that the advisory committee is now reviewing the capital limits generally. So this part of the scheme, as also the general legal aid scheme, will be considered by the committee.
  Disregards under this scheme are the same as those under the ordinary legal aid scheme, save that the test will be administered by a solicitor in his office and will generally be on a rather simpler basis, but the result should be the same. The hon. and learned Member for Leith asked whether it was right that 60 per cent. of applicants for advice and assistance should get that help free. One cannot give a definite answer to this. The number of those who get free legal aid is about 50 per cent. and there is no reason to suppose that it would not be the same here. Also in answer to the hon. and learned Member, there is no reason to suppose that Clause 2 provisions apply only to solicitors in private practice.
  In answer to questions asked by a number of hon. Members, the provisions cover advice with reference to the making of separation agreements and the negotiations of settlements are subject to any regulations made under the Bill and this would also cover advice on the making of wills. I say that because one can visualise circumstances in which complication could arise if this were quite general. Of course, they do not cover appeals about bail but they cover the availability of advice in respect of such appeals. I have noted the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have referred to the importance of that topic.

  1653
  One hon. Member asked whether Law Society solicitors can be permanently attached to the staff of law centres. I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) asked whether the Mary Ward and Cambridge House centres would be taken over by the Law Society. There is certainly no prospect of taking over existing going concerns. As a matter of theory, a liaison officer of the Law Society could be attached to them but that would not be usual in practice because of dual control. That is why one envisages a Law Society centre with Law Society liaison officers under the existing £25 scheme.
  The hon. and learned Member for Leith asked if it were the case that solicitors would be expected to collect contributions up to the limit. The answer is "Yes"; that is so. They would collect up to the limit just as at present they would collect a contribution from a private client in private practice to the extent of their charge and then collect the balance either from the opposing party, if there is one, or from the legal aid office. The particular point raised by the hon. and learned Member was whether that was acceptable as a system, and the matter has also been raised by the Law Society of Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate wrote on 1st February to the Scottish Law Society in these terms:
  "Where a contribution is payable … we consider it reasonable to ask the solicitor to claim the appropriate amount from his client, in the same way as he would claim his fee if the client's means took him outside the scope of the scheme."
  He went on to argue that up to that point it is not unreasonable.
  Hon. Members have pointed out that under Clause 4(3) the charge on moneys recovered could result in a situation in which all the moneys recovered went on paying legal expenses and none went to the person on whose behalf the claim was made. Several hon. Members gave examples of hardship where that could arise. I can only say on this point that it has been a familiar part of the legal aid scheme up to the present. Some solutions that were adopted—for example, under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, of excluding claims of less than a certain figure altogether so as
  1654
  to prevent the possibility of small claims being recovered and then taken in costs—would not apply in the ordinary legal aid scheme. I do not think that I can offer hope of any ready or immediate solution to that problem.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport, with his extensive experience of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Joint Consolidation Committee, drew attention to Clause 6(3) and queried whether it was proper for the power of modification of the Statute itself to be taken in the provision. We shall not have the advantage of his continued surveillance of us on this point in Standing Committee if those who make the decisions about these things have heard his plea, but a modification power for the application of the provisions to particular circumstances of that kind is by no means without precedent. I would not like to say without checking how frequently it is used, but if my hon. and learned Friend looks at Section 12(3) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, he will find there readily enough an example to reassure him that this is not a violently revolutionary power.
  I close on a point which many hon. Members touched upon—the need for everyone to promote amongst lay people far more than amongst lawyers an awareness of what the Bill is doing. We must ensure as far as we can that there is a proper response and that we make known as far as possible, in accordance with the advice given by the advisory committee, the availability of this new legal advice and assistance service, because it truly is a system for using lawyers as prevention or conciliation officers rather than as people one calls in when the situation has deteriorated much too far.
  Some hon. Members have tended to argue that there is a gulf of class between most lawyers and most clients in the legal desert which is at the heart of the difficulty of making legal services available there. I would not deny that in all situations lack of familiarity between the mores of people of different classes can sometimes create misunderstanding, but I think that the problem with the law is more related to the apparent aloofness and remoteness of the kind of work we do. It is as possible for an aggressively working-class solicitor to be remote and

  1655
  aloof as it is for an aggressively working-class doctor or surgeon. The main thing to remember is that, whether we sit in a white coat in an out-patients' department or don a wig in a county court robing room, we are dealing with people who come to these places as infrequently as they can and are in any event frightened to do so. We should try to represent as far as we can the humanity of service and overcome the gap which exists.
  My feeling is that advertising of an institutional kind, saying "If you want to get ahead get a lawyer", and so on, is not as effective as advertising of an institutional kind coupled with identification of the places where a person can get this service. I would like to see an extension not of appearances by lawyers on television but of advertisements in local newspapers to which people could refer when they have to say, "I want a lawyer. Where can I find one?" It is along these lines that the provisions of this widely-welcomed Bill will fulfil the proper service of helping citizens to get the rights to which they are entitled from an effective and modern legal system.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE BILL

    LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the purpose of making legal advice and assistance more readily available, including the employment of solicitors by the Law Society or the Law Society of Scotland for that purpose and for the purpose of giving legal aid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 or the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967.—[The Solicitor-General.]

  ELECTRICITY BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

  ELECTRICITY BILL
    Clause 1

      BORROWING POWERS OF ELECTRICITY AUTHORITIES
      8.15 p.m.
      Sir Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out '£5,200 million' and insert '£4,800 million'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the following three Amendments on the Order Paper, also standing in the name of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) were considered at the same time: No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out '£6,500 million' and insert '£5,450 million'.
      No. 3, in page 2, line 4, leave out '£950 million' and insert '£875 million'.
      And No. 4, in line 4, leave out '£1,200 million' and insert '£1,000 million'.
      Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful, Mr. Mallalieu. The four hang together and we shall save a great deal of time thereby. I tell my right hon. Friends in advance that no Divisions are proposed on this side of the Committee. I shall not ask your consent to hold separate Divisions.
      It is significant that 20 years ago a junior Minister of the Scottish Office, Mr. William McNair Snadden came to the House of Commons and asked for a huge sum of money for the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board in a fashion rather similar to the way in which my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is today asking for a great increase in the sum of money in capital account for all the electricity boards north and south of the border. Mr. Snadden suffered a severe shock when the then hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, Sir David Robertson, and I made critical speeches about the lack of parliamentary accountability over these very large sums of money the House seems to vote, albeit always on a very thin House, for these electricity boards.

      1657
      I for my pains got put on the Scottish Grand Committee. I held it up so many hours as a Sassenach Member that my right hon. Friends had to move the Whips in to clear me off after the fifth sitting of the Committee. But that is ancient history. Nevertheless, the principle is the same tonight.
      I move this Amendment in pursuit of an important principle. The Committee is being asked to approve increases in the borrowing powers of the electricity industry at limit from £4,400 million to £6,500 million—an increase of £2,100 million for the boards in England and Wales and an increase in respect of the Scottish boards from £800 million to £1,200 million, all of which in the aggregate represents what I called during Second Reading a very large sum of money which ought to occupy a few hours of the attention of the House of Commons.
      [Miss J. M. QUENNELL in the Chain]
      Capital expenditure by itself and in itself is not intrinsically good. What matters is the effectiveness and efficiency with which the capital expenditure is employed. I say that there is a great deal wrong with the electricity undertaking today and that it receives all too little parliamentary scrutiny. It gets away with it.
      As long ago as 1956 a group of 23 Conservative Members, including the Minister for Industry, was so dissatisfied with the parliamentary accountability and control over the capital expenditure of nationalised industries that they trooped into the Lobby and divided the House against their own Government. The Minister for Industry was one of them and I was one of the tellers on that important occasion. I moved a reasoned Amendment on the Second Reading of a Coal Industry Bill for exactly the same reason that I am protesting this evening.
      It is a fact that we are asked this evening to vote moneys for the Electricity Authority for a period ahead of about six to seven years, which is the best estimate that can be made at the present time by the bureaucrats in the Ministry as to the annual rate of expenditure on capital account for electricity generation and distribution. Not one of
      1658
      those bureaucrats or any Minister representing them in the House of Commons can ever tell us, year by year, seven years in advance, how much of the capital expenditure is to be found from the resources of the industry itself. It varies enormously year by year.
      Second, no bureaucrat and no Minister representing the bureaucrats, is ever able to tell us seven years in advance, any more than any commercial concern could tell us seven years in advance, what will be the result of trading, in terms of profit and loss, of the industry concerned. For example, there was a change of £120 million in the fortunes of the Electricity Council as between the years 1969–70 and 1970–71. In the first of those chargeable accounting periods the Electricity Council recorded a profit of £64 million. In the second of those chargeable accounting periods it recorded a loss of £56 million. I am not selecting those two years at random but because they are the last two chargeable accounting periods. I know all the arguments as to turnover in fortunes, control of the Government over the mechanics of the industry and its capital expenditure, and political interference of the Government in the day-to-day conduct of the industry and I am glad to have the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) with me. All this is true and we all know it to he true.
      The electricity industry has to parade its bodies before the Minister several times a year to justify what sums it needs in capital expenditure. I am not denying all this, but I am making the simple point that in a single span of two years there was this enormous transformation in the financial fortunes of the industry. It is utterly impossible for the Under-Secretary for Scotland. the Minister for Industry, the Prime Minister himself, or the best statistician in Britain to tell me what surplus or deficit the electricity industry will turn in in 1976–77 and 1977–78. Of course, it is not possible to estimate that far, and if that is not possible it follows that it is not possible to estimate how much of its capital expenditure the industry will find from its own resources; because the amount it finds year by year is most largely dependent upon the profit or loss of the industry.
      These are self-evident facts to business men. They are not always so self-evident

      1659
      to politicians because politicians are not business men; and as I have said over and over again, this House is the most ill-informed body in the world and ill-equipped, to boot, to run the affairs of a vast industry, especially when a great majority of the Members of this House know nothing of the affairs of the industry other than as individual subscribers and consumers. What I want to do by this Amendment is to cut the amounts in half and thereby cause the industry to come back to this House and ask for new approvals in about two to three years' time.
      Under the Bill as it is at present—and I say this to my hon. Friend with great respect, for he cannot estimate any more potently than I can—they might come back in 1974–75, 1975–76 or 1976–77. It depends on the momentum of expansion of industry and therefore the consumption of electricity without which our industry cannot function. I want to be allowed to stand up in this place, God willing, in the year 1974 and look at the finance of the electricity industry, instead of being expected to gasp along at the mercy of Ministerial statements until 1976. I want the Minister to come back sooner rather than later.
      I do not think he should be given this huge authority for something in the order of additional £2,500 million over seven years ahead. I want to look at the books half way, which is not an unreasonable sentiment or one that should not appeal to a Conservative Administration which always said before the last General Election, "We believe in open government. We believe in good husbandry. We believe in good accounting." [Interruption.] I am glad to get a cheer from the benches opposite. Those hon. Gentlemen ought to support this Amendment tonight and enable Parliament to exercise reasonable accountability and control over these huge sums of money. The last time I stood in this place doing this exercise was on 10th May, 1956, 16 years ago.
      Mr. James Sillars: The hon. Member does not look a day older.
      Sir G. Nabarro: I may not look a day older but the hon. Gentleman was not here then; he was still at school. But
      1660
      the principle was the same and my hon. Friends, including the Minister for Industry and myself, did wring something from a reluctant, oyster-like Administration. We did wring from it reluctantly a White Paper on nationalised industry investment. That was the origin of it. Then 23 Tory Members voted against the Government and we were able to wring from a reluctant Leader of the House in those far-off days an assurance that we would have three days a year to debate the reports and accounts of nationalised industry. That lasted for three or four years and then the Government gave up.
      Ten years have now elapsed without our ever having our parliamentary time apportioned to debate those reports and accounts. Here are last year's reports and accounts, the first of the Central Electricity Generating Board, the second of the Electricity Council. The losses turned in by those two bodies in the year that ended on 31st March, 1971, were £70 million—a £56 million loss by the Electricity Council and a £14 million loss by the Central Electricity Generating Board. It was not the fault of the boards. The Government would not allow them to increase their tariff. The National Coal Board delivered coal of low thermal value and poor calorific quality, with the result that their costs of combustion were substantially higher than they should have been.
      I know all these arguments, but the fact is that they lost this huge sum of money, and Parliament has never focused its attention on it, criticised or commended the loss—as I hope it would never do—or in any other way paid attention to it until tonight. As we had only a matter of two hours and 18 minutes on Second Reading, I hope we shall have a little more time tonight.
      8.30 p.m.
      I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who has just arrived straight from his Cabinet Sub-Committee. I must tack back for a moment and remind him of how he subscribed to the principles I am enunciating on 10th May, 1956, when he rebelled against his own Conservative Administration and came into the Lobby with me as one of the 23 Conservative Members who voted for increased financial accountability of nationalised industries. I find

      1661
      his contribution recorded for posterity in HANSARD. I was a teller on that auspicious occasion with the Viscount Hinchingbrooke. There recorded in the first column of names of those voting against the Government, that is, voting "No" on that occasion, is the name of
      "Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1537.]
      So I should receive my hon. Friend's sympathetic hearing for the words I am addressing to him.
      Now I turn to the figures. In my first Amendment I seek to reduce £5,200 million to £4,800 million, which is precisely correct statistically. It cuts in half the amount of the basic advances in the capital expenditure and borrowing powers to be authorised of the boards in England and Wales. Amendment No. 2 is to reduce from £6,500 million to £5,450 million the long-stop limit of what the Minister may sanction and approve, subject to affirmative Resolution, when the first limit of £5,200 million, as it is in the Bill, is passed, or £4,800 million, as it is in my Amendment, is passed. My third Amendment turns to Scotland. It seeks to reduce the interim limit, as it is called, from £950 million to £875 million. My fourth Amendment is to reduce the long-stop limit there from £1,200 million to £1,000 million.
      Those figures are all carefully worked out to halve the amount and, I presume, halve the length of time it would occupy the boards in the spending of the sums concerned, assuming all other factors to be equal. The Amendments underpin my fundamental argument that I want the Minister back to this House to seek new approvals not in about 1978, as the Bill envisages, but nearer to 1975, which would be the reasonable time.
      I know the answer in advance. I never ask questions unless I know the answer—not of Ministers. I have heard it all before. Electricity boards must plan their capital expenditure programmes seven years ahead, and therefore they must have the authority to spend the money seven years ahead, my hon. Friend will say. But that is manifestly false in this context.
      I am glad to see the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), a representative of the National Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers. What
      1662
      I am about to say to the Committee—and I address myself particularly to the hon. Gentleman—will have a sympathetic reception from every coal mining representative. As I am on the side of the miners—[Interruption.]—It is no good arguing about that; I will not be drawn into any disputation on the miners strike. I will deal with that later. I want to tell the coal mining representatives on the Committee that on Second Reading the Minister uttered a very important statement about choice of fuel for new power stations. He was kind enough to give way to me when I intervened on this very point. I said:
      "The House has in the past been subject to an impressed settlement on these matters. May we on this occasion have an assurance that there will be laid before the House a White Paper or explanatory memorandum which we may be able to debate, showing how the various considerations are arrived at in choosing a particular form of generation, coal-tired, oil-fired or nuclear fired?"
      Says the Minister in reply, in his wisdom:
      "These are other matters which one has to take into account in assessing the relative merits of available fuels for the power stations. This will be the subject of normal ministerial decision, as it has always been in the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 339.]
      That is just what I do not want. I think Ministers have been a shower of boobies year after year after year on this issue. I want some coal-fired power stations, but they are not coming.
      Take the Financial Times. The Financial Times is an organ which will command the respect of coal mining Members as well as that of other Members like myself on this side of the Committee. Everybody respects the Financial Times. I quote from that splendid article in the Financial Times on 8th February on the coal strike "The damage so far". I will give the copy of the paper to the Minister so that he can check. I apologise for not having given him any warning about this in advance, but his Ministry will no doubt have noted these prophetic words which are somewhat at variance with the Ministry's own pronouncements. This is what the article says:
      "At the moment the C.E.G.B. has no firm proposals for any new coal-fired units. All those for which it is awaiting a Government go-ahead are either oil or nuclear-powered, while the one outstanding coal station for which consent has been given, Drax B, in

      1663
      Yorkshire, seems unlikely to be built in the foreseeable future."
      If I were a coal mining Member I should rise in my wrath against the Ministry if that statement in the Financial Times should be true, because out of 143 million tons of coal mined in a full year—not this year, because of the strike, but last year—approximately one-half goes to power stations, and now there are no more coal-fired stations to be built. Whereas the Government say they are not going to decide the fuel for a power station till the eve of the building of the power station, the Government come to this House and ask for huge sums of money for building new power stations over seven years ahead. Because the coal industry is probably expecting to provide from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. of all the fuel burned in power stations, surely the coal industry has a vested interest in what is a ministerial decision day by day and month by month as to the type of fuel to be employed in new power stations. If it is right that the electricity industry should be voted money seven years ahead in order to underpin its policies, then it is right that the coal industry should be voted money seven years ahead and be told what fuel is going to be used by its principal customer which takes 50 per cent. of the output of all the coal mines of Britain.
      Thus, as I say, ministerial policy is a booby. It has always been a booby. Ever since the Ridley Committee was set up in 1952 on these very matters there has been constant chopping and changing without the consent of this House. without regard to the true interests of the coal industry which I strongly support. I believe, therefore, that it is very, very important that this evening we try to impress upon the ministerial mind that we do not want to give the Minister a blank cheque seven years ahead in the sum of £5,200 million of taxpayers' money financed from below the line expenditure in the Budget without frequent scrutiny of what he is up to—and there is a new Clause of mine on that point.
      Mr Arthur Probert: I have listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman for many years in coal debates and associated matters and I usually find myself in agreement with him. Would he
      1664
      not agree that Government after Government, including my own, have been driven into the trap, by so-called experts, of believing that nuclear energy would be producing power at a thermal unit of below 0·5 old pence and as a result Government policy has been driven up the wall, to the cost of an indigenous fuel?
      Sir G. Nabarro: That is largely true, but with deep respect to the Chair I do not want to allow this to go too wide into a discussion on the relative merits of individual fuels. I am largely in agreement with what the hon. Gentleman says. I agree that coal is ultimately the cheapest form of all fuels for electricity generation. It is vastly cheaper than oil and nuclear power when every consideration is taken into account—including the loss of miners' lives and the social consequences of shutting down pits and everything else we have heard about in every coal debate since nationalisation. We never take those into account.
      If it is worked out strictly on a monetary cost basis it might be found that oil was cheaper and this is the Electricity Board's case for preferring oil. So long as power stations are built in the right places, contiguous to the source of coal, then I believe that coal, having regard to all the other extraneous but related factors, is the cheapest form of fuel.
      This Amendment does not seek to deprive a nationalised industry of money. I am very fond of electricity. I claim to have more electrical appliances of different kinds in my household than probably any other Member of the House of Commons. It comes to some vast number.
      Mr. Palmer: Are those appliances in good working order?
      Sir G. Nabarro: Splendid. I maintain them myself. They are models of excellent efficiency. I am very concerned about the relatively low load factor of the electricity generating industry, the relatively low thermal efficiency with which the fuel is burned in the industry—my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry must listen to these pregnant words and stop whispering to his P.P.S. He can do that later. My hon. Friend said on Second Reading that between 1961–62 and 1970–71, a period of nine years—I am going slowly for my hon.

      1665
      Friend, I know it is difficult for him to take in the figures late at night—the sales of electricity in this country have increased by 50 per cent.
      He will find that in his Second Reading speech. That is an average increase rate, arithmetical progression, of 5½ per cent. per annum. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central and myself through the '50s and into the'60s were working for a condition in our economy whereby electricity sales would increase by 10 per cent. per annum, arithmetical progression, and double every decade.
      Mr. Palmer indicated assent.
      Sir G. Nabarro: I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Member. He is the only companion I have in the Committee who is a member of the Institute of Fuel. He labours, I toil. We both agree on this fundamental point that sales have not gone up by 10 per cent.per annum but have gone up by only 5½ per cent. per annum.
      As that period of nine years spans six years of Labour rule, and four years of Tory rule, I hope that we shall not have any hanky-panky of party politics, with references to the wicked Tories doing this and the gorgeous Labour Party doing something else. The economy of the country was so badly managed that we fell far short of 10 per cent. per annum and achieved only 5½ per cent. per annum, which meant a huge wastage of generation facilities provided.
      That is why I say that is utterly impossible for seven years ahead to estimate with any degree of accuracy the sums of money required by this capital-intensive, money-voracious industry, which consumes more of the taxpayers' money than any other single undertaking in Britain. I am deeply suspicious of the motives of my hon. Friend. He is asking for far more money than he should. He should accept my figures and return to the House in three years time to justify how he has spent that money before he asks for double the amount.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Palmer: I note with interest the statement of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that he and I were joined in fraternal association in the Institute of Fuel. He said that he was a companion. I am a
      1666
      full member, and he should keep that in mind.
      Sir G. Nabarro: I meant that we were companions in a fraternal sense. We are both members of the Institute, we are fraternal.
      Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman, in one of those commandments which he likes to bring forward occasionally—and I have heard him use this one before—said that politicians are not businessmen. Since he claims to be both a politician and a businessman, in the end he will have to chose on whose side to come down.
      I am grateful, and the Committee should be grateful, to the hon. Gentleman for putting down the Amendments which have made it possible for us to discuss this important Bill in perhaps greater detail than we were able to do on Second Reading. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of this industry, and of all nationalised industries, having full parliamentary accountability. He and I have no quarrel there. I agree that we need much more information about fuel policy and the tests which the Government and the electricity supply industry are making in the choice of fuels.
      It is difficult to predict the future of any fuel policy. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South referred to the Ridley Committee Report of 1952 having been hopelessly out in its predictions. That is not surprising since so much time has elapsed since 1952. Had the hon. Gentleman wished to be more topical, he might have referred to the White Paper on fuel produced by the Labour Government when Mr. Michard Marsh, now Chairman of British Railways, was Minister of Power. A great deal of time and effort went into the preparation of that White Paper, but its predictions are badly out although it was prepared only five years ago.
      It is extremely difficult to look ahead and say that the statistical curve will go in a certain direction or that the various projections will be in the form of straight lines. Members of the Committee will know that I have had connections with the electricity industry all my life and I am in touch with the broad opinion as well as with the union point of view in the industry. We in the electricity industry believe that we are right to make

      1667
      some choice between fuels and to have flexibility in our fuel policy.
      I argued on Second Reading that if Ince were to go ahead as an oil-fired power station, it was right that we should have some advance notice of any new large coal-fired power station. I feel that we must have a further nuclear-power station, and I propose Sizewell. Electricity supply is, of course, basic to the energy position, and indeed basic to our industrial life. Without electricity, civilisation as we now know it would collapse. Therefore, we must have some choice in the use of fuels for our electricity supply.
      Apart from the natural claims of coal—and there is a natural link between the coal industry and the electricity supply industry—it must be remembered that the electricity supply industry is the largest consumer of coal. We must bear in mind that the view of people who are competent to judge is that a time will come when all the possible fuels are exhausted. We shall not develop substitutes unless we begin in plenty of time. It is not a question of the cost of nuclear power but to a great extent a question of the survival of modern industrial economies as we know them. When the fossil fuels are exhausted we must have an alternative source of energy which must be developed to an enormous extent. Every year the demand for energy rises.
      The situation cannot be left with the attitude that, because of the needs of one fuel industry, we will not develop the other source of energy for some years because any such development must be spread. In arguing this matter with many of my hon. Friends who represent mining areas, and for whom I have an enormous respect, I have said that those of us who are trade unionists in the electricity supply industry also have our point of view and feel that there should be flexibility in the choice of fuels.
      The hon. Gentleman in moving the Amendment spoke of the so-called loss made by the electricity supply industry—I say "so-called" because the loss last year of £56 million was a deficit on financial working. It was the first loss since nationalisation and this should not be overlooked. It has been a highly profitable industry and its return in terms of industry to the Exchequer has been
      1668
      enormous. This has been the first year since nationalisation that the industry has gone into the red. I feel it is no coincidence that we have had to wait for a Conservative Government for this nationalised industry to be forced into this position.
      There are reasons for this, some of which have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. One is that costs are rising all the time. As a matter of Government policy, under both the present and the previous Administrations, the industry has taken coal where in certain circumstances and in certain places, had it been free to do so, it might have preferred to use oil. I do not offer that as an opinion. Socially it was a sound decision. But it is not the fault of the electricity supply industry.
      Then there has been the general slump in the economy. Instead of the increase in the demand for electricity running at between 7 and 8 per cent., on which the calculations were made, there has been only about a 4 per cent. increase. That has been due to general industrial depression and it has gone on for a long time under the Administration of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is not the fault of the electricity supply industry. The prosperity of the industry is a reflection of the prosperity of the economy generally.
      Then there has been the control of tariffs and prices. As a Socialist who believes in public ownership and advocates its extension, I take the view that publicly-owned industries must have a fair wind and no favour. It is astonishing that a Government containing Ministers such as the present Minister for Industry, who in the past argued against Government interference with publicly-owned industries and maintained that they should be properly accountable and follow commercial rules, should have interfered with the industry and its internal policies in the way that they have. They have stood in the way of what the industry wanted to do commercially more than any other Administration since nationalisation. No formal directive has been given to the industry not to advance its tariffs but broad hints have been given to board chairmen. It has been said in the Electricity Council's Report that the industry has not been able to adjust its tariffs

      1669
      to proper economic levels because of Government intervention.
      In these circumstances it has not been possible for the industry to increase its own reserves. It has had to borrow capital at the fantastically high interest rates which now apply. It is no good right hon. and hon. Members opposite turning on the industry, and I hope that it will not be said in Conservative propaganda at the next General Election that here we have another loss-making nationalised industry. Treated fairly and properly, the industry can show a productivity improvement and a prosperity in relation to the national good which is equal to any other industry in the country, public or private.
      If there were time, I could discuss the productivity record and the way in which the industry has reduced its manpower steadily. I do not carry the figure in my head but I believe that in the last decade the number of employees per million units sent out has almost halved. We have had redundancy on a considerable scale in electricity supply, and it has been carried through very satisfactorily.
      It is not fair for anyone to say that the industry is in the red for the first time since nationalisation and that it is the fault of the industry. When the Minister for Industry replies to this part of our discussion, I hope he will tell the Committee and, through it, the electricity supply industry for how long the Government propose to go on controlling the price of electricity and for how long they intend to intervene in a way which is not encouraging to those who manage the industry and certainly is not encouraging to workers of all grades in the industry. If this is to become a permanent part of the relationship between the Administration and the electricity supply industry, this industry, in which so many thousands of men are proud to work, will be very much disheartened for the future.
      [Mr. CRAWSHAW in the Chair]
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Alex Eadie: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate in consequence of the Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Naharro).
      1670
      I may be at variance with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), but what really prompts me to take part in the debate is what I think was the bad judgment of the C.E.G.B. and the S.S.E.B. I wrote what I thought was a fair and objective letter for inclusion in the columns of Power News expressing doubt about the board's nuclear power policy but I was told "No, we cannot have any other views bar those of the S.S.E.B. or the C.E.G.B." This is nonsense. I believe that the board's judgment was bad. It has been anti-coal. If we had allowed the boards to pursue their policy it would have been disastrous for this country.
      Mr. Palmer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Eadie: I am coming on to talk about nuclear power.
      Mr. Palmer: I did not want to talk about nuclear power; I wanted to talk about the letter which my hon. Friend wrote to Power News which was refused That was very bad. It should have been accepted. If my hon. Friend will send it to Electrical Power Engineer, which is the paper of my union which I edit, I shall be delighted to publish it.
      Mr. Eadie: I have done even better. I sent it to the chairman of the board, and he said:
      "I am very sorry. I cannot interfere with the editorial direction of the paper."
      This shows that we must have a discussion. It is time that we had not only a coal debate but an energy debate, because certain things are happening about which Parliament should know and should debate.
      I will now deal with nuclear power, taking it in the reverse order from that which I intended. In talking about money we are talking about nuclear power. That is the reason for the Amendment. We are talking about the money which has to be spent on nuclear power. The boards' judgment has been wrong, because no single Magnox power station is producing electricity cheaper than an equivalent coal-fired station. The Daily Express said that it is not likely to do so. We have spent over £2,000 million on nuclear energy.
      I have a vested interest. In consequence of this policy, thousands of miners

      1671
      were flung on the scrapheap. Good, economic pits were closed. The miners were not told that the pits were being closed to give them a more comfortable life. They were not told "We will bring you from underground to the surface because we want to give you a more congenial life and a pleasant environment". No. The miners were told that the pits had to close because coal was too expensive.
      We then embarked on a massive nuclear power programme; but, as I said, not one Magnox power station is producing electricity cheaper than an equivalent coal-fired station. It is a monstrosity and an economic madness. Yet the S.S.E.B. and the C.E.G.B. have the impertinence to talk about coal being too dear, to continue to lobby, for example, in favour of oil and to refuse to stand up to criticism whether it be of their policy regarding oil or nuclear power.
      I am talking about only the first generation. If anyone wants this to be a party political issue, I can tell the Minister—I hope that he does not mention it—what happened to the vast Magnox station programme, the first generation, after Suez in 1956, when the Government got the wind up about the Suez Canal and whether we should be able to import other sources of energy. But how much will the second generation of nuclear power plants, the A.G.R. type, cost. I doubt whether anyone can tell us. They are riddled with technical difficulties. But as a consequence of talking about this programme, we closed more pits with the same argument, that coal was too expensive.
      None of the A.G.R.s will produce electricity any cheaper than a coal-fired power Station. That is why Chapman Pincher wrote in the Daily Express, I presume, about £2,000 million being spent on a nuclear power programme, about which we have no information. In the midst of a coal strike it was leaked from the Cabinet that the Cabinet began to see this looming ahead and it began to dawn on it at last that coal had a much more important place in the economy than was thought. Many people in the country are realising that today, because there will be power cuts.
      1672
      We have been conned about coal. Time and again people have said that coal is out of date. Yet when we have a coal strike and the miners are abused from some sections of the public, from most of the general public they receive nothing but praise for their demands. When the miners are abused, people discover that they do not have coal in this country and that such mismanagement exists.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South for putting down the Amendment because it affords the opportunity for debate. I should like to quote chapter and verse on this matter. I have studied the position. The figures cannot be discredited. If the Minister had studied them, he would know that. Blunder after blunder has been made and the miners have had to pay for them, with their lives, their families and their jobs. We are appallingly ignorant about this matter but others in the world seem to realise the future rôle of coal in providing energy.
      After the two disasters of nuclear power, the first and second generation stations, we are now considering a third generation station. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central that fuels are wasting assets. Nuclear power may have some future many years hence but if we are now talking about the third generation of a water system of nuclear power, who will pay for it? Shall we then say that we will close the pits? There will be no question of contraction in oil and gas. It is the pits, as usual, that will have to be closed if we are embarking on a third generation of nuclear power stations. There should be some accountability by the C.E.G.B. and the S.S.E.B. Their judgment has been bad. They are anti-coal. Their propaganda has been anti-coal. They are on record as making error after error about coal. We are entitled to say that.
      As I said, in other parts of the world people are beginning to realise what is happening. I have some official documentation with me. I have had a busy day and have not been able to go into the detail that I wished. For example, it is said that world energy requirements cannot be met without coal and that everything points to coal gaining swiftly in importance for meeting future world energy requirements. That is the conclusion arrived at in a survey carried out

      1673
      by a Brussels financial journal. There is evidence that world reserves of coal are greater than those of oil and natural gas put together. Furthermore, coal has the advantage that its reserves are distributed more uniformly across the world and also tend to lie more in the regions of heavy energy consumption. These are the facts of the situation. This is what the electricity boards do not consider in their talk of so-called commercial judgment. Miners are out of a job because of this kind of talk.
      Other industrial countries have not been so stupid about their natural resources. Energy consumption is growing. In the U.S.A., a bastion of modern industrial capitalism, coal still is regarded as important. The United States produced 600 million tons of coal equivalent in 1932 and 2,300 million tons in 1969. Other parts of the world realise that coal is vital, yet our boards say that they must have a choice and use their commercial judgment. We might disagree about the emphasis but we should be grateful for the opportunity to debate these things, the more so when some regions are going to freeze because of the stupidity of the handling of the present dispute.
      I have read that, if oil is to maintain its current share in the world energy balance sheets, it will, according to a forecast by British Petroleum, have to supply 9,200 million tons a year towards the end of this century. This means that 160,000 million tons will have to be pumped over the next 30 years, whereas reserves known to exist today amount to only 73,000 million tons. The papers are full of propaganda. We are told that North Sea gas has made a great impact. We should be grateful for these indigenous reserves, but in terms of world consumption this is only a flea-bite. To talk of running down our other natural resource is nonsense.
      Someone should ask the electricity boards to cut out their propaganda. I am no enemy of the boards—there are some fine people working in them—but I wish that they could consider the whole country and the balance of payment costs. It is very problematical whether we will be able to get the oil. There is a rapid escalation in price. In its £12 million deal just concluded, the B.S.C. will have to pay £3 per ton for oil. We do not know what agreement it is trying to negotiate at the moment.
      1674
      There are strategic arguments for coal which do not apply to North Sea gas and oil. In a conflict, if we depended on those fuels we should be very vulnerable.
      I have been glad of this opportunity to speak on behalf of the coal industry. I hope that, somewhere, someone will wake up to the fact that instead of contracting this industry we should be expanding it. The Government must wake up to the fact that they will shortly have a fuel crisis on their hands if they do not reach a fair settlement which will satisfy the miners in the struggle in which they are now engaged.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Adam Hunter: I fear that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) by telling him that I cannot support his Amendment. Although the hon. Gentleman is alone on the benches opposite in advocating his case, collectively we on these back benches cannot match his oratory, let alone his histrionics.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) dealt with the subject in detail. I will deal with it in general terms. I oppose the Amendment because it is obvious that we will need much more electricity generation in the near future. America is worried about the extent of its power generation, and one need only note the number of electrical gadgets which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has in his home to appreciate how much more electricity will have to be generated as we become more affluent.
      Indeed, if everyone in Britain were as wealthy as the hon. Gentleman and could afford all the gadgets he owns, the borrowing requirements of the electricity industry would be greatly increased. This state of affairs is bound to arise when our homes and factories are equipped with more electrical appliances; and America's problem today will inevitably be ours tomorrow.
      Arguments rage about the cheapest types of fuel for producing power. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian referred to the fossil fuels of natural gas, oil and coal. There is a great likelihood that in the near future—and I mean the very near future—stocks of natural gas and oil will have been completely

      1675
      exhausted. I understand that that point will be reached within 50 years. When it is realised that the world has sufficient resources of coal to last, at the present rate of consumption, for 300 years, it is clear that coal should be the fuel attracting our greatest attention.
      Nuclear power has failed to reach expected power generation targets. Coal is, therefore, the answer. Scientists and industrial experts are pinning their faith on the new breeder reactor and they consider that this type of nuclear generation will be available before the two fossil fuels are exhausted.
      The Chairman of the National Coal Board said a few months ago that we should be getting ready to introduce more coal-fired power stations. I hope that will come in the near future. This may entail extra costs for the electricity boards, but I am convinced that as an insurance for the future the borrowing powers concerned in this Bill will be necessary. To suggest, as the Amendment does, that they should be pruned is irresponsible and not far-seeing. Power stations are closing down. One closed in Portobello only today and in the weeks ahead more will close down because of the coal strike. Although they closed, certain care and maintenace will have to be carried out. That will mean that men have to be employed and they have to be paid. Reduced receipts from consumers will mean that the electricity boards will have greater difficulty in balancing their accounts.
      We should appreciate that the coal strike will deplete the balance of generating boards. On that basis alone, and in view of the chaos and disruption which will be caused in the industry and to the people of the country, we should demand that the Government should intervene in the dispute and see that the miners get their justifiable demands.
      Mr. Alan Williams: Like other hon. Members, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) for giving us the opportunity of this somewhat wide-ranging opening discussion. I had not intended to take part in it and I shall speak very briefly, but there are certain questions which have arisen that should be dealt with by the Minister.
      1676
      My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) rightly pointed out that in so far as we exercise price curbs on the industry, inevitably we increase its borrowing needs. I believe the Minister made this point a justification for borrowing powers in the Second Reading debate. The sheer magnitude of the increase in borrowing powers in the Bill means that the Government envisage some control of prices in the industry over a longer term. Is this merely a C.B.I. initiative, or are the Government contemplating, after giving the boards the borrowing powers, exercising control over a longer period? That would go against their doctrines, but nevertheless we should be told about this this evening.
      We need guidance on the initial points made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South when he took us into interesting discussions which he and his colleagues had in earlier debates about accountability versus undue parliamentary intervention. There is a real problem here which perhaps we have not faced. To some extent in this sector of industry there has been such a change at the technical level in the period since those discussions that perhaps we should look again at methods by which we exercise parliamentary scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian touched on a fundamental point when he said that it is about time we had a debate on energy. In a sense, part of the difficulty is that we have too many sectional discussions and debates on particular aspects and do not get round to a full and total discussion of the whole energy problem.
      This is singularly difficult in discussing the electricity industry, because it is one of the industries in which technical advance is at its most rapid. The Magnox failures were a demonstration that we were carrying out a massive public investment right at the frontier of technical knowledge. One can therefore run into such difficulties as corrosion, which bedevilled Magnox, and these can hold up the future conception of where development should lie. There are several factors in dealing with the energy situation which make what one hon. Member called the extrapolation of statistical trends in order to devise medium and long term

      1677
      plans very difficult. It is difficult to extrapolate not only total demand for energy but relative demand—that is, demand for individual components within fuel supply.
      Yet, as has been said, we cannot abandon our attempts to have medium and long term planning. It is too fundamental. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) pointed out that it is fundamental to our whole concept of the industrial society. We simply cannot abandon our attempts to improve our planning techniques. The background factors, not only technical but in relation to costs, are continually changing. This point, too, has been brought out in the debate.
      The electricity industry, therefore, needs flexible planning—more flexible than perhaps the normal governmental machinery will allow for. It needs continuous revision of planning. This goes against the normal White Paper type of approach in dealing with different aspects of our economy. The danger of the White Paper approach, with the one set debate, is that a Government can produce, say, a White Paper in 1967 and spend the next five years defending it to show that they were not wrong in 1967, instead of recognising—and perhaps this is a fault of the political system in the way we make party points whenever we can—that, if we are to have flexible and continuous planning, as one must when working in such areas of uncertainty, what we need rather than set piece debates every five years is more continuous contact between industry and Parliament, between the planners in industry and back-bench Members as well as Ministers, so that each can assess the importance of changes taking place.
      Industry is as vulnerable as the Government—whether the Government be Tory or Labour—to standing by a decision once made and defending it well beyond the time when it is really not defensible. I hope, therefore, that the Minister for Industry can put forward suggestions as to how we can deal with the total energy problem and achieve a closer and more meaningful scrutiny of the cost, technical and demand changes taking place in the electricity industry, with which we should keep in touch.
      As hon. Members on both sides have pointed out, one cannot forget that elec-
      1678
      tricity is fundamental to the morale of one of the major fuel sources—the coal industry. The uncertainties have been intimated—for example, in the Financial Times quotation given by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. There is also the doubt that has been cast over the proposals in relation to Drax for the coal firing of a power station. The Minister should give us the most up-to-date information he can in relation to Drax, because the miners will want to know if there have been even more changes of policy in relation to future demand for coal.
      9.30 p.m.
      The handling of the present coal strike has also been brought into the debate. I would only put two points on this. If the Minister and the Government persisted in their endeavour to defeat the miners, then two things would emerge from it. First, the run down of manpower in the mines would become even more rapid than it has been in the past. Secondly—and something at which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman really should look very seriously—if the Government defeated the miners, as they obviously would like to do, that would bring nearer the day when Governments are confronted with a combined public sector wage attack or wage negotiations. If one thinks of the fears that were expressed because of the coincidence—and it was a coincidence—of the timing of the miners' dispute with the dispute that possibly could have arisen this week in electricity supply, and if one thinks that in future if one of these were defeated—if the miners, for example, were defeated on this occasion—we could have the various power unions getting together and putting concerted pressure upon the Government. [Interruption.]
      The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden)rose——
      Mr. Williams: If I may finish this point, then the hon. Gentleman can see why it would be so dangerous, not only in terms of morale but in the long term so far as he is concerned, in achieving the kind of free negotiation I gather he is about to tell us he wants to have taking place.
      Sir J. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is making a fairly long reference to the dispute which is currently the subject of

      1679
      discussions which have engaged the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I would only ask him to accept that it is no part of the purpose of the Government in any sense or form whatsoever to—to use his words—defeat the miners. This is not the approach at all. That is no part of the objective. This really has nothing to do with the subject under debate, I must admit. But the hon. Gentleman having strayed so far into the matter, let me hasten to assure him that that is no part of the make-up or intention of the Government.
      Mr. Williams: I am delighted to have this reassurance. Perhaps our suspicions are ill-founded. Perhaps it is just that we all have memories of the way an attempt was made to achieve [Interruption.]
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Crawshaw): Order. I think I have been rather generous on this point. We are discussing something which does not come within the scope of this Amendment.
      Mr. Williams: I believe it does, in that we are discussing future proposals for the expansion of the electricity industry, and that expansion inevitably depends upon whether it continues to have a 50 per cent. fuel supply, namely, via coal. I was about to leave that point with one sentence, if you will allow me, and to say that our suspicions on this side, if ill-founded, are probably a hangover from the Government's intervention in relation to the Post Office workers a year ago. I have listed the various points in the two Amendments to which I feel the hon. Gentleman should give attention in his heply. I hope he will make a point of dealing with these.
      Sir J. Eden: I must apologise to the Committee and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) for the fact that I missed the opening part of the debate. I hope I did not miss too much of his contribution to the Committee. I was glad to be able to hear what I did and particularly glad that he reminded me of those happy carefree days year ago when together we marched side by side—or rather I marched under his
      1680
      whipping—into the Lobby to vote on a particular Motion which he had introduced. Of course, that was not the only occasion on which we found ourselves together. There were many such occasions, and I recollect them with great pleasure.
      The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to take the opportunity of this debate to remind me of the point of view which by my vote in support of his Motion I then represented. He will recollect, having looked most carefully at the wording of the Motion on which we voted, that it was concerned with a particular situation in the coal industry. The terms of the Motion were that
      "this House … declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will extend the ability of the National Coal Board to borrow without adequate parliamentary control, and which permits a large increase in public expenditure upon an undertaking which has made continual losses despite heavy capital investment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1452.]
      A number of factors there single that out and put it in rather a different context from this debate. The major difference is the reference to the continual losses in spite of heavy capital expenditure.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) was right to remind the Committee that last year was the first in which the electricity supply industry had made a loss. It is true that it has had enormous sums of capital expenditure invested in it. But, as has been fairly recognised by all hon. Members, it is a highly capital-intensive industry, and we should not have electricity supply on tap to the extent we have but for the continual annual substantial investment of capital in new plant and facilities and in developing the system. That is essential in the industry. It consumes capital at a tremendous pace.
      But I understand my hon. Friend's major point, which was to ensure that there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny of these matters and that Parliament is given an opportunity to debate regularly the affairs of the industry, which is in receipt of such a large sum of publicly-provided finance. The principle my hon. Friend enunciated is absolutely right, and I am sure all hon. Members share his view. But there are a number of different ways to achieve what my hon.

      1681
      Friend wants. It need not be done by means of an annual order. It certainly should not be done by means of an annual Bill, because that would be impossible. An opportunity is provided by what has become an annual feature of our proceedings, the regular debates on the capital expenditure White Paper, in which forecasts of the capital expenditure requirements of the electricity supply industry are given. It covers a four-to-five-year span and gives as far as possible the rolling programme ahead, anticipating the annual tranches of capital that will be required by the industry. It would be perfectly possible, and wholly appropriate, for a debate on that White Paper to be concentrated on the electricity supply industry if that were the choice of the House. It constitutes a major debate.
      I must address my mind not only to some of the very interesting points raised during the debate but also to the Amendments——
      Mr. Alan Williams: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he has listened very patiently to a fairly long introductory debate, but before he leaves the point about an annual debate I must say that I am not sure that the set-day debate is the right sort of occasion for the very detailed analysis which hon. Members on both sides want. With all good will, a full day's debate is inevitably somewhat superficial. The Minister in winding up cannot deal with all the points. It would often be helpful to have the technical experts. We require something more interrogatory than an annual day's debate.
      Sir J. Eden: It is very difficult to get the formula absolutely right for the sort of scrutiny to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I agree that the Committee stage of a Bill like this gives hon. Members a golden opportunity to examine the detail. Of course, what the hon. Gentleman has said is right, but the tendency of these debates is to cover such a wide range of detail as to make it almost impossible to answer each point when replying to a debate. Incidentally, if that should be the case with me in this debate I hope that hon. Gentlemen will understand. If there is any particular point I omit, I shall do my best, of course, to follow it up. There are also
      1682
      published by the C.E.G.B. itself excellent statistical booklets containing all the detailed information, and I know that they are available in the Library of the House. They constitute a great source of information.
      Mr. Eadie: Send them to us.
      Sir J. Eden: They are available to the hon. Gentleman and I know that he is perfectly capable of looking after himself.
      One thing which will have been noted by looking at the statistics is the extent to which coal consumption has increased—I think it is something like three times—since the end of the war. This has been the trend of the way things have gone. The tendency is to imply that less coal is being consumed by the electricity industry at the present time. Obviously, by comparison to what it was in the early post-war years, the annual rate of consumption has grown very substantially indeed, until we are talking now of almost 70 million tons, a very considerable proportion of the total output of the Coal Board itself, and it is obviously right, in these circumstances, that the supply industry needs to ensure a reasonable balance.
      It recognises the degree of its dependence on coal—certainly at the present time, unfortunately; but it recognises it at any time. I speak of it as a sort of neutered industry; I am thinking of individuals who run that industry. I know they recognise their social obligations towards sustaining or assisting in sustaining the mining industry, but equally they have a very difficult job to do, and that is to ensure that their own industry's books are balanced, that they show a proper return from the substantial sums of capital invested in the industry, and so they have to watch costs very closely indeed and get a reasonable balance.
      One of the points my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South has proposed in his Amendments is that the interim borrowing limit to be made available to the boards and the Electricity Council in England and Wales should be reduced to what would become a level of £400 million above the present limit. The present limit is £4,400 million and my hon. Friend is suggesting that it should be £4,800 million. Quite honestly, that would be fairly quickly taken up.

      1683
      The effect of that Amendment would be that the Electricity Council's borrowing powers would be fairly rapidly consumed. It was expecting to need to borrow £250 million in 1972–73, and it will need a further £300 million by 1st April, 1973, in order to redeem compensation stock. Under the Amendment an order raising the borrowing limit would then be needed before the end of March, 1973. This would be an unusual step to take. It is a step which I recognise my hon. Friend may well wish to have taken but it would mean that what has been, I think, fairly well accepted as reasonable practice in the past would give way to a regular annual debate on an order of that kind. It might—I do not rate this very highly in my argument for my own case—make it more difficult for the industry itself to plan ahead with any degree of certainty and security.
      9.45 p.m.
      Sir G. Nabarro: I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening. I am not sure whether he had returned from his Cabinet papers at the point where I quoted the intervention I made in his Second Reading speech when I referred to Ministerial decisions being impressed as a settlement on the House of Commons. That is what I am objecting to. I want the House to be able to debate Ministerial decisions. To reduce it to its most obvious example—the case given by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)—if the C.E.G.B. goes on preferring nuclear-powered and oil-fired stations to coal-fired stations, I want to be able to challenge the Ministerial decision. At present there is no available parliamentary method of doing that. I have to wait six years to 1977–78 for another Bill or I can do it on an affirmative Resolution a couple of years hence. On that system we have an hour and a half between 10 o'clock and 11.30 at night which is wholly inadequate for matters of this magnitude.
      Sir J. Eden: My hon. Friend can debate the industry on the affirmative Resolution procedure before the end of the six-year period and this is the purpose of having the interim limit arrangement. It is an arrangement which owes a great deal to my hon. Friend who is largely responsible for ensuring that it was not done in a single tranche but that there
      1684
      was this step-by-step approach. We need to be fairly reasonable and rational and not to do it too frequently but we should ensure, by other means, that a careful watch is kept over the affairs of the industry which is in receipt of such a large amount of money.
      The maximum borrowing limit is also to be reduced through an Amendment tabled by my hon. Friend. On its own the Amendment does not really serve any particularly useful purpose. The Bill provides for any increase in the borrowing limit beyond £5,200 million to be made by order subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. In that way it will be taken up and will provide an opportunity for debate. It may be claimed by my hon. Friend that there is a large gap between the interim limit and the ultimate limit. I am sure we accept that it does not follow that the first borrowing powers order extending the limit to beyond £5,200 million would extend it to the whole of the extra £1,300 million. We have had experience of this before when it has taken more than one step to do this.
      There are fairly regular opportunities for Members to question Ministers about the discharge of their responsibilities for the money spent in and through the industry. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) returned to the point he made on Second Reading about the impact of the C.B.I. initiative on the finances of the electricity boards. There is no doubt that tariffs are lower today than the industry would wish. This is certainly in recognition of the initiative taken by the C.B.I.
      It is true that the Government have no statutory powers over electricity tariffs, which statutorily are the responsibility of the electricity boards, subject to the normal consultative processes with consultative councils for the areas concerned. It has been the long-established practice under all Governments for each board to consult the appropriate Minister before introducing major price changes, and where Governments have tended to exercise a degree of influence this has been made clearly known. It was certainly so in the period from October to December, 1970, when the Electricity Council came to the decision to recommend a limitation in the increase of domestic tariffs. That undoubtedly will have had

      1685
      some effect on the total revenue of the boards.
      It is hard accurately to quantify this effect. I have been trying to get out figures which might help the Committee in relation to the impact of the C.B.I. initiative but it is not a straightforward process. I have rough figures of the possible effect of restraining prices, but they ignore any economies in cost which have come about at the same time.
      If the price increases of 5 per cent. which the boards are now introducing, 12 months after the previous price increases, had been six months earlier, the electricity boards might have expected extra revenue of about £25 million in the present year. Alternatively, if the price increases had been twice as large, they would have brought in an extra £50 million in a full year. These are rounded figures which do not precisely meet the point which hon. Members had in mind, but they give the order of magnitude as far as I can judge.
      My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when announcing the C.B.I. initiative in July indicated that he would take into account its effect on public sector industries. Accordingly, we are seeking detailed information from the industry about the likely impact of price restraint on its finances, with a view to determining what financial arrangements may be needed to restore the industry to a commercial footing. I cannot spell out the future more closely, but I hope what I have said gives an indication of present thinking.
      Mr. Palmer: The electricity boards are members of the C.B.I. It therefore perhaps would not be unreasonable, given the assumption of the C.B.I. restraint, for electricity boards to adhere to it. Are the boards subject to additional Government pressure on prices as well?
      Sir J. Eden: I was referring back to 1970–71 when there was a proposal, which I think was generally known, to raise domestic tariffs substantially. At that time, in the normal processes of consultation with Ministers, the view of the Government was made known and accepted.
      Sir G. Nabarro: While I certainly approve of what the Minister has said—and obviously this financial process is
      1686
      now due, if not overdue—he must couple with his statement a realisation that the industry is required by the Treasury to show a return of approximately 10 per cent. on the net capital employed. Surely that Treasury requirement must also be abandoned if there is to be continuing price restraint. Obviously, the industry cannot show a return of anything like that figure if we continue to confine tariff advances within certain limits.
      Sir J. Eden: My hon. Friend is developing an extremely important point which grew out of the words he heard me use when I spoke about examining the impact of price restraint on the finances of the industry with a view to determining what financial arrangements may be needed.
      Sir G. Nabarro: It is a corollary of it.
      Sir J. Eden: If my hon. Friend prefers that, I am prepared to go along with him and he can have his corollary if he wants it.
      The hon. Member for Midlothian asked about the fuelling of power stations. He knows well enough the extent to which initially this lies with the Generating Board and it is proper that that should be so. They have to determine in their own judgment the best way to run the industry and to deploy the vast amount of capital resources invested in it to ensure the most efficient distribution of electricity. This does not mean to say that, in arriving at a final decision, although broad consents are given other factors than the straight economic case are not taken into account. They certainly are and always have been in the past. This was so during the period of office of the Labour Government and of the previous Conservative Government.
      It was in the period of the previous Conservative Government that the decision was taken to keep Kincardine, Cockenzie and Longannet as coal-fired power stations. But other factors no doubt influenced the Labour Government when they came into office in deciding to go ahead with Inverkip as an oil-fired power station. These matters have to be balanced out. Security of supply is one consideration, economic cost is another, and the social impact of decisions by a major buyer of coal in mining areas is a third consideration.

      1687
      I am aware that we have a number of other debates still to come, and I hope I have been able to answer some of the points which have been raised. I hope my lion. Friend will agree that we have had a helpful and interesting short debate so far, and that we shall have regular opportunities to study the affairs of this industry during the next few years.
      Sir G. Nabarro: It would be churlish of me not to pay a tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend has dealt with this important series of Amendments. I would express my gratitude to him. In view of the civilised and rational way in which he has spoken, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      CONTRIBUTIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE TOWARDS EXPENDITURE INTENDED TO PROMOTE EMPLOYMENT
      Mr. Palmer: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 28, leave out '1974' and insert '1975'.
      The purpose of the Amendment is to give a longer period in which projects which are now to be subsidised can be brought forward if they put the electricity boards to extra expense——
      It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the Electricity Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Younger.]

  ELECTRICITY BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Mr. Palmer: Clause 2 empowers the Government to give extra financial assistance to the electricity boards out of public funds if the boards are put to expenses to which they would not have been put normally in bringing forward projects beyond the due economic time in their own judgment.
  I was saying that the purpose of the Amendment is to give a longer period in which projects can be brought forward. We must balance the need to give an inducement to the boards to act quickly against the risk that the boards will not have much scope to advance large projects because the planning, design and execution of large and extensive projects can hardly be carried through in a matter of weeks, months and sometimes years.
  I quite see that if the date is deferred too far, projects will not be advanced. However, if the period is made impossibly short, not many projects will be advanced as the Clause intends.
  This is a somewhat exploratory Amendment. I am anxious to test the mind of the Minister for Industry and to discover what reasoning was used to determine the period. On Second Reading, I made the point that in the constant search by the electricity supply industry for improved productivity and efficiency, staffs have been run down to a great extent. Many of us hold the view that they have been run down too far. It is easy to do that when an industry is a little in the doldrums in relation to demand. Then, if there is an expansion, staffs have to be built up again, and it cannot be done overnight.
  I think that the Amendment is a reasonable one, and I hope that the Government will accept it. If they feel that they cannot accept it, I hope that at least they will say why they have determined on this period. In a capital intensive industry which has large, technically complex projects, it is essential to plan ahead. Such an industry cannot contract and then expand quickly in a way that might be possible in a different type of industry. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will give us some insight into the Government's thinking, and perhaps the Minister

  1689
  will tell us what consultations there were with the industry in determining the period.
  [Miss QUENNELL in the Chair]
  Sir J. Eden: I have a great deal of sympathy for the points which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) has raised. However, I must tell him at the outset that I cannot accept the Amendment, and I will tell him why.
  The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that we are dealing with an industry which is habitually concerned with very large projects involving substantial sums of money and taking a considerable time —years—to complete. This job-creating exercise was the subject of very careful consultation with the industry, identifying particular projects which could be brought forward and would in the process be likely to assist in the creation of jobs early on. The effect of the Amendment would be to extend by a further year the period into which the projects and the purchases may be advanced to be eligible for contributions to be provided under the Bill.
  I think that I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) on Second Reading rather suggested that by the time capital projects are brought forward and in full swing the economy might conceivably be suffering from excessive demand. That is not a very strong argument. I do not think that we shall be concerned with a stop period at that time; I believe that we shall have a period of sustained growth which will not be followed by a period of stop.
  None the less, the arrangements which are being made are expected to result in substantial extra expenditure in 1972–73 and 1973–74. However, other things being equal, nearly all of them will result in lower expenditure thereafter. This is the effect of bringing the matter forward. So, to extend the period into 1974–75 and still to keep the figures as they are and to expect that these projects would be making a realistic contribution to employment in the latter years, is not a correct assessment of the nature of the scheme which we are considering. The scheme is designed to pay for the extra costs incurred by bringing these projects forward. Any projects
  1690
  which are advanced have already been the subject of close discussion. Each project is subject to approval by my right hon. Friend having regard to its employment-creating aspects. There are other Amendments on this point about the location of jobs and the way that they might or might not assist in development areas. But the fact remains that the purpose is to concentrate this in the earlier years, and in that case we should keep this to the time table spelt out in the Bill, because almost certainly the projects we have in mind will themselves be incurring much less expenditure by 1975.
  Mr. Palmer: I am obliged to the Minister for his very rational explanation. He has taken my point. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Palmer: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 37, at end insert:
  (c) to expenses incurred by any of those bodies in or by reason of the granting before that date of research contracts for any project, being a research contract which, pursuant to any such agreement, was granted earlier than it would have been but for the agreement.
  The Amendment would be helpful to the electricity supply industry in these special circumstances when it is asked to bring forward projects, when in order to bring forward a project it is necessary to spend money on specialist research. "Research" is a convenient expression, and I use it broadly to mean preparatory work in some circumstances which is not necessarily part of the project as such. This was a point dealt with by the Select Committee on Science and Technology when reporting on Generating Plant Breakdowns, Winter 1969–70, with which I am very familiar because at that time I had the privilege of being Chairman of that Select Committee. It was the Committee's view that with many of these projects in the electricity supply industry there is a very strong case for having special contracts for research and development and preparatory work which are separate from the contract for the project itself. The Committee felt that if this were done more often, some of the difficulties which have arisen later with the use of plant and equipment in electricity supply would have been avoided.

  1691
  The Minister may say that the time span is too short anyhow and that the projects which are to be brought forward are those on which presumably the research has been done already. But it is possible theoretically and hypothetically reasonable to assume that such circumstances may arise, and this should be provided for in the Bill.
  I also noted what the Minister said just now, that perhaps by the time this period runs out, for the industry and the country generally the economy will be booming and, therefore, electricity supply will have more than enough work to do anyway. But there is no certainty that this will be so; that is simply the Minister's optimism. It may well be that he or, perhaps, his successor will be coming to the House and asking for an extension of this power. In those circumstances, it would be as well if there were projects ready to be extended once again over a further period.
  Therefore, although I accept that the circumstances which I visualise in providing for preparatory research to be covered by the Clause may be somewhat hypothetical, they are not impossible. I should have thought that if the principle of the Amendment were accepted, the expenditure involved should include research work which is generally known as "outhouse"—that is an American expression, but it is creeping into British industry—that is to say, research work which would be done in connection with projects outside the bounds of the electricity supply industry, in universities, research associations and manufacturers' laboratories. It would include research and development of that kind, and would extend it to research work, done on a contract basis in the industry itself, in the industry's own laboratories such as the Berkely Research Laboratory of the C.E.G.B., and the laboratory which the Electricity Council administers in Cheshire.
  10.15 p.m.
  Sir J. Eden: I am grateful for the interesting way in which the hon. Member moved the Amendment, but it is not necessary to achieve his purpose. That can be done, and has been done already, under the Clause. It applies to any project commenced before 1st April, 1974. but there is no definition of "project".
  1692
  That is defined in general terms or by specific identification in the agreement made with the Secretary of State.
  The projects which have already been agreed with the industry and which are to be advanced include some expenditure on research contracts. There is, for example, the support for research relevant to the design of most major items of power station plants, including boilers,
  turbo generators and e switchaear. In this connection it is expected that the sum projected into 1972–73 is about £250,000. That is not a very substantial figure, but this point of principle is covered.
  Mr. Palmer: In view of that assurance—that will be of interest to those who follow the fortunes of the industry outside as much as it has been to me—that "project" covers research, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 37, at end insert:
  (3) Contributions under this section shall be at a substantially higher rate for employment promoted in the Development, Special Development and Intermediate Areas.
  This is an exploratory Amendment, to try to establish precisely what the Minister has in mind, and it is intended as an opportunity for us to stress to him that, in making his decisions about where a contribution should be made, he should pay particular attention to the severe difficulties of different parts of the country. I have two sets of figures from the Minister's own publication Trade and Industry, dated 27th January, 1972, giving the annual figures of industrial development certificates approved. I have chosen the figures in 1969, the last full year of a Labour Government, when we operated under the investment grant system.
  In 1971 we had the full first year of Conservative Government and the first full year of an investment allowance system. It emerges strikingly and depressingly from the Government's figures that in that year new factory space approved was a mere 60 per cent., or less than two-thirds, of the total approved in 1969. The development area position has, therefore, worsened considerably. In the intermediate areas in 1971 the figure was a mere 66 per cent. of the 1969 position

  1693
  Looking more closely at individual sectors, we see that in the north of England new factory space was running last year at one-half the level of 1969, and in Wales we had the incredibly low figure of only 40 per cent. of the 1969 position.
  Here, therefore, are the basic facts of need. These figures in themselves do not even reveal the full magnitude of that need because concurrently with the rundown in the rate of introduction of new industries to those areas—the areas referred to in the Amendment—we had a rundown in the old industries, for there was a marked increase in the rate of redundancies and factory closures.
  The problem facing these areas is not just that these industries contracted and will be able to re-expand when or if growth takes place. While one retains a factory as a going entity, the capacity for growth exists, but when it is closed—I could give numerous examples of factories closing in Newport, Llanelli, Swansea and elsewhere—there is no base for future expansion.
  The basic industrial structure of these areas is now in danger and the diversification which was built up carefully, expensively and meticulously in the postwar years is being severely undermined. It is against this background that I move the Amendment and urge the Minister, in the exercise of his discretion under the Bill, to ensure that adequate priority and preference is given to projects in the development areas.
  Perhaps certain options will exist. Perhaps the boards will be faced with the posibility of bringing forward one or other of two equally desirable projects. It might not make sense to bring them both forward at the same time, but it could happen that one is in a development area and one is outside it. There is nothing built into the Bill—I appreciate the difficulty of drafting a suitable Amendment to cover this point—to indicate any intention on the part of the Government to exercise a meaningful priority on behalf of the development, intermediate and special development areas.
  Rather than deal with the adequacies or inadequacies of the precise terminology of the Amendment, I urge the Minister to give the Committee an assurance about the way in which the Government intend to exercise regional preference.
  Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) used the opportunity of moving this Amendment to introduce a mini debate on regional policy, a subject which we have frequently debated in the House.
  The hon. Gentleman wishes to ensure that so far as possible the jobs created as a result of this Clause go to those areas where they are most needed. I naturally sympathise with that objective, and so obviously do the boards. They are well aware of the purpose of the Clause and they know that it is in order to create jobs. I am sure that in the normal process of placing contracts in an effective and commercial way, they have regard to this.
  They are almost certainly doing so in the case of Ince. I hope that as a result new jobs will be assisted in the North-East. This is something which the boards have in mind, but it is not possible to use this Clause as though it were an instrument for regional policy purposes. We have other legislation for that. I do not think it appropriate to tackle our regional problems by this means. In any case, I think it would be rather difficult absolutely accurately to identify the effect of projects in promoting employment in particular areas because of the indirect effects of sub-contracting capital works, new plant, and so on. I have not the detailed estimates of the employment effects of every project, but I have been given rough estimates which show that the projects will result in 1972–73 in jobs for at least 5,000.
  I know hon. Members recognise that it is not only the direct effects which are important, because in many respects this is acting as a kind of pump-priming operation, and the indirect contracts which I have described should lead, together with the direct stimulus, to a general boosting of the economy. I am not exaggerating this. I am not talking about vast sums of money when one considers the requirements of the economy as a whole, but we are guaranteeing by this means a degree of help which would otherwise be missing and also that the expenditure of this £25 million will be measured in real value terms as a result of the jobs which will be promoted.
  The agreements to which these projects are tied have to be agreements with a view to promoting employment. It does not matter whether that employment

  1695
  is in the electricity supply industry or outside it. It does not matter whether that employment is within the area of the area board which is actually doing the promoting. It does matter that there are jobs and will tend to be orders for plant and machinery likely to promote employment in the heavy electrical industry. These companies and their plant tend to be located in areas where there is already exceptionally high unemployment.
  Generally speaking, I can assure the hon. Member and the Committee that the point is fairly taken already by the industry and by the area boards. They are aware that in bringing forward expenditure of this kind and having it paid for in this way the object of the exercise is to promote employment. So far as this can be done while ensuring that the investments themselves meet all the normal criteria used by the nationalised industries to prevent wasteful expenditure, they will help in creating jobs in the areas concerned. I hope that, having made the point, the hon. Member will feel it unnecessary to press the Amendment.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the detail he has given. But may I press him a little further? I know that we are getting rather late in our proceedings but what I am concerned about is to know how, having worked in the precursor, as it were, to his present Department, he can ensure, mechanistically, that there is this due regard for the regional requirement in proposals the boards will put forward. Will he or his officials be asking the boards whether there are alternatives which would give equal results but which would be job-creating in the development, intermediate or special development areas as opposed to being job-creating elsewhere?
  With all the good will in the world, the tendency will surely be for the boards to put forward proposals with little regard for regional impact, and it will need officials with considerable diligence and will to interrogate representatives of the boards in order to establish whether their proposals will create the maximum value in social
  1696
  return on the money the Government are paying to the boards.
  If it is the intent, as I gather it is, to give full compensation wherever jobs are created, this is a means of ensuring that automatically there is no financial preference for the regions. Would it not therefore be possible as an incentive to do what was done with investment grants and say, "For jobs created in development, intermediate or special development areas, because of the structural, industrial and social problems there, the contribution will be not just full compensation but full compensation plus 20 per cent."? I emphasise that this is a hypothetical percentage. It may well be that for a relatively small outlay we could get in social accounting terms a far better return for an inducement of this sort.
  Sir J. Eden: I do not think I can go the whole way with the hon. Gentleman's case. This is mainly because I am aware of the practical difficulties involved in quantifying in job terms the value of any particular project. One can only go so far. He is inviting me to go right the way through the whole process, not only in relation to direct employment but also in relation to the consequential effects. It may be possible to do that. but so far I have not found it so.
  We also have to have regard to the need for the managers of the industry to be able to place contracts commercially for the work they are bringing forward just as they would do for the work had it been introduced at the normal time and not advanced. I do not think it would be right for us to exercise influence over them in such a way as to limit their ability to place contracts in a way which was correct in their commercial judgment. But I can say that they are well aware of the purpose of the Clause. They know it is for the purpose of creating jobs. They are well aware of the need to secure jobs in areas of high unemployment.
  A fairly detailed scrutiny will be taking place in many of these projects. It is intended, for example, that the agreements with a view to promoting employment which are to be entered into by the Secretary of State should cover the means of identifying projects, the costs eligible for reimbursement, the measuring of a period of acceleration, and arrangements

  1697
  for verifying claims—for example by investigation and certification by auditors appointed by the Secretary of State. In trying to do that we shall obviously assess so far as possible the job value of the project introduced. But I am reluctant to tie myself any further and to go along with the hon. Gentleman in agreeing that the actual placing of contracts should be limited in such a way as they will only bring jobs in areas specified as designated for employment purposes.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I cannot pretend to be absolutely happy with the Minister's response.
  I should like briefly to ask two questions to which I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to reply now. First, will he bear in mind my point that in the discussions about any particular project his officials should ensure that there is no possible alternative that would give an equal result to the industry but which would perhaps give jobs within the de-
  1698
  velopment areas as opposed to areas outside? That was not one of the points the hon. Gentleman covered, and I am sure it would be simple to do that. I see the hon. Gentleman shake his head, and I assume he will therefore ensure that such a check takes place.
  Second, far from limiting the ability of the boards in placing contracts, my proposition would widen their freedom, because it would bring within the sphere of commercial viability contracts with suppliers within a development area from whom they would not previously have contracted but who now become competitive because of the 20 per cent. margin I was giving over and above full compensation. Therefore, it would widen the range of contract-placing available to them.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Palmer: Even though the hour is late, we should not let the Clause go by without asking one or two general questions about it. We are all by now familiar with its purpose, which is to bring forward projects to create employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) has just said, it is a question of whether the employment is created.
  I do not suppose it is expected that a vast amount of extra employment will be created in the electricity supply industry itself. It is not a labour-intensive industry these days. So the employment must be created on the contracting side, and the effect in general engineering in particular should run right the way through the economy.
  What struck me when I looked at the Bill was that £25 million seemed a rather small amount. It was for this reason that in Amendments my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, suggested that the sum be increased by £10 million and I, much bolder, suggested that it should be doubled, to £50 million. I suppose that the Financial Resolution prevented our Amendments being called.
  The argument for increasing the sum would have been that £25 million was small in relation to the vast sums of capital which the industry handles. The effect of inflation should surely be taken into account. There is an interesting passage in the Electricity Council's last annual report dealing with this, talking of the effects of cost inflation on the suppliers of the plant and equipment purchased by boards. It says:
  "The outcome has been that tender prices per kilowatt capacity for nuclear stations have risen by nearly two-thirds in the period 1967–70, whilst those for conventional stations have gone up by about one-third. For Area Boards, the prices they pay for equipment such as cables, transformers and switchgears have gone up by between 30 and 60 per cent."
  There was a time in the industry when in spite of rising prices the actual cost per kilowatt installed for power stations was reduced in absolute terms. Now, because of inflation, the cost is rising rapidly. In
  1700
  the circumstances £25 million is surprisingly small.
  Other conclusions can be drawn about that. The first is that the sum had not been fully or frankly estimated and there is more to come. If I wished to he politically unkind I could hint that the whole proposal was so much window-dressing and there was not much in it. I will not pursue this argument as we are in good fellowship in Committee.
  I know that certain projects have been selected but a great deal more could be done in the industry and this is a good time to do it. It was the sort of thing that was done in a halfhearted way in the 1930s when we were not so expert in the management of the economy. In the 1930s it was possible to counteract unemployment by special works of this kind relatively inexpensively because interest rates were low. With this Government we have high interest rates and high unemployment which presents a difficulty in a labour-intensive industry. There is work which could be done, not so much on the generation and transmission side but in the replacement of out-of-date equipment on distribution networks. We hear about industries which are dangerous, but somehow the electricity industry never gets into the news. Every year several men lose their lives because of mal-operation of equipment. As the industry grows in size the dangers, particularly in the networks, also increase. There is much switchgear on the networks which is quite lethal, some of which barely comes within the terms of the Factories Regulations.
  This would be an excellent opportunity to create employment in smaller works in the development areas. The amount is too small to do what needs to be done in this mark-time period to catch up on replacement, apart from the more spectacular projects of large power stations.
  10.45 p.m.
  Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) is asking me why £25 million was chosen and not a higher figure. This figure is concerned with readily identifiable projects, sound, sensible, viable matters which could he advanced and which would create employment. These all derive from the statement made by my right hon. Friend

  1701
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 23rd November, 1971, when he announced that nationalised industries intended to bring forward capital expenditure of £100 million into 1972–73 and 1973–74. The contribution by the electricity supply industry to the £100 million is £60 million, of which two-thirds is attributable to Ince.
  Additional proposals have since been made by electricity boards which total about £8 million, and the projects which they have decided to advance include the reinforcement of the transmission and distribution systems and voltage standardisation.
  The C.E.G.B. and the distribution boards have all been concerned in relation to the projects and purchases with what it is feasible to bring forward up to the end of March, 1974. The reason for the limitation is that we are concerned with a limited period and with those projects and purchases which it is feasible for the industry to bring forward.
  Payments are made towards the additional expenses incurred as a result of this advancement. In subsection (2)(a) expenses are referred to as being—
  "in or in connection with the carrying out of any project"
  and (2)(b) refers to expenses—
  "in or by reason of the purchase of … of materials "
  The first is intended to allow contributions to be made towards additional interest charges incurred as a result of the bringing forward of the project and also to cover a wide range of other expenses. The second is intended to cover interest charges, storage and handling costs and other expenses involved. These two phrases together enable all the additional costs to be identified and compensated for, and the process of identifying when the agreement is being made leads to considerable and detailed discussion on the nature of the project.
  I ernphasise that the reason for the limitation is that it is related to extra expenses incurred in relation to what the boards regard as feasible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY BILL
    New Clause 2

      STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT TO BE RELATED TO ACTUAL CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY
      It shall be a condition of any grant made from the National Loans Fund to the Electricity Council, the Electricity Boards of England and Wales and the Scottish Electricity Boards that no statement of account for supplies of electricity shall be furnished to any consumer of any Board unless the charge made in that account is related to the actual consumption of electricity as recorded on the meter.—[Sir G. Nabarro.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir G. Nabarro: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This Clause affects every one of the consumers of Britain, many of whom resent the size of their electricity bills. The operative words of the Clause are
      "the actual consumption of electricity as recorded on the meter".
      For the first time in this House I launched an attack on the nefarious and inhumane practice of many nationalised industry boards in deliberately inflating consumers' accounts for reasons best known to themselves, but generally because of the specious plea that they cannot gain entry to the electricity meter to ascertain the exact number of units consumed in any chargeable accounting period.
      I have been working on this matter now for a month, ever since the unfortunate death of Mrs. Ann Hemingway in Coventry, who committed suicide as a result of anxiety arising from depression caused by the fact that she received an electricity bill for approximately £18·50 compared with an actual meter recording of about £1·50. It was no mistake. It was a bill deliberately inflated by a junior official, and it caused an old woman of 68 to take her life.
      The Committee might be acquainted with what has been said and done in that period of a month, so grave is this case, and because apparently it is a practice which is prevalent nearly all over Britain not only on the part of electricity boards, but also on the part of other nationalised boards. I said during the

      1703
      Second Reading debate on 1st February that I had made a comment to the Worcester Evening News on 13th January as follows:
      "It is simply monstrous that a public corporation can hound a woman to her death on account of a few pounds for her electricity bill."
      I concluded my speech with these words:
      "I want to prevent other old ladies committing suicide on account of anxieties arising from the bullying and tyrannical behaviour of monopoly, nationalised boards, behaviour for which they ought to be condemned by every hon. Member."
      I resumed my seat at that point. That was the peroration of my speech.
      I was followed by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), my companion in the Institute of Fuel. Although the hon. Gentleman is a Socialist and a strong supporter of nationalised industry as he has told us tonight, he opened his speech by referring to what I had said, and went on:
      … While some of us may doubt his economics, no one would doubt his humanity. As one who has had a long connection with the electricity supply industry, I agree with what he has said about this practice of overestimating meter readings. I can see no reason for doing so even if from time to time meter readings have to be estimated. They should be pitched on the side of underestimation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 354–6.]
      That is in contra-distinction to the deliberate policy of gross inflation and overestimation of meter readings for the purposes that I have described.
      As this is such an important case, perhaps I should say what has occurred since I took it up first. On 17th January, the day that the House re-assembled after the Christmas Recess, I put the following Parliamentary Question to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry:
      "… having regard to the suicide of a lady in Coventry, who received a bill for electricity supplies, inflated by the electricity board to draw attention to her overdue account, whether he will issue a general direction to electricity boards to cease such practices forthwith."
      My hon. Friend replied, and a very unsatisfactory reply it was. My Question was set too low on the Order Paper to have an oral answer, so I had no chance to put a supplementary question. My hon. Friend's written reply was:
      "I fully share the hon. Members' distress at the tragic death of Mrs. Hemingway. The
      1704
      East Midlands Board is investigating the case and will be submitting a report to me. Also, the East Midlands Consultative Council has confirmed that, as provided for in the statutory procedures, it is discussing with the board the problems arising from estimated accounts. It is open to them to make representations to the Electricity Council and to me. I doubt whether a direction would be appropriate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1972 Vol. 829, c. 14–15.]
      In my Second Reading speech I said that I took the opposite view and thought that a direction was exactly appropriate.
      I tabled a further Parliamentary Question for 7th February, but in the meantime my hon. Friend had thought fit to make a Press statement. He was kind enough to furnish me with a copy before the Second Reading debate. He will remember that the time available was reduced by an emergency debate on Ulster to two hours and 18 minutes for the Second Reading of this important Bill. In order to shorten my speech on that occasion I decided to defer the quotation of my hon. Friend's statement until this evening, for strategic and time-saving reasons.
      I quote it in full now in order to satiate my hon. Friend:
      "The Minister for Industry, Sir John Eden, today met the Chairman of the Electricity Council, Sir Norman Elliott, and the Deputy Chairman, Mr. R. F. Richardson. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the billing and collection procedures of the Electricity Boards. These procedures are the responsibility of the Boards, but the Minister wished to express his concern about recent Press reports linking them with the tragic deaths of two consumers. One of these cases had occurred in the area of the East Midlands Board and had been the subject of Parliamentary Questions on 17th January. The other case was in the area of the Midlands Board. The Chairman of the Council told the Minister that the Council and the Boards involved shared his concern. The industry was now carrying out a review of billing and collection procedures. The implications of this review, given added urgency by the recent cases, would be discussed at a meeting of the full Electricity Council on 9th February and at the Council's meeting the following day with the Chairmen of the Electricity Consultative Councils. The Minister would be kept informed of further steps."
      11.0 p.m.
      In the vernacular I described that statement as "flannel" and of very little constructive value. I wanted this unauthorised practice banned altogether, and I therefore proceeded by asking

      1705
      further penetrating Parliamentary Questions. The next one was taken on 7th February in my name. It read thus:
      "Sir Gerald Nabarro (South Worcestershire): To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, following the suicide of Mrs. Ann Hemingway at Coventry several weeks ago due to an inflated electricity Bill, submitted by the East Midlands Electricity Board, and his subsequent undertaking to discuss with the Electricity Council and other interested bodies the practice of submitting estimated accounts, what has been the outcome of his talks; and whether he will make a statement on his future policy."
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry then replied:
      "My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has discussed the boards' billing and collection procedures with the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Electricity Council. They told him the industry was reviewing its procedures in the light of the unhappy death of Mrs. Hemmingway and of the recent report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and Relations with the Public. These procedures are matters for the boards to settle in consultation with their consultative councils but I shall be kept informed of any changes resulting from the industry's review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 237.]
      I stigmatise that reply as double flannel and of no constructive or objective value whatever. Meanwhile my own researches found out that this practice is general nearly all over the country. Deliberately inflated electricity accounts are sent even when the meter reader has not called through illness of the meter reader, insufficient meter readers, the meter reader forgetting to go to a particular house or subscriber, or because of the inaccessibility of the meter, or for any one of 20 other causes I may name. The meter is not read and the board, at the behest of some little bureaucrats sitting in the fastness of their vast offices and showrooms, sends out a guessed or estimated deliberately inflated account.
      As a result of the publicity I have gained and am continuing to gain this evening on this practice, which I describe as wholly nefarious, a vast volume of mail descended upon me from all over the country. I received nearly 300 letters. I will send the whole lot round to the Minister if he likes and he can have them analysed. I have read them all. So numerous are they that my replies had to be printed. I had a letter typed with the distinctive pica type of my typewriter, had it photographed and repro-
      1706
      duced, and I then topped and tailed the letters for speed. Every one of these aggrieved subscribers has received an answer with an insert of the Ministerial reply, which I then related as unsatisfactory. So all these complainants know that I am at loggerheads with my hon. Friend. This is a great grief to me. do not like being at loggerheads with him. But, in view of his humanity and deep-seated interest in the case and the sympathy that he has so far expressed, I think that we need something more than commiseration for our efforts this evening.
      I do not propose to read 250 letters at this time of night, but I must read two, because it is important that the Minister should know what is going on. I do not think he knows what is going on. Neither does the Electricity Council. Those at the head of the Electricity Council are so remote from the affairs of ordinary subscribers in the provinces and towns of this country that they really have no idea of the suffering that they are causing by their inhumane and bullying tactics.
      The first letter, from the area of the South-Eastern Board, comes from Robertsbridge, Sussex. It is written to me on 13th January:
      "Dear Sir,
      Thank you for taking up the matter of the widow overcharged by the electricity board and driven to suicide.
      Last March I received a bill for £12·72, to my horror, having never before had a bill for more than £9·50. No one had called to read the meter and I believe there was no mention of an estimated amount. They should not be allowed to charge more than has previously been used.
      For 10 years I have fought to keep my home going, against all corners, and even in this remote, almost independent spot, I am subject to attack from officialdom.
      I get no widow's pension, because my husband was ill too long before he died and consequently not enough stamps.
      I am 58 and fairly capable. I am always pleased to see you on television."
      That is signed "Mrs. Betty Penney." What a splendid letter—especially the final paragraph—to exemplify the case that I am putting to the Committee tonight.
      The second letter is vastly worse, and I have selected it because it comes from the other end of the country. It is from

      1707
      the area of the Scottish Electricity Board, and it says:
      "I am very glad to hear of your proposed inquiry into Electricity Board finances. Another point worth looking into is that the victims seem to be nearly always old people living alone. Do the Board officials specially select their victims from this group because they are less able to defend themselves? It will be interesting, also, to learn what happened to all the money which people paid, and which was not due at all.
      This bill inflation happens in Scotland, too, One victim was a friend of mine (whom I don't want to involve in any more worry) —a man in his late 70s who was recovering from a stroke which left his arm and leg affected. His normal bill was around £10, but in autumn he got a bill, for the same length of time, for £38. He protested, and requested a check to be made. He was sent a form to fill in, but no check was made, and next day his electricity was cut off. He was left stumbling around in the dark, cooking on an open fire (a fire risk, because the flames set his frying pan alight several times). His next bill, after payment and reconnection, was £13.
      I had been attributing these frequent errors in people's electricity bills to negligence, or computer fallibility; but when it is admitted to be deliberate policy, it becomes criminal. The person who authorised that policy should be tried for multiple murder and fraud. Perhaps you won't agree but I believe that in a welfare state all old people living alone, or old couples should have free electricity. (I have already written to some members of Parliament on this). With best wishes for your inquiry and your campaign, yours sincerely, J. G. McCabe."
      The address is 10, Airgold Drive, Glasgow, G15 7DX. The letter is dated 25th January. I will place it at the disposal of HANSARD to see that it is given the widest possible publicity.
      The behaviour of the board is criminal and fraudulent. I underline the attack made by this consumer in Glasgow. It is for that reason that I am moving the New clause to put an end to these nefarious practices. As the hon. Member for Bristol, Central says, we do not mind estimated accounts when access to the meter cannot be achieved; but let them be estimated slightly on the low side, less 5 per cent. of the average over the preceding year. That would be civilised and humane—not the kind of thing that these bullying, tyrannical, monopoly, nationalised boards are at present carrying out, as hundreds of letters to me evidently testify.
      I have not finished yet, and my hon. Friend the Minister will have the full
      1708
      treatment tonight, in spite of the hour. Not all boards do this. Nearly all of them do it, but not all. Those that are clean and capable I commend to the House, such as, for example, the London Electricity Board. Immediately the chairman, Mr. David Fenton, heard of my action in this matter he sent a letter to me at the House by hand, in which he said:
      "I thought you would like to know that the London Electricity Board does not make a practice of deliberately inflating bills in order to obtain access to consumers' premises."
      I commend Mr. Fenton.
      But compare that with the attitude of the East Midlands Board, that in spite of the suicide of Mrs. Ann Hemmingway, in spite of the huge volume of public criticism descending on the board, it issues the defiant statement, "We are going on with this practice." The East Midlands Board is tacitly defended and upheld by my hon. Friend the Minister, which in my judgment is wholly deplorable.
      If Ministerial direction is inappropriate, if the acceptance of a Clause of the kind I have moved tonight is inappropriate, will my hon. Friend please do something better than saying "Passed to you, chum, as Chairman of the Electricity Council", because the electricity board chiefs consider that they are a law unto themselves, bereft of Ministerial influence or direction. I want them directed on this occasion to behave themselves in a civilised fashion.
      There will be engineers who say to me, "But, Gerald Nabarro, meters sometimes cannot be read because the subscriber or consumer is on shift work and not at home when the meter reader calls", or, "The subscriber or consumer is sick and we cannot gain access to the premises", or, "The subscriber or consumer is away on holiday so the meter cannot be read." They can find any one of a hundred excuses. My answer to them is this. I have never asked a Question concerning fuel or power unless I have researched the answer first. The answer is this. Put an end to the antiquated and obsolescent location of electricity meters inside domestic hereditaments and locate the meters without—not within—the domestic hereditament with suitable coverage, in order that every

      1709
      meter reader who is competent and industrious may readily gain access to the outside meter.
      11.15 p.m.
      The boards will say: "This will cost money"; the boards will say: "Where do we get the meters?" I will tell them. From Permali in Gloucester, specialists in the manufacture of electricity and gas meters for outside reading. I am not advertising. It is a firm in which I have no shares. I am not a director and I have no interest of any kind in the firm. It is just one company which makes outside-reading meters of the kind I wish to see installed.
      It may take two or three years to achieve a changeover, but continental countries do it. Sweden, Norway and Denmark do it. I could name a dozen countries which have all their meters outside.
      With the compact nationalised industry in this country under his direction my hon. Friend could do it. I do not want the prating reply that nationalised industries conduct their own day-to-day affairs. I know all about that, but my hon. Friend has the ultimate power and capability of issuing directions and can refuse to reappoint the chairman of a board which does not conform with his policies. He has all the power to do what I suggest and what I want done.
      If the Minister says he has no power or influence to make this simple changeover, I remind him that unemployment is rising and that there are more than a million, including vast numbers of capable men who could easily be employed on the essential transpositioning of meters from within to without a domestic hereditament.
      With those few words, highly emotional and not of a financial or economic character, but it is an emotive issue on this occasion, I commend this new Clause to the Committee.
      Mr. Alan Williams: May I, as on Second Reading, support the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and make absolutely clear that we equally deplore this practice. We are talking of deliberately over-estimating.
      Like him, I am probably difficult to get at for meter reading, and I recognize
      1710
      that I have to put up with estimated bills. I am willing to recognise that if I am over-estimated I am in a better position to meet the over-estimated bills than many of my constituents. But if one board with a populous area, like the London Electricity Board, can manage without using this deliberate practice of creating fear in the minds of consumers, equally other boards can manage, and should be made to manage.
      The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, wanted meters to be put outside. We on both sides in the House of Commons want this practice of deliberate overcharging stopped. We will not accept that it cannot be done.
      The consumer has no recourse against the board. He cannot say that he will get electricity from someone else. He is not in a position to say "You treated me badly as a supplier; I will find an alternative supplier". This kind of practice, where it is carried out as deliberate policy by a monopoly which should be showing due regard to the public interest, is more intolerable even than if it were carried out in a more competitive environment.
      I therefore identify myself with the hon. Member's request that action he taken. It is astonishingly maladroit public relations by any of the boards that they should say that they intend to carry on with this practice. The hon. Gentleman says he has evidence that certain boards say they intend doing so. Nothing could be more damaging to the image of the industry than this type of impersonal, inhuman disregard for the feelings of people.
      The hon. Member said that this overcharging was for an overdue bill of £1·50—an amount which suggests that this pensioner had already had to cut back on spending, if that was her indebtedness for a full period. Many pensioners have to cut back on their heating needs in this way to make their money go further. There must be many in a similar position who would find a bill of such magnitude frightening and disturbing.
      Therefore, if the Minister feels that a direction is not appropriate, we shall expect him to exercise his Ministerial discretion when it comes to re-appointing chairmen who will not have regard to the public interest.
      Sir J. Eden: I naturally share the feelings of concern which have been expressed about the case of Mrs. Hemming-way and what happened. It is not absolutely clear what happened. I should say in all fairness that, although one can make some assumptions, it has not been shown to be definitely the case in that instance that the inflated account, or higher estimated account, had been issued. After that, an appointment was made with Mrs. Hemmingway for a meter reader to call. Sadly, she took her own life on the day before that was due to happen. The exact circumstances in that case are still being——
      Sir G. Nabarro: For the sake of accuracy, would my hon. Friend undertake, please, to send for a copy of the coroner's inquest statement, which makes it abundantly clear that this woman took her life because she was terrified that her electricity was going to be cut off because of this huge bill?
      Sir J. Eden: I am only saying to my hon. Friend that in the case of one particular person there may be factors which have not been fully taken into account. But I am in no way detracting from the seriousness of the case. I absolutely agree that action of this kind, which can lead to a situation like this, is very wrong.
      What my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has asked me to do is to give a direction to the boards which carried out this form of estimating and inflating accounts to desist from this practice. This is where I find it difficult to go along with him and with the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), simply because I must have regard to the existence of statutory bodies whose job it is to make recommendations to Ministers on matters of this kind. I must allow for that.
      The power given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the power of a general direction. If it were to be exercised in this way it would be a specific direction. I must therefore wait for the statutory bodies concerned—especially the consultative councils—to make representations to me or to my right hon. Friend, on the basis of which he would then be empowered to issue a direction.
      1712
      My hon. Friend was fair enough to remind the Committee that I had taken certain action to ensure that these practices were subjected to a close examination and that an opportunity was then given for there to be proper discussion of these matters between the area boards and consultative councils. As he knows, these have been taking place this week, and I shall shortly be receiving further reports on the matter.
      I can already say that the Deputy Chairman of the Electricity Council, as a result of meetings which took place earlier today, will on Monday next, 14th February, be meeting the National Council for Social Services. This is one aspect of the matter, and I know that my hon. Friend is familiar with the magnitude of the operation in which the boards are engaged.
      I underline the fact that I do not in any way minimise what has occurred. It is sad, tragic, unnecessary and wasteful, and the fact that it is one case—or the fact that, happily, one cannot produce too many cases of this kind—does not make it any the less to be deplored.
      Against that I must set the fact that the boards in England and Wales alone are dealing with 16 million domestic customers. About 14 million of them are billed quarterly. In other words, 60 million bills a year are sent out, and many of those customers, like me, must be sent reminders practically every time, which means that about 20 million reminders go out. That is the magnitude of the problem. This is an extremely large and expensive exercise.
      There are, arising out of that, about 800,000 threats of disconnection each year due to non-payment of bills, and about 127,000 actual disconnections take place every year. This is, therefore, a massive operation, and the boards must try to reach a reasonable and sensible balance between attending to each individual situation by directly employing a person for that purpose and by making certain assumptions which will enable them to arrive at what is, in effect, rough justice.
      My hon. Friend said that he would rather they erred in doing this—and I think he recognises that they must do it—on the lower side and were marginally

      1713
      below rather than above the appropriate charge. That might be the right way to proceed, but I am worried about the situation where there has been a succession of under-estimated bills. The day of reckoning must come.
      Assuming that in such a case there have been, say, seven consecutive attempts to read the meter and that, having failed to get a reading on each occasion, quarterly bills are submitted on an estimated basis, erring on the low side, when ultimately access is gained to the premises and the meter is actually read—and there may have been good reason why access to the premises had to be denied—the occupant may be in for a considerable shock because of a big backlog. After all, during the intervening period many additional electrical appliances might have been added without the local board being aware of that fact. There are arguments on both sides of the estimating practice which I think need careful consideration and which at the moment are the subject of discussion.
      11.30 p.m.
      Area boards obviously always prefer to obtain actual meter readings, but in practice this is not always possible. I am told that in any given quarter something like 25 per cent. of consumers' meters cannot actually be read because of absence from home when the meter reader calls. One of the advantages of the publicity given by various means to this extremely unfortunate case is the attention which it has helpfully concentrated on hours in which meter readers are employed and the various practices between area boards and on the particularly important point to which my hon. Friend referred, the actual location of the meters in relation to the premises. I basically agree with him that if meters were outside premises an enormous amount of this difficulty and trouble would be avoided.
      Sir G. Nabarro: I apologise for interrupting again, but these are pious sentiments about putting meters outside while nothing very constructive is being done. For example, of the order of 250,000 new domestic hereditaments are being created every year. Can the Minister say that at every one the meter is outside, where it should be? We should make a start at once with all
      1714
      Government building and new construction to see that meters are outside. That would be a beginning. Then we could have a policy statement within a few weeks from the industry saying that it is getting the transposition of meters from inside to outside buildings.
      Sir J. Eden: I cannot say what my hon. Friend has asked me to say. All I can say is that the area boards are very anxious that meters should be on the outside of buildings for this very purpose. Local authorities are increasingly coming to recognise this in their building arrangements when there are meters on their premises.
      A further point which is an interesting factor in all this is that the problem of bad debts to area boards run collectively at over £2 million a year. If the collection procedures became too relaxed, this figure could easily increase and obviously this would have to be taken into account when fixing electricity tariffs. Each day's delay in collection costs the industry £400,000 a year in interest alone. We are dealing with something which is very substantial as a problem. It is a problem which the industry would dearly like to cure. It has to watch the cost and it is going about this in a way which it hopes strikes a reasonable balance. When experiences and tragedies of this kind occur it is absolutely right that the whole range of practices should be urgently reamined. This the boards and consultative councils are currently engaged in doing. When I have the conclusions of their report I shall decide what action is appropriate for me to take.
      Mr. Alan Williams: May I follow this discussion up with three precise questions? I know that it is not always possible to give precise answers, but I hope that they can be given on this occasion.
      The Minister has made a lengthy and sound defence of the practice of estimating. This was not basically what we were attacking as the main cause of the trouble. We were attacking overestimating as a deliberate policy.
      Sir G. Nabarro: Allow me to correct the hon. Member. What I am attacking is exorbitant over-estimating. I do not mind if a board sends a bill which is

      1715
      5 per cent. below the average of the preceding year, or 5 per cent. above. That is reasonable and rational and I shall not complain about it at all. What I object to is a £38 bill as in the Glasgow case in relation to £10 actual consumption, or in the Coventry case a bill for £18 in relation to actual consumption of £1 worth.
      Mr. Williams: That is the point I hoped I was making but apparently was not making clearly enough. In estimating, inevitably there is a certain margin of error and I was allowing for 5 per cent. difference either way. The criticism that we are making is not of the possibility of a 5 per cent. error either way but the deliberate practice of overcharging by an exorbitant amount. Will the Minister categorically tonight condemn this practice of calculated exorbitant overcharging?
      Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to draw to the attention of all the other board chairmen that the London Electricity Board—and London is not short of its fair share of debtors, speaking generally and not just about the L.E.B.—is able to operate without this sort of blackmail threat?
      Thirdly, will the Minister state that he agrees with the point which I made, and which I believe the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) would support, that in the event of certain chairmen recalcitrantly saying that they intend to go ahead with the existing practice he will bear this fact in mind when it comes to considering their re-appointment?
      Sir G. Nabarro: They ought to be fired.
      Sir J. Eden: On the last point put by the hon. Member for Swansea, West, I would rather wait until these discussions have been concluded and I have had a chance to study the report or conclusions submitted to me. But I do condemn the practice of exaggerated and deliberate inflation of accounts in order to shock or frighten a person into facilitating the
      1716
      entry of the meter reader. I have already made this clear to the Electricity Council, and it is generally understood. This is why I am anxious to allow for the proper processes to be carried through. Discussions are taking place. We are dealing with extremely responsible people. The chairmen of the area boards have a very high regard to their duties to the public; they are very sensitive to the interests of their customers and consumers; they are very concerned about the proper management of their business. I rely on them for the proper discharge of their duties, and I must give them a chance to answer me as a result of their discussions.
      Sir G. Nabarro: I can only speak a second time by leave of the Committee, and I beg that leave for a moment, Miss Quennell.
      I warmly thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry for his diplomatic and tactful and intelligent answer in this very complex problem. I do not propose to withdraw the Motion. I propose, in order to demonstrate my grave and deep concern about this practice to allow the Motion to be negatived. In 22 years in this House, I have never had on a single Bill all the Amendments and new Clauses I had set down selected. All those that I set down to this Bill have been selected, and I want to thank the Clerk, Mr. Bradshaw, who drafted them for me.
      Question put and negatived.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without Amendment.
      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.

    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

  POLICE INVESTIGATIONS (PUBLICITY)
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: On the morning of 15th December, 1971, there were headlines in a number of the national newspapers concerning a breathalyser test that had been applied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) following an accident near Tottenham Court Road on the night of 14th December.
  A typical headline is the one that appeared in the Sun, blazoned across the front page:
  "Healey In Drink Test Quiz"
  The Sun went on to report the collision and that a spokesman of New Scotland Yard had said:
  "Mr. Healey went into the station to report the accident. Because of his condition a breath test was ordered and Mr. Healey agreed to it. The test proved positive, and so did a second B-test a short time later."
  If that statement was, in fact, issued by New Scotland Yard, it was grossly improper. To say
  "Because of his condition a breath test was ordered"
  was clearly contentious and prejudicial. I believe it was improper for the police to issue a statement at all.
  I am concerned not simply with the case affecting my right hon. Friend but with the issue of principle that flows from it. It is necessary, in order to develop that point, to refer to certain basic facts relating to the breath test carried out in that case. I think it will not be disputed that there was an accident; that my right hon. Friend went to Tottenham Court Road police station voluntarily, together with another driver or drivers, to give particulars; that he then left the station; and that while he was exchanging particulars outside the station he was invited to go into the station again to undergo a breathalyser test, information which was imparted to him when he was within the police station itself, and as I understand it could not have been overheard by anyone else. The breathalyser test was given in conditions of confidence, so that only the police officers would have known that it had been given, and then a blood test was
  1718
  made. After that my right hon. Friend left the station.
  Somehow or other the information that my right hon. Friend had been given a breath test was given publicity. There was a great shroud of mystery over the question of who imparted that information to the Press. There were reports that it was done by a minicab driver. Other reports suggested that it could only have been the police who did it. Even today it is not absolutely plain what the truth of the matter is. On 27th January the Secretary of State for the Home Department said:
  "The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has held an inquiry. The investigating officer found no evidence that the result of the test was initially made public by the police."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1972 Vol. 829, c. 1592.]
  As I understand the position now, and I think the Minister of State will confirm this, it is conceded that the information was made public by the police so that there is a disparity between the answer on 27th January and the situation as we now know it to be. This is a serious matter going far wider than the interests affecting my right hon. Friend, who as a public figure ought not to have been treated in this way by the police.
  The salient point about this is that this case was publicised although no charge had been preferred. It must have been known to the police as it is known to every lawyer and to most people who know anything about the Road Safety Act that the breathalyser test in itself is not and never can be deemed to be a bit of conclusive evidence that an offence has been committed contrary to the provisions of the Act.
  The Guardian in a leader on 18th December said:
  "The place to give evidence against a man, if any exists, is in court. The breathalyser, a useful instrument, has no validity as legal evidence."
  That succinctly puts the position absolutely accurately. It is but the first stage in the whole process of determining whether a prosecution can be brought. The police should have recognised that to release that information could be seriously prejudicial to a man in public life, or to anyone who might subsequently be involved in proceedings.

  1719
  First of all, people can wrongly form the impression all too often that there is no smoke without fire. It is a dangerous proposition for people to accept, but unhappily rumour and gossip do gain currency. The sort of damaging innuendo that flowed from this report—I do not blame the Press because it has a duty to perform—can cause permanent damage. It was an innuendo totally without justification, as I am sure the Minister would concede.
  As a result of what happened I and the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) put down a number of questions for Written Answer on the general issue. These gave rise to some extraordinary answers. On 22nd December the Minister of State said:
  "It is not the practice of the Metropolitan Police to make public the name of a person being questioned or the result of a breath test before a summons is issued or a charge preferred, but facts already known to an inquirer may be confirmed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 381.]
  I then raised a number of questions on that. What did the hon. Gentleman mean by "any inquirer"? The answer was given by the Minister of State on 18th January when he said:
  "Information would normally be given to a relative or friend, subject to satisfactory identification and the consent of the person concerned."
  No one could grumble at that. He went on:
  "Otherwise it is not the practice to supply information in these circumstances, but information already known to an inquirer may be confirmed."
  This is grossly unsatisfactory.
  With these vague guidelines that are offered to the police any reporter making an intelligent guess can obtain that confirmation. Some reporters are instructed by their newspapers to make calls at police stations to find out information. That information should not be supplied unless a charge has been preferred or other proceedings have been initiated.
  Another interesting development arose. The Minister then drew a distinction between the disclosure of the result of a breath test and a blood test. The Minister of State also said:
  "Information cannot be given about the results of blood tests which are above the prescribed level because court proceedings might
  1720
  be prejudiced by publication. If, therefore, information were given about any blood tests it would be assumed that wherever information was refused proceedings must be in prospect.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 165–6.]
  It is a strange distinction. If information is disclosed about breathalyser tests, this too could be seriously prejudicial in a prosecution for dangerous driving or driving without due care. I fail to see the logic of that answer.
  I am concerned with the relationship between the police and the public, but it would be in the interests of the police for no information at all to be disclosed until proceedings were initiated, even when inquiries are made by the Press or anyone else. If that were the guideline, the absurdities to which I have referred would not arise.
  There are situations in which the police require the assistance of the public in tracing individuals required for questioning in serious criminal cases. With that exception, what is wrong with my general proposition? This is the position in Scotland. If the case concerning my right hon. Friend had arisen in Scotland there would have been proceedings for contempt of court and heavy fines might have been imposed.
  If my proposition were accepted it would prevent improper pressures being put on the police for the disclosure of information. The Minister may be concerned about the relationship between the police and the Press, but I believe that no damage would be done to that relationship because the police would have no discretion. They would not be permitted to divulge the information—and that would be an end to it—until a decision had been made about the initiation of prosecutions.
  I am not seeking to carry on a vendetta against the police. I have said on many occasions in the House that I am concerned about the establishment of confidence between the police and the public. In circumstances like this where mistakes have occurred it is necessary for the police to be absolutely frank and open, to say they have made a mistake and that they are sorry. I am sorry that they did not do so in this case, but that is not the broad issue.
  I believe if the proposition I advance were to be accepted as the new guidelines,

  1721
  confidence between public and police would be advantaged and not disadvantaged. This seems to be the gravamen of the argument adduced by the Minister. This is my purpose in raising this matter tonight, and I hope I have been not destructive but constructive because that is my objective.
  11.55 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has raised in this Adjournment debate a question of principle but has related it to a particular event which took place. I shall try in my reply to deal with the principle, and it is necessary in so doing that I should also deal with the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I shall summarise the sequence of events on the evening in question.
  First, however, I should make it clear that I referred to this matter on 22nd December in reply to a Question by the hon. Gentleman when I said that it was not the practice of the Metropolitan Police to make public the findings of a breath test on a named person before the institution of proceedings. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would firmly reject any suggestion that such a practice should be allowed to develop.
  I turn to the incident in question—I think it is necessary to do so in view of one or two of the things said by the hon. Gentleman—and how the exact circumstances arose. At about 10.30 p.m. on 14th December the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was involved in an accident with two other vehicles in Tottenham Court Road. He drove on to report the accident at Tottenham Court Road police station. On arrival he got out, and at this point there was a further collision between the driver's door of his car and another vehicle. He went into the police station. Two of the other drivers involved also entered the police station shortly afterwards.
  The sergeant in charge of the station established that no one had been injured, and his first thought was that the situation would be met by an exchange of particulars among the drivers who had been involved. He did not immediately appreciate that offences might have been committed. After hearing further
  1722
  details, however, he decided that the matters should be reported and he instructed two constables to investigate. One of those officers later told the duty officer that an allegation had been made that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East had been drinking. Two breath tests were then administered to the right hon. Member. Both were positive and he was asked to give a blood sample. This he agreed to do. He left the station shortly after the sample had been taken. The analysis of the blood sample later showed that the blood alcohol level of the right hon. Member was below the prescribed limit.
  When the analysis of the blood sample became known a deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police telephoned the right hon. Member on 17th December informing him of the result of the analysis. This information was later confirmed by letter. When the right hon. Member asked about Press publicity he was told that it was for him to decide whether to release the information about the blood test to the Press.
  I give these details because in view of what I am about to say it is essential that the House should be in possession of those facts. The main burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is his concern that the Press should have been able to obtain information about the accident, and in particular about the results of the breath tests, prior to any possible proceedings.
  Mr. Davis: I am not concerned at all about the accident.
  Mr. Sharples: I appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the Press should have been able to obtain information about the accident. The suggestion that the police were responsible for releasing the information was carefully investigated in the course of an inquiry held by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The investigating officer found no evidence that the result of the test was initially passed on to the Press by the police. That is the answer to what the hon. Gentleman has said: there is no evidence to show that the result of the test was initially passed on by the police.
  The House will appreciate the very real difficulty which arises in questioning the sources of information to the Press. What

  1723
  the commissioner's inquiry has established is that there were quite a number of people outside the police service who knew that the accidents had taken place. There were the drivers of the three other vehicles involved in the accidents and other bystanders. There were also the customers of a nearby restaurant, including apparently at least one journalist, who quickly became aware of at least the first of the accidents.
  One of the drivers involved—the driver of a minicab—has admitted that he informed the Press and another person. It is true and regrettable that he was told the result of the first breath test by one of the police officers concerned. I want to make it quite clear that this should not have happened. The commissioner has passed, through my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, his regret to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that this should have happened.
  It is fair to say, however, that very little in the way of explicit information would have been necessary since the minicab driver and one of the other drivers who were in the station owing to their involvement in the accident saw the breath test equipment and saw the right hon. Member being taken through the station after the first breath test. It would have been quite reasonable for them to have assumed the result of the breath test, even if they had not been told by one of the officers concerned.
  I turn now to the general question of the handling of publicity before and after the institution of proceedings. The commissioner's inquiry into the incident on 14th December has shown that his existing instructions should ensure that information is not volunteered before the institution of proceedings, except in certain circumstances. Those are circumstances of the kind which the hon. Gentleman rightly outlined, for example where an escaped prisoner who has been the subject of a widely-published "wanted" notice is arrested. Once a charge has been preferred by the police, the details of the person charged may be released. Those are the instructions which are given.
  The fact that someone has been given a breath test, positive or otherwise, is not
  1724
  volunteered by the Metropolitan Police prior to the institution of proceedings. If, however, the news leaks out that someone is in this position—and the risk of a leak is obviously greater if a public figure is involved—it is difficult for the police to deny what is already public knowledge. Nor would anything be gained for the person concerned by the police attempting to do so. To refuse confirmation of facts already known would probably lead to speculation that far more serious matters were in question.
  I turn now to publicity about blood tests——
  Mr. Davis: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this point, can be confirm that the information which I have given about the practice in Scotland is correct? If that is right, why should the practice in Scotland be different from that adopted here? Surely speculation and the other fearful features to which the hon. Gentleman has referred apply equally in Scotland as in this country.
  Mr. Sharples: Senior police officers must be responsible for their own handling of publicity in matters of this kind, provided that they are fair to the persons involved. They must also bear in mind carefully the effect that any publicity may have upon court proceedings which may follow. I have not had the time to check the exact relation between what happens in London and in Scotland. I have no reason to think that the same practice is followed by every police force in England. I have outlined the practice in the Metropolitan Police.
  I turn to the other question raised by the hon. Gentleman concerning publicity about blood tests. The hon. Gentleman asked why no publicity was given of the result of the analysis of the blood sample given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. The answer lies in the fact that the results of the breath tests are not relevant to the securing of a conviction in any subsequent court proceedings whereas the results of a blood test are relevant.
  To publicise analyses of blood samples which show an alcohol content above the prescribed level would definitely prejudice court proceedings. It follows that if information were given about any

  1725
  blood tests, it would be assumed that any test about which information was refused would have shown results above the prescribed level. The established practice, therefore, it is to refuse all information about blood tests.
  I conclude on this note. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shares the concern which has been expressed about the need to avoid publicity prior to the institution of proceedings. He is satisfied that the instructions given by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on this point are adequate and that in the ordinary course of events the results of breath tests would not be made public before a charge was preferred or a summons issued. The hon. Gentleman referred to the statement which is alleged to have been issued by the New Scotland Yard press bureau and it is quite true, as he said, that a report appeared in the Sun that the right hon. Member was given a breath test and that the words "because of his condition" were used, those words being attributed to a spokesman from New Scotland Yard.
  It would have been quite improper for the press bureau to have said anything of that kind. The commissioner informs me that no one in the press bureau has any recollection of saying this. The press bureau is now in no doubt that it should confine itself simply to the bare facts of the case.
  My right hon. Friend shares the view of the Commissioner of Police of the
  1726
  Metropolis that relations between his force and the Press would become very difficult if his officers were prevented from confirming facts already firmly in the possession of the press in such a case. It would clearly be wrong to go beyond this and as a result of this case the staff of the press bureau at New Scotland Yard have been left in no doubt as to the point to which they can go in giving information to the Press in a case of this kind.
  It is always a difficult balance to maintain, especially where a public figure is involved in an incident of this kind. The Press, quite rightly from its own point of view, considers an incident in the light of its news value. It uses, as one would expect, all means available to it to try to obtain information about the incident. The police, and particularly the Press officers at New Scotland Yard, are under great pressure to give details. There may sometimes be problems of judgment which have to be solved. On the whole, however, I think they carry out their job very well and we should give them credit for doing so.
  Mr. Davis: I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that I in no way wish to make a blanket criticism of the police. I share his views about them in general terms. It was, of course, the principle to which I was alluding.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Immigrant Children (Redbridge)
  Immigrant Children (Redbridge)
  Propps Hall Primary School, Failsworth
  Propps Hall Primary School, Failsworth
  Colleges of Education (Curriculum)
  Colleges of Education (Curriculum)
  National Parks (Exercise Activities)
  National Parks (Exercise Activities)
  Teacher Training Grants (Married Women)
  Teacher Training Grants (Married Women)
  Reinforced Composite Materials (University Chair)
  Reinforced Composite Materials (University Chair)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Facilities (Joint Use)
  Facilities (Joint Use)
  James Report (Implementation)
  James Report (Implementation)
  Handicapped Persons (Information)
  Handicapped Persons (Information)
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Local Education Authorities (Population Size)
  Local Education Authorities (Population Size)
  Inadequate Facilities and Crime Rate (Correlation)
  Inadequate Facilities and Crime Rate (Correlation)
  Research Councils (Staff)
  Research Councils (Staff)
  Engineering Graduates (Scottish Universities)
  Engineering Graduates (Scottish Universities)
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Schoolleaving Age (Specialist Teachers)
  Schoolleaving Age (Specialist Teachers)
  Museums and Galleries (Charity Status)
  Museums and Galleries (Charity Status)
  Teaching Machines (Backward Readers)
  Teaching Machines (Backward Readers)
  Open University
  Open University
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Member of Parliament (Correspondence)
  Member of Parliament (Correspondence)
  Residential Colleges (Student Grants)
  Residential Colleges (Student Grants)
  Primary Schools (Rural Catchment Areas)
  Primary Schools (Rural Catchment Areas)
  Portsmouth Polytechnic
  Portsmouth Polytechnic
  Capitation Allowances
  Capitation Allowances
  Teachers in Training
  Teachers in Training
  Wandsworth
  Wandsworth
  Adult Education (Report)
  Adult Education (Report)
  Schoolchildren (Transport)
  Schoolchildren (Transport)
  North-East Coast
  North-East Coast
  Building Costs
  Building Costs
  St. Angela's School, Newham
  St. Angela's School, Newham
  Road Safety and Driving Tuition
  Road Safety and Driving Tuition
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Portsmouth (Malta Returnees)
  Portsmouth (Malta Returnees)
DEFENCE
  Royal Navy and Royal Marines (Discharge Options)
  Royal Navy and Royal Marines (Discharge Options)
  Portugal
  Portugal
  Seconded Personnel
  Seconded Personnel
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Hotels and Boarding-houses (Fire Precautions)
  Hotels and Boarding-houses (Fire Precautions)
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
  Personal and Property Damage (Compensation)
  Personal and Property Damage (Compensation)
  999 System (Shaw, Lancashire)
  999 System (Shaw, Lancashire)
  Congleton (Local Government Representation)
  Congleton (Local Government Representation)
  Irish Citizens
  Irish Citizens
  Public Order
  Public Order
  Police (Birmingham)
  Police (Birmingham)
  Murder
  Murder
  Horseracing (Levies)
  Horseracing (Levies)
  Constitution (Royal Commission)
  Constitution (Royal Commission)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Breathalyser Tests
  Breathalyser Tests
  Oil Heaters (Accidents)
  Oil Heaters (Accidents)
  British Nationality Act, 1948
  British Nationality Act, 1948
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Police Officers (Suspensions and Dismissals)
  Police Officers (Suspensions and Dismissals)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Death Certification and Coroners
  Death Certification and Coroners
  Attempted Murder Confessions
  Attempted Murder Confessions
  Horserace Levy Board (Chairman)
  Horserace Levy Board (Chairman)
  Police Officers (Malpractice)
  Police Officers (Malpractice)
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Bill
  Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Bill
EMPLOYMENT
  Rubery, Owen Factories (Darlaston)
  Rubery, Owen Factories (Darlaston)
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Distribution Depots (Safety Precautions)
  Distribution Depots (Safety Precautions)
  Ayrshire
  Ayrshire
  Regional Statistics
  Regional Statistics
  Wales
  Wales
  Fine Tubes, Plymouth (Dispute)
  Fine Tubes, Plymouth (Dispute)
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
  Unemployment (Duration)
  Unemployment (Duration)
  Aberavon
  Aberavon
  Newham
  Newham
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Economic Growth (New Jobs)
  Economic Growth (New Jobs)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Irish Citizens
  Irish Citizens
ENVIRONMENT
  West Midlands Planning Council
  West Midlands Planning Council
  Shirley Quarry, Wythall
  Shirley Quarry, Wythall
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Rigid Chassis Vehicles
  Rigid Chassis Vehicles
  Child Casualties (London)
  Child Casualties (London)
  National Freight Corporation (Grant)
  National Freight Corporation (Grant)
  Waste Dumping (Packington)
  Waste Dumping (Packington)
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Assembly on Unemployment
  Scottish Assembly on Unemployment
  Coal Industry Dispute (Arrest of Pickets)
  Coal Industry Dispute (Arrest of Pickets)
  Life Sentences
  Life Sentences
  Prisoners and Detainees (Work)
  Prisoners and Detainees (Work)
WALES
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Housing (Amenities)
  Housing (Amenities)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Attendance Allowance (Birmingham)
  Attendance Allowance (Birmingham)
  Local Authority Services
  Local Authority Services
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  South Africa (Import Restrictions)
  South Africa (Import Restrictions)
  Electricity Production (Cost)
  Electricity Production (Cost)
  Oil (Price)
  Oil (Price)
  Gas Board Depôts
  Gas Board Depôts
  Aberavon
  Aberavon
  HANDICAPPED PERSONS (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  HANDICAPPED PERSONS (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  SHIPBUILDING TECHNOLOGY (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  SHIPBUILDING TECHNOLOGY (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
  ISRAEL
  ISRAEL
  INDUSTRIAL DERELICTION (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  INDUSTRIAL DERELICTION (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dairy Products
  Dairy Products
  Agriculture Act (Prosecutions)
  Agriculture Act (Prosecutions)
  JURORS (FINANCIAL LOSS)
  JURORS (FINANCIAL LOSS)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Development Divisions
  Development Divisions
  New Zealand (Northern Ireland Resident's Death)
  New Zealand (Northern Ireland Resident's Death)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Non-Parliamentary Publications (Supply to Members)
  Non-Parliamentary Publications (Supply to Members)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

VALUE ADDED TAX AND PURCHASE TAX
LORD BESWICK: 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 give an undertaking that the value added tax will not be levied on those goods on which purchase tax has already been collected.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, this question is still under consideration, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with it in his Budget statement next month.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the question may be under consideration, but is there not a principle here that ought to be decided now? Can it be justified in any circumstances to tax this category of goods twice over?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot go any further before my right honourable friend makes his Budget Statement.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, will the Government give special consideration to the possibility of an interval between the cessation of purchase tax and the commencement of V.A.T.? This would enable traders to get rid of the stock which has been subject to purchase tax and might also give a fillip to the economy.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. All these matters are under the most careful consideration. We are fully aware of this problem.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, while recognising that there is a real problem
1262
here, would the noble Lord at least agree that this has been brought about by the precipitate action of the Government in introducing V.A.T. for Common Market purposes?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords; I could not agree with that. The fact is that the V.A.T. proposals are being put forward at the next Budget in order to give plenty of time for them to be fully considered before they are introduced.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether we can assume that V.A.T. will not be levied on any goods on which purchase tax has not been levied?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid that that is a completely different question.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the difficulty in which he finds himself is the result of the idiotic custom of changing all the taxes at one secret given moment of the year, and not having a permanent commission on taxation?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not prepared to accept that, but I know that there are those who feel that way.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer this particular question. Could he not agree that there is no administrative reason why V.A.T. should be levied on goods which have already paid purchase tax?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should imagine that that would be perfectly possible, yes; but I cannot anticipate what decision will be made by my right honourable friend when it comes to the Budget.

FRANCE AND N.A.T.O.
3.9 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the defence facilities arranged between the French Government and NATO in the event of an act of agression against any country associated with NATO.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the French have withdrawn from the integrated military structure of NATO and they commit no forces to the Alliance. But they do maintain substantial forces in Germany; they are still members of the North Atlantic Alliance; and like all signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty they are committed to regard an armed attack on one or more members in Europe or North America as an attack on all.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful for the Answer, but is it not rather anomalous that, while the French remain a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, they have contracted out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Has any attempt been made to persuade them to return to NATO, and would it be desirable that they should, rather than have this anomalous and unsatisfactory arrangement?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I made plain, they have withdrawn from the integrated military structure, but not of course from the Alliance. Her Majesty's Government—both this Government and the previous Government—have on a number of occasions made it plain that they would very much like to see the French back in the integrated military structure. But, of course, this is a matter for the French Government.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would it not appear from some part of the noble Lord's answer regarding infrastructure that if the French maintain some kind of connection, however remote, it is because they received vast sums of money in the past, way back from 1945, for purposes of infrastructure, including telecommunications, air fields and a variety of other devices, which had an economic advantage as well as a military advantage; so the connection is, although remote, based on what they received largely from the United Kingdom as well as from other countries?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course when the French were members of the integrated military structure they received from the infrastructure what was necessary and paid their share of it. Since they have left the integrated military structure they do not take part in it
1264
except when they wish to do so and pay their share.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, might it not be an advantage, as a step towards general disarmament, if Her Majesty's Government followed the example of the French? Would not the Government consider taking this step?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is a revolutionary view which I think would not be acceptable in any quarter of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND: ARRESTS AND DETENTIONS
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many persons have been detained in Ulster under the Special Powers and other Acts since the beginning of the emergency, how many have been brought before the courts and charged with offences, and how many have been released.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, since the information requested by the noble Lord is available in the form of a table, I will, with permission, arrange for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the table:

Arrests under the Special Powers Act

Arrested between 9th August, 1971, and 8th February, 1972

2,376

Released without detention order

1,413

Released after detention order

113

Escaped from detention

10

Released from internment

34

Escaped from internment

1

1,571

805

Held under Regulation 10 (i.e. persons held for questioning)

48

Held under Regulation 11 (i.e. detained)

161

Held under Regulation 12(i.e. interned)

596

805

28 of those arrested under the Special Powers Acts have been brought before the courts and charged with various offences.
Other arrests
Details of arrests under the criminal law for offences in connection with the civil disturbances, are available only for 1971:—

Persons arrested and charged

1,239

Persons convicted

621

Cases withdrawn

145

Cases dismissed

119

Cases pending at end of 1971

354

This information has been obtained from the Northern Ireland authorities.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his interest in the matter and I shall read the details with interest. Meanwhile, may I ask him whether he has read the article which appeared in The Times newspaper yesterday, by a legal expert, who referred to the somewhat chaotic, anomalous and incongruous situation in Ulster in relation to legal administration? Does not what is con-contained in that article indicate that there should be an inquiry of some kind in order to put the matter in the proper perspective? And, at the same time, would the noble Lord consider its bearing on the whole internment issue?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is aware of the article to which the noble Lord has referred, but he does not feel able to accept all its conclusions.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that, although his right honourable friend is unable to accept my conclusions, eventually he will be compelled to: he will have no alternative, because unless the internment issue is resolved in some form, even in a modified form, there is not the slightest hope, not the remotest hope, of finding a solution to the Ulster problem?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we had a long debate on Northern Ireland only last week, lasting some seven hours. This Question was a specific request for statistics, and as I have arranged to circulate the information in Hansard I do not think it would be the wish of the House that we should debate the whole question of internment again now.

AIR FARES ON NORTH ATLANTIC ROUTES
3.13 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to make a Statement on the further details of the North Atlantic fares structure as agreed originally by IATA in Geneva on December 12 last.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, we have not yet received by any means all the details of the fares which IATA propose should apply on North Atlantic routes from April 1, and I cannot guarantee that those we have received are absolutely firm. However, it looks as if the London/New York return fares will range from £323·15 first-class, and £226·45 economy class, to £84·05 winter rate for a 22/45 day excursion, plus a surcharge of £5·80 each way for week-end travel. I am sending the noble Baroness a table giving the London/New York and London/Montreal proposed fares and I shall lay a copy in the Library. These fares are subject to the approval of the Governments concerned.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and I am glad that he is to lay a copy of the table in the Library pending clarification. But may I ask him if I am correct in assuming that the only difference between the passengers using these cheaper services and those paying normal prices is the compulsory minimum length of stay at the destination: in other words, that no advance booking is necessary; that actual dates can be applied for on booking and that the same aircraft will be used for all passengers?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I think this is so, apart from the fact that there is also a maximum period. There is a minimum and a maximum period.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, arising out of that satisfactory reply may I ask the Minister

1267
about something which I find difficult to understand? From what he has just said we realise that no advance booking is necessary for these cheaper flights. May I ask the Minister why, speaking on behalf of the Government, he regrets this? Is he not aware that passengers are glad not to have to pay 90 days in advance for a flight they wish to undertake? And why do the Government wish it were otherwise?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there were so many double negatives in those remarks that I had a little difficulty in following them. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that if she and I were negotiating this no doubt we should be able to reach agreement.
LORD SHEPHERD: Oh!
LORD DRUMALBYN: Well, my Lords, one can always hope. This agreement has been made to cover all the points in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and Asia; many hundreds of fares are involved, and of course all the countries have to agree them.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sure we shall reach agreement one day, and I apologise for the double negatives. Is the Minister aware that on November 25, at column 1226 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debate, he said that he regretted that the advance booking period was not going to be necessary for these cheaper North Atlantic fares? That statement has no double negative, and I should like to know why he said that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is because the advance booking system has worked well between here and the Caribbean.

THE COAL STRIKE
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice:
To ask her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the meeting yesterday between the
1268
Secretary of State for Employment, the Mineworkers' Union and the National Coal Board.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend, Lord Drumablyn, will answer this Question at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

PORT TALBOT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House very long on this Bill, but being a ratepayer of the City of Stoke-on-Trent and a Sudeten Welshman who has earned his living for a while in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, I think your Lordships should know what we are doing here. It is a praiseworthy effort on behalf of the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation, the Mayor and his officials, to use incinerators which will improve the environment and thereby earn some money for the good ratepayers of Stoke-on-Trent by selling the steam to the Michelin Rubber Company. I am also glad to see that there is protection in the Bill for all the ratepayers if their roads, gateways and gardens are thrust aside by a too active corporation in its effort to sell steam. Finally, while welcoming the Bill I hope that the present Government will one day get some steam to improve the environment in which we are living in great difficulty these days.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments on the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to prevent non-British subjects being prohibited from becoming or practising as solicitors; to amend the Solicitors Acts 1957 to 1965; to make further provision as to the Council of The Law Society, the Compensation Fund maintained under the Solicitors Act 1957, the taxation of solicitors' bills, the administration of oaths and taking of affidavits and the termination of a solicitor's retainer; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Tangley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIAN LAND COMPANY LIMITED ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
SUMMER TIME BILL
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: 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 Order No. 36 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday next for the purpose of enabling the Motions for an Humble Address and on the Emergency Regulations 1972 to be taken after the Airports Authority Bill.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.20 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON rose to move, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House, with the Amendment, and the Motion on Procedure of the House standing in the name of the Earl of Perth, with the Amendments thereto, be considered this day in Committee of the Whole House. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In order not to take up too much of the time of the House I will only say that this proposal, which is that when we come to debate the Procedure Committee Report and the Amendments thereto the House should go into Committee, is in fact provided for in our Standing Orders, and there are precedents—for instance, when the House was debating the Draft Standing Order on Leave of Absence. At one time there was only one Amendment down, which I think we could have managed without going into Committee, but with a group of Amendments, and taking into account that the House sometimes has some difficulty with these Reports and that Peers may wish to ask one or more questions in the course of the discussion, I would urge the House to agree to go into Committee. I hope that this course, so far from prolonging the proceedings on the Report of the Procedure Committee, may in fact shorten them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House, with the amendment, and the Motion on Procedure of the House standing in the name of the Earl of Perth, with the amendments thereto, be considered this day in Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I can confirm what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, has said: that there are precedents and that this is provided for in our Standing Orders. I am grateful for his suggestion, because, like him, I think this is now a very complicated matter, with two Motions and an Amendment to the first one and two Amendments to the second. I think we should stay much more clearly in order if we were in Committee than in any other

1271
way. I would therefore recommend to the House that it accepts this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE REGULATIONS (VALIDATION) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I beg to move that the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be now considered. I should like to remind the Committee that when noble Lords wish to debate a Report of a Committee of the House they usually do it on the subsequent Motion, That the Report be agreed to, which I shall move in a few moments.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:

METHOD OF CHOOSING SUBJECTS FOR WEDNESDAY SHORT DEBATES
On 16th December, 1971, the House debated the conclusions of the Procedure Committee on the Report of the Group on the Working of the House [Second Report, dated 9th December, 1971, item 2].
In the course of this debate, the Earl of Perth moved, and the House accepted, an amendment to refer back to the Procedure Committee for further consideration the recommendation that the subjects for the short debate on Wednesdays should be chosen by ballot.
In moving his amendment Lord Perth suggested as an alternative method of choice that the subjects for debate should be "chosen by four back-benchers who will be nominated by the Leader of the House, with the usual channels assisting them. This would be a rational way to choose the subjects". (Lords Hansard of 16th December, col. 1295).
In the subsequent debate there was support for such a method of reasoned choice and opposition to the idea of the ballot. Lord Perth's amendment to refer the matter back to the Procedure Committee for further consideration was accepted by the House without challenge.
Accordingly the Committee have reviewed the recommendation that they made in their Second Report in favour of the ballot; and they have also considered Lord Perth's suggested alternative of a Committee of four back-benchers, working in consultation with the usual channels to choose the subjects. Under both plans, the choice would lie between, and would be restricted to, Motions which had been tabled by Peers and were already on the Order Paper.
In favour of Lord Perth's suggestion it is argued that chance is an irrational and undiscriminating method of choosing subjects for debate; that the ballot is not necessary in the House of Lords which, unlike the Commons, does not suffer from a severe shortage of time; and that choice by back-benchers, after consultation with the usual channels, would give back-benchers a direct but limited part in the planning of the business of the House. On this view the use of the proposed back-bench committee, after consultation with the usual channels would provide, as a ballot would not, a measure of flexibility. It would, therefore, be better to build on the present system in the way proposed rather than to resort to the ballot.
The other view is that to set up a committee of four to choose the subjects would be a cumbersome way of proceeding, no more likely to produce acceptable results than a ballot. Such a body could not claim to be representative. On the other hand the ballot is manifestly fair and independent; it gives everybody the same chance and has proved successful in the Commons. The difficulty of choosing between subjects competing for Parliamentary time is such that it may be thought preferable to leave the decision to the ballot rather than set up complicated machinery to try and assess the value to the House of debating one subject rather than another.
While both alternatives before the Committee have some disadvantages, the Committee remain of the opinion that on balance the ballot is preferable to any other method of choosing subjects for the experimental Wednesday debates. They, therefore, reaffirm their original recommendation made to the House in the Second Report.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I beg to move that this Report be agreed to. The Report which I am now moving is concerned purely with the question of how the subjects for the short Wednesday debates shall be chosen. Your Lordships will remember that this matter was debated in the House on December 16 last and referred back to the Procedure Committee on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who objected to the ballot

1273
as the method of choosing the subjects for the experimental Wednesday debates.
The Procedure Committee have accordingly reconsidered the arguments for and against the ballot and have also considered the alternative proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth; namely, that the subjects should be chosen by a small committee of Back-Benchers drawn from all sides of the House, after consultation with the usual channels. The Committee had the advantage of hearing Lord Perth in the course of their deliberations. Your Lordships will see from the last paragraph of the Report that they remain of the opinion that on balance the ballot is preferable to any other method of choosing subjects for the short Wednesday debates; and therefore they reaffirm their original recommendation to the House.
I would add only two points. The first is that the Report before your Lordships to-day is submitted in a form that gives not only the conclusion of the Committee but also the arguments in favour of the two alternative courses. The reason for this is the strong feeling of the Committee that this was essentially a matter for the House to decide, and that it might be of assistance to the House to have the arguments shortly and, as I hope noble Lords will agree, objectively set out in the Report.
The only other point is one that will be familiar to many of your Lordships. It is that there are a number of precedents for the House's declining to accept the recommendation of one of its Committees, including the Procedure Committee. I am sure I speak for the Committee when I say that, while they have registered their view in this Report, it would imply no disrespect for the Committee if the House were to reach a different conclusion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, after "Report", to insert, "except the last paragraph thereof". The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I must confess to your Lordships that I have put it down with some hesitation. After all, it is
1274
something to take on the wisdom and might of the Procedure Committee. But I recall my namesake, David, who slew Goliath—not that I am wanting to slay anybody; but also, more importantly, I recall how in our debate in the middle of December all noble Lords who spoke from the Back Benches spoke in favour of this Amendment, and, quite simply, I should have been betraying their wishes and faith if I had not gone on with this Amendment. I am only sorry that my sole advocacy at the Procedure Committee failed to persuade them. However, this is the reason why I am going on now.
May I just for a moment recall the history of this Amendment? When the Leader of the House asked for a small committee of four to help him on the working of the House, one of the recommendations of that small committee, of which I happened to have the honour of being a member, was that there should be these short debates once every month. It was further left in our Report that whether these should be chosen by ballot or by the Committee of Back-Benchers was for the House to decide. Therefore, in moving this Amendment to-day I am not suggesting something new; it is something that was in our original suggestions, it is something which was supported in the debate in December, and it is something on which I feel very strongly that your Lordships should have a chance to express your views further.
I say that with more conviction when I recall who were the Back-Benchers who supported me in our last debate. One was the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who unfortunately, I am afraid, will not be here to-day, but who has asked me to say that he continues of the view that this is the right solution. Another was the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who, happily, will be able to speak to-day. There was the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie. There was also the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who wrote me again saying that I should certainly advise your Lordships that he remained in favour, but unfortunately he had to be in Basic to-day and therefore could not attend here. There was the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who happily is here to-day, and I hope we may hear from him that he continues to believe in what I am advocating.
Lastly, there was the late Lord Crowther. He made a short speech in favour of the Amendment at that time. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to pay a very short tribute to Lord Crowther. He was a very close personal friend of mine. He was indeed my twin; he was born on the same day in the same year, and we were very apt to celebrate our birthdays together, and so I want to take the chance of paying this tribute. As many of your Lordships will know, his was company which was always enjoyable, always full of fun, and always penetrating and amusing. He had the extraordinary gift of making complicated subjects, particularly on economic affairs, simple, straightforward, and also was able to propose solutions and see them through. He had the ability to get to the heart of matters.
Your Lordships may remember that, apart from this one short speech, he made an intervention in the Immigration Bill of a little while ago. He found in the Bill a flaw which was one particularly close to him, because he said:
"As I read the Bill it means that my wife, who has been my wife for 25 years or more and is of this country, may find herself an alien, and there are others in the same category."
Your Lordships will remember the wit and skill with which he introduced his Amendment. He had indeed found a flaw in the Bill as drafted, and he was successful in remedying it. That was typical of how he got to the heart of things. His service to his country is well know to all of you. I would only recall that he has been Chairman of three Government Commissions. One was on consumer credit, one on education, and the last was to be on the Constitution. Alas! we do not know what the final recommendation would have been under his chairmanship. One can only hope that what he had done already will prove, as I am sure it will, of great value and importance in what may be the final recommendation of that Commission. I am sure you will join with me in voicing our sorrow for his wife and his family, and in the loss that all of us have suffered.
As I have said, because of the support I had I felt I must press on with this Amendment. As the Chairman of Committees
1276
has said, the four Back-Benchers, if they are to operate, will, with the Leader, look at Part II of the "No Day Named" Motions, which are on the green Order Paper. There you will find, for example, that to-day there are no fewer than eight items listed. The question is whether out of those eight items the choice of two of them should be by ballot or should be by the Back-Benchers' Committee.
In the Report of the Procedure Committee will be seen the reasons why it is argued that we should go for a Select Committee. In case some of your Lordships have not got that Report before you, may I touch very briefly on those reasons? The first is that chance is an irrational and undiscriminating method of choosing subjects for debate. I strongly believe that. I do not believe that chance is appropriate here, although it may be in bingo halls. Secondly, it is said that a ballot is not necessary in the House of Lords which, unlike the Commons, does not suffer from a severe shortage of time. That is a polite way of saying that the House of Lords does not have 600 constituencies, and therefore the difficulty which would obviously arise if one had to select from a choice of debates which was really dictated by constituency reasons. Thirdly, it points out that if you have a Back-Benchers' Select Committee it would give the Back-Benchers a direct but limited part in the planning of the business of the House. I think that this is important. Perhaps a fourth reason, which is not put down here, is that if you have a rational choice then you can see that some of the debates listed may be topical and timely. Those would be the ones to go for at once. That situation could not arise, or would not necessarily arise, if we were to proceed by ballot.
Therefore, I hope that others who feel as I do will express their views in two ways: first, by speaking, and then by vote, should I find sufficient support to go to a Division, which I certainly have it in mind to do. I am comforted in taking this bold course against the Procedure Committee for the reasons that the Chairman of Committees has mentioned to your Lordships; namely, that it is not something which is not done. Indeed, he has almost encouraged us to do it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, after ("Report"), to insert (",except the last paragraph thereof.")—(The Earl of Perth.)
3.39 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think that this is the most earthshaking issue which will come before your Lordships' House, and I should like to make clear that whatever decision the House comes to I shall be perfectly content. I should indeed have been perfectly content with what was undoubtedly the overwhelming view of the Procedure Committee, whichever way it had gone. The fact that I do not support this Amendment—though I wish the noble Earl the best of luck, and if the House agrees with him then well and good—is essentially due to reasons of simplicity.
I should like to make one or two points. I should deplore—I do not think the noble Earl sought to make this point, but there was a slight implication—any suggestion that in some way he is a David battling against the powers of darkness contained in the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, my noble friend Lord Beswick and others. It is a well-established custom in this House that the Leader of the House, and indeed in this respect the Government and the Chief Whip, owe responsibilities to the House which they try to discharge perfectly fairly to everyone. I, for one, was never conscious of having deprived anybody when I was Leader of the House; indeed, under our Standing Orders one could not deprive anybody of the right to move anything. But it is a fact that there are some subjects which some people regard as more important than others—they press very hard and they chase the usual channels—and there are certain matters of Party political importance which the Parties themselves may press. I was also very conscious that there are a number of less obviously important subjects which are never debated at all; and I have in mind, in particular, the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Somers.
Under a process of selection, however it may be operated, these Motions will still remain unselected, whereas a ballot, which, after all, is a respectable and early form of democratic decision—because in adopting this we shall be following the Athenean democracy in this matter—is a
1278
good way to proceed in a House where we seek for as much fairness as is possible in this unfair world.
I should like to echo the noble Earl's very warmly expressed tributes to Lord Crowther. I shall not myself dwell further on that subject, beyond saying that we all share the noble Earl's views. My objection to a Committee of Back-Benchers is simply that somebody must take decisions in this House. It is difficult enough to get people together. It is difficult enough for the usual channels. It is sometimes even difficult for the Leader of the House to speak to his own Chief Whip, especially during Ascot Week. I may say that I have had complaints on the subject from this side. But to create a Committee of Back-Benchers seems to me to be taking a pretty large sledge-hammer, and I do not really think it is worth while appointing a Committee solely for this purpose. If the House had been in favour of a Committee of Back-Benchers for other purposes, then this is a duty which it might have discharged. But the House decided against it. I was not in favour, but I said that I was perfectly content to accept it.
I should be very sorry if it were thought that the usual channels were somehow unfair. I believe there are ample opportunities for making views known direct to leaders, for raising them in the House, for taking them to the Committees—in fact, for generally making views known. Therefore, although I see that there are arguments—and I do not deny this—for the noble Earl's point of view, and for the view that, for instance, we might select better Motions. I doubt whether it is worth while adopting this suggestion for this purpose. What we are considering is an experiment. It is going to be fairly difficult to operate, and I can see that Government Leaders will he involved. So let us run the experiment along the lines the Procedure Committee has suggested.
There is the interesting suggestion to be made later by my noble friend Lady White about dividing up, and choosing one debate by selection and one by ballot. If this goes very well, it may be that we shall find further time for this sort of experiment. But in terms of simplicity, I should have thought that the easiest course now was to adopt the recommendation

1279
of the Procedure Committee. Let everybody, whatever his interest, have an equal chance; let the ballot start in a fortnight's time as arranged, and in another two or three months' time we can look again to see whether there are better ways of following this experiment. So my view, though no doubt the House will take its own decision, is that we should stick to what has been proposed by the Select Committee.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

COAL STRIKE: FURTHER JOINT TALKS
3.46 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I shall, with permission, now reply to the Private Notice Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I shall reply in the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. This is the Answer:
"Yesterday morning I met, separately, representatives of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. After establishing that the positions of both parties remained unchanged, I suggested to each in turn that they might consider resuming talks on the basis that if a settlement ran for a period longer than twelve months this might provide a possibility for some improvement in the cash offer. I also suggested that if this were accepted, talks might be held in a joint meeting under my Department's chairmanship. The Board agreed to this suggestion as did the Union representatives after consulting their Executive.
"In the joint talks which followed yesterday evening, the Board said that for an 18-month agreement from the date of resumption of work they were prepared to offer an increase of £3 a week on the basic rate of all surface workers and £3·50 a week on the rate for those employed underground on the 1955 Day Wage Agreement. This means that the lowest paid worker
1280
underground would receive a minimum of £22·50 for a full week compared with £19 at the moment. In addition, a guaranteed minimum of £22 a week would be established for the lowest paid surface workers, which would have provided an increase of £4 a week on the present minimum of £18. For workers on the coal face and other 'task workers' as they are called, the Board proposed an increase of £2·75 a week, providing a new basic rate for face workers of £32·75 compared with £30 at the moment. The Board was also prepared to discuss adjustments of certain differentials.
"At the conclusion of these joint talks I again met the Board and the Union separately. The N.U.M. representatives told me that they would be reporting the Board's proposals to their Executive this morning and that they hoped that the Executive would agree to further joint discussions. The Board told me that they would certainly be ready to meet the Union again. This morning, I understand that the N.U.M. Executive rejected the Board's new proposals but agreed that further joint talks should be held with the Board, and these are now taking place at my Department."
My Lords, that completes the Answer.
3.50 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for answering my Question by repeating the Answer that was given in another place. Although as a trade unionist I should not regard the N.C.B.'s offer of yesterday as one upon which a settlement appears to be at all likely, the last paragraph of the Statement makes it clear that this is very much in the nature of an interim statement. The last thing that I should wish to do would be to say anything from this Box that might have the effect of lessening the chance of a settlement on reasonable and honourable terms. My Lords, it seemed to me that the words used by Mr. Gormley last night, to the effect that it would be fatal to allow the talks to break down too soon, were statesmanlike. For myself, I hope they will not break down at all. But, as this is very much a matter in which the Government are closely implicated, I must appeal to them to refrain from adopting

1281
a too rigid position on the 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. which is generally regarded as the Government's unofficial guideline around which any settlement should be kept. I hope that the Government will recognise that the general public and most newspapers regard the miners' case as a very special one, and that they will act accordingly. I live in the very heart of a mining area and am married to the daughter of a miner who took care that none of his sons should go into the pit, because of the nature of the job. I appeal to the Government to recognise the devilish job that this is, and to ensure that the talks do not again break down.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should not wish to make any substantial comment while the joint discussions arc taking place, except to say how pleased we are that they are taking place and are continuing. Having listened to the Statement, I would only say from these Benches that, if we have got the matter correctly, it looks as though progress is being made towards a guaranteed minimum rate of earnings for the lower-paid workers in this industry. If that is so, we would welcome it very sincerely indeed. We feel that this is something which other industries require, but especially is this so in the case of the miners, where guaranteed minimum earnings for the lower-paid workers would be very much appreciated. I hope that this principle is incorporated in the final agreement.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I rise only because I feel that it is important that from every part of the House we should welcome the Statement which has been made. I should like to say how deeply we in every part of the House hope that these talks will lead to a settlement.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the two noble Lords opposite, and also my noble friend, for their comments here. Certainly I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is absolutely right, with his long experience, in saying that it would be quite wrong for us here to lessen in any way the chance of a settlement on reasonable and honourable terms by anything we say at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, has made a
1282
moving appeal to me, which I shall pass on to my right honourable friend. I do not think the noble Lord would wish me to comment upon it. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, has spoken about the trend towards a guaranteed minimum rate of earnings for a full week's work. I am glad that the Statement, so far as it goes, has been welcomed in this way, and I am sure that all noble Lords will join with me in expressing the hope that the talks at present going on are successful.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.54 p.m.
House again in Committee.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in his Amendment. I do not quite know what the fuss is all about. In the last ten years I have had the honour of introducing five Wednesday Motions in your Lordships' House, and I cannot say that I have experienced any difficulty in obtaining a day through the usual channels. I have been allowed to introduce Motions on Leisure, on Christian Unity (the only occasion, I think, on which this subject was ever discussed in a Parliamentary assembly), on the Press (on two occasions), and on the first Report of the Royal College of Physicians on Smoking. The only time on which some doubt was expressed about the subject of the debate was when, in an excess of zeal, which Talleyrand warned us against, I suggested we should talk about happiness. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and who was at that time Leader of the House seemingly did not think—he may have forgotten this—that the Government had a contribution to make, though if the purpose of Government is not to make the electorate happy, then I do not know what it is.
Recently, I have become much less enthusiastic about our Wednesday conversations, if only because almost nobody except ourselves pays any attention to them. In passing, I may perhaps add that it is for the same reason that some of our industrialist Peers do not address your Lordships. If they have something to say, a paragraph in The Times is a thin substitute for a Press conference or a message to the Press Association. That does not mean that they should

1283
not speak—indeed, their non-attendance is pretty disgraceful. It is nice to be a Lord, especially if you have earned it; and they should show their gratitude.
But, to return to the subject of the discussion, if we are to establish a procedure I favour the noble Earl's Amendment, possibly because I have never been lucky in the pools. I do not believe in the goddess of chance. Moreover, I know from experience how disheartening it is to wait for the right number to turn up. After your Lordships' passed the Sexual Offences Bill I had to wait for the result of the ballot in the other place; and invariably the lucky ones were excellent hut elderly trade unionists; or Mr. Duncan Sandys. In neither case was it their "thing". But a personal appearance, of course, is not the thing that matters; it is the principle involved. If there is going to be competition—and I hope there will be competition—then surely the subject for debate should not be a matter of throwing the dice. It should be the decision of a responsible, if junior, body, such as the noble Earl suggests.
I am not over-keen on committees, but I prefer committees to casinos. I simply cannot understand the objections to the noble Earl's proposal. It is sensible; it is practical; it is non-political; it is democratic, and it in no way detracts from the authority of the Front Benches—unless they should be afraid of this. I would strongly contest the Select Committee's claim, although admittedly I am prejudiced, that the ballot system had proved successful in the Commons. To talk about "complicated machinery" and "cumbersome procedure" is so much poppycock. A committee, especially a small committee—and let us not forget that it may never be asked to sit; frankly, I do not foresee an ugly rush to the House—can make its decisions quickly and easily. It will be assisted—the word is "assisted"—by the usual channels, but not influenced by them. Why not give the Back Benches an opportunity to make their own choice? Why not? Let us not stand in fear of our leaders. I say, "To hell with them!" Let us Back-Benchers get on our hind feet and vote—and vote in favour of the Amendment.
3.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It is a long time since I have ventured to address your Lordships, and I hope I may be allowed to say a few words in relation to the Motion moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I am also glad to have the opportunity of following the noble Earl, Lord Arran, confused though I thought his theme was. I hope very much that the Amendment will be rejected. I speak here not as a Cross-Bencher, not as a Front-Bencher, but merely as a member of the Cross-Benches; and I speak entirely from that point of view, as a former member of the Procedure Committee but no longer of that body. I hope I have not inconvenienced the noble Baroness, Lady White, in speaking before she speaks. I will not say anything about her Amendment except that it appears to me to be a compromise between both points of view and to get the worst of both worlds. Apart from that, it seems to me that it would make the procedure even more complicated and more cumbrous for dealing with what is, after all, a pretty simple matter.
Inherent in the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth (it was shown by his speech to-day and, it seems to me, it was shown by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in his speech), is a feeling that this is a case of the Back-Benchers against the rest—the Cross-Benchers being included with the Back-Benchers—and that the Front-Benchers should be nowhere about and should be left behind. That is not the issue. For myself I should like to say, not having sat on a Front Bench for many years. that I have thought throughout that the way in which the business of this House has been arranged, no matter what Party has been in power, has really been most satisfactory and is hardly capable of improvement. But now it is said by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that the Back-Benchers should have a chance to make decisions; and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, if I have his words aright, "Give the Back-Benchers a direct but limited function in arranging the business of the House". Lord Perth's suggestion does not do anything of the sort. That is my objection to it. It deprives those Back-Benchers who are not on this Select Committee of Back-Benchers of some of the rights that they

1285
now have. It does not give those Back-Benchers who are not selected after consultation through the usual channels any say in the matter at all. It may well act—
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Now that the lights have gone out we cannot see the noble Viscount; but I am sure we can all hear him.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I am in the danger that if I provoke him too much he may speak again. But I must confess that I see no advantages but a number of disadvantages in what is proposed. My main objection to the selection of these Motions for short debates on Wednesdays by a Committee of four (or it may be more) selected Back-Benchers who do not represent other Back-Benchers at all, in consultation, it is now said, with the Leader of the House, is that I think it involves a restriction on the rights of individual Peers, a restriction which I hope will be rejected.
Any one of us on the Back-Benches or on the Cross-Benches may table a Motion for a short Wednesday debate. We can say on what day we should like it to be taken. If there are a number of Motions down for a particular day—there are eight down at the moment, I understand—no one can object if the Motions to be debated are selected by ballot and the Peer who has been unsuccessful has no grievance if he has been unlucky. We are not talking about balloting for Bills in another place. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, may have been unfortunate in this respect; but I seem to remember that some of his Bills got on to the Statute Books although some of us wish they had not. But it is quite a different thing here if a Peer's Motion for a short Wednesday debate does not win in the ballot. He cannot have any grievance against any other Peer; he cannot think he has been obstructed. I suppose that any member of the Committee of Back-Benchers, however the Motions are chosen, will have the right to say that a Motion chosen by another Peer shall not be debated. Some of us are more popular than others; some of us speak better than others; some may put down more interesting Motions than others. What are the criteria to be applied by this Committee in determining what Motions to
1286
select? The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said not a word about that. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, said not a word about that.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? What are the criteria laid down by the normal channels?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am not and I have never been a "normal channel", so I cannot tell the noble Earl. Nor, if I may say so, have I ever been a "usual channel"—which I think is the usual way of referring to it. But so far as this is concerned, is it seriously to be suggested that a few Back-Bench Members of this House shall have the choice of what should be debated in this House—at their complete discretion—without giving any reasons and without any responsibility to the other Members of the House? That is what is proposed. Supposing that this Committee think that a Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is really a very uninteresting one, that he has been speaking a lot recently and for one reason or another his Motion is not selected. I think that he might well feel a far greater grievance if those were the grounds than if he were just unlucky in the ballot. The Motion might be put down for next time and it may go on and on not getting selected—
THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN rose—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: We are in Committee. The noble Earl cannot, I know, ever be kept sitting for long; but perhaps he will restrain himself for a little while.
This process might go on and on; and if this Amendment is passed in the sense of putting that power in the hands of that Committee then what we are doing—I am not saying that it will be done—is giving that Committee the power to prevent a Motion by an unpopular Peer or on an unpopular subject from ever being discussed in this House. That I think would be very wrong. Let each Peer take the chances of the ballot.
I come back to this. This is not a question of deciding between the Back Benches and the Front Benches. There is no issue of that kind. It is a simple question as to whether the Motion shall be selected by chance—everyone having the same chance—or whether it shall be

1287
selected by a body which does not represent anyone, which has no authority over anyone and which exercises a power which may give rise to very great feelings. Supposing that a Peer's Motion is not selected. He will be told it is not selected. He may want to know why. The answer will be, "We are not bound to give any reason and do not propose to do so." Is that not going to be very unsatisfactory, and will it not perhaps leave a number of Peers with a real sense of grievance? I cannot think that it would be right to accept an Amendment which, to my mind, would amount to a restriction on the rights of individual Members of this House.
VISCOUNT AMORY: If my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne had happened to speak after me instead of before me, he would have found my theme even more confusing; because before all the lights went out I had some notes of what I wanted to say. Now that the lights have come on again I seem to have a completely different set of papers. Therefore I shall be very brief. I wanted to say that on the previous occasion when the noble Earl, Lord Perth, advocated this view I was very impressed. I was again impressed with the reasons he gave to-day. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, advised us that this was not a subject that we need approach in a spirit of deep passion. I agree with that. After careful examination, I can find no signs of any passion welling up in my breast at the moment. I was simply impressed with the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and by other speakers. I remember the ballot in another place. I think that sometimes it worked well and sometimes it did not work quite so well. Personally, I have great confidence in a Committee and if it did not work out we could always fall back on the ballot. But I have not the slightest dissatisfaction in any way with the present procedure of this House, which I find always extremely fair.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, suggested that we might follow the example of the Athenean democracy but I hope that we shall not do that in all respects; they were rather long-winded and on
1288
occasions debated a subject from sunrise to sunset. It may be that the view I have expressed is due to some subconscious memory that, with the exception of one occasion, I cannot remember having won either a raffle or a ballot. On the one occasion when I did win there were 19 gifts to be distributed and 20 possible recipients. I won that ballot.
4.12 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, suggested that the Amendments to which I put my name at a later stage would mean the worst of both worlds. I would respectfully suggest that they would possibly mean the best. I support the Amendment now before your Lordships because it is a necessary paving Amendment to the other suggestions which come later on the Order Paper.
I put down my own Amendments because it seems to me that there are strong arguments on both sides. It is quite true that a ballot is simple, and the Report of the Committee says that it is manifestly fair and independent. It would also avoid the kind of heartburning from which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, imagines that his fellow members might suffer if they did not win. But, of course, the disadvantage of a ballot is that it is also blind, and if there should be a subject on the Order Paper for possible selection for one of these short debates in respect of which time, if not the essence, is at least relevant, the ballot cannot possibly take account of that. I am particularly concerned with foreign affairs and overseas matters, about which a debate at the appropriate time makes sense. If the debate does not come within a reasonable period, it loses all relevance.
I am not now speaking of instant topicality in the way one regards it in another place. I do not think that is the function of your Lordships' House. But there are matters which arise from time to time, and if one is to discuss them at all the discussion must take place within a reasonable period. For that reason, I think one should at least see whether one can have a method of selection which would bring that into account. As I understand it, we are being asked to agree to an experimental period from now until Whitsun. I would only suggest that, if

1289
we are to experiment, we may as well experiment comprehensively and try both ways to see how they work out.
I apprehend that we shall have to look at the matter again after the experimental period and decide which method we like, or whether we wish to go on with it at all. I am not very strongly wedded to be notion of a Back Bench Committee. I find that, with reasonably organised pressure, the usual channels will generally do what one wants—but perhaps I have been more successful than others. It seems to me that there are two possible matters of principle here: do we leave it entirely to the chance of the ballot, or do we as was suggested in the debate on December 16, think that at least there is something to be said for examining the list of subjects and deciding whether there are some which, if they are to be debated at all, ought to be debated in the fairly near future? That seems to me the great advantage of having some process of selection which is not entirely blind. Both methods have been used in another place and I believe that they are still used. In another place one has the advantage of having Mr. Speaker. Here we do not have a Speaker in that sense and therefore we cannot rely on that method. But if we are going to experiment, it seems to me that we should try to see how it works; and if we are to have two debates on each occasion, I suggest that one should be by one method and the other by the other, and at the end of the period we could decide which we liked better.
4.18 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, speaks with exceptional authority, but his principal argument appears to me to be fallacious. What was that argument? It was that the Committee suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, would not represent the opinion of all Back-Benchers. But there is not a single Committee appointed by your Lordships' House that represents the direct and specific opinion of Back-Benchers. So that argument goes by the board. And if it does not, it is completely irrelevant.
This debate is a continuation of the age-long conflict between Back-Benchers in the Parliamentary arena and the Establishment. We have had several examples of it in your Lordships' House. I want
1290
to address myself to what I believe is the substantial element in this discussion. It is this. What is the essential quality of your Lordships' House'? It is not the legislation which is introduced by the instructions of the Government of the day; nor is it the legislation which emerges from the other place. It is the opportunity to present ideas which make a profound impact on the public mind, either on national or international issues. If noble Lords will glance at the Order Paper and direct their attention to the great variety of Motions for which no day is named, they will agree that many of the Motions are of little or no consequence. They are the product of noble Lords who have theories about this or that, or are concerned about some local, minor issue. That is not the essential function of your Lordships' House. It is, as I have already said, to deal with matters of some profundity, of some quality, directing attention to what is the primary concern of every thinking person in our land; namely, what is our purpose and how are we to achieve it?
That is what I think your Lordships' House should direct its attention to. What about the position at present? There is no ballot. The decision as to the kind of debate which is to take place derives first of all from a number of Motions that appear on the Order Paper which may or may not be selected by the Government. That is a gamble in itself. The Back Benchers have no right or part in the selection. Individual Members of your Lordships' House may make an approach to the Establishment and plead for consideration and ask that their Motions be placed on the Order Paper in a direct fashion for the purpose of an early debate. Whether they succeed or not, I am unable to say. Otherwise, what is the position? It is that the Front Bench on the Opposition side of your Lordships' House decide to approach the Government with a view to having a debate on some topic. The Government may or may not agree to it. Here again, the Front Bench on the Opposition side of your Lordships' House may or may not consult the Back Benchers on this side of the House, or at any rate consult only a few of them. So Back Benchers have no privilege as regards a decision on the kind of Motions that should be debated in your Lordships' House.

1291
How are we to correct the position? Should it be by ballot; by a gamble; by chance; by permutations, or something of that kind; or by asking a few Members of your Lordships' House, selected because of their experience of this Assembly, because of their erudition, or whatever it may be, to examine all the Motions on the Order Paper, or be approachable by Members of your Lordships' House on any particular topic which seems to be worthy of a debate, and come to a decision? That gives the Back Benchers a chance. In my submission to your Lordships' House, as things are in this Assembly the Back Benchers are a mere cipher: but they can of course take part in debates.
Take, for example, what happens at Question Time. A Question may be asked by a Member of your Lordships' House, and the representative of the Government is ready to answer. The questioner is permitted, only in the interrogative form, to put one or two, or perhaps three, supplementary questions, but not to make a speech. But it is quite different so far as the Front Bench is concerned. When it comes to the Establishment, they can get up one after the other and make prolonged speeches, some of them quite irrelevant. Why the difference between the Back Benchers and those who sit on the Front Bench? Of course, on the Government side those on the Front Bench are selected by the Prime Minister, and Back Benchers have no say in their selection. There is nothing democratic about that; but I am not suggesting that we should inject democracy into the selection of Government Members. But who selects Front Benchers on the Opposition side? Perhaps it is the Leader, the Deputy Leader or the Chief Whip. They are all fine people of excellent quality (I could write a book about their qualities and virtues, and forget all about their vices, if they have any), but who selects them?
Now and again I come into your Lordships' House and look at the Front Bench—I happen to occupy a position of advantage, and I can look down on them—and I find somebody there whom I have not seen there before. I do not indulge in any unnecessary queries, but I ask myself the question: Why is he there? And I cannot furnish myself with an answer. Is it because the person
1292
whom I see on the Front Bench for the first time has had some experience, coupled with length of service, in the other place? I ask your Lordships to understand that the last thing I ever want to do is to sit on the Front Bench I have sat there too often, to my disadvantage. But when it comes to experience, then obviously I should have been the first person to be asked to sit there. Who decides this? Where is the democracy? Or is there a ballot for this purpose? Of course not. This is completely anti-democratic. I accept that.
But when it comes to a decision about the kind of Motion that ought to be debated in this Assembly—and I again return to what I said about the essential function of your Lordships' House—then it is a matter upon which a number of selected Back-Benchers (they would not be elected by the great body of Members of your Lordships' House; they would be selected through the usual channels, and we should have to accept that), with their erudition, wisdom, knowledge and experience, could decide. This is what we are asking for, and it is all that the noble Earl, Lord Perth. is asking for. So I reject the gamble: I reject the games of chance and permutations.
Lastly, I suggest that it is not a bad thing, even in an age-long Assembly of this character, with all its qualities and great traditions, occasionally to indulge in an innovation: it may be a minor one. My noble friend Lord Shackleton, the Leader of the Opposition, said that this was not an issue that was worth while troubling about. Of course it is not a vital issue like the Emergency Powers, Ulster, or some important international issue; but it is a matter of how we conduct our affairs and how we satisfy Back-Benchers and provide them with the privileges to which they are entitled. Therefore, because of that and a great many other ideas that I have in my head but which I will refrain from mentioning, I support the noble Earl's Amendment.
4.27 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I do not intend to join my noble friend Lord Shinwell in the class war he has embarked upon between the Back-Benchers and what he calls the Establishment, but I think that in the middle part of his speech he seemed to be arguing

1293
from back to front. He cited the case of noble Lords who may have Motions on the Order Paper. He suggested that perhaps because of prejudice or antipathy the Establishment (whatever that may be) would not give them an opportunity to bring their Motions forward. I venture to suggest to my noble friend that, if they had the opportunity of a ballot and the chance of their Motions being discussed through the exercise of that ballot, they would be better off than they are at the present moment.
There is no Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I do not suppose there is likely to be one for some time to come. Therefore I have no personal interest to declare: I speak almost from the borderline of virginity. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, showed us that there are two sides to almost any question. He was most persuasive, almost seductive. But I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that I stand where I stood before; that is to say, I am a supporter of the ballot. We all know—and those great ethical authorities the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and my noble friend Lord Shinwell have reminded us—that anything which has in it an element of chance, an element of the sweepstake, is fundamentally wicked. But, at the same time, there has been a tendency for that kind of thing to spread itself over many of our everyday activities of life. I am not concerned only with horse racing and football pools, but with respectable things such as the stock market and Mr. Harold Macmillan's premium bonds. It may well be that we should be rather disgusted at the extent to which games of chance have spread in our community, and that we should eschew any inclination to join any "rat race". But there is another point of view. The casting of lots, of ballots, has stood the test of time. The pages of Holy Writ, to which I sometimes refer when I seek moral guidance, abound with examples of where the casting of lots has been used to settle controversial issues. There was the occasion when Joshua cast lots to decide how the land should be distributed among the tribes of Israel. I sometimes wish that the leaders of Egypt and Israel could adopt that form of settlement today, because they do not seem able to settle matters in any other way. Then there was the case of Jonah who, as
1294
a result of the casting of lots was thrown overboard; and that seemed to end happily, ultimately. Then there was the case when Mathias was elevated into what we might call the aldermanic ranks—those of the Apostles—again as the result of the casting of lots. So the casting of lots is something which is quite common in every branch of our everyday activities and it has stood the test of time.
We are asked to-day to decide between two systems. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, has suggested that we should have a Committee of four Members. Those four Members are not to be elected, but are to be appointed. They are not to be representatives of the whole House; they are to be chosen by a select few. It seems to me that they would in due course constitute themselves into a body which would become "second-class Whips". We should be endowing ourselves with two sets of bosses—the official Whips and the auxiliary Whips. Who is to say that those two groups might not sometimes quarrel and disagree about the kind of Motions that should be put upon the Order Paper of this House? We have no guarantee that the particular Motions which the Committee of four suggested should be debated on the Floor of the House would be those which would appeal generally to Members of this House.
What will be the upshot of that? We are going to find certain noble Lords disappointed because their Motions were not accepted, and they are going to cultivate a sense of grievance, which could ultimately translate itself into a spirit of ill-will that would pervade the House, whereas at the moment we have nothing but harmony and amity. Surely a much fairer way would be to have a ballot for these Motions. It would eliminate entirely any suggestion of favouritism. It would do away with the idea that certain noble Lords are regarded as sacred cows. Under the ballot all Members would have an equal right to have their Motions brought before the House, and if they were unsuccessful in finding a place in the draw they would have nobody to blame.
It is not as though this system is untried. It has been tried in many branches of our ordinary life. In the financial sphere we find many kinds of bonds and

1295
securities which are repaid to certain holders from time to time, purely as a result of a ballot which is held. We have new issues which are overstagged, and the lucky people receiving those shares are those who are drawn by ballot. In local government elections we sometimes have a dead-heat between candidates, and the successful man is elected by the spin of a coin. And in the Mother of Parliaments, in the other place, we have perhaps the bulk of Private Members' time determined by ballot. Even in the realm of sport we have a ballot to decide which teams shall meet each other in the cup tie; we have the rival football captains tossing up to decide which one shall have the better end of the field; and in cricket we have the rival captains tossing up to see which one shall take advantage of the climatic conditions of the day. If it is good enough for cricket, I think it is a good enough principle for the whole of our English conduct. We shall be benefiting ourselves and contributing to the good will of the House if we have a scheme whereby the disappointed people are not in a position to blame anyone else. Let us have a ballot—an impersonal, fair and independent scheme. I think that would contribute very considerably to the good will of this House, which is one of its most pleasing features.
I must say one word about the Amendment suggested by my noble friend Lady White, although I believe she is not going to press it to a Division. It is a compromise: as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, it is making the worst of both worlds—and I emphasise the worst of both worlds. I do not like compromises unless I am forced into a corner and have to accept them. Compromises are like instructing an Ulster Protestant that he must attend Mass every Sunday and then compromising by telling him that he need only go on alternate Sundays and that the intervening Sundays he can spend singing hymns for Mr. Paisley. I do not think the compromise would work. If we find that the present suggestion of a ballot does not work satisfactorily, and that it is introducing too hidebound a system, then in the next Session we can consider the suggestion of my noble friend Lady White. In the meantime, may I say that I believed in
1296
the ballot at the beginning and I shall believe in it to the end.
4.36 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I hope that we shall reject the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Perth, for the reasons very powerfully put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, because this Committee of "Four Wise Men" will be appointed by whom we do not know; they will work to criteria that we do not know, and apparently there is to be no appeal by those who feel they have been unfairly treated. I believe the ballot is the fairest means of selecting the subjects to be debated. But the noble Baroness, Lady White, has proposed a compromise which has been labelled by her as "a highly desirable one" and by two noble Lords as "getting the worst of both worlds". I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, had one good point in her objective, but not in her method of attaining it; namely, that any system we have should enable urgent matters to be debated at very short notice. I believe the ballot system could adapt itself to this end.
We are conducting an experiment now. but nevertheless we are exploring the guidelines for a system of mini-debates in this House, for which many of us have felt the need over a long period. We have four Wednesdays now put down which will accommodate eight debates. I hope these debates will be the start of a Wednesday series in the future. For that reason I want to put to the Procedure Committee this thought: if Part II becomes popular there will be many Motions put down for it; but the more Motions there are the less chance individual Members have of their own Motion being successful in a ballot. I believe that at the moment we have down nine Motions. Suppose that we allocated four Wednesdays and there were a large number of Motions, the chances of individual Members being successful would be small. Perhaps it could be so arranged that directly there were a specified number of Motions down for a particular Wednesday (and we have four Wednesdays set down) the guillotine should fall and no further Motions would be accepted for those four Wednesdays. Assuming for the moment that 16 Motions were down for four Wednesdays

1297
—that is, eight debates—every noble Lord would then have a two to one chance. If the maximum number allowed to be put down were 12, every noble Lord would have a one and a half chance. Then, when the next four Wednesdays were reserved for these mini-debates, there would be another 16 names put down with a carry-over of those who had been unsuccessful in the first period. In that way noble Lords would have a better chance in each set of four Wednesdays. If some particularly urgent matter of public interest came forward, the usual channels—the much abused usual channels, whom I as a Back-Bencher have always found to be courteous and helpful on all sides—would ask the noble Lord who had on the Order Paper one of the Motions for debate on the next Wednesday whether he would postpone it and then offer him one of the preferential positions in the carry-over for the next four Wednesdays.
The only reason I put forward this suggestion is a desire to see that the ballot is limited in numbers so that each noble Lord has a fair chance of getting a Motion brought forward, and at the same time the House has a means of debating urgent public affairs. It is for that reason that I support the ballot, and with great humility suggest for consideration the guillotine procedure on Motions on the Order Paper.
4.41 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: May I intervene briefly and say that the reasons why I wish to support the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in his method of deciding who shall have the honour of introducing these small debates against the ballot are these: I do not like unnecessary change, and the basis now of finding out who has the honour to introduce a Motion for debate is that one puts one's name down on the green Order Paper and I believe that the normal or usual channels finally decide whether you shall speak or not. The alternative to that course was very cogently put by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and it seemed to be so very strange to come from a lawyer. He said: "People may object to your decision. Why not always have a ballot?" I wonder whether he would take that thought into the law courts. It must offend somebody very much when he loses a case. It would be so much
1298
simpler to say, "But I have just tossed a penny and I am afraid you are out".
All that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is saying is that here are some short—and I hope we emphasise "short"—Back-Bench debates and would it not be wise to have a small committee to assist the usual channels? That is all this committee would do; it is not going to be the tremendous dictatorial concern that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, fears. It is to be a small committee to assist the usual channels and perhaps to be able to lower them from their Olympian heights to tell them in what ways Back-Benchers think, hope and believe. It is so reasonable and so sensible. What could be wrong with that? Although he is apparently going to vote in the right lobby, I am afraid that I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, or to vote with him because I hope and believe that this is not a symptom of the war between men and women, the war between Back-Bench and Front-Bench. I trust it is not that at all.
I hope that its utter reasonableness will enable Lord Perth's Amendment to be carried, or if it is not carried, that, second best, Lady White's Amendment will be carried, so that we have one Motion selected by each method. The one Motion which is not on the Order Paper, and which I hope will not be carried, is that of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye: it seems to be an eloquent plea for a rigged ballot, which is neither here nor there.
4.45 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: I wish to support with brevity and diffidence the Procedure Committee's recommendation and oppose the noble Earl's Amendment. It is only fair to point out, in view of what my dear friend Lord Shinwell has said, that whichever way this debate goes the House is proceeding to give new advantages to the Back-Benchers by the mini-debate system which mathematically doubles the opportunities for Back-Benchers to initiate debates on topics in which they are interested. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for the work he did in initiating this particular reform. In any case, we are taking from the usual channels the initiative of selecting topics for the mini-debates. I have

1299
from some experience a great deal of confidence in the usual channels, tempered with the natural suspicion of one who was a Back-Bencher for 15 years in the other place and is now a Back-Bencher in this place.
I am not sure that the setting up of a new Committee would be free from any of the ills that are alleged of the usual channels. There would still be the dissatisfaction of the noble Lord or Lady whose subject was not chosen for debate. If we accept the Report of the Procedure Committee there is no question of blame; nobody is to blame but God or fate. If a noble Lord's topic is not chosen by ballot for a debate, nobody's pride is hurt. It has been pointed out that there might be pressure put on the Committee of Selection; there will certainly be grumbles at whatever they do. I believe that the neatest way of tackling this is by ballot. It will not be pro-Government; it will not be pro-Opposition; it will not be pro-Cross-Bench and it will not be a pro-Front Bench or pro-Back Bench.
I hesitate to mention the other place, hut in that other place selection of the right of a Private Member to introduce a new law—quite a significant right—or to put down a Motion for a debate on a Friday is decided by ballot. Selection for four out of five of the week's adjournment debates are by ballot. Selection for Motions on various allotted half days during the Session are by ballot, and now selection for the topics and the order in which topics can be discussed on the most important Back-Benchers' day of all in the other place, debates on the Consolidated Fund, is decided also by ballot. These work very well and without complaint.
I am quite certain that if the other place tried to tackle those topics and the arranging of such debates by small committees, there would be plenty of grumbling. One cannot complain against the Almighty; one must just trust him. The Report sets out fairly both sides of the argument. It comes down—rightly I believe—in favour of the ballot. It sums up the case against the ballot as being "irrational and undiscriminating". It sums up the case for the ballot as being "fair and independent". It is that fair-
1300
ness and utter independence which commends itself to me.
4.48 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: I did not take part in the previous debate on this subject so I hope that I may be allowed to speak briefly in favour of the Amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Perth. There are one or two points which seem to be misunderstood about the proposal that the noble Earl has propounded to the Committee. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has said that the Committee of Four would be unrepresentative. It may well be that it would work out that way, but there is no reason why it should be—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Perhaps the noble Lord—
LORD ALPORT: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to continue. There is no reason why it should be unrepresentative. It would be possible, if it were agreed by the House, for the responsibility for nominating a representative from the Conservative side to be in the hands, through the usual channels, of the I.U.P. In the case of the Labour Party, the Labour Party Parliamentary meeting, I know, would be available to do that. The same would apply to the Liberal Party, and the same would apply to the Group over which the noble Lord, Lord Strang, is Chairman.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way to me for one moment. I would say that he has missed the point completely. I do not want to be represented by him or by any other Back-Bencher.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I have a very easy return to that, but I am not going to make it because the noble and learned Viscount is a great controversialist, and a formidable one, and not always the most courteous.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on a point of fact? Of course, the Leader, the Deputy Leader, the Chief Whip and one other member of the Front Bench of the Labour Party are at the moment elected every year.
LORD ALPORT: Then, my Lords, in addition it would be possible to elect a representative to this Committee.
The point really is this. Although I understand the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, that we should introduce and carry out here in this House the same customs as they have in another place, the reason why so much of the business of private Members in another place is conducted and regulated by ballot is simply the strong competition between the Parties and also between individuals to obtain scarce Parliamentary time. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, this does not apply in this House. There is a second reason why we are quite different from the other place. It is because we have an increasing number of noble Lords who come to this House without belonging to any of the three Parties in this House but are representatives of the Cross-Benches.
We who belong to Parties talk of the facilities that are available to us to have access to the Leaders of our Parties through the usual channels, and that is perfectly true. The noble Baroness, Lady White, has said that, by bringing pressure, and charm no doubt, upon her end of the usual channels, so to speak, she can get, or could in due course get, the time she required for any Motion that she felt was important and was supported, no doubt, by other members of her Party. But the same is not true of a large number of Cross-Bench Peers. One of the problems which I, at any rate, have always thought was the main problem your Lordships' House had to face was how we could make it easier for them to take a more active part in the work of this House. It is not easy—and I know this to be true—for someone who has had no Parliamentary or House of Commons experience, who does not belong to any organised Party organisation within this House, is not identified with any political point of view, to come into this Chamber and make the contribution which his experience and abilities render quite possible and which would be of great value to your Lordships in the conduct of our business.
I have been asked by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, what were the criteria that would be used by the Committee. There is one factor in
1302
another place which has some advantage, and that is that Members there are able to associate themselves with Motions. Consideration is given to the amount of support that is given to any particular Motion as a result of the number of names that have been added to those of the original movers to show support. I have often wanted in this House to be able to identify myself with a Motion on the Order Paper. I should have thought that, so far as Cross-Benchers are concerned, as they look through the Motions they will note some that they would particularly wish to see debated. They have no "usual channels"—except the services which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Strang, gives in the representations he may make—to make certain that those Motions are considered by the House at an early date. If there was a member of their own body, of the Cross-Bench Peers, who would, in my submission, rightly be made the Chairman of this small Committee, then automatically they would not only have somebody to represent them there but have somebody of influence to whom they could go and who they would realise—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Will the noble Lord forgive me?
LORD ALPORT: I have already given way once to the noble Viscount.
NOBLE LORDS: Give way!
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I was only going to ask the noble Lord this question. He is making a speech as if he were speaking for the Cross-Benchers. I wonder what authority he has for doing that. I am a Cross-Bencher and I sit with other Cross-Benchers. I do not want anyone to represent me, and I am sure that many of my colleagues who sit on these Benches feel the same way. If I want to make any representations to the usual channels I have no difficulty at all in doing it myself. The noble Lord's argument seems to suggest that the Cross-Benchers should constitute a third Party in this House; and I would think that very deplorable.
LORD ALPORT: My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne is, quite rightly, sitting on the Cross-Benches because of the high Judicial position which

1303
he holds. But he has been for a long time, and is, associated with the Conservative Party—we know that perfectly well—and he has ready access to the usual channels, which is perfectly understandable. I am not speaking for him; I am speaking to the best of my ability only for myself, because no Peer in this House has a right to speak for anybody except for himself. In speaking for myself in this matter, I am merely giving views as they appear to me, as an observer of your Lordships' House over the last ten years, as something which is of importance and of value to this House in the conduct of its business. It is not insignificant that it is the noble Earl, Lord Perth, a Cross-Bencher, who is moving this particular Amendment.
If I may turn to my original argument before I was interrupted, the ability to be able to associate oneself with a Motion, and therefore have the fact that there is support for a Motion taken into consideration by a Committee, would enable the House, through the Committee, to give proper weight to the wishes of individuals. It would also enable many who do not want to take an active part in the debate to feel that at any rate they have had an opportunity of so influencing the procedure of the House and the order of business of the House that tile subjects which they thought should be aired and debated have been aired and debated as a result to some degree—perhaps only fractional—of their own efforts. I think this is very important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, this is a very small matter. I am sorry to find the noble Lord, who in a previous Parliament was a great reformer of your Lordships' House—at any rate an aspirant reformer— now on the side of preserving the status quo. I had hoped that we should have his support for this small change. I also hope, quite seriously, that your Lordships will not allow arguments which I do not believe are of value, such as have been put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, to influence you to prevent something which is an experiment so far as Whitsun only, and which after that we can judge again. I hope that you will be willing to try something that is new; something that is not simply a reproduction of the procedures of the House of
1304
Commons, and something which will, I think, bring at any rate some advantage to a number of very important Members of your Lordships' House on the Cross-Benches.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg your Lordships' pardon for intervening. I do not wish to stop anybody who wishes to speak from doing so, but I think it right to draw attention to the fact that we have some rather important other business to deal with to-day, and that we have taken up a good deal of time on what, although a very important matter, is not of earth-shaking importance. It is only an experiment. I would hope that your Lordships might feel able fairly shortly to come to a decision.
My noble friend the Leader of the House, who unfortunately cannot be here to-day, told me that, so far as he was concerned, he was quite prepared to operate any system on which your Lordships might decide. And I hope that perhaps your Lordships will so decide fairly soon.
4.59 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I promise to be very brief indeed. I speak only to say that I think the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to some support from one of the very great number of members of the Procedure Committee who agreed with him. I believe I am right in saying that no other member of the Procedure Committee has spoken in this debate. As is fairly well known, I do not agree in politics with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Nevertheless, I think his argument is right. What astonishes me are some of the accusations brought against him. My noble friend Lord Alport said that he was standing for the status quo; everybody else has complained that the ballot is an innovation. We cannot have it both ways and we had better try to make up our minds which we mean. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked. "Why not have an innovation?" Well, whichever view we adopt this afternoon it will be an innovation: the Committee of Four is an innovation and the ballot is an innovation, and the question is which is the better innovation. Another correction I feel bound to make is to my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, who seemed to think that the usual channels

1305
would have something to do with this. The usual channels will be consulted on the selection of the four Back-Benchers, but it will be for the four Back-Benchers to select the subject of the debate. My noble friend only has to read the Motion on the Order Paper to see that that is true.
What I think we have to consider (I speak as a Back-Bencher and one who has always been a Back-Bencher in this House), is the position of a noble Lord who has on the Order Paper a Motion which he wishes to be debated. He believes in the importance of his subject and he wants to bring it before the House. At this point may I say how confusing it may be to bring in the experience of the House of Commons in using the ballot, either for selecting those who are going to move Motions or those who are going to introduce legislation. The ballot that we are proposing couples the Peer with his Motion, so that, whichever method we adopt, we are selecting both. Let us consider the point of view of the man who wants to have his Motion debated. At the present moment, without any of these new proposals, he can go to the Leader of the House, who we always know is accessible whichever Party is in power, or he can go to the Whip of his Party. Heaven knows to whom he goes if he is a Cross-Bencher, because the whole essence of the Cross-Benchers is that there is nobody to represent them. To have a representative Cross-Bencher is a contradiction in terms, as those who have any sense of logic will realise. To turn to these four selected Back-Benchers, my noble friend Lord Alport asked why they should not be representative. They may think they are representative but they have no claim whatsoever to represent any other Back-Bencher.
What comfort is it to a man who wants to have his Motion debated to know that it has been turned down, not by the usual channels, but by a body of four who have no claim whatsoever to represent him? I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, and, if I may say so, the most cogent argument of the man with the greatest experience, the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, seems to be overwhelming.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I beg your Lordships to consider
1306
what is on the Order Paper? There is upon the Order Paper a proposal by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to leave out the last paragraph of the Report of the Committee on Procedure. That was the part of the Report which recommended that a decision upon the selection of these topics for debate should be made by ballot. There is in addition a totally independent Motion that a certain procedure of selection of these topics shall be adopted, but it does not follow that if the first Motion is agreed to the second one should be, or that the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady White should be agreed to either. If the first Motion is carried and this paragraph is not accepted by the Committee, the position, as I understand it, will simply be that the arrangement of the Order Paper will continue to be as it is at present; namely, that in effect it is arranged by the usual channels. So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly happy with that.
I do not want to have a matter of this kind decided by the great goddess, chance. It may be a very fine thing in football pools or premium bonds or matters of that kind, in which in fact there is no other possible method; but this is not a case in which there is no other possible method. It may be a good thing in deciding which side shall go in to bat first, or something of that kind, because it saves somebody the responsibility and the invidiousness of having to make the decision. A great many people would like to be relieved of that responsibility, but I do not want to relieve the usual channels of it. In my opinion experience has proved over many years that when people are put into that position of trust, in which the whole House confides their trust in them, they behave responsibly, sensibly and acceptably. I want to leave the matter like that. Therefore I am quite prepared to leave out this paragraph but I am not prepared to vote for anything else.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to say a few words before we take the vote. There is a curious view that the usual channels and the Whips are most satisfactory but that any Committee of Back-Benchers would be quite irresponsible. I believe this to be quite untrue; but if it were true then the sooner the Back-Benchers gain some experience and responsibility in managing

1307
the House the better. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, it would be extremely valuable experience for them. I believe there are two objections to the course which the Committee have recommended. The first is the one put by the noble Baroness, Lady White, which cuts out one of the main purposes of the mini-debate; namely, that there may be a subject of real urgency. If we have a ballot that is right out; and, with respect to my noble friend Lord Balfour, I must tell him that I really could not follow at all his argument on that point.
The other point, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said, is that we are selecting not only the Peer but also the subject. That is completely inflexible, and if for any reason something were to happen the day before, such as a change of policy, so far as I can see there is no means of changing the subject for debate. It is for those reasons that I think the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Perth is very much better for providing for what I think is important—a balanced subject for debate. I am afraid I do not much care if a few Peers are disappointed. That is a minor matter compared with having a proper subject for debate in this House.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I also now support the Deputy Leader of the House? I think I have reached the stage where I do not really mind what is decided. Without being too partial, may I say that this is one of the reasons why I would stick to the Report of the Procedure Committee?
THE EARL OF PERTH: Would it be in order for me to say one or two words before my Amendment is put? In the first place, I want to assure the Committee that in what I have suggested there is no thought of disrespect for the usual channels—indeed the opposite. Although

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Garner, L.

Loudoun, C.

Amory, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Lyell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Lytton, E.

Balogh, L.

Hankey, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Morrison, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hood, V.

Moyle, L.

Burgh, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Perth, E. [Teller.]

Effingham, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Redesdale, L.

Faringdon, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Roberthall, L.

a comma may be wrong in the interpretation which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has put on my words. I am not suggesting that the usual channels should choose the Select Committee. I am suggesting—and it appears quite clearly in the Report of the Procedure Committee—that the four members chosen should decide, after consultation with the usual channels. So please let it be understood that I am in favour of working with the usual channels and that there is no disrespect to them.
My second point is this: the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that I had mixed my criteria, as though I had funkcd it or found it too difficult. That is not the case. My criteria are quite straightforward; they arc very much the same as would be employed by the usual channels: that is to say, common sense, fairness and, above all, their duty to the House, their duty to your Lordships. And do let us remember that those people who are chosen by the Leader on the sort of method outlined by Lord Alport would only have their role to play for one year. That is my suggestion. At the end of the year their term is over and some new ones come into play. Lastly, we heard the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, making some suggestion on how the ballot could be changed. That is exactly the reason why one should use the method I have suggested. So I hope your Lordships will not only give serious attention to this matter but indeed go into the Lobby in favour of what I have suggested—that is, to insert the words, "except the last paragraph thereof."
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 104.

St. Just. L.

Somers, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Segal, L.

Stamp, L.

White, Bs.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Trevelyan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Younger of Leekie, V.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STRANG): The Question is that the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House be agreed to.
House resumed; Report received.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Sierra Leone Republic Act,

Island of Rockall Act,

1310

Ministerial and other Salaries Act, National Insurance Regulations (Validation) Act,

Local Employment Act,

Summer Time Act,

Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation Act,

Admission to Holy Communion Measure,

Repair of Benefice Buildings Measure,

Benefices Measure.

TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
5.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It establishes the power of the Transport Holding Company to sell

1311
Thomas Cook's, and the power of the Secretary of State to dissolve the Transport Holding Company thereafter. The previous Administration recognised that the continuation of the Transport Holding Company after its major assets had been transferred under the 1968 Transport Act to other nationalised undertakings was an anomaly. We agree. They made provision in Section 53 of that Act for its remaining assets (of which Cook's was by far the largest) to be transferred elsewhere in the public sector and for the Holding Company to be dissolved thereafter. There is, however, in our view no general reason of public policy for Her Majesty's Government to be involved in the travel agency business; that is, for Cook's to remain in the public sector. But we are advised that there is some doubt whether Cook's could, as the law stands, be sold to the private sector or the Transport Holding Company to be wound up thereafter.
My Lords, Clause 1(1) therefore puts beyond doubt the Holding Company's power to sell Cook's, subject to the consent of my right honourable friend. Clause 1(2) enables directions to be given if required about the method of sale. The arrangements for the sale which I will outline briefly have been designed by the Transport Holding Company and their merchant bankers, Schroder Wagg & Co., Ltd., in agreement with my right honourable friend (who has hail the benefit of the advice of the Bank of England) in order to obtain the highest price from a bidder acceptable to both the Government and the Transport Holding Company. The prospectus which was issued in mid-December provides a full account of the company, of its assets based on a full valuation by independent valuers, and of its recent record. Copies have been placed in the Library. The prospectus of course makes it clear that the sale is subject to passage of the Bill and my right honourable friend's consent.
Prospective purchasers were required to submit by January 28 a brief memorandum describing their experience in relevant industries and a summary of their intentions with regard to the Group, setting out in particular the minimum period for which they are willing to undertake to hold the shares in the Com-
1312
pany; whether they intend to dispose of any major part of the Group's undertaking; and their plans affecting the staff. With the memorandum, prospective purchasers could submit any questions seeking elucidation or explanation of any statement in the prospectus. The Transport Holding Company have received memoranda from 16 individuals or groups and are preparing answers to their questions. Firm bids have been asked for by April 6 from all who submitted memoranda. Thereafter, detailed negotiations will be undertaken with selected bidders, and the Holding Company will seek the Secretary of State's consent to the sale to a successful bidder.
My Lords, my right honourable friend made it clear in another place that there is no question of selling Cook's to anyone who would destroy it or is unable or unwilling to maintain its high reputation. In deciding whether or not to authorise a sale to a particular purchaser, full account will be taken not only of the price but also of the financial standing of the purchasers; their ability and intention to carry on the business and maintain confidence, particularly in the banking side; any possible implications for the balance of payments (and, as I explained to your Lordships just over a year ago, bids by foreign concerns for a share of Cook's are not unwelcome, but the Government consider it desirable that the firm should remain under British control); the willingness of the purchasers to co-operate in safeuarding the interests of the staff, including in particular the overseas staff to whom some of the statutory protection available to United Kingdom staff under Clause 2 cannot be appropriately extended. Clause 2 is devoted to protecting the interests of the staff.
On pensions, the purchaser will be required by the contract of sale either to maintain the existing pension schemes or to institute other schemes which are no less favourable. But the Government will supplement the provisions in the contract of sale by means of orders made under Clause 2 of the Bill. These will both provide additional safeguards for existing pension rights and enable us to deal with the special problems presented by the interavailability of pension arrangements inside the nationalised transport sector under which some of the present staff are

1313
employed. On the theme of the interchangeability of pensions, it has been possible for some years past for an employee who transferred from one body in that sector to another to remain in membership of his existing pension scheme. It will therefore be necessary to bring into Cook's schemes certain of their employees who are now in other public sector pension schemes, and to transfer out of Cook's schemes a number of people who are no longer employed in the group but are employed elsewhere in the public sector.
The regulations to be made under Clause 2(4) of the Bill to provide compensation for loss of employment or loss of pay or pensions, or worsening of position, will be based on the established Code, which has been evolved in the public sector since the last war. While the Transport Holding Company and its successors will be responsible for paying compensation to anyone covered by the regulations, it also intends to require the purchaser, as part of the sale arrangements, to undertake to indemnify the Holding Company against any expenditure so incurred. In this way the cost of any rationalisation and redundancy will fall, as I think your Lordships will agree it should, on the employers who take the decisions, but the staff's right to compensation is fully safeguarded.
The Government are in close touch with the union principally concerned: the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. The provisions of the Bill I have outlined are generally acceptable to them but the Department will of course be consulting them further on the detailed provisions of the orders and regulations to be made under the Bill. I believe that this Bill is in the best interest of Cook's, of its staff and of the public. We all want to see the company prosper, and I believe that this is the best way of ensuring it. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Sandford.)
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am in a little procedural difficulty to which I am not accustomed, being a comparatively "new boy" in your Lordships' House. I was hoping to have the pleasure of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and of hearing his comments on the Bill.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, I think the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, finds himself in arises from the fact that his noble friend Lord Popplewell has had to leave to catch a train, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, was not aware of that fact. I think that now, having been made aware of that fact, he may care to step in and precede the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
5.32 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, 25 years ago I was personally largely responsible for the process, though not of course for the policy, of bringing Cook's into being as an integral part of the nationalised transport fabric. I therefore feel that I ought to say one or two words about this Bill of which the operative effect, as the noble Lord has pointed out, is to enable Cook's to be sold. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State, with all the expert advice he has, will do his very best to get a proper price. On the other hand, there are people who wonder whether, when once you have proclaimed to all and sundry that you want to be rid of something, you are in fact going to got that proper price.
The other point that arises concerning the actual conditions is whose hands this undertaking is going to get into, and how will the Secretary of State and the Government be able to safeguard for the future that, once let into private hands, this large international business, which also has a national prestige, will be kept together indefinitely. I do not know whether the noble Lord can be a little more specific about how this point is to be dealt with. I noticed that he said the Government do not want to sell it to anyone who is going to destroy it. The present business of Cook's—and, in this respect, I do not think it has altered very much since my time—includes an enormous business in the sale of travellers' cheques, which I should have thought could hardly be conducted successfully except by one of the great banks, or by some consortium of which they are a part. When one has to start afresh and sell to a lot of unknown people, how is that business to be combined successfully with the ordinary travel agency business? The noble Lord may have answers on that point. It must have been thought about, and the way may be

1315
seen clearly ahead. But I do not think everybody feels entirely satisfied about that.
The point I should like to make to your Lordships, as briefly as I can, is this. There has been a great deal of criticism about the competence of the higher management of Cook's. That denigration, which has been going on for months, and indeed for two or three years, comes largely from people who have an obvious interest in crying "stinking fish!", in the hope that they may be able to pick up at cheap rates some of what they decried. As I have said, I trust the Minister entirely to frustrate any attempts of that sort. The only point I would make is that though the managment of Cook's (which came within the scope of the Labour Government's nationalising policy largely as an accident of the war) presented to the newly formed Transport Commission an obvious problem, we found no difficulty in solving it.
Fortunately, the Transport Act 1947, which was not wholly misconceived, did not try to tell the Commission exactly what it was to do in such circumstances. More fortunately still, we enjoyed in the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Alfred Barnes, a wise and extremely sensible man who, having given people his confidence, did not try constantly to direct or supervise what they were doing. It seemed to me. and indeed to my colleagues, that this travel agency business could not well be left with the railways into whose hands the circumstances of the war had, as a matter of convenience, brought it. The business of Cook's was to serve the general public and to earn their commissions by dealing with all agencies of transport—not merely the railways, but ships and, notably, the air; and, of course, road interests in many parts of the world. It therefore seemed to us that the simple plan was to treat it as if it were a holding company, leaving it the utmost degree of commercial freedom. I therefore asked Mr. Stanley Adams. who was then the General Manager of the company, to see me. I told him that we should like him to carry on, that he would have our full confidence in the conduct of the business if he agreed to do so, and that he would not be interfered with in detail.
1316
To my own knowledge, those arrangements worked during the first five or six years of the Commission perfectly smoothly, I think very efficiently, and certainly very profitably. I wonder why it is thought that those arrangements. which in fact, as I have said, continued for twenty-five years, should now be altered, except that here is something that can be got rid of—and admittedly it is one of the easiest bits of the transport complex to hive off. But it has been efficiently and profitably conducted, and though in recent years some transactions, like the acquisition of Lunn-Poly, may have turned out contrary to expectations. that had nothing to do with the senior management of Cook's. That was part of the machinery, which we did not find necessary in our day. What I want to say on that is that those criticisms, which I am sure are unjustified, have been bitterly resented by the higher management of Cook's, who were in no way responsible. They must have been bad for morale, and they must have been had for business. I hope that before this change of status finally takes place the Minister, or some representative of the Government, will say something to acknowledge that they realise that the senior management of Cook's are not fair objects of those criticisms.
I would add only this. I noted that the noble Lord repeated what the Minister said in another place, that just getting rid of the concern into private hands and away from public hands must be good for the company, must be good for the taxpayer and must be good for the staff. I cannot feel really convinced about that; and the glow of euphoria which ought to be spreading over me, and probably over many of your Lordships. I just do not feel. What the noble Lord said may be so, but it will not be due to the change of ownership; it will be due to changes of circumstance. which in this very fluctuating business can be rapid and marked. But I feel it is only fair that the people who, as I say, have for 25 years successfully conducted Cook's business should be relieved of the feeling which they now have, that the Government at any rate accept the criticisms which many of their supporters have made. I think they wonder, in particular, why they should be accused of having been back-

1317
ward in extending the package tour business.
I would myself agree that in my day the management of Cook's was cautious, but it was not static or half-asleep; and why they should be criticised now for not having rushed into this hectic state of travel abroad and for not starting to sell "places in the sun", in hotels which have got no roofs on and which lack drains, I do not know. I feel that it is a little unfair, and I am sure that if they had had proper support they would have found a wise, and eventually profitable, line to take, even in that rather tricky business. I am convinced that the ordinary citizen and his family who want to have a holiday abroad and who want to go to someone with national prestige and reliability behind them—someone who will not sell them something that they will not in fact get—will have far more cause to regret the sale of Cook's than to believe that it is going to be a great boon and blessing to the nation.
5.45 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I intervene just for a moment only because I have long experience as a customer of Cook's. I was a customer of Cook's when it was a private company, and, of course, I have been one since it became a nationalised company. I knew Mr. Stanley Adams; and I have always been a supporter of this agency. I do not hold very strong views as to whether it should be a nationalised service or an independent service, and therefore I am not speaking against the Bill; but I want to make one or two comments which I am sure the Minister will agree with, and about which he has in fact already given some reassurance. First of all, I hope that this company will remain under British control. I hope it will not be sold to a foreign company. I think it has a reputation all over the world; and when one travels with Cook's travellers' cheques, one knows perfectly well that they will be honoured anywhere; and that is a great consolation when one is in foreign climes.
But what I really want to say is that here in this House of Parliament we have a service from Cook's which I think is absolutely marvellous. I have been using it ever since I became a Member of your Lordships' House; but before that, when my husband was a Member of Parliament
1318
for 40 years, he always used it. Those of us who live, as I do, in the North, in Scotland, and travel twice a week either by sleeper or by air travel know perfectly well that we can get the most marvellous service from those people down in the basement of the House of Commons. I should like to pay my tribute to all those young people and the managers there who have served us, not only now but in years past, because I honestly think that for Members of Parliament, and certainly for me as a Member of the House of Lords, to be able to get such service from our own Cook's office makes more difference to the comfort and to the easiness of a rather complicated life, if you happen to live in the North, than anything I can imagine. I should like to put on record how grateful I am personally for the service I receive; and I am quite sure that other Members of your Lordships' House, and certainly Members of the House of Commons, feel the same.
I hope that this service will remain a very personal one. I agree with Lord Hurcomb in what he said about many of the travel agencies which are now starting up. I remember that when I was Chairman of the Consumer Council people were continually writing in and complaining of package tours sold without any real reference to or understanding of the facilities which they were selling. As Lord Hurcomb has just said, "Travel to the sun", or something of that kind, was put on the brochure; people were taken in by this and then complained bitterly afterwards. There is very tough competition in the travel business, and I think it is most important that any travel agency should have at heart the personal interests of the purchaser of the ticket. I can say of Cook's that, anyway so far as I am concerned, and I am sure in the case of anybody who has used their services, they have always dealt very honestly with us. They have not sold us package deals that were in any sense dishonest; and I think I can also say that, of all the complaints we got at the Consumer Council while I was there about fraudulent travel package tours being sold to the public, I cannot remember one concerning Cook's. That is a reputation which I am sure the Government will want to see continue when they agree to whatever company is going to take the company over. This personal

1319
service to the public is most valuable, and I hope that it will be regarded in that way.
I am certain that the Government want this facility and this company to be treated in that way. I hope they will not be tempted by offers of high prices, but will look very closely indeed into the background of the people who are offering high prices, to ensure that this concern remains in the hands of reputable companies or people who will look after the interests of the consumer. If that happens, there is no reason why it should not be just as good as it was 25 years ago, before it was taken over by the Government; it was then very good. It was run skilfully by the nationalized transport service and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is no doubt as responsible as anybody for the fact that it was so efficiently run and one can pay a great tribute to it. Let us be sure that in the future it is going to be as good as it has been in the past. I want again to say how grateful I am to all the people who serve us in the Cook's office in Parliament because they make life very much easier, certainly for those Members like myself who are continually in the trains.
5.50 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure that we should all like to echo what the noble Baroness has said in our tributes to those who look after our travel arrangements—they looked after mine similarly for a great number of years—with such kindly and attentive service, and to echo her hope that in the future the service of Cook's will be as good as it is now. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who I suppose (other noble Lords will forgive me if I am wrong) speaks with greater authority on this topic than any other Member of the House, having regard to the part he played in the organisation of the nationalised company at the time and the part he played later in running that organisation. Therefore what he has had to say has been most informative and extremely authoritative.
It is now my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on his speech. I can do that for several reasons. First, he avoided all the awkward parts to which I shall shortly
1320
come. That is always a wise thing in this House, especially at this time on a Thursday; it tends to keep the temperature down. I will endeavour to maintain the temperature by informing those of your Lordships who do not know the whole of this story (the number, I expect, is very few) a little more than the Minister thought appropriate to inform us at first telling. It may be that it occurred to him that he would have an easier passage if he kept it to the last telling, by which time none of us, on this side of the House at least, could have a further word to say. I shall give him the opportunity to do so by asking a number of questions.
Secondly, I want to congratulate him on having done the wisest thing that anyone speaking from either Box can do: that of asking a question and immediately answering it, long before anybody else can give a different answer. He asked himself, "Why should the Government be concerned with Cook's?" That, in fact, was his sole reason, his sole justification, for this Bill. He did not see why the Government should be concerned with Cook's. He then went on, as the wise man he is, to give several very powerful reasons. He made it clear that the Government were not going to allow Cook's to be run in such a way that the Government did not concern themselves with the running of Cook's. It was, for example, not going to be run (though he expressed it in a rather confused phrase) by foreign interests. He wanted to be absolutely sure that that was the case. He was going to be absolutely sure that the Minister who had charge of it should personally consent to whoever it was who were going to acquire it. Why? So that the intentions could be seen to be perfectly honourable. No doubt he will explain to us later, as Lord Hurcomb is as interested in this as I am, how the Government intend that these honourable intentions should be fulfilled throughout time and not merely for the next week or two. So the noble Lord in this way —and we all heard his speech—answered his own question and made it perfectly clear that this was an area of activity in which the Government were concerned. The noble Lord. Lord Hurcomb, made clear that which has always been more than clear to me: that where you have nationalised industries operating almost

1321
exclusively over the whole of the transport area—British Rail, the airlines, the National Freight Corporation—it was natural and sensible that the travel agency should form part of that general complex by putting it in the same ownership. It came into that ownership and it has remained in that ownership.
My Lords, I want to pursue the question which lay behind both the speeches we have heard this afternoon: why is it now being transferred? The noble Lord said, with respect, half of one sentence and then proceeded to answer it, so he will acquit me of discourtesy if I immediately turn my mind to the real reason why it is being transferred. In the other place the reason put forward was bad management. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, speaks with more restraint and greater courtesy than I could ever summon to my aid: he said that he thought it was the duty of the Government to make plain the other side of the story. He said that it was not the Government who were criticising the management; it was the Back-Benchers and so on, in another place. Well, the sorry truth is, and I suspect Lord Hurcomb knew it but did not want to put it in so many words, that the Government, through its senior Ministers (and I say "Ministers" in the plural) have criticised this company in a most disgraceful way—and I have Hansard here. Why do I say "disgraceful"? Because every Minister for every nationalised industry throughout the period since 1945, while I have had the privilege of being a Member of one or the other House, has always regarded it as his responsibility to stand up at one or the other Box and say, "Yes, there are these criticisms. Now I give the other side of the story. "Why? Because the nationalised industry itself cannot do that job. Therefore the Government have to do it for it.
What have we heard with regard to this company, the business of which the Government wishes to denigrate?—nothing but criticism. Not one word from any Minister giving even the other side of the story, giving a balanced picture. I can, if your Lordships wish, read many quotations from both Ministers' speeches in the other place running down Cook's recent management. I do not think that it will be very profitable to do so; it is already on record. I expected the
1322
noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to open his speech by again referring to the same thing. He was a good deal wiser than were his colleagues in another place; he knew that the argument could not be sustained.
In case he proposes to return to this argument in his winding-up speech I am bound to deal with it. Not only does the noble Baroness say that the service is good; so, too, do others whom I trust she will not mind my putting together with her. Among them I include the United Nations Association, UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the International Monetary Fund. It is very difficult to think of a first-class international organisation of top repute which does not use Cook's services. So I think there is not much disagreement but that its record stands very high. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for saying, out of her great experience on the Consumer Council—which experience, I may say, without embarrassing her, I am sorry has come to an end—that from her own knowledge, though there had been many complaints about those who suffered as (for want of an appropriate term) "package tourists", not one was made about Cook's. And so there is no doubt that in the public mind and esteem, nationally, domestically and internationally, this company's reputation stands very high indeed.
There is no doubt that the company has been nationalised for a very long time. The Bill was in 1947 and I imagine that 1948 was the date of effective national ownership. That is virtually a quarter of a century. I understand that in the last year it has not been so profitable, but over a very long period the company has been very profitable. So why are there now these criticisms of the management? And if there are these criticisms, why do not the Government, who have the power and the responsibility, do the normal thing about it? And how can that be said, if Cook's has been so successful as not to incite any action by the Conservative Government which held power between 1951 and 1964 — 13 years of inactivity so far as Cook's was concerned—13 years when the then Government might have done what the present Government are now proposing to do but refrained from doing because they were satisfied about Cook's?
LORD JACQUES: The other Government was a better Government.
LORD DIAMOND: Well, my Lords, we know the reason full well. The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, for example, sitting opposite, was an adornment of that Government, and I am sure that he would not have let his colleagues do such a stupid thing—but perhaps I should not bring him into the discussion. The answer is that the company was carrying on perfectly satisfactorily during those 13 years.
What I am putting seriously to your Lordships is that the story about ill-management is not supported in your Lordships' House, is denied by those concerned and there is no evidence to substantiate it, if there were, what on earth is the relationship between management and the ownership? If the company, as was alleged by both Ministers in another place, has been badly managed, why is that an argument for a change of ownership? Are the Government suggesting that whenever a single firm in the private sector fails, the next Labour Government should automatically nationalise it because the only way to deal with a management difficulty is to change the form of ownership from the private to the public sector or the reverse? Of course not. In neither House have the Government put up the slightest justification for changing the ownership from the private to the public sector as being a solution for management difficulties—if there are management difficulties.
I wish to turn in particular to the nationalised airlines about which, if the Minister will forgive me for reminding him, I did have a quick word immediately before the debate. I wish to ask specifically, are the Government satisfied about the management of the two nationalised airlines? I assume they are, because if not, as an effective and competent Government, they would be doing something about it. So I assume that they are satisfied with the management of those two airlines. If they are satisfied, why are the Government putting shackles on the possibility of those airlines owning Cook's, as would be a very reasonable and natural thing—so retaining in its appropriate sphere, the travel sphere, this well-managed, enormous, inter-
1324
national business of high repute? It is a business whose credit needs to be good and needs to have all the authority possible behind it, in order to continue its financial business; and the financial business alone of this company runs into something like £100 million a year. So I am saying that if the airlines are well managed why should not they be allowed to take over Cook's and enable the Governent to do what they want to do; namely, dissolve the Transport Holding Company?
The Government could just as easily and, in my view, a lot more beneficially to the economy and the country, transfer the ownership of this firm to a firm in the public sector as to a firm in the private sector. So I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to be good enough to deal specifically with that point. Perhaps I had better refresh his memory about what his colleague said in another place when dealing with this point. Mr. Eldon Griffiths, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said:
"My right honourable friend by no means rules out the participation of other nationalised concerns but this would have to be justified in terms of their existing main-line activities and would also have to depend on their financial position."
Well. my Lords, the financial position of the two airlines is pretty sound and it is well within their activities. They are concerned with the business already. The Minister went on to say:
"I would not expect nationalised concerns would take more than a comparatively small holding, because anything other would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 24/11/71; col. 1431.]
There is the cat well and truly right outside the bag, making it perfectly clear—as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, did not attempt to disguise, although he did not clarify it—that the reason for this transfer has nothing whatever to do with management; nothing whatever to do with the record of Cook's; nothing whatever to do with whether it is appropriate or efficient that Cook's should remain in the public sector; nothing whatever to do with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and, regrettably, nothing to do with any condition about whether Cook's should continue to serve the noble Baroness and others as well and as helpfully as in the past. It is to do with one thing only, with the Conservative Annual

1325
Conference where a promise was given to hive off bits of public industry. This is what is happening, and whether it is to the detriment or the benefit of the economy could not concern the Government less.
My Lords, the noble Lord asked, why should the Government be concerned? I repeat that he answered most of that question himself by what he immediately went on to say; and I have given further reasons for it. May I. therefore, go on to say shortly why I think it would be extremely damaging for the nation and the economy; why this policy of hiving off, which is the sole justification for this maltreatment of Cook's, is highly damaging.
First of all, I think—and I do not think I am exaggerating what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said about this; he and I both agree—that such activity must be highly demoralising for staff and management. People are in business to make the business prosperous, to expand their activities and to see ever-widening horizons. Because of this clamping down which is going on as a result of Government activities, not one nationalised board knows where the chopper will fall next; top level management is concerned to spend far too much time protecting themselves against the Government instead of getting on with their business of expanding, knowing that if they do expand, their expansion may be taken back next week and hived off by the Government. That is totally demoralising to the principle of enterprise which we want to see in every public and private enterprise firm. It is demoralising; it is a denial of their business opportunities.
In terms of the Coal Board we have had this problem already, and we are suffering from it to-day. It makes it absolutely impossible for any board to run a balanced business because if it were running a business which contained a main activity which is running down, not a board in the country would not try to balance that by diversifying into activities it thought were likely to grow. So far as the Coal Board are concerned, that is denied. Hiving-off is taking place, or being prepared, for the Coal Board, as a result of which the noble Lord, Lord Robens, as he made perfectly clear on the radio not long ago, refused to
1326
continue his appointment there. I myself am quite convinced that the troubles from which we suffer as we sit here are partly due to the feeling of the miners that they are no longer engaged in an industry which has a fair chance; they no longer have a Chairman who understands, as nobody but the noble Lord, Lord Robens, could understand, their needs and desires. I am sure that the present coal strike is in a measure due to that very hiving-off policy, of which we are seeing another example in this Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said, the inevitability of a policy like this is that you are being careless of the public purse: I think that is the best way of putting it. I should have thought that that was an interest which joined all of us; namely, anxiety to protect the public purse. As everybody knows, when you want to sell a business you do not go along and say: "Please come and buy this business. Please buy it before April 2"—or whatever the date is— "because we have a severe deadline. Please relieve us, the Government, of the responsibility we have, because, as you know, we do not want it any longer." You do not do that unless you are proposing to give the business away for a comparative song. I am saying to the noble Lord that the Government are being careless of their responsibilities to the public purse in the way they are advertising their desire to sell off bits of public industries; in the way they are making clear that it will not be a deal as between a willing seller and a willing buyer, but it will be a deal as between a seller who is compelled to sell and a buyer who can buy in his own time, as is happening here, by a fixed date, as the Minister has just made clear; and that, as a result, the assets will go for a much lesser value than they would otherwise achieve. It is quite impossible that that should not be the result and that the taxpayer and the public purse should not be the worse off in consequence.
There is a further aspect to which I must refer in the Government's policy of hiving-off. The worst aspect is their inclination—which they have acted upon at least once, in the case of the Air Corporation's £6 million worth of airlines—to deprive a nationalised industry of one of its assets without any compensation whatsoever. That is an unfortunate

1327
tendency and an even more unfortunate precedent. It encourages people to think of tit-for-tat. I would therefore invite the Government to have second thoughts upon the policy of denying to a nationalised industry the right to carry on with certain of its assets and goodwill which produce income and profits, without giving them any compensation whatever.
So I am saying that this is a Bill which sells Cook's from the public to the private sector, notwithstanding its high reputation, notwithstanding its achievements, certainly since 1947, notwithstanding that your Lordships have spoken highly of its reputation, for the simple reason that the Conservative Party are determined to hive off bits of nationalised industry irrespective of the nation's welfare. For those reasons it stands condemned. I must explain that, despite that, it is not our intention to divide the House, because this is a Second Reading of a Bill which has come from another place, and we have no difficulty in deciding what our duty is in those cases. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that we disagree utterly and profoundly with the irresponsibility of the Government in their proposed action.
6.15 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the whole House would agree that in a debate on the Second Reading of a Bill to transfer Cook's from the Transport Holding Company in the public sector into the private sector, which is the intention of the Government, it would be hopeless for me to spend any time attempting to bridge the gap on the whole question of nationalisation which clearly exists between the Party for which I speak and the Party for which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, speaks. He and his Party take one view; I and my Party take another. Whether we are looking at the matter of the Coal Board, B.O.A.C., B.E.A., Cook's or any other sector, we have this basic difference of approach. All we are considering at the moment is the transfer of Cook's from the Transport Holding Company in the public sector into the private sector.
I will, if I may, stick to the debate in this House rather than the debate in another place. It is our custom to have our own debate and to deal with the
1328
points made from each side of this House rather than with points made by others in another place. I said nothing about the management of Cook's, and I do not think it is for me at this stage to express any further view in detail on the strengths or weaknesses, past or future, of Cook's, because all that falls now to be judged from all the details set out in the prospectus: the whole picture is there. But I am only too pleased, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, in particular, to affirm my view that Cook's is indeed a great firm with a long and distinguished history. As I said in my opening speech, and I repeat, we want to see the company prosper; but we see no need to have it in the public sector, and want to see it transferred in order that it should prosper in the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me two specific questions about how we ensure the future of Cook's. Of course there is no way of ensuring in all detail and for all time how Cook's will be run by the purchaser of the firm, although it is possible to safeguard the special interests of the staff, which in this particular case must be specially safeguarded. It is for that reason that the greater part of the Bill is required and all the details are set down, as they are in Clause 2. The noble Lord did not ask me any questions about that.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to interrupt. I did not ask him any questions. He now gives me the opportunity of saying that I merely forgot to say, as one does on these occasions, not having had much opportunity to prepare remarks, that I am grateful to him for what he said, which covers all the points perfectly satisfactorily from the point of view of Second Reading, and if any minor point arises we can deal with it in Committee.
LORD SANDFORD: I look forward to that. The further specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, after ranging rather widely, if I may say so, into the National Coal Board, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., was this: Are we putting shackles on B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.? Well, we are not doing that, but I confirm the terms of what my right honourable friend said in another place— the noble Lord has

1329
quoted his words, and I will not repeat them. It is not our intention to divulge the details of the negotiations now going on between the Transport Holding Company and the potential bidders, because much of the information involved in that is confidential, but it does so happen that a consortium which includes B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have published the fact that they are among the bidders, and I can confirm that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are associated in these particular transactions in that way at this moment.
My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood hoped that Cook's will remain under British control, and we hope so too. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood for the compliment she paid to that particular branch of Cook's which serves us all so well here in the Palace of Westminster. I see no reason why these facilities which we have all enjoyed for so long should come to an end as a result of the sale provided for by this Bill. I hope that has answered all the points raised by noble Lords. I see no prospect at all of converting the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to the views of my Party on nationalisation and I feel it would take considerable time if I were to attempt it. Having said that, my Lords, I hope your Lordships will now agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CODE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PRACTICE
6.21 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Code of Industrial Relations Practice, laid before the House on January 19 last, be approved. In asking your Lordships to approve this Draft Code I should like to start with two observations. I do not think that any debate on any facet of industrial relations in this House at this time could start without an expression of our sorrow at the death of Lord Donovan. Not only did he win the respect and affection of your Lordships but, having been invited to preside over the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations in 1965, he applied his intellect and his humanity to this immense task for over three years
1330
in addition to his duties as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. His contribution to the improvement of industrial relations is inestimable. Greatly as it is appreciated now, I believe it will come to be valued more and more as the years go by. It may well have shortened his life, but he has certainly left behind him a study bearing his name which will be a lasting memorial to the work of himself and his colleagues. All of us mourn his death and offer our deep sympathy to his widow and family.
My second observation relates to this debate. When I initiated the debate on the Consultative Document there was no need for me to go into any detail on its provisions, and I was able to be brief. To-day I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I speak for rather longer, so that I may give some account of the process and results of the consultation that has taken place.
The debate we had on the Consultative Document last June was critical but constructive. It took place on the eve of our embarking on the Report stage of the Industrial Relations Bill. In contrast to the Bill, the Code was welcomed on both sides of the House, though the noble Lord, Lord Byers, thought it needed deflating and strengthening. Even the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, could not forbear to give it a welcome, albeit, as he said, a muted one. There were suggestions and criticisms and even commendations. As I promised, all the views expressed were carefully studied alongside the comments received from industrial, commercial and local organisations, professional bodies and individuals concerned with industrial relations during the four months after the Consultative Document was published. The sets of considered comments exceeded 200. They went into great detail. Clearly the Document was widely considered and discussed. By the end of the year over 370,000 copies had been distributed.
I am bound to say that relatively little comment was received by the Department of Employment from the trade union movement. That was a disappointment. The T.U.C. did not send their observations to the Secretary of State but they did issue their own booklet, Good Industrial Relations—a Guide for Negotiation. Whether that booklet owed anything to the Consultative Document, I

1331
would not presume to say. It may well have done. Certainly there is much common ground in the two documents. At any rate, the revised Draft Code that is now before us certainly owes something to the booklet, so that in a real sense it was possible to treat the booklet as the T.U.C.'s observations on the Code. Indeed, Paragraph 133 (v) of the Code was taken directly from it. That is the paragraph which says:
"… no disciplinary action should be taken against a shop steward until the circumstances of the case have been discussed with a full-time official of the union concerned."
Also the passage in the Code dealing with independent arbitration as the final stage in the disciplinary procedure was modified, and the passage dealing with facilities for shop stewards was amplified to take account of the booklet's recommendations.
The House will forgive me, I hope, if I first remind your Lordships briefly of the purpose of the Code, which is to give practical guidance for promoting good industrial relations. It does so in accordance with the four general principles set out in Part I of the Industrial Relations Act, which the Introduction summarises thus: freely conducted collective bargaining, orderly procedures for settling disputes, free association of workers and employers, and freedom and security for workers.
In the debate on the Consultative Document the Foreword received a good deal of praise. Noble Lords may wonder why it has been rewritten and called an Introduction. Quite simply, the reason is that it was felt that the Foreword had so much that was valuable that it ought to be incorporated in the Code in the form of an Introduction, so that notice would be taken of it in the interpretation and implementation of the Code itself. This Introduction also includes new points arising out of comments received. Most of all, the Introduction declares the two main themes that pervade the Code: first, the vital role of collective bargaining, and second, the importance of human relations between employers and employees. It also declares that the Code applies wherever people are employed—not just in industry. Having said that, it states the corollary—and it needs stating—that since circumstances vary so
1332
widely between different forms of employment, even within industry, not to men tion other forms of employment, some of the provisions may need to be adapted to suit particular circumstances. But it goes on to say that any adaptations that are made should be consistent with the Code's general intentions.
Undoubtedly the primary responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations lies with management, and that means their taking the initiative in formulating adequate industrial relations policies and procedures. But as the revised Introduction stresses, good industrial relations are a joint responsibility, and they need the continuing co-operation of all concerned. This means that management should give employees the opportunity to co-operate; they should invite them to do so and should consult them. I can illustrate this by referring to the Section of the Code on Employ ment Policies. Paragraph 25, in the introduction to that section, reads:
"Management should initiate and accept primary responsibility for these policies. But they should be developed in consultation or negotiation, as appropriate, with employee representatives."
This reference to the need to consult or negotiate, as appropriate, with employee representatives applies, of course, to all the subsequent parts of the section: planning and use of manpower; recruitment and selection; training; payment systems; status and security; redundancy; working conditions—the lot. In particular, paragraph 45 meets the point of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on redundancies. The noble Lord also said that management should work out with employees what the disciplinary pro visions should be. Parapraph 130 says:
"Management should ensure that fair and effective arrangements exist for dealing with disciplinary matters. These should be agreed with employee representatives or employees concerned."
On status quo we have not felt it right to go quite so Car as the two noble Lords would have liked. The Code does not refer to status quo as such. What the Code does say is that:
"Major changes in working arrangements should not be made by management without prior discussion with employees or their representatives."
I hope nobody will ask me what changes are major. If so, I shall be bound to ask them, how long is a piece of string?

1333
The answer will vary from case to case and from establishment to establishment. It is essentially a matter for settlement between the parties.
Indeed, this brings me to the need for flexibility of application in the Code which has to cover a huge variety of needs and circumstances over the very wide field it covers. On the whole, it was urged in the last debate from the Opposition and the Liberal Benches that the Code should be more precise. But the weight of criticism from outside Parliament was in the opposite sense—that some of the detailed provisions of the Consultative Document were inappropriate or unnecessary for small firms; that different enterprises were at different stages in the development of industrial relations and could not be expected to implement the whole of the Code right away; that one has to have regard to what is practicable at any one time—for example, as to equalisation of conditions and status of those exercising comparable responsibilities, desirable as that is; that it was wrong to alter procedures that were working well and were in keeping with the general intentions of the Code, whether those procedures were procedures between trade unions and employers, or between representatives of other sorts, employees and employers.
For example, the proposals in the Consultative Document about consultative machinery in establishments with more than 250 employees were quite precise. These were examined critically by the noble Lords, Lord Byers and Lord Brown. In the revised draft the section has been almost entirely re-written. On consultation in establishments with over 250 employees, it says that there should be systematic arrangements for consultation, but that consultation between management and employees, or their representatives, about operational and other day-to-day matters is necessary in all establishments, whatever their size—and please note the word "between"; this is a two-way process. It is left to individual establishments to agree on what arrangements suit them best, always pro vided, as paragraph 67 says, the arrangements are not used to by-pass or discourage trade unions. The main thing, as paragraph 68 seeks to ensure, is that consultation should be meaningful, comprehensive and effective. It is of the
1334
essence of good industrial relations that managements should know what employees are thinking, and that employees should have the opportunity to express their views. I draw attention to the definition of "consultation" in paragraph 65.
One change that has been made will not please everybody, I refer to A17 of the Consultative Document which related to professional employees and reads:
"An employee who belongs to a profession with a recognised Code of conduct has an obligation to comply with that Code. He should not be called upon by his employer or by any trade union of which he is a member to take any action which would be contrary to it."
Professional bodies strongly endorsed it. But others, including both unions and employers, no less strongly criticised its assumption that professional should always take precedence over other obligations. Moreover, they said, it gave professional bodies a free hand to define the obligations of their members in ways which could prove divisive and disruptive to the established negotiating machinery in local government and elsewhere.
It is common ground that there are particular kinds of situations in which professional obligations should always be paramount. Paragraph 22 seeks to de fine those circumstances in terms of public health and safety, and the health or well being of an individual needing medical or other treatment or care through the personal social services. But there are other circumstances in which professional obligations may conflict with other obligations but cannot be automatically assumed to over-ride them. Paragraph 23 therefore enjoins professional associations, employers and trade unions to co operate in preventing and resolving such conflicts. This covers professional associations in general and not only those whose members might be affected by paragraph 22.
The thinking behind these provisions in the Code is that anyone has a right not to belong to a trade union. If, there fore, taking into account his prior obligations to his professional body—prior in time, at least—he chooses to belong to a union, he voluntarily accepts the obligations attaching to membership of that union: obligations which ought not to be lightly set aside. The Code cannot lay

1335
down a general rule reflecting all conflicts of obligations that may arise. In short this is essentially a matter for the parties to settle among themselves.
During the last debate several noble Lords hankered after a Code which would be entirely separate from and independent of the Industrial Relations Act. Their view seemed to be that if only the Act were not implemented, the Code, by and large, would be fine. But Codes need some sanction to be effective, and the more apt the sanction the more effective they are. The sanction of this Code lies in Section 4 of the Act which provides that
"in any proceedings before the Industrial Court or an industrial tribunal under this Act

(a) any such Code of Practice shall be admissible in evidence, and

(b) any provision of such a Code of Practice which appears to the Court or tribunal to be relevant to any question in the proceedings shall be taken into account by the Court or tribunal in determining that question."

But important as it may be to have a sanction, most people do not adhere to a Code because of the sanction, but because its content is in tune with what they know to be right and necessary. The Code is to serve as a guide to good industrial relations practice in the hands of the ordinary practitioner on both sides of industry. There is a good deal of evidence that managements have already been studying the Consultative Document with a view to bringing their practices into line with its provisions and so promoting good industrial relations.
Several noble Lords in the last debate expressed the view that though the Consultative Document had the merit of being in plain English, it was not peremptory enough and not sufficiently reformatory: it was, according to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, flatulent and wishy-washy. However, the Introduction makes it plain that those who at present fall short of the standards set in the Code are expected to make reasonable and continuing progress towards achieving those standards. The standards are those that are currently recognised as together representing existing good industrial relations practice. Whether one is concerned with standards with which industrial Roods should conform, or standards with which industrial relations should con-
1336
form, the aim should always be to raise those standards. The same applies to health and safety. There is nothing to prevent particular producers setting them selves higher standards and trying out new refinements or developments. It is even more important that such improvement should be attempted in industrial relations than in goods and services; the objective in both cases is a dual one: greater efficiency and greater satisfaction, but in the case of industrial relations it is job satisfaction and happiness in one's work.
My Lords, it would not be possible to be more peremptory or more precise without at the same time being less flexible and less humane. After all, these improvements are going to conic about by two sides sitting down together and agreeing on the ways in which the Code is going to be applied in their establishment, their undertaking or their industry. What need to be precise are those agreements. The Code must be clear, but it is bound to be in more general terms. And the Code can be changed, as the agreements can be changed. Indeed, the Code will have to be changed because it is as yet in a sense incomplete.
The Section dealing with disclosure of information cannot be completed yet, be cause the C.I.R. has not yet reported on the remit given to it by the last Administration. I say that not in criticism, for the subject is as difficult as it is important. I shall merely add that when the C.I.R. has reported, and when their report has been considered I after consultation with interested organisations probably by means of a consultative document, the Section will be amended in a revised Code which will require an Affirmative Resolution in each House and will, if approved, be brought into effect at the same time as Section 56 of the Act, which deals with disclosure of information by employers in all stages of collective bargaining. In the meantime, the practical guidance which the Secretary of State is obliged by Section 2 of the Act to give in the Code with respect to disclosure of in formation is. I admit, brief, but it is none the less explicit and important. It says in paragraph 97:
"Management should aim to meet all reasonable requests from trade unions for information which is relevant to the negotiations in hand. In particular, it should make

1337
available, in the most convenient form, the information which is supplied to shareholders or published in annual reports."
No doubt as industrial relations evolve and improve, further amendments to the Code will he needed from time to time.
I turn now briefly to the changes that have been made in the Code to meet comments and criticisms, especially those made in this House, and to changes that were advocated but have not been made. Apart from the Introduction, the only other change in the structure of the Code is to bring together the guidance on grievance and on disputes procedures into a single chapter. The procedures are similar and there are often close links between disputes and grievances—if the noble Lord, Lord Brown, will pardon the expression. The two major criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, may be summed up in the words "paternalism" and "ambivalence"—the ambivalent attitude of the Government towards the trade unions. He would have liked the Code to proclaim that it is one of the responsibilities of management to encourage trade unions. On the other hand, I have been told often enough by noble friends of his in the past 12 months that the trade unions are well able to look after themselves. What the Code does is to emphasise in the Introduction the need for strong representative trade unions, and where unions are recognised for the purposes of negotiation to require managements to make clear to employees that they welcome their membership of an appropriate union and their participation in the union's activities. There is no ambivalence at all about the Government's attitude. The Government want every employer to develop effective industrial relations policies which command the confidence of the employees. It is for the employees to choose whether to belong to trade unions, or to form a trade union for themselves, and be represented by them. It is for particular trade unions to convince the employees that their interests are best promoted by them and to attract them by the opportunities for participation that they offer. It is not for Government or Parliament to tell managers or employees what trade unions to recognise or belong to. The new wording in the Code removes any ambivalence there may have been.
1338
On the other hand, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, no longer feel that the revised Draft Code has the ring of paternalism, or that it plays down the role of trade unions in industrial relations. The emphasis throughout the Code is on joint responsibilities—of unions, managements, individuals and employers' associations; it is also on negotiation, consultation and agreement before action.
Finally, my Lords, a word about arbitration. Paragraph D 25(d) of the Consultative Document stated that disputes procedures should include arbitration as a final stage. On the other hand, the T.U.C. Guide and other critics argued that if at the end of the day there was the certain prospect of arbitration, the standards of collective bargaining at the earlier stages would suffer and negotiation would become less meaningful. The Government considered that there was force in that argument, and the Draft Code now confines the use of the Indus trial Arbitration Board or other independent arbitrators to circumstances where both parties agree that they should be used. That is paragraph 29. The paragraph adds that arbitration can be used to settle all types of disputes, especially disputes of right, and that where it is used the parties should undertake to be bound by the award. Independent conciliation, of course, is also available as a means of enabling the parties to reach agreement.
My Lords, it would not be possible for me to go in detail into all the various other amplifications that have been made on consultation, shop stewards, and the like. But I hope I have convinced your Lordships that the Government not only have paid attention to what was said in our debate on the Consultative Document, but have profited by it to amend the Document in some at least of the ways which your Lordships advocated. The Draft Code now reflects to a large extent a consensus on industrial relations. I believe it will do what it is intended to do; namely, to make an important contribution to better industrial and human relations in this country. My Lords, I commend it to the House and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Code of Industrial Relations Practice, laid before the

1339
House on January 19 last, be approved. —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
6.46 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, before making my contribution to this debate I am constrained to comment that selection of priorities by those responsible for arranging the order of debates in this House seems to have gone awry to-day. We have a very important Motion in front of us, and I am sure many share with me the view that to relegate this Motion to this hour of the evening, after spending two hours on Amendments to a mechanism for controlling a temporary, new form of debate in the House, really was a shocking, ill-selection of priorities.
Before I come to the Motion, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in paying a very deep and sincere tribute to the late Lord Donovan for his enormous contribution to the whole subject of industrial relations, particularly through the Donovan Report.
My Lords, this Motion is not capable of amendment, as we all realise, but Section 2 of the Industrial Relations Act allows the Secretary of State to amend the Code at appropriate times, and so my remarks are made not as carping criticism of the Code—I have no wish to do that—but to put on record certain views which may perhaps be taken into account when the time comes for revision, which I hope will not be too far into the future. The first point I want to make is with regard to the general case for attaching to the Code a number of appendices, which could set out in exemplary form procedures which might be adopted by companies who were attempting to follow the Code. There is a very good precedent for doing this. In the Companies Act 1948, Schedule 1 includes Tables A, B, C and D, which set out model Articles of Association for companies that have not the skill to draft their own or do not wish to go to the expense of doing so. These are not obligatory on companies, but failure to produce Articles means that a company has to adopt Table A, or one of the other tables. There will be literally thousands of firms, some of them not so skilled, trying to devise procedures for negotiation and for hearing appeals, and all the other aspects of the matter
1340
referred to in this Code. Some of them are going to be very bad—although some may be very good—and it would have been helpful if there had been appendices attached. I hope that this point may be taken note of for future editions of the Code, because it would save a tremend ous amount of work and would get some uniformity into procedures, which I be lieve would be highly salutary.
The second point concerns this whole question of agreement of policies. There is reference in paragraph 25 of the Code concerning policies, as follows:
"But they should be developed in consultation or negotiation, as appropriate, with employee representatives.…"
Then in paragraph 52 it is stated:
"Major changes in working arrangements should not he made by management without prior discussion".
I would have hoped that this Code could have grasped the nettle. I welcome the pressure put on firms to negotiate and to consult with employees before making changes; but I should have thought it would be recognised by now that if there is strong resistance after negotiation and after consultation it is not open to management to impose changes on employees. If they seek to do so there may be a strike, but eventually compromises are reached which are in the form of an agreement. So it would have been much better if the Code had pointed out the impossibility of the imposition by management of new policies. One might have hoped, as happened in my experience, that there would be a quid pro quo in that shop stewards and other representatives would adopt the same attitude and refuse to use their power to impose their will on management.
That would be a highly desirable out come of a Code which drew attention to these facts of life as they exist in industry, and I hope that this will be taken note of in a second edition. That is the civilised way of going about matters in industry. The cost to our society if one side or the other seeks to impose its will on the other in a highly unsocial and uncivilised manner is enormous, and we have to learn to sit down and go on with discussions until, as a result of a compromise on the part of both parties, there is agreement, albeit after the strike instead of before it.

1341
The third point I should like to make may sound rather trivial. In paragraph 37(ii) there is a reference to the fact that payment systems should be,
"based on some form of work measurement where payment is linked to performance;"
This is a semantic point, but it is important. In the last report of the Prices and Incomes Board, about methods of payment, reference was continually made to measuring the time allowances and prices under piece-work schemes. It may be news to many Members of this House that consistent researches into the work of rate fixers (and I do not care what sort of modern methods they use) to establish piece-work prices vary over the samples taken. There have been many notable pieces of research carried out by universities which have varied by plus or minus 40 per cent. If anyone is going to refer to that as measurement he will simply be leading everybody up the gar den path. When one turns away—and, thank God! people are turning away from so-called piece rates on to day rates—it has become common to refer to these as "measured day rates". There is no measurement in it at all. I wish we could come to reality like disciplined thinkers and stop using inappropriate terms. It leads to a great deal of trouble in industry when people believe that, because a price varies and they are unable to earn the money they used to earn, or somebody is earning far more than he expected, it is a fault on the part of management because it is faulty measurement, whereas if it is known to be a matter of pure judgment one can discuss it on a much more rational basis. So I should avoid the term "measurement" wherever it is clear that measurement is not possible.
My fourth point refers to the false dichotomy that continues in this document between supervisors and managers. There are in industry different roles which should be referred to properly: on the one hand, "supervisors" and on the other, "managers". It is quite easy to define a manager: the manager has responsibility for the work of his subordinates and he must have the authority to veto an appointment in a role subordinate to him. He must be able to make differential judgments of his subordinates and he must be able, if necessary, and subject to appeal, to have them removed
1342
from those roles if they cannot do the part of the work that he has to give them to do. Then there are people who assist managers, and these are supervisors. It is quite easy to define the super visor as an employee who assists his manager by assigning work to those members of his manager's team of subordinates who are allocated to him by his manager, and seeing that those subordinates get that work done.
This Code confuses the whole issue. It has a footnote on page 5 which says:
"In this code ' supervisor' means a member of the first line of management. who is responsible for his work group to a higher level of management."
If he is a member of the first line of management then he is a manager. So why confuse the issue by calling him a supervisor? It seems to me to be a great pity because there is need for both terms, "supervisor" and "manager". Where the Industrial Court has to deter mine some of the disputes that will arise then, believe me, it will have trouble on these grounds because it will not know whether the supervisor is supposed to have behaved in a certain way or not, according to whether or not it dubs him to be a manager. This seems to me to be a pity.
I remember an occasion of a B.B.C. broadcast when I was approached to take part. The subject of the broadcast was, "Is a supervisor a member of the management team?" I said that I would take part if I was first allowed to define the term 'manager'. They said, "That is too technical for us", and so I said, "Well, you can go away and have an absurd broadcast if you like but you are not having it with me unless I can define the term 'manager'. They went away and came back and said that it would be nice to have a definition after all, so would I take part? So I did take part and I defined the term. The programme was done on tape in the usual way, but when the broadcast was relayed they left out my definition. At the end of the debate the man who was summing up said:" We have had a very interesting debate but somewhat confused, because this is a very confusing subject". It was an absolute lie. The confusion was introduced by the B.B.C. owing to a complete failure on their part to define their terms, and I

1343
am sorry that this Code fails in the same way. This is a matter of some importance which I hope will be cleared up in a further revision.
Under the question of appeals procedures, I am glad to see several references to rights of employees to appeal when they feel aggrieved, and that employees should be told how they can do so. I feel quite strongly that this is a case for the sort of appendix to which I referred, because there are many firms to-day who would say, "Of course our employees have the right of appeal". Your Lord ships know the managing director who says, "My office door is always open", but we know very well that the employee who takes advantage of that offer is taking a very risky course of action. There is a need for a proper procedure, properly worked out, and there are several available that could have been included as examples. Paragraph 132(iii) says:
"provide for a right of appeal, wherever practicable, to a level of management not previously involved".
That is where a man has been disciplined. I think that stands open to criticism. A man must always have a right of appeal and the words, "where practicable" are surely a rather unfortunate intrusion.
I have made a number of points and I do not want it to be thought that they are made in a carping manner. I disagree with some aspects of the Industrial Relations Act, but certainly one of the excellent by-products is this Code. I believe it is an extremely important act to write a Code and to give it this indirect sanction which it receives when it is meshed with the Industrial Relations Act. I give credit to the Government for improving a great deal on its original draft, but I think it could be improved still further without too much deep thinking, and I hope that on a future occasion, when the Secretary of State comes to consider revision, some of the points I have made will be taken into account.
6.58 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Byers were here tonight I am sure that he would not be using the rather unflattering adjectives that he applied to the previous edition of the Code. There is no doubt at all that
1344
the Code as we now have it is a great improvement on the Consultative Document. I suppose that is one of the purposes of having consultative documents. We on these Benches certainly received this Code with what I fear I must describe as tepid enthusiasm; tepid for reasons that I shall go on to explain, but the enthusiasm is certainly there. As the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said, the Code provides very valuable guidance indeed. It is an extremely useful check list for employers and trade unions up and down the country who are now seriously bending their minds to an improvement in their industrial relations policies and practices, and I am sure that we shall see this Code on the desks not only of middle managers but, much more important, on the desks of directors and board members who have to see that the Act is implemented, and implemented in the spirit as well as in the letter. It is undoubtedly, then, a useful document.
Why did I say that our enthusiasm was tepid? Because I think that the drafters of this Code have had a very good stab at an impossible job. It is not in fact possible to provide a Code which can be applied to the whole of employment in this country, to vastly different kinds of enterprise in which people work, without a great deal of generalisation, over simplification, and inevitably the writing of cliché, and this is no criticism of the drafters of the Code; it is inherent in the task with which they were presented. However, we have got it, and it certainly adds greatly to the value of the Industrial Relations Act, an Act about which we, as your Lordships know, had very serious reservations indeed. Of the two documents there is no question that the Code is far more valuable than the Act. We could, of course, have had the Code without having any Act; but that is another matter.
We have now spent about two years getting the Industrial Relations Act and the Code of Practice through the two Houses of Parliament. Can we now put this behind us? It is there. The Government gave us to understand that it was to be a framework within which good industrial relations were to develop. Can we, now that it is on the Statute Book, turn once more to the recommendations of the late Lord Donovan, which, in the view of many of us, were too much overlooked

1345
at the time the Industrial Relations Bill was being passed? Your Lordships will remember that Lord Donovan, in his recommendations, stressed again and again that the real place that matters in industrial relations is the company, the factory. Perhaps it was inevitable, but that finds little place in the Act, and some place, but inevitably not enough, because of the nature of the document, inside the Code. It is the factory, the company, that matters. That, after all, is the place where the work is done, the money earned, profits gained, the disputes break out and are ultimately settled. It is what happens there, and the people inside the place of work who are going to determine whether in fact we have good industrial relations in this country or whether we do not. The bureaucrats and academics who stand on the outside giving good advice —and in practice it sometimes is—to the people trying to make the thing work inside, have about 5 per cent. to con tribute to the real job to be done. Can we not now start thinking again about the way in which we can refashion the institutions at the level of the plant, as Lord Donovan urged us to do, and about what new procedures and practices and devices we need in order that this can take place?
From the Liberal Party we have been urging for a very long while that the time has come in this country when we, like many other countries in Europe, need a Works Councils Act. We need to institutionalise the procedures at the level of the factory. We need to recognise the power groups, the interests of the different elements which have a contribution to make in the running of the enterprise, and we believe that this will only be done if we legislate for works councils and give them proper legal powers. We have been much impressed by the way in which the Germans have developed practices of this kind. We do not say that it is necessary—it is probably not right—to imitate the German practice just as it stands, or to copy here the procedures which have apparently worked with considerable success in that country. It is not necessary, although it may in the long run prove to be advantageous, at the beginning, at any rate, to contemplate introducing the device of the supervisory board. But as we move into Europe we
1346
are going to find that practices of this kind are widely developed inside Europe. We are likely to find that the European company statute is going to make suggestions along these lines, and I should like to urge the Government now, in con junction with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., perhaps working through the procedure of N.E.D.C., to start threshing out what kind of legislation for works councils could best be adopted in this country to bring our thinking into line with the best European thinking and our practices into line with the best practices there.
There are examples of great interest which have been introduced on a voluntary scale. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, was too modest to point to the great experiments which have been made in his company. That is only one example, but a very important one, of the way in which policies of this kind could develop over industry in this country as a whole, and this seems to me to be an urgent next step to which we should devote our attention straight away.
May I, before sitting down, make one other much more general point. As I have said, what really matters is not the legislation outside: it is not what the civil servants and the academics say to the people in industry: it is what the managers, the trade unionists, the shop stewards, the rank and file do and what sort of relations they form. We suffer grievously in this country for a basic lack of respect for what these men of all grades do. If you asked me why we lag so steadily behind in this country in many areas of economic development, I would say because here the task of a manager, the job of a manager, is not held in high regard. On the other side of the Atlantic, in Germany, in France, the title "engineer" ranks very high. It is not true in the United Kingdom. There is an unholy alliance between the extreme Right and the extreme Left; the old social prejudices and attitudes of the extreme Right, which play down the importance of management and give it less than the status that it ought to have, and the attitude of the extreme Left, which still sees the manager as the capitalist grinder of the faces of the poor. Until we get rid of these attitudes and see the tremendous social value of the job which is being done by managers we shall not progress. But if we think for

1347
a moment what a manager's job really is, of how the resources of men, money and materials are within his control, how the economic development of the country, the resources that we all need for better social development, depend on the way in which he does his job, then surely we shall begin to rate that task far more highly than at present. Men rise to the expectations that other people have of them. This is the point that I should like to leave in this debate: to say that we need urgently to think about ways in which at the level of the factory, within the company itself, the work can be more appreciated and the task done by all can receive the respect which is due to it.
7.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, 1 shall make a very brief intervention this evening, simply to express my disappointment at the softening of the Code in relation to the status of the professional man, to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred in opening the debate. I have of course been concerned with this point from the start. I moved four Amendments to the Bill, of which the noble Lord accepted one on Report, which did at least mention in the Bill the status of the professional man. He may still be between the hammer and the anvil, but at least official cognisance has been taken that he exists.
We were promised that the matters I had hoped to include in the Bill would be attended to in the Code of Practice, but I thought that the original Consultative Document, at paragraph 17 in one clause, broadly drawn, dealt with the matter as satisfactorily as I could wish. But this has now been softened, and we have three narrowly drawn clauses in which the position of a professional man is slowly whittled away, and the noble Lord has told us why. Pressure has been brought to bear from the employers on the one side, and the unions on the other, saying how very inconvenient it would be to have special cases. Of course it would. Doing one's duty is inconvenient, but the whole point about the professional man is that he does not stand on his rights. The employer stands on his rights, the unions stand on their rights, but the professional man stands on his obligations and duties in relation to his clients, and it is this right to stand on that that I do not want to see whittled away.
1348
Paragraph 21 gives a recital, and refers to the existence of the professional man, but again it gets the sort of moral note quite wrong in referring to the professional man as being liable to incur penalties. The professions do not run kangaroo courts: that is done in other parts of the world. Nobody of course would impose a sanction on a professional man who violated his code under duress. No question of that arises. What they have done is to take on obligations over and above the obligations in law, which is the maximum that is imposed on their neighbours. I think it strikes a wrong note. At paragraph 22, of course (and this again shows where the pressure comes from) are recited the obligations which he has solemnly taker. on by joining the union, but there is no reference at all to the obligation to his clients or his employer—though this is again referred to in paragraph 23 where the employer and the union come in on level terms.
The best way of playing Russian mess ages (the little game we all remember from our childhood) is to tell a Parliamentary draftsman what you want, amend it in the House, and then get a court to construe it in due course; then all sorts of funny doctrines arise. Anybody who is going to construe paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 is going to think, why is the employer left out of paragraph 22 when he comes into paragraph 23? I should have liked to see them enter in on level terms. In other words, the position has been eroded.
I promised your Lordships a short speech, and I am not going to deal with the matter in greater detail except to make one point; namely, the recitation of public health and safety, the health of an individual, the wellbeing of an individual needing care through social service, are a quite inadequate recital of the matters which a professional man might look upon as obligations. May I, just very briefly, refer to an activity for which I was responsible some rather long years ago, namely, running a high temperature laboratory doing long-period endurance tests at high temperatures on steel, "creep" tests, fatigue tests, and so on, some of these running for 2,000 or 3,000 hours. I had to be in continuous attendance keeping the themostats in order, seeing that the instrumentation did not go wrong, that

1349
the temperature remained constant, and so on. Of course I could not work round the clock, but I had assistants to do it for me. The idea that I would have, as it were, sabotaged thousands of hours of my own handiwork to the prejudice of my employer just because some third party told me I had got to because, willy-nilly, I was involved in some wretched industrial dispute, would have been absolute anathema. This is just as much an obligation of the professional man in this regard as public health and the health or wellbeing of an individual from the social service point of view. This recital is, from my point of view, quite inadequate and unacceptable.
7.15 p.m.
LORD NELSON OF STAFFORD: My Lords, I fully support this Draft of the Code and the Motion which is before us. As my noble friend has already explained to us, it has been drawn up after a great deal of consideration of the points raised in the long debates in this House and elsewhere, and as a result of representations and views from many quarters. Therefore, it would not be appropriate, I am sure, to go over all this ground again to-night. I rise for only one purpose; that is, to support the views which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has just expressed.
I must emphasise to my noble friend that among professional workers, those who are professionally qualified, there is a great deal of disappointment at the watering down of this paragraph origin ally paragraph 17 in the Consultative Document to which reference has already been made. I think the attention of your Lordships and also of the Government should be drawn to this situation. This clause was intended originally to allay the considerable anxieties which existed of the sort of position in which professional people could be placed. Most of them to-day do not see these fears allayed in this Draft Code put before us. Positions could arise when really serious divided loyalties could exist for the professionally qualified worker who is governed by a Code of Practice which itself is directed towards the protection of the public interest, and this is the purpose of his professional Code of Practice. He could well have divided loyalties between that Code on the one hand and his colleagues, his trade union or his employer, on the other. There
1350
is a very strong feeling among these workers, wherever they may be, that this present situation is not satisfactorily taken care of.
At this late hour I will not take up your Lordships' time in detailing the sort of situations which could arise, but those outlined in the present paragraph 22, referring to public health and safety, the health of an individual needing medical and other treatment, the wellbeing of an individual needing care through personal social services, important as they are in themselves, are by no means enough, and by no means, I would assure your Lord ships, do they cover all the cases which could well arise. I would merely, then, confine myself to expressing the hope that the Government will keep the position of the professionally qualified person under consideration in the months ahead while the Code of conduct is put into practice and we see how it works; and that when it comes up for review they will have this situation very much in mind. In the meantime, I am sure that it is the earnest hope of all your Lordships—it certainly is mine—that this Code, when put into practice by those who have the very difficult task of conducting industrial relations, whether as employers or employed, will prove to provide extremely valuable and helpful guidelines in an activity which is so important to us all.
7.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, the Industrial Relations Act set the legal framework for industrial relations, and this Code is a positive guide to conduct. As such, I think it will be heartily welcomed everywhere as a handbook that covers the ground well. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, raised the terrifying prospect that the lawyers might get their hands on it. I can only say that I hope that the lawyers will keep themselves a very long way away from this document, because it is not a document whose effectiveness depends on its legal interpretations. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has covered the ground with his usual skill and lucidity, and at this late hour I do not wish to refer to the details of the Code. It is disappointing, as he said, that the trade unions have not given it a warmer welcome—though it is encouraging that there is a great deal of common ground, in fact, between the trade union document and this Code.

1351
If I may, I should like merely to stress two or three rather obvious points. First of all, I always enjoy following the noble Lord, Lord Brown. At a certain point in what he says I always feel, "Now his feet have left the ground", and then immediately the noble Lord says, "I have practised this for 24 years, and it works". Invariably I come back to the same conclusion, that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, always speaks in these matters from first-hand experience, and very good first-hand experience, too.
I like his suggestion of the model rules, which might be of help to small firms which will not want to spend an enormous amount of time on drafting. I also like very much his recommendation of talking, talking and talking. It is almost always the right answer. Never break off talks, because if you do it means defeat for both sides. I think he touched a good point when he talked about the managing director's door always being open. It certainly touched me, because when I was a managing director I always thought that my door was open. But I was a little discouraged one day when somebody opened the door and said, "I have been trying to make up my mind for two years to come and see you." I then felt that there was not much point in saying, "But the door has always been open."
I should like to make three rather obvious points. First of all, good industrial relations cannot be achieved simply by following regulations, however conscientiously. They are a reflection of an attitude of mutual trust and respect, and mutual confidence which has to be earned by decent sensible conduct on the part of both parties. Industrial relations is a plant of slow growth which withers if it is not continuously tended, and when it is lost it takes a very long time to grow again. This Code is very valuable in providing sound guide-lines and in being something to check up on from time to time. But it is not a substitute for personal relations and personal responsibilities. You cannot really conduct industrial relations very well with the rule book in your hand all the time. Therefore, if this excellent Code is to succeed it must be personalised at all levels, and not just carried around in people's hands.
1352
Secondly, though management carries the first responsibility and should generally take the initiative, it must—if it has not already done so—shed those old-fashioned notions of prerogative and privilege which really do not fit very well to-day. Management, indeed both sides, must always be all the time trying to reconcile the interests of shareholders and employees, which conflict from time to time. Thirdly, in human relations the relative importance of an issue cannot be settled completely objectively. Whether it is important or not depends so much on the viewpoint and the situation of the individuals concerned. What may often seem trivial to management, may not be at all trivial to those immediately concerned.
My fourth point is one which I can never get out of my mind; that is, that bigness in so many industrial organisations to-day is a terrible handicap, be cause bigness breeds impersonal relation ships and, indirectly, reliance on the rule book. All I can say is that the bigger the organisation, the greater the efforts that are required to ensure personal relations and personal responsibility at all levels. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that a supervisor is part of management. Most people believe that it is easier to feel loyalty to small groups than to big ones, so large under takings must be broken down into small groups. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned the factory and I agree with her. But we should go further than the factory, and should go down into departments and small groups which really mean something.
Finally, my Lords, let us discard as utterly false two allegations that are often, and perhaps increasingly, made. The first is that people are interested only in the money return that they get from their work. History and human experience prove that that is a dangerous illusion, and when it is true it is an indictment of the nature of the job. The second illusion that I want to ask your Lordships to reject is that happiness and satisfaction cannot nowadays be found in work, and must therefore be sought only in leisure. Again, one has only to check upon one's personal experience of those who seem to get the most out of life to prove the superficiality and shallowness of such an allegation. Pride

1353
in skill, the satisfaction that comes from meeting challenges, and achievements are the breath of human life. But some jobs, alas! —perhaps an increasing number—are of such a mechanical nature that it must be almost impossible to derive much personal satisfaction from them. The remedy in such cases is not to accept the fact, but to try in one way or another to enrich the nature of those occupations. This is a good and valuable document, although the practices it describes should, as I think my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pointed out at the beginning of this debate, not he regarded as static or the final truth, but as a springboard to further progress.
7.27 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to join those who have given a warm welcome to this draft Code of Practice. I thought at first that it would be exceedingly difficult to draft anything that really made sense and which applied generally throughout industry where conditions are so diverse, but I believe that this is an extremely good start to solving the problem, though we shall obviously have to amend it as we go along.
Many people are at present discouraged about our industrial relations. I do not think we ought to lose heart about them. Some of our difficulties are due to inflation, and even the Swedes and the Germans have had their troubles owing to that. Some of our difficulties, especially the redundancies, are due to a recession which is not only ours but fairly general. That will pass because, in the long run, we know how to deal with it. But it is obvious that we have to remove the grosser errors and mistakes on both sides of industry, which, unfortunately, characterise our industrial relations. I am sure that we shall never hold our own in the Common Market unless we do that. This is where the Code of Industrial Practice has a very important part to play. As the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said, it is forward-looking, and what we need is something which is forward-looking and of practical assistance to industry. This means that we really must try to get it widely studied and widely applied. It may not be the only key to better industrial relations, but I certainly believe that it is the best key.
1354
I should like to draw attention to one or two detailed points. For instance, paragraphs 7 and 12 refer to the importance of training in industrial relations, both for management at all levels and for trade unions, and especially for shop stewards. I was very impressed in Sweden by the admirable training institution which the Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (L.O.) has set up. It is really quite excellent. In this country we do this on a far smaller scale. I believe the time has come, now that we have a Code of Practice, to make sure that this deficiency is corrected. I believe it is time to draw in the universities, many of which now have sections dealing with industrial relations. I believe that universities all over the country should be prompted and moved to provide courses on industrial relations. My Lords, it is expensive to attend courses such as these; it means leaving work and devoting time to study. I think that the Government ought to consider a system of grants which would enable people to go to such courses which would he made less expensive. And, in case anybody should think that the Govern ment are on the side of the employers only, this system ought to be administered by "Neddy ", with the participation of the trade unions and with both sides of industry.
I should like to draw attention to paragraph 71 on collective bargaining, which recognises the need for due regard to be paid to the general interests of the community. This is a very important thought, because unless due regard is paid to the essential interests of the community the stronger organisations will always "down" the others. It is essential that the Government should continue to play the sort of role they now play, and preferably an enhanced role, because only the Government can really judge expertly what are the general interests of the community. Equally, my Lords, it is essential that in doing this the Government should carry both sides of industry with them; and here again I urge that this is a framework where "Neddy" could be exceedingly useful and where its influence might be developed still further.
Paragraph 121 recognises the need to settle disputes promptly. I do not think enough attention can he paid to this. It

1355
is when disputes drag on and on—they go from one instance to another, and higher up still; they bedevil relations at national or industrial level, and still are not settled—that the workers get into a state of complete despair and go in for un official disputes, or take other measures. Every possible effort ought to be made to speed up procedures and get disputes settled and out of the way.
My Lords, I have been greatly shocked by the act of the Yorkshire miners in stopping maintenance men from pre serving the mines—and, indeed, from preserving their own source of livelihood. This really is an incredible state of affairs. Why have the men been driven to take such action? I think it is extra ordinary that the British should not long ago have invented, applied and effectively enforced a less brutal, self-defeating and ridiculous method of settling industrial disputes. I hope that we shall take note of the appalling situation which has come about and that we shall use the occasion to get a great many people to study this Code of Practice and to apply it throughout industry. We certainly all have a far greater interest in restoring a reasonable degree of prosperity to our country and to our workpeople than in tolerating such futile industrial relations as these. In short, I hope everyone will help to get the Code studied and applied as widely and as effectively as possible.
7.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords. I welcome the introduction of this Code, which may well become a landmark in industrial relations in this country. To those concerned in this field, both in management and in the unions, there are important principles in the Code which have never before seen re cognition in a Government publication. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, spoke of how much consultation had gone on before the production of this Code from the Consultative Document. I think that if your Lordships compare the two you will realise the extent to which this is so. There is hardly a sentence that has not been changed; and although in some cases it is difficult to detect the difference in meaning in the new edition, the Code has nevertheless, as a
1356
whole, undoubtedly been changed for the better.
In our previous debate on this subject I noted down three basic objections from noble Lords opposite: first, that it is paternalistic; second, that it does not recommend union and employee participation in management decisions; and, third, that it does not make employers responsible for urging employees to join unions before recognition. Reference has already been made to the paternalistic objection. I think it is difficult for any document which states general principles to avoid saying what may appear obvious to those steeped in the subject. But I would say that if it does appear paternalistic, it appears just as much so to wards management as towards unions and employees. There can, however, be few companies that can truthfully say, with their hands on their hearts, that they carry out faithfully and comprehensively all the principles and methods of operation recommended in this Code. though from my own experience I would say that enlightened management would find little to disagree with in the Code.
Let me move on to the second objection—that is, that the Code does not recommend union and employee participation in management decisions. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said, it goes a good deal further than the previous Consultative Document, and I do not believe we have yet reached the stage at which we can define satisfactorily the extent to which employees can be involved in management decisions. Over the last few years there have been great developments in management, union and employee relationships in certain firms. Management and employees have worked together to establish agreed manning of plants and ways of operating. There are, indeed, many decisions made in industry which would not be made without the concurrence of the employee representatives. But there are also many which have to be made by management after an appropriate amount of consultation. Management has to weigh factors and maintain a balance among the employees, shareholders, customers and the national interests of the country in which they are operating. I think it is almost impossible, at this stage, at any rate, to define the extent to which employees, through their elected representatives,

1357
should be involved in management decisions; but it is, I think, a subject for further study.
The third objection was in connection with urging employees to join unions where no unions were recognised. The new edition of the Code states:
"Where trade unions are recognised for negotiating purposes management should … make clear to employees that it welcomes their membership of an appropriate recognised union and their participation in the union's activities."
I believe that it is right not to go further than that at this stage. It must be remembered that there are a large number of small firms which have little or no union membership at present. The Bolton Report produces the fact that there are in this country 820,000 small firms employing 4·4 million people, and at present almost two-thirds of these have no union members on their payroll. On the whole, small firms have a good record of industrial relations, and few strikes, but little of the overhead, to which my noble friend Lord Amory referred, which a large firm has to have in relation to its personnel affairs. It is important not to overburden these small firms at this stage. I support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, of having appendices giving recommended ways of dealing with various aspects of this Code. I think that this would be particularly valuable to small firms.
My Lords, there are just two further points that I should like to make. One is in relation to the image of the unions. There is no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, the image of the unions is not always attractive to the so-called white-collar workers, and it affects their willing ness to join. It is these workers who tend to increase as a proportion of the working population; and if the unions are to maintain their proportionate strength they must be able to recruit them. Independent studies in certain companies have shown a clear antipathy among white-collar workers, and especially among women, to unions. It seems to me to be most important that the unions should seek to improve their own image to these potential recruits. It is dangerous for an individual like me to speculate on the reasons for this antipathy among thousands of people who might be union members. It is a subject for a wider objective study which I believe the unions could
1358
beneficially carry out for their own purposes.
The second point is in relation to the question of specialised activities and specialists, which is linked closely to the problem facing the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. More and more people in industry consider themselves specialists. They learn specialism and move, possibly, from company to company, or from one part of a company to another, using the same or similar specialist skills. Whether or not many of these belong to a society of some sort with its own code of ethics, there must be hundreds who have these qualifications or professions. But there is no definition in the Industrial Relations Act of what is a professional man. Clearly, the references which have been quoted in this Code refer to very few professions. The noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, indicated this when he said that the list referred to in the Code is nothing like complete.
I think that there is some evidence, too, that specialised workers prefer to join a specialised trade union, rather than a general union. So with increasing unioni-sation we may find a number of unions represented in each company. This can lead to inter-union difficulties as particular skills and technologies change. I heard it said recently on the radio that one of the reasons for the good industrial relations and the lack of strikes in Germany was that there was only one union in each company. It also stated that this was imposed upon them after the last war by the Allies and particularly by the British representatives on the Allied Control Commission. This contrasts with the situation before the last war when, apparently, there were many unions with in each firm. I think it possible that this is a subject that will require further study, along with the position of the professions. The multiplicity of unions here may be a problem, but I believe it is possible to devise a compromise by which employees may have a relationship with two unions, one for their specialism and the other for their overall relationship with their employer. One of these unions might be a union of what they would call their profession.
In conclusion, I may say that I welcome this Code. Although some people may wish for further items to be included, I believe that there is general agreement that the

1359
document is a good one. The problem now (and this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey) is how to put this over and into operation with both management and employees. There is clearly a need for training for all concerned. Whether or not the universities are the right place for this, I suggest that the polytechnics and the technical colleges may have much to contribute.
7.45 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I apologise for speaking, I hope briefly, at this late hour. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that this debate should not have come on at so late an hour; we spent most of the afternoon discussing something very much more trivial than that which we are now discussing in an almost empty house. But I have sought tile permission of the people concerned to say a few words. Before I do so, I should like to explain why my name is not on the list of speakers. It is purely due to a misunderstanding. I rang the office of the Government Chief Whip and, as always, received a most courteous reply. I inquired whether this was a case in which one could put down Amendments. As I expected, I was told that it was not. I said that I hoped that this would not preclude my making a few acid comments. The courteous lady to whom I was speaking said, "I am sure, Lord Platt, that you can make some acid comments." She evidently thought that these were going to be interjections, whereas I thought that she was going to put my name on the list. This is how the misunderstanding came about.
Your Lordships will be glad to know at this late hour that most of my acid comments have been made in a most wonder fully restrained way by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and that it is not so necessary for me to make them. I would call attention once again, as I did during the long, tedious discussions on the Indus trial Relations Bill, to the fact that clearly it was written by and for people who are concerned in industry. It is called the Industrial Relations Act. The document we are now discussing is called the Indus trial Relations Code of Practice. In its Introduction we read:
"Good industrial relations are a joint responsibility. They need the continuing co operation of all concerned—managements, trade unions, employers' associations and
1360
individual employees—and the discussion of day-to-day problems as they occur."
Whoever wrote that had no idea that he was writing for professional people, people like those in my own profession, whose first obligation is to their patients and not to their trade union or to their employer. If the trade unions blame the professions for wanting different treatment, this is not the fault of the professions, it is the fault of the Government who forced us into this Bill which really does not apply to us at all.
Again, on page 7 of the Code we read:
"The individual employee has obligations to his employer, to his trade union if he belongs to one, and to his fellow employees."
There is no suggestion that a person may have other obligations which surmount all of these; in other words the Code is not written for us at all. So we start with a little prejudice against it. Nevertheless, I agree with those who welcome this Code of Practice. I think it is a great improvement on what has gone before. I think that the Industrial Relations Act, although I do not agree with it all, is tremendously necessary at the present time. But the people who have praised it have not seen if from the point of view of the professions.
The only specific point I should like to make is in reference to paragraph 22 on page 8, which concerns professional employees. Here a little concession has been made and, as the noble Earl has said, it has now been watered down in this new version of the Code of Practice. This has been endorsed from the Government Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford. As a result of this little concession the Code refers to, "the health of an individual needing medical or other treatment". It actually mentions the medical profession—quite wonderful! It is known to me that the British Medical Association has tried to get the Department of Employment simply to take away the words "needing medical care or treatment", but this has been refused. This seems to me to be carrying things too far. Under these words, "the health of an individual needing medical or other treatment", a doctor involved in some dispute, who happens to be a member of a trade union and so on, can give treatment to an individual who needs treatment; but he cannot give a child an injection against diphtheria because there

1361
is a diphtheria epidemic about as the child is not a person "needing medical or other treatment". That may seem petty, if you like, but it seems to me another example of a case where the advice of the profession has been ignored. But I welcome the Code so far as it applies to industry.
7.51 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SM1TH: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for long. I should like to begin, however, by associating myself most warmly with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the debt which we owe to Lord Donovan. I had the privilege of knowing Lord Donovan for something like 25 years, since the time when we were Members together in another place. I greatly admired not only the great intellectual ability with which he was endowed, but also the humanity and the wisdom which he was able to bring to every subject to which he gave consideration. My belief is, my Lords, that in due course we shall have to retrace some of the steps taken in recent months in respect of industrial relations and go back to the principles. and even more to the temper of mind, expressed in the Report of the Royal Commission over which Lord Donovan presided. He indeed rendered a great service, and the public life of this country is much poorer for his absence from it.
I wish that I could find it in my heart to join in the rather diminished and somewhat muted and qualified praise which has come from various quarters for this Code of Practice. If I could believe that it was going to serve the purpose of effecting some improvement in industrial relations I should be happy to give it a welcome, quite irrespective of the quarter from which it has come. But, my Lords, I am afraid that there are some of us who cannot feel that this Code, produced as it has been, is really going to serve a useful purpose. It may sound harsh to say that about this so amiable, palpably well-meaning, even if some what laboured in places, rather placid document. It may sound better to wish it well and hope for the best. But it is no good disguising or refusing to face the fact that this Code, whatever virtues it may have—and I shall try to show later
1362
that in my judgment its virtues are very qualified—is hopelessly prejudiced by its association with the Industrial Relations Act. And it has been greatly weakened by the circumstances in which it has been produced. By that, I mean those circum stances in which it has been impracticable for the major parties, the Government, the trade unions and the employers, to sit down in a real atmosphere of a round table conference and try to work out some principles which may assist to ameliorate industrial relations in this country.
That situation, that handling of this subject, has been quite impossible in the circumstances and atmosphere of the last 18 months. No one, I think, can deny that the main responsibility for the lack of an atmosphere in which there could be a real round table consideration of these problems must rest upon the shoulders of the Government. I believe now that members of the Government must them selves recognise how ill-advised was their action in the cursory way in which they treated the trade union movement at the time when they were starting to frame the Industrial Relations Act. No doubt, in part. it was imposed on those directly responsible by the desire of the Government to launch the long, lumbering procedure of this incredibly cumbersome and over-complex Act.
The Code of Industrial practice has been commended by Government supporters in a rather complacent way, even by the standards of complacency set by the present Government in their statements on industrial relations. I do not think that anyone would have judged from the debate that we have had, and from the introduction of this Code by the noble Lord, that we are seeing in facet after facet of our industrial relations to-day, not an improvement but an increasing confusion and increasing embitterment. It is the Government's policy in industrial relations which is giving rise to this confusion and embitterment. For example, one would not have thought that the trade union movement of this country, which has co-operated so readily in peace and in war with Governments of such different outlooks, is at the moment engaged in the most comprehensive and united programme of non-co-operation that it has ever been engaged in; and that this extends not

1363
only to a refusal or the greatest reluctance to register under the Act, but also to non-co-operation with the Commission on Industrial Relations because of the change in the character of that Commission to which the Industrial Relations Act has given rise. This non-co-operation with the Commission on Industrial Relations is already producing difficulties for the work of the Commission, and some of the reports which it has produced give clear indications of the handicaps under which it is now having to work because of the atmosphere which the Government have produced.
One would not have thought, after the perspective which the noble Lord set before us, that so far from having improving industrial relations, we had a year ago a long and bitter strike in an industry which, until then, had been marked by extremely good industrial relations. One would not think that at the moment we have what may be a long and bitter strike in the coal industry, the first national coal strike for almost half a century. When the Industrial Relations Bill was under discussion, some of us ventured to suggest that there was a possibility that we might find that, even though we might have fewer unofficial strikes, we should have more and more serious official strikes; and it looks as if that danger is becoming a reality, even before the Act is fully in operation. Already, as the end of February approaches, trade union representatives and, I expect, the employers, too, are finding themselves inevitably getting deeper and deeper into the morass of legalism to which the complexity and ambiguity of the Industrial Relations Act has given rise. Unhappily, energies which might be used for better and more constructive purposes are being diverted to dealing with what over very much of industry are the quite unreal legal problems which the Act forces upon the attention of those on the two sides of industry.
I said that I would be brief, and I want merely to mention one or two aspects of the Code as it has come before us. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has referred to some of the changes that have been made in the Code in response to criticisms which have been made by noble Lords and in other
1364
quarters. I think I recall that I ventured when we were discussing the Consultative Document to praise the Secretary of State's Foreword, and to say that it was very much better than the Draft Code; that I wished to goodness the spirit of the Foreword could get into the Code; and I expressed the hope that I should not cause any embarrassment to anybody by saying this, or cause the removal of the Foreword at a later stage. Well, the Foreword that I saw has disappeared. The noble Lord assures us that it has appeared in a new form and taken on a new lease of life in the Introduction. But it is, unhappily, a slightly changed form in which it appears, for the phrase which I particularly admired and praised in the Foreword was
"the fundamental principle underlying the Code is that industrial relations in a free society are best conducted by collective bar gaining between employers and strong representative trade unions ".
That useful and rather important word "best" appears to me to have disappeared from the Foreword in the course of its transformation into an introduction. Collective bargaining, we are told, is of vital importance, but we are not told, as we ought to be told, that collective bargaining is the best way of conducting our industrial relations.
Then I regretted that the Code did not do more in the form in which it was then before us to effect a positive strengthening of the trade union movement. I cannot say that I think the document that we now have represents much of an advance in this regard. The Consultative Document did at least say that employers should encourage employees to join. Now the document merely says that they should welcome their joining. Perhaps that is not a very significant change, but it is certainly not a strengthening. I am bound to say that I still remain of the opinion which I formed in the course of our detailed discussions on the Bill, that there is nothing in the Act or on the Code which will get trade unions established in concerns where employers have hitherto resisted or have discouraged their establishment. That I believe is a great weakness.
Let me give a practical example of the sort of thing that is happening. I am acquainted with a concern which has for many years told new entrants in quite

1365
simple, clear and understandable terms that they are not merely allowed to join a trade union but are encouraged to do so: and the hope was expressed that they would play an active part in the trade union which they joined: excellent sentiments, clearly, humanly and understand ably expressed. I have now seen the legal document with which, at any rate at this stage—and I hope that perhaps they will have second thoughts—this particular concern are proposing to greet new entrants, and which will be substituted for the admirable, simple, straightforward and quite unexceptionable advice which I have quoted.
This elaborate legal document, based on Section 5 of the Act, first of all says that there is a right to join or not to join a union, unless of course it should be that an agency shop or an approved closed shop arrangement turns out to be established in the concern in question. It then goes on, provided the entrant has picked his way through the legal jargon so far, to say that if he joins a trade union he will be allowed at appropriate times to play a part in the trade union. Then this extraordinary document goes on to say: "'Appropriate time' means your own time." This is a great widening of freedom! It then continues: "If you are going to undertake any trade union activity during working time, it must be with the express approval of your super visor." I should have thought that in most large employments a fairly good set of arrangements had been worked out for providing facilities for workshop representatives during working hours; and everybody knows that in any enterprise of any scale this is an absolute necessity.
I have quoted that example from employers who have a reputation for being (shall I say?) at least as intelligent and progressive as the generality of employers, to show the kind of situation to which this legalism to which we are now subject is going to lead. We shall find employers telling men, in language which will be largely incomprehensible because of its careful legal preparation, that they are entitled to certain basic rights, casting doubt upon those additional rights which have been established by practice or negotiation in the past. There will be some employers who may do this because they think it is what the law requires them to do. I am afraid
1366
there will be other employers who will do it because they will be delighted to have a basis and a ground for removing some of the rights which have been acquired in practice, and the necessary facilities which have been won in practice over a period of time, and to necessitate the argument starting again from scratch.
This is exactly the sort of thing which some of us tried to indicate would happen under the Industrial Relations Act. It is a relatively small example, almost, from some points of view, a trivial one; but it is an example of the way in which a new spirit is going to be injected into the industrial relations of this country. I admired very much, as I always do, the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, on this subject, and I agree with him wholeheartedly when he says that good industrial relations are not built up quickly; they take time to develop, and once the basis of confidence is destroyed they take a long time to re-create or re-build.
When one looks at the point of difficulty to which the Code makes reference, I do not think one can avoid a sense of disappointment. The crucial issue of the status quo, the crucial issue of the conditions on which and the way in which changes should be made in industrial practice—in the layout of the workshop, the processes which affect men—is a weak and unsatisfactory one. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in saying that it was difficult to know what was a major change, underlined one of the difficulties about it. But the Code merely calls for consultation. Consultation can be very perfunctory. The issue is whether that consultation shall continue until either agreement has been reached or until all the processes of negotiation and consultation have been exhausted before the change is actually put into effect. This is one of the central issues which will dominate industrial relations in this decade: the degree to which workers are going to be given a real measure, a real share, in the control of the pattern of their working lives.
In many ways we are being left behind in this country by some of the countries on the Continent of Europe. Similarly, if one looks at paragraph 96 of the Code, one sees that the important question of information is still unsettled and that the provisions of Section 56 of the Industrial

1367
Relations Act have not yet been put into operation. I suspect that discussions upon them are proving rather difficult. As I said, nobody would be more delighted than I if I could really feel that in the Code before us to-night we had a document which was going to fulfil the expectations which some noble Lords, at any rate, have held out for it. If it does indeed do good, this will be welcome; but I am bound to say that, on the evidence now before us, and in the atmosphere and circumstances which exist, I really cannot believe that the Code will do much good—partly because of the weaknesses which it still has and partly because of the background against which it is produced.
8.12 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, as he himself said, struck a rather discordant note, or at any rate a different note, in comparison with the speakers who preceded him. I do not think that your Lordships would wish me at this time of night to go through the very many valuable points that have been made if only because, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said in his own remarks, they were directed to the next Code rather than to this one. But there were one or two exceptions to this, and I should like to deal with them. I thought that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, were, as usual, very valuable, though I felt that he was perhaps a little hard on the definition of "supervisor" and the question of the "first level". After all, the first storey is the first one after the bottom, and why the first level of management should be the top one, as lie seemed to imply, rather than a single level, I could not make out.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I do not want to prolong matters, but the point really is a very important one, and I should like to clarify it, in case I did not express myself clearly earlier. Managers on the floor do need managerial assistance from those who are not themselves full managers. They come between people who are working on the floor and their managers: people who have not access to management. It is necessary for them to be called "supervisors", but this Code has usurped the term "supervisor" and used the term "manager", because that footnote makes out that there is
1368
no difference between a manager and a supervisor. I am sorry to have delayed the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I quite take the noble Lord's point on this, but what we are really saying is that the super visor is part of the management system but throughout the document is distinguished quite clearly from the management. For one thing, if one takes the disciplinary provisions it is quite clear there where it says, in paragraph 132(i):
"specify who has the authority to take various forms of disciplinary action, and ensure that supervisors do not have the power to dismiss without reference to more senior management:"
This merely makes the point in really a few words that they are all part of the system of management but they are distinguished and distinguishable.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the foot note on page 5 says:
"In this Code supervisor means a member of the first line of management …"
Now that can mean nothing else but that a supervisor is a manager. I must dispute this with the noble Lord. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy in giving way, and I hope that he will bring this to the notice of those who have to look at this Code in the future.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that everything the noble Lord, Lord Brown, says, will be carefully considered and closely examined; but I am bound to say that the way in which the Code is presented has not raised in my mind the same difficulty as it has raised in his.
I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and as usual what she said deserves careful study also. She said that we must bring our thinking into line with the best of European thinking. I hope also that we shall take with us the best in our own thinking and that we shall align the two, because there is so much that is good in this country as well. I think that it would have been wrong to have attempted to bring the whole Code into line with those who are making new experiments. These have still to be worked out. What we have tried to do is to bring it into line with the best accepted practice and to go on, we hope, from there. I fully expected the more-in-sorrow-than-in anger speech of the noble Earl, Lord

1369
Halsbury. If I may say so, I think he expressed himself with great moderations in the circumstances. But I would put to him—and also to my noble friend Lord Nelson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Platt—this point. It would be a great pity if at this stage, when we are starting out to develop a new code of industrial relations, we were consciously to make an abrupt distinction between those employees who are recognised as putting their duties first and those employees who are not so recognised. By "duties" I mean here what has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Courtown, as well as what the noble Lord himself said, the duties to the public interest. I personally hope that we shall get to the stage when everyone in industry will put his duties to the public interest very high, if not first. It is very difficult, in this imperfect world, not to put our own interests very high; but at any rate I hope we shall get to the stage when everyone will put his duties to the public interest very high indeed. I fear that if at the present time we were to make too sharp a distinction it would tend to be divisive; and, as I said in my opening speech, I do not think it would be helpful to the development of industrial relations. After all, it is wrong to suggest that anyone who is involved in industrial relations has no regard to the public interest. This is a question of values, of education and of conscience, and altogether these things have to be amalgamated and developed, as we hope will happen once we have removed the initial frustrations in industrial relations.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I say that we have gone a long way towards agreeing with the noble Lord; but if you read the whole of the Introduction to this Code. you find that it does not recognise that there arc such people as professional people. If the noble Lord really feels—and I would go a long way towards agreeing with him—that every one who is employed, a worker of any kind, should have these loyalties to his job and to the things which he is doing to the public first, then the Code of Practice might have been written in those terms.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is always a danger in preaching to the converted, but perhaps here the Code has erred on the side of very obviously
1370
preaching to the unconverted. Obviously the noble Lord is perfectly right that the Department's manpower and productivity services have not been called in very often to deal with the professions. Quite obviously when they are writing a pamphlet of this sort they must have in mind what I call, for a short title, the big battalions, rather than those who pride themselves on their individual approach. We recognise this entirely. We want to get rid of these frustrations—and this was referred to by one of the speakers to-day. There is the attitude of management on the one side who feels that his job is being interfered with by the trade union; on the other hand there is the trade union representative who feels that management is standing in the way—I am not generalising, I am putting a point—of what he wants to achieve. If we can get rid of this idea that each is standing in the way of the other, and get them to work towards a common objective, accepting their differences in emphasis and differences in immediate interest and so forth, and the conflicts that are bound to arise, then we shall begin to make real progress. The code sets out to lay the foundations of this; it cannot do more than that.
I willingly accept what the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, says, that we are faced with a massive non-co-operation at the present time. We deplore that very much. This is not carried right through to the shop floor; this is not a feature of industrial relations, properly speaking, in most of the factories of this country. They are going along perfectly well at the present time and are improving. In certain areas of acute economic difficulty there are plainly hesitations, if I may put it that way, if not to use the mildest possible word. One has to take this view quite firmly: one has to separate a political decision not to co-operate on the top level with the usual industrial relations that are going on all the time. We hope that with the passage of time wounds will be healed, and will be healed very soon.
The Government want nothing better than to be able to sit down once again with the T.U.C. and the employers and discuss the future together. In the mean time we are dealing with this Code of Industrial Relations. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, was less generous than he generally is—I quite understand

1371
his difficulties—for I think the consensus in the House to-day is that this is a good document. It is not a perfect document; we know that it will be improved. Even in the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill it was foreshadowed that this would be studied all the time; we debated how often the Code would be reviewed, and so forth. The answer is the old phrase: it is going to be under continuous review. We shall have to make alterations to it before very long to bring in the necessary detail about information.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, was not right in saying that the discussions on Section 56 were proving rather difficult. We are awaiting the C.I.R. Report which was commissioned by his Government. We hope that will give us the necessary guidance on which to base a consultative document which will be considered and examined, and the necessary amendments to the Code will be brought before Parliament. I am not saying that these will be the only amendments that will be made. Obviously we shall be seeking every opportunity to improve the Code.
I am grateful not only to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate but to the enormous number of people who have taken a great deal of trouble to advise the Secretary of State on the form of the Code, advice to which he has responded by making extensive alterations to it. I am extremely grateful to all who have helped to make the Code what it is—
1372
the first and initial stage in trying to pro mote better industrial relations. Despite all that the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt Smith, has said tonight, I am sure that he has in his heart the desire to work together and along the lines of the Code —with all its blemishes as he would think—in order to get better industrial relations and improve the Code as and when we can. I am grateful to your Lordships for the help you have given on this occasion. You have given as good a baptism to this Code as we could possibly have expected.

  LEAD CONTENT OF PETROL
  LEAD CONTENT OF PETROL