Sitting of 13 February 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    School Building Finance
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in view of the growth in population in the south-eastern corner of the county, whether she will increase the allocation of funds to the county of Dorset for school building purposes.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St, John-Stevas): No, Sir. Major building programmes in the period 1972 to 1975 will provide 4,790 new primary and secondary school places in South-East Dorset, 85 per cent. of the 5,600 new places to be started in the county as a whole.
    Mr. James: I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend recognise, however, that between 1966 and 1970 the number of electors in my constituency rose by 10,808? This inevitably has meant that there are a great many more children, and in the area from Verwood, Ferndown, West Parley, West Moors, Corfe Mullen down to Poole there is still a grave shortage of school places.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: We appreciate that there has been a local population explosion in South-East Dorset, and the major programmes which we have provided for new school places exceed £1 million in value in each of the three years 1972–73, 1973–74 and 1974–75. In addition to the major programme, my right hon. Friend has recently increased the authority's minor works programme for 1973–74 by £50,000 to meet local shortages of primary school places.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has to increase the money available for new school building.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Since June 1970 the existing primary and secondary school building programmes up to 1974–75 in England and Wales which has been planned by the last Government have been increased by about £160 million. I have also announced new programmes of £30 million for nursery education in 1974–76 and £20 million for secondary improvements in 1975–77.
    Mr. Dormand: In spite of what the right hon. Lady has said, may I ask whether she is aware that there is an immediate need for additional moneys by some local education authorities, including my own, Durham County Council, because of their inability to meet the cost limits set by the Department? It is no exaggeration to say that in some parts of the North East the position is becoming critical. Will the right hon. Lady be a bit more generous in her special allocation, which I know she makes from time to time, and look at the matter as one of urgency?
    Mrs. Thatcher: With respect, there is a specific Question about cost limits later on the Order Paper. It would perhaps be best and most courteous if I left the reply until then.
    Mr. Hattersley: Despite the answer which my hon. Friend received to his Question, will the Secretary of State confirm that the public expenditure White Paper, unlike the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion", makes it very clear that over the next four years the capital available for school building will be reduced by 22 per cent?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The public expenditure White Paper was drafted in conjunction with the "framework" White Paper. There is a reduction in the amount of money allocated to the basic needs programme. This occurs because the number of children coming into the education ambit is reduced.

    University Places
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will initiate an inquiry into the fall in the demand for university places.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The number of home candidates who applied for admission to university through the Universities Central Council on Admissions fell by less than 1 per cent., from about 115,000 in 1971 to about 114,000, in 1972. I see no need for an inquiry.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is a fairly complacent reply. Can the right hon. Lady say whether there has been a downward trend in any other year within the last 10 years or so, and how does this compare with the projections made by the Robbins Committee a few years ago? Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the situation is very disturbing?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We are discussing the number of candidates who apply for admission to universities. We do not keep extensive statistics on those candidates, but we keep statistics of the number of entrants and this information will be determined later in the year.
    Mr. Marten: In view of all the public money spent on this subject, does not my right hon. Friend think that the work of universities should now perhaps be a little more geared to the needs of the nation?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think that the work of the universities is geared to the needs of the nation, but I am not certain that the nation has always taken up and made the best use of some of the research work carried out in the universities. There is no denying that some of the best research work the world over is done in our universities.
    Mr. Moyle: Does the Secretary of State agree that one factor that discourages
    1118
    people from applying for entry to universities is that there is a rising parental contribution which is not always met, and that the system favours the students from well-off families at the expense of those from less-well-off families?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Not necessarily. I think the greatest objections tend to come from, if I may use the phrase, middle-class homes where the parents feel that they cannot meet the contribution and the students perhaps feel that they should. That perhaps is where the greatest hardship occurs.

    Teachers' Housing (Bedfordshire)
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of the rising school population of Bedfordshire, due to the Government's policy on London overspill, she will make additional grants to the county council to assist with the housing of teachers.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Local housing authorities are free to build houses to meet the needs of their area. The arrangements for grant are made by the Housing Finance Act 1972. This does not provide for specific grants for housing of teachers.
    Mr. Madel: In view of that reply, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that a rise in population such as we have seen in Bedfordshire means that there is an increase in education problems? May I have his assurance that he will keep in very close touch with the Bedfordshire Education Authority to make sure that these education problems are overcome?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, my hon. Friend may have that assurance. I am concerned about this problem, as my hon. Friend knows by the correspondence which we have been having. Apart from the ability of local authorities to provide council houses for accommodation for teachers, local education authorities have adequate powers to build or buy houses to mortgage or to lease to teachers. This is entirely a matter for the local authorities. The Bedfordshire Education Authority has a very good record in this respect. I understand that it will extend its efforts to provide accommodation for married and single teachers. I hope that

    1119
    other authorities will follow this excellent example.
    Mr. Freeson: In view of that reply, will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the House the amount of loan sanction that the Department has given to local education authorities in the past 12 months to provide housing along the lines he has suggested?
    Mr. St. John-Steyas: I should be glad to provide the hon. Gentleman with the information he has requested.

    Secondary Education (Capital Expenditure)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much capital expenditure on secondary education is provided for in her White Paper; and what proportion of this will be spent in the West Midlands.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The school building programmes for 1975–76 and 1976–77 will each be increased by £10 million for secondary school improvements in England and Wales. The allocation of these extra resources is under consideration.
    Mrs. Short: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he was in the Midlands before Christmas, said that the West Midlands would get the lion's share of that allocation of money? He obviously was talking off the top of his head again.
    May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that the West Midlands, and Wolverhampton in particular, is an educational priority area which has been denied any secondary school building capital investment since the right hon. Lady's Government took office? Therefore, there is a great deal of leeway to make up in replacing old secondary school buildings, Will the right hon. Lady see that her colleague's promise is carried out? We would be very grateful.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps I might give an assurance that the West Midlands will gets its due and fair share of the moneys available.
    Mr. Montgomery: May I add my plea to my right hon. Friend that the West Midlands should get its fair share for secondary school rebuilding? Will she underline to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-West (Mrs. Renée
    1120
    Short) that this is in addition to the biggest primary school replacement programme of all time?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It does, of course, come on top on an allocation of £50 million each year for the replacement of primary schools.
    Mr. Hattersley: How many secondary schools does the right hon. Lady think £10 million will buy, and how many secondary schools need to be replaced? How does she relate those two figures with her announcement just now about a cut in the primary programme?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We know of about 300 secondary schools that date from the last century. There are more if one takes into account the numbers that have quite an amount of temporary accommodation. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the programme of £10 million compares very well with the last two secondary school improvement programmes which were left to me, one of which, upgraded to current values, would be £2·9 million a year and the other £2·3 million.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the right hon. Lady aware that just before Christmas her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that London would get one rebuilding project in two years costing less than £1 million if it was lucky? Does she think that that allocation is very small relative to the need for the rebuilding of nineteenth century schools to which she has referred and other Government expenditure of a very high order not very far from where we are sitting?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is smaller than I would wish. It is the start of a rising programme. It is very much better than the last two programmes of the last Labour Government. It is up by almost four or five times.

    Offshore Engineering
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her policy with regard to the proposals of the International Management and Engineering Group relating to higher education.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The proposals are being examined by my Department in consultation with the Department of Trade

    1121
    and Industry to determine what contribution education should make to meeting the requirements of the industries concerned.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Is she aware of the imperative need, as expressed by the IMEG Report, to facilitate the expansion of offshore engineering education in our universities? Will she pay particular attention to establishing such institutions or supporting such institutions as the Heriot-Watt University where we already have an institution of offshore engineering which, in my view, is inadequately financed?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman has previously made that point about the Heriot-Watt in other ways. I think that we need first to determine whether there is an extra need for specialist courses over and above those needs which are already being met. Once we have done that we will certainly do our best to help.
    Mr. Laurance Reed: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in these deliberations that in America the Federal Government now spends up to 6 million dollars a year in this direction and that many of us feel that our Government will have to make a comparable effort if the nation is to reap the full rewards from this exciting development?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have one specialist course in this sphere. We are looking to see whether there is a demand for more. I assure my hon. Friend that I am most anxious that the university system should respond to the needs of industry and commerce and be seen to be meeting those needs.

    Lanchester Polytechnic, Rugby
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has received any recent communication from Coventry City Council about the future of the Rugby site of Lanchester Polytechnic.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, Sir.
    Mr. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the promises given by previous Ministers, Coventry City Council is determined to do away with the Rugby site of the polytechnic? Is he
    1122
    prepared to stand by and authorise the sort of bare-faced robbery that would have brought a blush to the cheeks of Lady Godiva, or will he order a full inquiry into this sordid and miserable affair?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I must leave Lady Godiva to look after herself. I am aware that the proposals for the development of the polytechnic on the Coventry site and the future of the disposition of the Rugby premises have been agreed by the governors, by the joint education committee, by the Coventry City Council and by the Warwickshire County Council. Whatever the merits of these proposals, they do not require the formal approval of the Secretary of State.

    New Schools (Cost Limits)
    Mr Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now raise the cost limits imposed on local authorities in order that they can maintain standards in planning for new schools.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am aware that a number of authorities are facing cost difficulties and that the recent wage award in the building industry will influence school building costs. I am keeping cost limits under review.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in the West Riding of Yorkshire some 48 schools due to be built in the coming year will be hit by inflation with the result that some may not even get off the ground? Is she aware, further, that tenders for school projects already are running £30,000 above her Department's cost limits and that unless she raises them soon local authorities will have to choose between building substandard schools or none at all?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We are familiar with this kind of problem which happens when cost limits appear not to be wholly adequate and are not raised as often as hon. Members would wish. We are following the same procedure as is customary—that is, being specially understanding about any abnormal costs which have to be met.
    Mr. Armstrong: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is not an abnormal situation any longer and that it is now normal

    1123
    throughout the country? Is she aware further, that a number of builders put in tenders knowing that they do not want the jobs in question? The difference between the tender price and the cost limits is such that school building is being held up. This is very urgent. Will the right hon. Lady please do something about it?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Despite the hon. Gentleman's fears, I believe that we shall achieve our school building starts programme this year.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck:What is the use of having rigid cost limits when the cost of living is rising and rising? Why not gear the cost limits to the cost of living so that they can rise pari passu?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Because the cost of living index is not the best one in this case. The cost limits went up by 15 per cent. in April of last year, by 13 per cent. in April of the previous year and by 10 per cent. the April before that. On the whole the Department has not been slow to respond to the rising costs of building.

    Medical Students
    Dr. Stuttafordasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many medical students attended universities in 1972; and how this compares with the number in 1967.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the academic year 1967–68 there were 12,600 undergraduate medical students in Great Britain. The exact number in 1972–73 is not yet known but is estimated to be 15,100.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as maintaining numbers it is also important to maintain quality and that when assessing quality it is just as important to have a personality assessment as it is to have an academic assessment, because the general practitioner service depends more upon dedicated service than upon high academic standards?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree that personality qualifications are equally as important as academic qualifications. We hope to have both in the new schools being developed at Southampton and Leicester. We hope that high standards in both spheres will be maintained.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many women medical students attended universities in the two years in question? Can the hon. Gentleman also state why we seem to be so much against women becoming doctors in this country?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should be glad to provide the figures for the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it would be safer to do so after tomorrow.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my hon. Friend not only provide the figures but look into the fact that medical training is very much less available to women than to men and that that has been the case for years? Would it not be a good step for the present Government to see that that is no longer true and that women have the same chance as men?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: If it were a fact, I should be prepared to look into it.
    Mr. James Johnson: The hon. Gentleman referred just now to the new schools at Southampton and Leicester. Will he confirm that the city of Kingston upon Hull has staked a claim for a medical school in view of the fact that once we get over the Humber we shall have a catchment area of a million or more population? Can the hon. Gentleman say where we stand as regards having a medical school at our university?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject but I am afraid that I can give him no undertaking that a new medical school will be started in that area. Our estimates are based on the need for doctors in the near future. We estimate that, with the two medical schools which have been planned and the expansion of existing schools, the need for doctors will be met fully.

    Youth and Community Work
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will give her estimate of manpower targets for full time youth and community work posts for 1973–75; and what are the estimates of filling such posts.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Local education authority returns giving the relevant figures for 1973 will not be available until March.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is grave anxiety amongst those engaged in youth and community work about being able to fulfil manpower needs for the future? Does he agree that youth and community work is a vital aspect of education work, and will he undertake to look at this matter very seriously?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree that this is a most vital sphere of the education service. It is the responsibility of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State. We are training more workers. About 160 youth service workers qualify each year on two-year full-time courses. In addition about 200 qualified teachers, graduates and others with relevant experience currently enter the profession in the course of a year.

    School Transport
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has yet received the report of her departmental committee investigating problems associated with school transport; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now make a statement on the findings of her Department's working party on the subject of school transport.
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to receive the report of the working party on school transport; and if she will make a statement.
    Sir Robin Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to receive the report of the working party on school transport.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not expect to receive the report of the working party on school transport for some time. When I receive the report I shall consider its findings and make a statement.
    Mr. Hicks: May I impress upon my right hon. Friend the urgency of this situation? Is she aware that in rural areas such as Cornwall there is a widespread feeling that the present stipulations are outdated in the context of the situation and present-day needs?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I constantly draw the attention of the working party to what hon. Members say during Question Time. But I stress that the working party has a substantial task
    "to review the present arrangements, including the existing law affecting the provision of school transport, and to report on changes which may be needed",
    and this will take some time. In the case of Cornwall the chief education officer is a member of the working party, so Cornwall's interests should be looked after properly.
    Dr. Marshall: Will the right hon. Lady draw the attention of the working party to the need to amend Section 55(2) of the Education Act 1944 to require local education authorities to give financial assistance to special school buses which have been provided as a result of the efforts of parents and teachers, as is the case at Old Goole in my constituency?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That is one of the provisions in the terms of reference of the working party.
    Mr. Redmond: Will my right hon. Friend take it that this is not just a matter for rural areas but is a very serious and confusing problem in close-knit boroughs such as Bolton? Has my right hon. Friend seen the reply sent to me by her noble Friend the Under-Secretary concerning a letter which I received from a constituent whose son had had his bus fare "pinched" in the school changing room? Was not the reply merely passing the buck to the local authority?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I also know about the needs of places such as Bolton. But I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the assistant chief education officer for Lancashire is also on the working party.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. Lady agree that with the closure of rural schools many young children, especially primary schoolchildren, may have to travel very much greater distances to school than they did in the past? Prior to receiving the report which the right hon. Lady awaits, will she bear in mind that it is very important too that the buses in which the children travel should be modern and comfortable? What instructions or advice is the right hon. Lady issuing on this point to local authorities?
    Mrs. Thatcher: None on that point. However, all these matters are properly within the terms of reference of the working party. Children who travel longer distances are likely to have their fares paid because those are covered. It is some of the shorter distances which can be along dangerous roads that cause the problem.
    Mr. Grylls: Is Surrey's education officer on the working party? If not, why not? On a more serious note, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider cases in which transport is not provided but children have to cross busy roads which often lead to motorways, causing great danger? Does she agree that this is a matter which the working party should look into?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am afraid that I cannot please my hon. Friend as well. Surrey's education officer is not a member of the working party. What is more, looking through the list of representatives on it, I cannot even get anywhere near Surrey.

    Professional Standards and Qualifications
    Mr. Jayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will resist proposals by the EEC for regulating professional standards and qualifications in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bodyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps the Government intend to take to resist proposals by the EEC for regulating professional standards and qualifications in the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Our attitude towards specific EEC proposals in this field will be determined after full consultation with the United Kingdom interests which would be affected.
    Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a great deal of concern has been expressed about this matter, notably by Lord Bowden of Manchester University? Will she undertake not merely to consult but to be guided by the professional bodies concerned before giving way to these damaging proposals?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes. I have read Lord Bowden's speech. Indeed, I was at the same conference. I assure the right hon.
    1128
    Gentleman that we are in full consultation with the particular United Kingdom interests, which would include the professional bodies, as the question of recognition of each qualification comes up.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Scotland there is great concern that harmonising with the EEC might result in the harmonising of standards between Scotland and England? Bearing in mind that traditionally Scotland has had graduate secondary school teachers, which we regard as very important, may I ask my right hon. Friend to assure us that she will take fully into account the interests of Scotland before any move is made?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It would be difficult in this House not to take the interests of Scotland fully into account. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we in England are tagging after Scotland in aiming at a fully graduate teaching profession.
    Mr. Moyle: Will the right hon. Lady take the matter further and undertake that the British Government will have nothing to do with the standardising of professional qualifications on the basis of hours of instruction?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think that what I have said is correct. We are looking at each directive as it somes up, making our full contribution to it and consulting each of the professional interests. I cannot go further than that.

    School Counselling and Careers Guidance
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the time of a school counsellor is taken up in careers education and guidance.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Department does not collect this information.
    Mr. Roderick: Does the Under-Secretary recognise that the answer which his right hon. Friend gave to me on 29th January could be misleading since people would imagine schools counselling to be careers guidance in education? Will he make a statement indicating that there should be two separate services? Further,

    1129
    will he take steps to set up an inquiry to consider the extent of a counselling service and the need to have a full-time department in each school doing this work?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: This is a very important sphere of the education service. There is a gradually growing acceptance that this subject should have an identifiable place in the academic curriculum. Meanwhile the number of full-time qualified counsellors is small, but a number of these will have attended in-service courses of short duration or longer courses lasting a year. Whilst specialist teachers are required, this subject should not be considered as being confined only to specialist teachers.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is of paramount importance that every secondary school should have a careers master who devotes much of his time to this subject and that by 1974 or 1975 every school should have virtually full-time careers guidance?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I said, this is an extremely important part of the education service. Most schools already have a part-time staff member who has special responsibilities in this sphere.
    Mrs. Renée Short: That is not true.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, it is true. We are advancing towards a position where there will be more teachers employed full-time in this sphere.

    Sixth Form Conferences
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on how many occasions Ministers from her Department have spoken at sixth form conferences during the last six months.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Ministers accepted the invitations to speak in their personal capacities on five occasions in all. My Department was in no way concerned in the arrangements.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the objection that many of us have to the recent series of conferences organised by the Conservative Central Office, in which at least one of her Ministers participated, was not to what was said at the meetings but to the
    1130
    way that head teachers and local education authorities were deceived about the true nature of the conferences? Would it not be better if in future such conferences were organised by teachers, not by political parties?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am not responsible for the organisation of conferences by any political party. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has no complaint about the speeches made by Ministers.
    Mr. John Wells: Is it not about time that the natural Socialist bias of the teaching profession was overcome?
    Mr. Lipton——
    Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did not my right hon. Friend hear my question?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order for me.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am sorry. I heard the first four or five words of my hon. Friend's question and the rest disappeared into oblivion.
    Mr. Lipton: Has the Secretary of State——
    Mr. Wells——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter of order whether the Minister hears a question or answers it.
    Mr. Lipton: Has the Secretary of State received any applications from convents about the services of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am happy to report that my hon. Friend is in great demand everywhere.
    Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will send a circular to local authorities about the question of holding conferences for sixth formers organised by political parties during school hours.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lyons: Is not the crux of the issue that conferences are being organised in school time, as is the one due to take place in Bradford? Is it not the responsibility of the right hon. Lady that headmasters are expected to release boys and girls from school to attend conferences,

    1131
    and should not conferences of this sort be organised outside school hours and preferably by the schools themselves?
    Mrs. Thatcher: This House has given me no specific powers over secular instruction. Indeed, the history of British education has been to keep Ministers out of control of curricular matters and to put that control with either local education authorities or governors, who usually delegate it to the head teachers. I believe that they are the best judges in these circumstances.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason for the coming sixth form conference in Bradford is that the headmasters of the schools involved, after having been asked whether they would like to withdraw, have insisted that the sixth form conference would be of benefit to their children and want the children to go?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I was not aware of that, but I stress that I am happy to leave the judgment of these matters to the head teachers.
    Mr. Heffer: Are not my hon. Friends wrong in objecting to members of the Conservative Party attending these conferences? I have seen youngsters appearing on television following such conferences and they are totally disenchanted with the Tories and will obviously never vote Tory because the Tory speakers at the conferences were so totally boring and useless.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's implied request that there should be a conference in every area will have been noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer).
    Mr. John Wells: Is it not about time that the natural Socialist inclination of the majority of the teaching profession was overcome?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Whatever teachers' personal political views are, they have a duty, which I believe they discharge, to teach impartially.

    Industrial Relations and Trade Union Studies
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will approve the establishment
    1132
    at polytechnics of courses leading to Council for National Academic Awards post-graduate diplomas in industrial relations and trade union studies separate from management courses.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Proposals for new courses are considered on their merits, but I must have regard to existing provision.
    Mr. Golding: is the right hon. Lady aware that it is most important that courses in trade union studies should remain in the social studies departments of polytechnics? Is she further aware that it is important that courses in trade union studies should not be put into management departments and treated as subsidiary sections in those departments?
    Mrs. Thatcher: One of the problems is that, while a large body of opinion may now accept that those studies should be separate from management studies, many people hold the view that they should be an integral part of management studies.

    School Uniforms
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of Station for Education and Science what has been the percentage increase in grants for school uniforms since 1970.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: This information is not available in the Department. The grants are made at the discretion of local education authorities.
    Mr. Carter: Is not the hon. Gentleman being rather shy about these figures? Does he agree that the figure for school uniform grants is now almost equal to that for free school meals? The figures, which are now running at historic levels, graphically illustrate the appalling priority of the Government's social and economic policies. Does the Under-Secretary agree that under the present Government more families than ever before are unable to provide for the basic needs of their children?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: That statement is neither factual nor, more important, does it arise from the Question. There is no question of being shy about the figures. Local authorities have no obligation to submit schemes to the Department about their provision of school uniforms. As far as we can tell, grants are in the region of f12 to £15.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost of educational services provided from public funds in the last financial year; and what proportion of this amount was carried by local authority rates and by the Exchequer, respectively.
    Mrs. Thatcher: £2,646 million on education in England and Wales and on universities in Great Britain. Of this total local authorities spent £2,232 million and of this sum 45 per cent. was borne by rates and 55 per cent. by the Exchequer.
    Mr. Jessel: In view of the burden of rates upon households, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, from the point of view of her Department, she would see any objection to a larger proportion of the costs still being borne by the Exchequer and less by the rates?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The proportion of the rate support grant has recently been increased with the very object of reducing the burden on the rates, and the contribution from the Exchequer has gone up steadily over the last few years.
    Mr. Marks: Is the right hon. Lady aware that with the proposed monitoring of rates by the Department of the Environment there are dangers to the education service if authorities are asked to cut their rates? The dangers are in repairs to buildings, equipment and staffing. What part is the Department playing in this monitoring of rates and what steps is the right hon. Lady taking to see that the education service does not suffer?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think that I have taken great steps to see that the education service gets an increasing proportion of what is going. I think that it will continue to do very well from local expenditure. We will watch the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Secondary Education (Reorganisation Schemes)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the maximum period of transition she has permitted in a scheme to phase out
    1134
    separatist secondary education in favour of a comprehensive system of secondary education.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have no powers to prescribe time limits within which statutory proposals approved under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, as amended, must be implemented.
    Mr. Spearing: I thank the right hon. Lady for that information. Will she confirm that any application for a change which extends over a period of, say, 10 years will not be turned down purely on the ground of the length of time it takes to initiate? Does she agree that that is not necessarily a matter on which she should turn down a scheme which may come to her at any time?
    Mrs. Thatcher: On the whole we have not been asked to give approval to schemes taking that length of time. What usually arises is the other way round, at what point of time approval lapses if no steps are taken to implement it, and that would be a matter for the courts.

    Frank Holland Collection
    Mr. Fauldsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will support the setting up of a Piano Museum from the collection of Frank Holland in David Salomon's House, Tunbridge Wells.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: My noble Friend has no powers directly to assist the establishment of this museum. He has been in touch with the museum and indicated from what sources financial help might be sought. The museum would be free to apply to the Victoria and Albert Museum for assistance in purchases. The grant-in-aid for this purpose will, subject to parliamentary approval, be increased from £150,000 to £400,000 in 1973–4.
    Mr. Faulds: May I simply thank the Under-Secretary of State for that typically helpful reply.

    Rickets
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will take immediate steps to restore free school milk in the light of the evidence of the return of the disease of rickets.
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now make arrangements for the free distribution of milk and vitamin D tablets to children of school age in the light of new evidence of an increase in rickets.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. Recent reports on the increase in the incidence of rickets are being considered by a panel of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy and it is too early to say what action may be needed.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the report in The Times that there is now virtually an epidemic of a new form of rickets, biochemical rickets, which could be affecting 100,000, and that about 20 per cent. of the schoolchildren tested recently were found to have symptoms of rickets? Is it not time that she reversed her policy on school milk and made up for the mistake the Labour Government made on the same subject?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The only evidence I have has been submitted to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. That was the evidence of the Birmingham trials which involved about 600 children between 14 and 17. Of these children, 133 were examined radio-logically and 24 displayed radiological evidence of rickets. All 24 were immigrant children; 17 were boys—12 Asian and five West Indian—and the seven girls were Asian. With respect, I think that this is a much more complex matter than the Press reports have given us to understand.
    Mr. Montgomery: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an article which appeared in the Birmingham Evening Mail on 12th February by Dr. Trevor Cooke, a nutrition expert at the Birmingham General Hospital, in which he said that rickets will always be with us and advocated the remedy of dollops of cod liver oil? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite who complain about school milk being withdrawn recommending cod liver oil as a better substitute?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I understand that the remedy appears to be a greater supply of vitamin D and that milk is not a rich source of this vitamin.

  BOOTLE
  Mr. Simon Mahonasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an early official visit to the county borough of Bootle.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Mahon: I am sorry about that, Sir. The Prime Minister recently chided the people of Merseyside about their poor industrial relations. Did he do so in the full knowledge of the contribution made in recent years by the county borough of Bootle, and in the full knowledge that there are 50,000 unemployed on Merseyside? Will he bear in mind that not every strike on Merseyside is caused by a Liverpudlian or a person from Bootle? Many strikes, such as the IRO strike, are caused by outside interests and recalcitrant management. I appeal to the Prime Minister, as I have done once before, to give us the full co-operation of the Government in bringing 3,500 jobs, which are badly needed, to my constituents.
  The Prime Minister: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the influence of some outsiders. Far from chiding the people of Merseyside, what I did in that speech was to congratulate them on the immense amount they had already done to help themselves in the development of Merseyside in every possible way. I went on to say that the best thing they could possibly do for the future would be to improve the image overseas of their industrial relations. Far from this statement being questioned or myself being rebuked at the luncheon attended by representatives of Merseyside, it was applauded. I believe it genuinely to be correct. If the people of Merseyside can do more in this direction, they will be able to make more jobs available.
  Mr. Redmond: If my right hon. Friend visits Bootle, will he bear in mind that not far away is Bolton, where industrial relations are excellent? I should like to introduce him to members of the AUEW, including shop stewards, who are fed up with the union's policy and tired of being told to go on strike when they do not want to.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Perhaps I had better stick to not going to one place at a time.
  Mr. Heffer: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are no figures for strikes on Merseyside and there never have been? When one takes into account the strike statistics for the whole of the North-West, is it not wrong for the Prime Minister or anyone else to charge the workers of Merseyside with being irresponsible and strike-bound when there are no figures to prove it one way or the other?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is nothing he can do to improve industrial relations on Merseyside, all I can say is that there cannot be a single person on Merseyside who believes that. Anyone who has any acquaintance with Merseyside—I know Merseyside intimately and have done so for the last 30 years—knows that there is much to be done to improve industrial relations on Merseyside.
  Mr. William Clark: If my right hon. Friend goes to Bootle, will he make a statement of Government policy on the payment of supplementary benefits to strikers? Is he aware that taxpayers, including those who live in Bootle, are heartily sick of subsidising strikers and think that trade unions should pay strike pay and, if they do not, that there should be a notional deduction for it from supplementary benefits?
  The Prime Minister: I realise that there is evidence of public feeling about this matter.
  Mr. Prentice: The Prime Minister is fond of lecturing other people on industrial relations. Will be hear in mind that perhaps the biggest recent contribution to industrial unrest was the Government's monumental blunder yesterday in refusing to agree to a court of inquiry into the gas dispute? Does he realise that this comes on top of his unhappy handling of this question in recent weeks and that he therefore bears heavy responsibility for whatever consequences fall upon the nation as a result of this policy?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong, and if he wishes to improve industrial relations he might adopt a more responsible attitude towards the subject. The gas board was
  1138
  asked, as were the gas workers, to wait until the guidelines for stage 2 were published. The guidelines have been published, and the gas workers are now protesting, at a time of standstill, against the prospect of having considerable increases in wages within a national policy. The responsible attitude of any right hon. or hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench should be to suggest that the law as passed by Parliament should be obeyed.

  PRESIDENT NIXON (TALKS)
  Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official talks with the President of the United States of America.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) on 6th February.—[Vol. 850, c. 220–3.].
  Mr. Tuck: Did the Prime Minister bring to the President's attention the disgust felt by the people of this country at the perfidy of the United States in continuing to import vast quantities of chrome from the rebel State of Rhodesia —[Interruption.]—the Conservative Members do not like it, Mr. Speaker, but they are going to get it [Interruption.]—thus setting the United Nations at naught and incidentally stabbing the United Kingdom in the back?
  The Prime Minister: These were decisions of Congress and not of the Administration.
  Mr. Dykes: During the discussions was my right hon. Friend able to compare notes with the President about the responsible way in which the American unions reacted to the US income restraint policies in comparison with the apparent attitude of our unions?
  The Prime Minister: I discussed the American experience on prices and incomes policy both with Mr. Shultz of the United States Treasury and with the President. My hon. Friend is correct in what he said. The American unions cooperated in the standstill to the full. In stage 2, which had a 5½ per cent. limit

  1139
  and not an 8 per cent. limit like ours, they co-operated to the full and they have gone for voluntary arrangements in stage 3 at the same time as the President has cut the social services budget by 5 billion dollars and all rents have been freed.
  Mr. Thorpe: As the Prime Minister rightly noted that the decision on chrome was one of Congress and not of the President, are we to asume that the President wished to dissent from that decision?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusions about the President's views. I was merely answering the point about where responsibility lay for the fact that chrome can be imported into the United States.
  Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the most important items in the President's anti-inflation policy is the production of more food at home, and will my right hon. Friend follow that by encouraging British agriculture to grow more food at home?
  The Prime Minister: This was one of the first actions of the present administration when we had a special price review in the autumn of 1970. From that time onwards expansion has been encouraged in British agriculture, and the British farmer has responded to that encouragement.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Did the Prime Minster raise with the President the proposal by our Secretary of State for Defence for a West European joint nuclear military force? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this would be absolutely fatal to our hopes of a peaceful settlement between East and West in Europe?
  The Prime Minister: I have told the House on many occasions that the proposal which I put forward, and which is on public record, was for the French and British nuclear resources to be held in trusteeship, and that the President of France has said that he does not believe that it is timely or right to discuss this matter.

  LANCASTER HOUSE PRESS CONFERENCE
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to hold another Press conference of the kind he held at Lancaster House.
  The Prime Minister: None at present, Sir.
  Mr. Dalyell: Whereas one might be hesitant to go so far as one of the Prime Minister's most respected hon. Friends, who declared himself in the House to be unnerved by the spectacle of Caesar under the Lancaster House chandeliers, was not the House of Commons the right place to make that statement?
  The Prime Minister: As the House of Commons was not sitting, no, Sir.

  HONOURS LISTS
  Mr. Dormandasked the Prime Minister what recent representations have been made to him on his responsibilities for honours lists; and what reply he has sent.
  The Prime Minister: I receive many suggestions of candidates for inclusion in honours lists. In general, I reply that these will be carefully considered. I receive very few representations about my responsibilities for recommending honours to the Queen; and those which I do receive mostly take the form of comments on individual recommendations, to which I reply as seems appropriate in each case.
  Mr. Dormand: Will the Prime Minister accept that I believe that many worthy people have had their work recognised through the honours system? Is he aware, however, that there is a growing feeling in the country that honours lists are becoming irrelevant and even unfair? Will the Prime Minister take steps to see that the system is radically modified, or even consider its abolition?
  The Prime Minister: No, I would not do that, and if the hon. Member is asking me about representations I receive, they do not include representations to that effect. On the other hand, I would be disturbed if the hon. Member thought that the system was unfair. It would be true

  1141
  to say that successive Prime Ministers have done their utmost to ensure that this is not the case.
  Mr. Rost: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that when the time comes to offer an honour to the Leader of the Opposition, it will not be granted for his services towards European unity?
  Mr. Leonard: Irrespective of the wider question of whether the honours list fulfils a useful rôle, will the Prime Minister consider the appropriateness of some of the honours handed out? Is it consonant with our membership of the Commonwealth that the Order of the British Empire should be continued? What justification can there be in 1973 for dishing out mediaeval titles like knights and barons?
  The Prime Minister: If there is to be an honours list, titles of this kind are necessary. Many honours have an historical basis, and I think that people wish that basis to be maintained rather than that we should try to create fresh honours on each occasion.
  Mr. Marten: What is the Prime Minister's view on hereditary peerages?
  The Prime Minister: I made my view on hereditary peerages clear on 10th November 1970, a few months after I became Prime Minister. I said then that the institution of life peerages had made it inappropriate to recommend the creation of new hereditary peerages as a normal rule, but I did not exclude the possibility of doing so in special cases.

  SPORT
  Mr Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with co-ordination between the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment with regard to sport.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Douglas: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are celebrating the centenary of the Scottish Football Association? Is he also aware that in England, Scotland and Wales the game of soccer is in a serious state because of low attendances and of the lack of equipment in the grounds to ensure safety and so forth? Will the Prime
  1142
  Minister undertake to discuss with the associations of these countries the future of the game and what Government assistance may be forthcoming, particularly through taxation?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has been having discussions. I recognise the validity of the hon Member's point. There are financial difficulties, but it must be recognised that the sport receives about £1 million from pool promoters under the copyright arrangements for use of the fixture list, so that a considerable sum accrues to the sport in that way. We welcome the creation of new grounds, and I do not believe that consultations which are taking place on the Wheatley Report on safety are delaying that development in any way.

  INFLATION (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in Maidstone on Friday 26th January on inflation.
  The Prime Minister: I did so on 30th January, Sir.
  Mr. Carter: In that speech the Prime Minister did not refer to the Government's economic successes, about which he has constantly told us. Will he tell us this afternoon the Government's three principle economic achievements and successes?
  The Prime Minister: I have constantly reiterated them. We have had considerable success in dealing with the inflationary pressures which were left by the present Opposition—success which we are pursuing through the statutory policy. We have also had success in the regional inducements which we have given, which are beginning to provide the investment that is required. Furthermore, we have established a firm base for the expansion of the economy in the European Community.
  Mr. Tapsell: Will not the country have noticed that one of the reasons why sterling has so far not been in the front line of the international monetary crisis is the respect that the international community pays to the phase 2 proposals?
  The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right. If those Members of the Opposition who are concerned with increasing the number of jobs in this country, increasing our trade and improving the standard of living would demonstrate their support for the stage 2 policy it would have an even greater effect.
  Mr. Molloy: If the Prime Minister has time to spare and really wishes to know the truth about increasing jobs and opportunity, would he like to come with me this afternoon and meet a delegation of lobbyists from Rockware Glass, in my constituency—a viable firm which is increasing its productivity year in and year out, and which is to be closed with no prior consultation simply because land developers are after the land that it is on? Men and management with a first-class industrial relations record are being subjected to asset strippers and land developers. How can that be reconciled with the statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if he wants to send details of a particular case to me I am always prepared to consider it, without his abusing the time of the House at Question Time.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Did not the ORC poll show 76 per cent. of those interviewed in favour of the Government's current policy against inflation? Does not that indicate that the Government have widespread support in the country at large?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There is no doubt about the widespread support for the policy up and down the country, and there is absolutely no doubt that the great majority of the people want the policy to succeed and to deal with inflation.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Did not that same poll describe the right hon. Gentleman's offer for wages as £5 a week? Will he confirm that that is his offer?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the amount of the wage offer is £1 per head plus 4 per cent. of the wage packet as negotiated by those responsible for any group. As he also knows, there is an upper annual limit of £250. I under-
  1144
  stand that many in the trade union movement and Labour Members object to having an upper limit. That is most astonishing.

INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE RATES
Mr. Simeons Mr. Simeons (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the position of sterling in the light of last night's announcement by the United States Treasury of the devaluation of the United States dollar.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): Yes, Sir. I said yesterday that the consultations on the international currency situation were proceeding well. The whole House will be relieved that a solution has now been achieved.
Early this morning an announcement was made by the Secretary of the United States Treasury.
Its basic feature is a 10 per cent. devaluation of the dollar. This will involve a change in the official relationship of the dollar with SDR and gold. The Japanese authorities have indicated that the yen will be permitted to float. This also applies to the lira. Other major European currencies with fixed exchange rates are expected to reflect in full the 10 per cent. devaluation of the dollar relative to them. Sterling will for the time being continue to float but, as I have said before, we intend to return to a fixed parity when conditions permit.
The London Foreign Exchange Market was reopened this morning; but dealings are still affected by the uncertainties of the last few days.
I welcome these new arrangements. The House will agree that, compared with the events of 1971, which also led to a realignment of currencies, a solution has on this occasion been found with remarkable speed, having regard to the range of interests involved and the complexities of the issues. This would certainly not have been achieved without the intensive consultations which took place over the weekend. As the House knows, we have throughout kept in close touch with European colleagues. I would add in particular that the way in which the United

1145
States, whose currency came under such severe pressure, has taken bold and constructive action in consultation with others, augurs well for future relationships across the Atlantic.
But if the immediate difficulties have been resolved, the clear lesson to be drawn from the events of the past few weeks or so is the paramount need for constructive and speedy progress towards a more efficient international monetary system. We now need resolute determination to achieve results, and this will be my purpose when I attend the meeting of the Committee of 20 next month in Washington.
Mr. Simeons: I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate all those who took part in reaching such a speedy conclusion, and in particular to acknowledge the part my right hon. Friend played. Did any discussions on a two-tier market take place?
Mr. Barber: Yes, Sir. In our discussions consideration was given to the idea of two-tier markets. They may be useful in some circumstances, and a number of countries operate them, but they should not be regarded as a panacea for balance of payments problems. Certainly their general adoption would not have provided the answer to the problems we faced at the weekend.
Mr. Healey: Does the Chancellor agree that the big difference between the Smithsonian Agreement and what has happened in the past two days is that in 1971 he very unwisely agreed to up-value with the European currencies, whereas on this occasion he has been prepared if necessary to float down with the dollar? May I congratulate him on putting the interests of economic growth in Britain before the Prime Minister's commitment to a European monetary union?
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two specific questions, as according to Herr Schmidt in Germany he was clearly not prepared to have a joint float with the European currencies. First, what steps is he taking to protect the British public against the inflationary effects of a further devaluation vis-à-vis the European currencies? secondly, is he yet in a position to state the consequences of these actions for the British balance of payments under the
1146
common agricultural policy and the contribution to the Common Market budget?
Mr. Barber: I do not agree with the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman put upon the results at the Smithsonian and the results achieved on this occasion.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself to the matter, it is natural, at any rate in the present Government, that the Chancellor should throughout have consulted the Prime Minister. I might add, since my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) was kind enough to make some remarks about me, that my right hon. Friend has throughout the negotiations also played a part which has made a major contribution to the quick solution of the problems.
On prices, I would only say that at present, when we have no knowledge of the rates that will be quoted when all the markets are reopened—some of them are not now open—it is not possible to be precise about the effective sterling exchange rate compared with the position before the recent difficulties arose.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a decision which eventuates in more and more currencies floating simply increases the risks at which all currencies find themselves? Is my right hon. Friend turning his attention to preparing our defences against the moment, which cannot now be so very far off, when the pressures mount against sterling?
Mr. Barber: I do not accept the assumption in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. With regard to the first part of his question, it is a fact of life that the overwhelming majority of finance ministers throughout the world, including me, believe that the right regime for the world involves fixed but adjustable parities.
Mr. Jay: But if the floating of the pound has been such a great success, no doubt with the help of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to re-fix the rate?
Mr. Barber: For the simple reason that I believe, as do an overwhelming

1147
majority of my colleagues throughout the world, that this is the best way to conduct international trade and payments.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a return to fixed parities within the enlarged Community would enable this country to benefit not only from the mutual support provisions of the Treaty of Rome but also from the mutual discipline arrangements between Governments which might be very desirable, and is not it evident that the outcome of this latest crisis, involving the resolution of the two currencies which were most obviously out of balance, demonstrates the remarkable effectiveness of co-operation in a European context?
Mr. Barber: I accept the latter point and most certainly agree, because without that co-operation there is no doubt whatsoever that a solution would not have been found as quickly as it was. With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, I can only repeat that it is our intention to return to a fixed parity.
Mr. Healey: I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could perhaps address himself to the question I asked earlier. He will be well aware of the trade figures which were published today which fully justify the decision he took not to stay within the "snake in the tunnel" agreement, and not to carry out the Prime Minister's promises at the Summit last October.
What the House and the public want to know is what steps he proposes to take to protect the public against further devaluation of sterling vis-à-vis European currencies and what he estimates will be the consequences for the balance of payments arising out of increased payments under the common agricultural policy and the Community budget.
Mr. Barber: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer I gave he would have noted that what I said was that, with some of the exchanges closed throughout the world at the present time and with the erratic nature of transactions which inevitably have taken place during the first few hours of this morning—for example, already the rate for sterling has been fluctuating between, I believe I am right in saying, 2·41 and 2·51 dollars—it is quite impossible at this stage and
1148
until all markets are reopened to be precise about the effective sterling exchange rate compared with the position before the recent disturbances.
Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever may have been the fluctuations this morning, sterling seems to have settled down to an effective devaluation against European currencies of about 6 per cent.? Will he confirm that? Is he aware that while this will lead to short-term successes he still appears to have no long-term policy to solve the international monetary problem?
Mr. Barber: Is the hon. Gentleman will consider what I said in great detail when I addressed the International Monetary Fund in Washington, I believe he will take the view that what he said about a long-term policy is not borne out by the facts. With regard to his first point, it is surely self-evident—as I would have thought with respect anybody who knows how the market works will understand—that it is far too early to form a judgment on the rate at which sterling will settle down.
Mr. Harold Wilson: While the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely entitled to say that it is too early to form a view on half a day's trading in a half-open foreign exchange market and that more time is required to appreciate the full extent of the consequences of what has happened in the last few days, will he explain to the House whether the notional value put on sterling for common agricultural policy purposes at the end of last month is to stick? Is it immutable or is it subject to change in the light of what the final settling down of the sterling rate may be?
Mr. Barber: Whatever changes are made will be in conformity with the principles which have been already agreed. I certainly do not see any technical problems arising as far as that is concerned. The arrangements were clearly negotiated and if, because of a different rate for sterling in relation to the dollar, further adjustments are to be made in conformity with those agreed principles, they will be made.
Mr. Wilson: Of course I would agree with some of the right hon. Gentleman's earlier answers about not rushing to any

1149
conclusions with regard to further devaluation of sterling, but because I and possibly other hon. Gentlemen may not be clear on this point may I ask him this question: when the notional rate of slightly over 2·35 dollars was fixed for the purpose of C.A.P., was it meant to be a binding rate for a period ahead or was it to be subject to change if the floating rate of the pound were to change? Are we bound to send the amount of money related to that, so that if the pound deteriorates further it means paying more money across the exchange, or would it be subject to the changing rate?
Mr. Barber: As I understand it, the amount is subject to adjustment in accordance with the principles agreed and therefore we shall be in consultation with our European partners to see whether, in the light of developments, any adjusment is required.
Mr. Cronin: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the biggest problems in international monetary policy is the disequilibrum in Japan's external trade? Would he take steps to induce the Japanese Government to take a more co-operative attitude in solving this problem, particularly with regard to accepting more imports from Europe?
Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in stressing the importance of Japan and of the yen as far as our previous imbalance was concerned. The United Kingdom is of the same opinion as the United States in placing great importance upon that. Of course, one of the consequences of the agreement which has been reached will be not merely that the prospects for United Kingdom exports to Japan will he improved as a result of this new arrangement but, conversely, that it will be more difficult for Japan to export to the United Kingdom.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM BILL
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Edward Milne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the establishment of a Ministry of Tourism with powers to lay down a code of conduct for the tourist industry and to consider and act on complaints made by holidaymakers regarding tourist facilities both in this country and in respect of travel overseas; and for matters connected therewith.
In the period since the end of the Second World War Britain has risen from being a minor tourist attraction to become a major world tourist centre, attracting well over 7 million people annually. This tourist explosion of unprecedented magnitude has also taken place in the travel habits of the British people. Around 9 million spend their holidays abroad and close on 6 million of these travel to Western Europe, particularly Spain and France. Nearly 60 per cent. of British holiday makers go abroad on package holidays. Travel and tourism is the greatest single unit in the world. It is easily the greatest growth industry in Britain.
That is why in this Bill we call for a Ministry of Tourism under a Minister responsible for regulating and developing the trade for the benefit of all those taking holidays in this country and people from Britain wishing to travel overseas on holiday.
A large amount of Government money has gone into the travel trade. What is needed now is a sound organisational framework to create a co-ordinating mechanism for the key elements in tourism, particularly the regional and local tourist and travel organisations. There must also be a revision of the powers of certain existing Government organisations involved in tourism and travel. The expansion of the tourist and travel trade during the last decade will undoubtedly pale into insignificance when compared with the colossal growth lying ahead in the next five to 10 years.
It is necessary for us in Britain to spell out that we mean business in the highly competitive world of international tourism. Since 1962 we have raised the question of travel trade registration. To the credit of the trade, and the Association of British Travel Agents and other

1151
bodies, it has over the years taken steps to put its house in order. In view of the anxiety felt by many about the effects of inflation on package holidays, let me stress that holiday prices have at no time been too low or too cheap as is claimed by many in the trade. That prices should increase because they were regarded as uneconomic in the past is nonsense.
Let me quote from the Travel Trade Gazette of 21st September 1971. It reported that the travel industry
"this week sharply refuted a warning by the Air Transport Licensing Board that package holiday prices were too low. Some holiday firms described the warning as nonsense. The Tour Operators Study Group said that the statement was 'patently ridiculous'."
The package holiday business is overwhelmingly run by 21 of the largest tour operators who are themselves mostly subsidiaries of airlines, hotel chains and shipping lines. They are generally opposed to legislation but as one leading North-East travel agent, a member of ABTA, said on this subject,
"only villains need fear registration of the travel trade."
Although successive Governments have stated their opposition to the registration of the travel trade they have, nevertheless, intervened in a number of areas to assist in this direction. The Development of Tourism Bill was a big step forward. The Edwards Committee on British Air Transport in the 1970s, the Civil Aviation Authority's new licensing scheme for air travel organisers and a number of other measures have all helped to make it necessary to co-ordinate the travel and tourist industry and to bring it within the framework of a single ministry. Progress towards that end has made this Bill justified.
The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 has done much to help eliminate the false promises of the glossy travel brochures in which many travel firms were peddling dreams rather than reality. Within the framework of the Bill and against the background of the years during which we have tried to introduce legislation, much may have been done. More remains to be accomplished in protecting holidaymakers.
At last year's conference of the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration, most of whose members deal with much
1152
of our consumer protection legislation, its chairman called for:
"better protection for British tourists abroad against statements in holiday or travel brochures which prove false."
He said that inspectors had received more than 5,000 complaints in the past three years concerning such holiday experiences. He also suggested in that speech that the Trade Descriptions Act needed strengthening.
With the Institute talking about these 5,000 complaints, the Ministers responsible for tourism and consumer protection, who are with us on the Front Bench today, should pay much closer heed to this subject because these are only the complaints that have got through a very fine mesh.
It has been the tradition of this House to legislate on behalf of the consumer. I trust that the House will agree to the motion and allow the Bill to go forward to its Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Milne, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. George Darling, Mr. E. Fernyhough, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Mr. Laurie Pavitt and Mr. David Watkins.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM
Bill to authorise the establishment of a Ministry of Tourism with powers to lay down a code of conduct for the tourist industry and to consider and act on complaints made by holiday makers regarding tourist facilities both in this country and in respect of travel overseas; and for matters connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 2nd March and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

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

1.Consolidated Fund Act 1973.

2.National Theatre and Museum of London Act 1973.

3.Sea Fish Industry Act 1973.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.56 p.m.
  The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is designed to bring up to date the important although not exactly modern consumer protection provisions contained in the Sale of Goods Act 1893. That statute was a codification of the common law as it had evolved by the end of the 19th century. A lot of things have changed since then. Two particular classes of transaction were then customary, and accordingly required attention from the law—first, commercial contracts of the kind essential to a mercantile trading nation; and second, those in which consumers generally dealt directly with the makers of the goods they wanted.
  In both areas, and particularly the second, bargains were struck orally. The buyer could probably choose from several sources of supply. If he did not like the conditions which a supplier sought to impose he had the very real bargaining power of taking his custom elsewhere. In those circumstances, while it was sensible that the law should set out the rights of the buyer and the obligations of the seller that were implicit in every contract of sale, it was also not unreasonable that the parties to a contract should be allowed to strike a bargain on some other terms if they wished.
  A set of rules of this kind can, however, work fairly only when there is more or less equality of bargaining power between buyer and seller. This is manifestly not so in the changed conditions of today.
  Mass production and marketing and the increasing technological complexity of consumer goods have combined to increase the market power of producers in relation to consumers. The increasing size and cost of the factory units needed to produce goods has made the producers ever more remote from consumers. As bargaining through personal contact has become less and less practicable during
  1154
  the last 80 years, as the consumer's bargaining power has declined, so has his chance of getting defective goods repaired or replaced. The balance has shifted a long way since 1893. This Bill will go part of the way towards redressing it.
  As a first step consumers will have an inalienable right to be supplied with goods of reasonable quality. When the Bill becomes law it will no longer be possible in a consumer sale to exclude this or any other implied right provided by the Sale of Goods Act.
  Consumers are of course interested in something more than their theoretical rights. They are anxious, in practical terms, to know that the quality of products is improved so that complaints do not arise in the first place. If that can be achieved, then there will be no need for redress.
  The Bill is one of several steps that can be taken to help in that direction because it means that those whose products give rise to much complaint will in fact find themselves under greater pressure to improve their products by controlling the quality at source.
  But the Bill, as I have said, is only the first part of a programme that will eventually transform this area of the law. Three other important complementary aspects of consumer law, in some ways overlapping, are under consideration by the Law Commissions at the present time. I should remind the House that the Bill is founded upon the First Report of the Law Commissions on Exemption Clauses in Contracts. I am sure the whole House will wish to join with me in expressing our gratitude to the Law Commissions for the work they have done on that task.
  The other three areas they now have under review are exclusion of liability for negligence; the use of exclusion clauses in contracts for the supply of services; and reform of the law relating to product liability. They will no doubt be reporting fully on their studies in this complicated and difficult sphere of law as soon as they are able to do so. The House will know as well that the last of those subjects, namely, product liability, has also been referred to the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson whose appointment was announced not many weeks back. Thus there is that next stage or series of stages of work still to be carried forward.

  1155
  In the meantime in the area of product liability, the provisions of Part III in particular of the Fair Trading Bill will enable the Director-General of Fair Trading to take action against manufacturers who consistently produce shoddy goods so that he will be able to contribute at an early stage, and alongside the provisions of this Bill, to the raising of standards.
  Mr. George Darling: This is a point that frequently crops up. Nobody wants to stop a manufacturer producing shoddy goods if the customer wants to buy shoddy goods, in other words, cheap goods. Surely what the Minister means is that nobody wants the manufacturer to produce goods that will be misdescribed?
  Sir G. Howe: As the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) knows, there are two parts to this problem. First, plainly the consumer is entitled to protection from misdescription, but he is also entitled, up to a point about which there could be a great deal of debate, to the assurance that the generality of goods that he will buy will not fail the first time they are on the road, so to speak.
  Mr. Darling: This is fitness for purpose.
  Sir G. Howe: Indeed. There are certain products which, it is possible to argue, are manifestly designed to be sold cheaply and nobody would expect them to be other than cheap in quality. That is one of the factors embodied in the new definition of "merchantable quality" in the Bill. But in general terms most consumers would surely like to move into a situation where 99 out of 100 washing machines that they bought were likely to be jolly good washing machines that did not break down.
  Mr. Darling: One hundred.
  Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Member for Hillsborough puts his target higher than I do. What we want to try to do, therefore, is to move in that direction.
  If in a regular pattern goods or commodities fall below the standards one is entitled to expect so that 10 out of 100 consumers are receiving bad treatment in relation to a particular brand of goods,
  1156
  the effect is to saddle 10 out of 100 people selectively with the costs of getting a bad buy. It must be better, therefore, to raise standards across the board, even if that means that we are all paying slightly more as an insurance policy for ensuring that we all receive good goods.
  It is in that kind of way that the Director-General of Fair Trading, exercising his powers under Part III of the Fair Trading Bill, will be enabled to contribute to the raising of standards. We shall be moving towards what I described as the ideal objective, namely, a decisive reduction in the number of occasions on which consumers will need to seek redress from the law.
  Against that background perhaps I might say a few words to the House about the steps which led to the present legislation. As the House will be aware, certain terms are at present implied in all contracts of sale of goods. They are set out in Sections 12 to 15 of the Sale of Goods Act. The terms are either "conditions", breach of which entitles the injured party to treat the contract as rescinded, or "warranties", breach of which gives the injured party the right to claim damages for any loss incurred.
  Four particular aspects of the contract are covered. First, as to title, there is an implied condition that the seller has a right to sell and implied warranties that the goods are free from any undeclared encumbrance, to use a curious piece of legal jargon, and that the buyer will have quiet possession. Second, where goods are sold by sample, there are implied conditions that the bulk shall correspond with the sample and that the goods shall be free from any defect not apparent from the sample. Third, where a sale is made by description, there are implied conditions that the goods shall correspond with description and be generally of merchantable quality. Finally, if the buyer makes known a particular purpose for which the goods are required, there is generally an implied condition that the goods supplied will be reasonably fit for that purpose.
  The problem as it presents itself in modern times arises from the provisions of Section 55 of the 1893 Act which allows the rights provided for in the sections to which I have referred to be excluded by agreement between the parties. The average buyer expresses his

  1157
  agreement on such matters by signing the contract, but any exclusion clause it may contain is seldom, if ever, explained. The buyer may thus relinquish his rights unwittingly but even if the buyer was not unwitting, he might be unable to buy the goods anywhere else on other terms.
  This problem was given particular attention some 10 years ago by the Committee on Consumer Protection under the Chairmanship of Sir Joseph Molony. The Committee saw no justification for allowing traders to repudiate at will the obligations placed upon them by the 1893 Act. The Committee commented
  "We feel compelled to view the practice as a general threat to consumer interests, in the sense that heavy and irrevocable loss may fall on the consumer who is unlucky enough to get a defective article."
  The Committee also suggested a number of improvements in certain of the implied conditions and warranties. This proposal had implications for contracts of sale generally and the whole subject was according referred to the Law Commissions. The Commissions reported on this subject in 1969. They unanimously endorsed the view of the Molony Committee that private consumers should have an inalienable right to the protective provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Sellers should not be allowed to exclude them in consumer sales.
  The Commissions considered that these implied rights constituted a basic code of fair dealing on which consumers should in all cases be entitled to rely. In one respect they recommended that business buyers should also have an absolute right to protection: it should not be possible, they recommended, in any sale to exclude the implied conditions and warranties relating to title.
  The Law Commissions were not, however, agreed about the extent to which any change should be made in connection with exclusion of other implied rights, that is to say, rights not relating to title, in business sales. Alternative recommendations were therefore presented in the report. It is important to notice that neither of these alternatives went as far as an outright ban on exclusion clauses in all business sales. That particular course, the idea of an outright ban on exclusion clauses in all business sales, was strongly urged on the Commissions
  1158
  by some organisations representing the retail trade.
  They considered that if retailers were not to be allowed to exclude their liabilities to customers, no such exclusion should be permitted at any point in the supply chain from manufacturer to retailer. The Commissions' report makes it clear that they considered that, although appropriate protection was certainly needed, freedom of contract need not be totally restricted away from the consumer front. I will explain the consequences of this approach at the appropriate place in the Bill.
  The Bill is designed to meet four main objectives. First, it restates and brings up to date the implied conditions and warranties set out in Sections 12 to 15 of the Sale of Goods Act. I have already rehearsed, if not recited, those provisions. I confess that it is somewhat to my surprise that, about 21 years after having laboured to learn those provisions in the course of my LL.B. course at Cambridge, in company with several other hon. Members, I find myself proposing that Parliament should rewrite that which took me so long to learn.
  Mr. Greville Janner: About time.
  Sir G. Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman may be right.
  Secondly, the Bill makes void exclusion clauses in consumer sales. Thirdly, in business sales it makes void exclusion clauses relating to title. Fourthly, it regulates the exclusion in business sales of the other implied conditions and warranties of the Sale of Goods Act.
  To protect the consumer fully, it was decided that the Bill should meet these objectives both in respect of sales of goods for cash and on credit. The Bill therefore extends as far as possible in exactly the same way to hire-purchase, conditional sale and credit-sale transactions. It was also thought appropriate, with a rare intuitive flash of imagination, to bring the exchange of trading stamps for goods within the scope of the Bill.
  The first three clauses of the Bill repeal and re-enact Sections 12–14 of the principal Act. Section 15, which relates to the conditions implied in sales by sample, remains unaltered. A number of improvements have been made to the implied

  1159
  rights largely following the Commission's recommendations.
  The main changes of that kind are, first, that provision is made for sales of limited title, under Clause 1. Secondly, sales in self-service stores—places of which Chalmers no doubt never dreamed in 1893—are to be regarded as sales by description, under Clause 2. Thirdly, with certain exceptions, Clause 3 imposes an implied condition that goods supplied in any sale made in the course of business shall be of merchantable quality, which is defined for the first time in Clause 7.
  These changes are important in themselves but the heart of the Bill lies in Clause 4, where the provisions are contained which will deal with the central cause of complaint—the exclusion of statutory rights. Subsection (3) prevents exclusion in any sale, whether to a customer or in the course of business, of the implied rights relating to title, freedom from encumbrance or quiet possession. Subsection (4) gives effect to the view of the Molony Committee and the Law Commissions that in consumer sales any exclusion of the other implied conditions and warranties of the Sale of Goods Act should be void. A "consumer sale" for this purpose is defined in subsection (7).
  The House will notice that the definition excludes sales by auction or competitive tender. Auction sales are often used as a means of selling consumer goods to private buyers, but it is considered that they have certain special features which set them apart from other and more usual methods of selling. It has therefore seemed right, although the Law Commissions did not reach a unanimous conclusion on this point, to exclude both auction sales and sales by competitive tender from the definition of "consumer sale."
  Before I leave the subject of consumer sales, perhaps I might emphasise once more that once the Bill becomes law any exclusion clause in a contract for a consumer sale will be invalid. If traders continue after the Bill becomes law to include such exclusion clauses, consumers who are not aware of this legislation might well be misled into thinking that their rights had been limited or excluded altogether. This is a problem which may deserve further consideration. If the practice of including apparent exclusion
  1160
  clauses, although they are invalid as a result of the Bill, remains widespread, as it should not do, it will be possible for the Director-General of Fair Trading to consider whether that practice should be proscribed as an unfair trading practice.
  I turn now to the extent to which exclusion clauses should be permitted in business sales. Proposals for dealing with this are in Clause 4, subsections (4) to (8). All shades of opinion were voiced in the wide consultations made first by the Law Commissions and later by the Board of Trade, as it then was. At one end of the scale were those which advocated absolute freedom of contract, but this would impose a burden on retailers who would not be able to exclude their liability to their customers, and it could be unfair to others in the supply chain between manufacturer and retailer, whose bargaining power is limited.
  At the other end of the scale, it was suggested that exclusion clauses should not be allowed in any contract of sale. This would certainly protect those in a weak bargaining position but would introduce too great an element of uncertainty into the law of contract, and manufacturers could never be certain of the limit of their liabilities.
  As I have said, the Law Commissions were unanimously agreed on the need for some protection for non-consumer purchasers of goods but were not able to agree on a recommendation to deal with this difficult problem. The first suggestion was that the bar on exemption clauses should cover the sale of consumer goods to business purchasers except where the buyer could be said to be in the business of dealing in or with the goods. That would cover, for example, someone in business as a farmer who bought a car for the purpose of his business. He would be entitled to benefit from the ban on exclusion clauses because, although he was a business purchaser, he could not be said to be in business of dealing in or with those goods. The other alternative proposed that the courts should be enabled to strike out any exclusion clause in a business sale if in all the circumstances to allow the seller to rely upon it would be unfair.
  After further consultations with a wide range of interested organisations, and considering several other possible solutions, the Government decided that

  1161
  exclusion clauses should be allowed in business sales subject to a test of reasonableness. This means that the court will be enabled by the provisions of Clause 4 to strike out exclusion clauses in cases where it can be shown that it would be unreasonable to allow sellers to rely on them.
  This was a difficult decision to make and was not taken without very careful consideration. Of the possible courses open to deal with the problem, it strikes the best balance between, on the one hand, preventing strong sellers from imposing onerous conditions on weak buyers and, on the other hand, allowing those with equal bargaining strength to deal with each other on whatever terms they choose.
  Whether or not it is reasonable to allow reliance on an exclusion clause will he decided in the light of all the circumstances of the case. But guidance has been given to the courts, in Clause 4(5), on the factors that it will be generally important for them to consider. These guidelines have been generally based on the recommendations of the Law Commissions and have been shaped further in the light of consideration in another place.
  The remaining provisions of the Bill are designed mainly to deal as far as possible in an exactly similar way with hire-purchase agreements and to apply the provisions appropriately to conditional sales and the redemption of trading stamps for goods.
  I hope that I have sufficiently explained the provisions of this important and significant measure. I should like to apologise in advance to the House, and in particular to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), because I have an engagement shortly. It has been thrice adjourned and is therefore of very long standing. I really must keep it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, therefore, if I disappear from the Chamber during his speech. I shall have the advantage of reading his eloquent words transcribed in HANSARD tomorrow.
  The Bill is an important step along the road to a comprehensive framework of consumer protection. We recognise that there is a great deal more to do, but the
  1162
  Bill will give the consumer a much bigger leverage in seeking redress than he has had before. Sellers will be under greater pressure to consider the quality of the goods they supply. To the extent to which that contributes to a general raising of standards, consumers will have moved a big step forward to the ideal of being supplied with goods that meet their needs without giving ground for complaint.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I am deeply offended that the Minister feels it an advantage to read my speech tomorrow instead of having to listen to it today. However, we have been locked for a considerable time not in mortal conflict but certainly in verbal conflict in the Committee stage of the Fair Trading Bill, and I can quite understand that he now wishes to forgo the pleasure of actually hearing me deliver my comments.
  It is a pleasurable experience after a degree of disagreement in that Committee—though the disagreement has never been personal—to be in a position today to deal with what can be called a consensus Bill. This is not a political Bill and can be said to be a non-party measure. The Bill had its roots in 1966 when the then Lord Chancellor set up an inquiry and asked the Law Commissioners to look into the overall problem. The present Government—I give them credit for it—have readily taken up the Law Commission's report.
  I wholly agree with the Minister that the Law Commissioners deserve our praise and congratulations for the thorough way in which they investigated the problem. It is a tribute to their efforts that so few changes have had to be made in their recommendations.
  I would go a little further than the Minister and congratulate the noble Lords in another place who took part in the various stages of the Bill. Anybody who has read the proceedings in the other place will appreciate that there was a good deal of all-party effort to improve the original Bill. Consideration of the Bill by noble Lords was constructive and helpful, and led, in a non-partisan sense, to improvements in a Bill which we all want. The other place has saved us a good deal of time and, I suspect, may well have shortened the eventual Committee stage of the Bill in this House.

  1163
  The Minister has already pointed out that the Sale of Goods Act is 80 years old, and even 80 years ago it was not a new piece of legislation, nor was it an innovating Act; it pulled together all the existing law. Therefore, we are trying to remedy a considerable desert in bringing in new legislation to protect the consumer in the sale of goods.
  The 1893 Act was built around certain clearly known concepts. One paramount consideration was that contract was free because it was a contract between equal partners. Although that may have been true in those days, it is certainly not true today. It was built on the Roman law concept of caveat emptor—"Let buyer beware." That warning is every bit as relevant today. It was also based on the common law assumption that goods should be in a marketable condition for the purpose for which they are intended. One corollary of the concept of contracting equals was that if those equal partners agreed to waive the supplier's liability, they were able to do so. The world in 1893 must have been idyllic. Nobody had ever heard of the Motor Agents Association…
  Since 1893 there has been 80 years of change. Some has been spontaneous change; some has been deliberate and systematic erosion of consumer rights. Instead of equal partners in a free contract, the power of the seller has grown. It has grown because of changes in marketing methods, the influence of advertising, the development of mass production, and the consequential market domination by a relatively small number of firms in key areas.
  In addition, the greater intricacy of goods has meant that a consumer needs greater expertise at the time of purchase in assessing the merits of goods. It has been a time in which the seller has (become commercially stronger, but a time when the shopper's job has become more difficult. Abuses by sellers have become increasing subtle, sophisticated and widespread. The increase in the consumer's difficulties has not occurred purely as a result of spontaneous market changes. It has also been the result of deliberate and calculated erosion. Legal expertise has been purchased by firms to frustrate the intentions of Parliament
  1164
  when the Act was originally passed. It is a reasonable guess that company lawyers have already been put to work looking for loopholes in this legislation before it has even reached the Statute Book.
  The suppliers have had a good run, and the exclusion clause, the phoney guarantee, has been a major factor. As the Molony Committee said in paragraph 435:
  "The overriding argument in favour of prohibiting contracting-out is that it enables well-organised commerce consistently to impose unfair terms on the consumer and to deny him what the law means him to have."
  If any groups of people have brought this Bill on their own heads, it has been the car manufacturers the Motor Agents Association and the electrical appliance industry. In recent years if anybody wanted to buy he could buy only on the terms set down by the Motor Agents Association, the car producers and the manufacturers of electrical appliances. To buy he had to surrender the legal rights which Parliament meant him to have in exchange for phoney guarantees.
  The Motor Agents Association standard so-called "order form" is a moral disgrace. On the back of it, in the small print, there appear over 1,000 words in 10 clauses imposing the motor agents' own terms. I should like to quote what was said by Lord Janner in the other place on this matter, and I am delighted to see a member of that family in this House this afternoon to take up the argument.
  Mr. Greville Janner: I started it.
  Mr. Williams: I do not intend to trigger off a bitter family feud. I have known the hon. and learned Gentleman's father longer than I have known him, and I am inclined for my own peace of mind, since I bump into his father regularly, to take his father's side. The noble Lord said of the Motor Agents Association's order form, that it was:
  "an order form designed to cut down the rights of a purchaser to the bare minimum."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 16th November 1972; Vol. 336, c. 870.]
  It is necessary to read 36 lines, 330 words, before coming to the exclusion clause. The exclusion clause appears at the end of a sub-clause and says:
  "such undertakings are given and accepted instead of and expressly exclude any other

  1165
  guarantee or condition or warranty as to quality or fitness for any purpose."
  It is understandable that the average person wishing to buy a second-hand or a new car would not plough through all the details. It is doubtful whether he would be allowed the time to do so. It is astonishing that businessmen who would never dream of evading a tube fare and would look askance at anyone who was picking somebody's pocket will freely, without compunction, rob the public of essential rights as clearly as if they took money from them.
  Which?, in a valuable report, pointed out that in 1972 one in 10 new car buyers —that is, people buying a car within a year of its being new—had some major trouble with either the gearbox or the transmission. Therefore, they were without the car for which they had paid, yet they had to incur the cost without compensation for alternative transport. To them there was a loss of money, but there was no compunction on the part of the businessmen who impose what I describe as phoney guarantees. They were denying the public the rights which Parliament intended them to have.
  The practice has become so widespread that there is a danger that the public have ceased to realise what rights remain. It has become equally widespread relating to electrical appliances. A firm such as Philips—I am not suggesting that it is necessarily more at fault than some other firms—would be jealous of its reputation in other respects, yet twice in its so-called guarantee labour costs are excluded. That happens in the preamble, and under condition 4 the guarantee reduces the consumer's rights to have usable goods. The consumer has to pay not only the labour costs under the guarantee but the cost of the package and carrying of the goods to the manufacturer for repair.
  Some High Street electrical appliance firms are so contemptuous of the need to meet consumer requirements that they do not offer a meaningful after-sales service. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point that it is an inalienable right that will be given to the consumer. For personal satisfaction I want confirmation, which I am sure will be readily forthcoming, that firms which are offering retail goods which
  1166
  are heavily cut in price, as against the manufacturer's recommended price, will not be able to say that the cut is in lieu of rights which we intend the consumer to have. I am sure this is the case; otherwise it would be open to manufacturers to fix an artificially high recommended price and escape in that way. I am not a lawyer but I assume that that sort of abuse would not be permitted. I should welcome an assurance on that point.
  There has been such proliferation of exclusion rights that the public do not realise that the guarantees which they sign may limit their rights vis-à-vis the manufacturer and not necessarily vis-à-vis the seller. In other words, there may still be a course of action against the retailer even under the law as it stands although the spurious guarantees have been signed.
  The consumer has become so punch-drunk that he permits the further illegal erosion of his rights. I shall quote from a useful background brief provided by the Consumers' Association for hon. Members taking part in this debate. The association makes the point that the retailer might point to the words in the guarantee and say that they entitle him to charge for the labour involved in the operation. The association's brief then says:
  "But I could, if I knew the law well enough, turn round and say that the guarantee has nothing to do with it because it is the contract of sale with him which counts, not the manufacturer's guarantee. For all that legally you may still have rights against the seller unaffected by the exclusion clause in the guarantee, you will find that 99 times out of 100 it is impossible to get this set put right without having to pay."
  The example was taken of a television set. The brief continues:
  "… it is impossible to get this set put right without having to pay the charge."
  In other words, the presumption on the part of the consumer, under the law as it stands, and even genuinely in many cases on the part of the retailer, is that the retailer is also covered by exclusion clauses relating to the manufacturer and the consumer.
  By their very existence, phoney guarantees deprive more people of their rights than they are entitled to by their legal impact. I am trying to emphasise that the existence of exclusion clauses inevitably creates an atmosphere in which the

  1167
  public become uncertain and doubtful of their rights and tend to assume that the rights no longer exist. For that reason it is important to realise that the Bill is only half a Bill in the sense that the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly pointed out that as yet it does not cover the service sector of consumer transactions. One noble Lord claimed that exclusion clauses are more common in relation to services than they are in relation to goods. Various examples were alluded to, such as the carriage of goods, parking, laundry, and holidays. Until these services are covered, and because there are so many of them and because the public are so constantly coming into contact with them, the balance of public experience will inevitably make people doubt how far their rights exist.
  It is imperative that as soon as possible we extend the protection to the service sector. I quote as a typical experience the situation facing the ordinary consumer and the contents of a Swans holiday booking form. Clause 1 of the booking form says:
  "There will be no contract between Swans Tours Limited … and the person making the booking … until the Booking Form is signed by the Client."
  Therefore, one cannot enter into any meaningful contract without signing the booking clause. When one turns to Clause 8 it is found that one's rights are considerably eroded. I should be grateful if we can be told as soon as possible when we can see the coverage extended to services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), in moving his Ten-Minute Rule Bill, tried to give extra protection for tourists, and indicated the magnitude of the problem which has existed in recent years. The problem may be even greater this year because of the ruling by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Beckett v. Cowen, which has led to a situation where it is clear that the circumstances which we thought we had covered are still open to abuse. If future promises on which a tour brochure is built are excluded from the Trade Descriptions Act it is important to give whatever extra protection we can as soon as possible to tourists. I will not divert into the need for a variation in the Trade Descriptions Act. I have made that statement during Question Time on previous occa-
  1168
  sions. It is of paramount importance that it would be brought forward as soon as possible. We are well into the booking season, and it is unfair to expect people to take the risks which they are now taking whilst not having the legal coverage which until a short time ago Parliament thought had been given to holidaymakers. There is this urgent need to close the Trade Descriptions Act loophole, and there is also the need to ensure that we cover services in terms of exclusion clauses and phoney guarantees.
  I said earlier that this is clearly a non-controversial Bill which will be supported by members of all parties. It is equally clear that this is so when one reads the reports of the debates in the other place. I was especially glad that the Lord Chancellor felt able to accept the recommendation of the previous Lord Chancellor and that of the Law Society that the guidelines should be more clearly written into the Bill. I appreciate the balance of danger that the Government have to face here in that once they start to list guidelines anything accidentally left out may provide potential loopholes. But on balance Lord Gardiner and the present Lord Chancellor were correct in coming to the conclusion eventually that it was better to build in a greater degree of certainty for those whom we are trying to protect. What is more, it will mean that more people will be encouraged to take legal action when they feel that they face an abuse against the intentions of the Bill.
  In view of the scope that this legislation opens up for small claims actions on the part of consumers it would have been helpful if, concurrently with, though not necessarily in, the Bill, we could have been seeing the extension of small claims courts throughout the country. This type of legislation adds even more to the need for such courts. I was disappointed to read in The Times on Saturday a report of the speech made by the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs in which he seemed to turn his face strongly against the small claims court. The type of abuse that we are trying to eliminate could easily be taken to an informal, low cost small claims court by members of the public who might be afraid of the greater formality of the existing court structure.
  While I regret that the Minister has turned his face against the small claims

  1169
  court, it would be wrong for me to pursue it further today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I seem to have a fairly regular commitment to discuss matters relating to consumers on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, and I suspect that we shall soon be meeting on other occasions as well. It would be more appropriate to raise these matters in the Committee considering the Fair Trading Bill rather than here.
  The Government will be aware that the National Chamber of Trade has a special interest in the Bill. There has been an exchange of correspondence between the National Chamber of Trade and the Earl of Limerick. I gather that the Government maintain that the protection which is really needed for the small shopkeeper is implicit in the Bill and that this is so especially in the case of the new guidelines. The National Chamber of Trade represents a large number of small shopkeepers. If there is a genuine misunderstanding and the Government are convinced that the case put forward by the National Chamber of Trade can be answered, why do they not accept the request made by the National Chamber of Trade on a number of occasions, the most recent being 3rd January, to meet and talk about the Bill? I hope that when he replies the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will agree that for what may be a relatively small expenditure of his time he ought to be able to clear away a good deal of misunderstanding in a way that could be transmitted by the National Chamber of Trade to a large number of shopkeepers throughout Britain. It is right that they should know what their protections are It is equally right that they should know what their new obligations are.
  I regret that at a time when we are considering giving extra protection under the Bill to the purchaser of a new car another department is concurrently putting at risk the existing protection for the purchaser of a second-hand car. I have raised this matter with the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs during our debates on the Fair Trading Bill. It seems that the Trade Descriptions Act protection may he damaged in the case of a second-hand car by the decision to replace the log book by a registration document giving minimal information.
  1170
  For example, there will be no list of previous owners, it will be difficult to double check the mileage of a vehicle, and it will be even more difficult to double check the number of accidents in which it has been involved since it will no longer be possible to check the colour of the car. Even worse is the decision to abolish the practice of stamping the log book when a car has been written off.
  This decision creates a situation which puts the honest trader at greater risk because he does not have necessary information enabling him to know that he is conforming to the Trade Descriptions Act, and it gives the dishonest trader an unprecedented opportunity to cheat and swindle the public. I hope that the Government will reconsider this decision. It would be a pity if in stopping one set of abuses in the car trade the Government enabled a completely new set to begin. I do not think it is too late for the decision to be modified.
  It is imperative that we give the maximum publicity to the new rights being established so that people will be encouraged to fight their cases against manufacturers. We shall be glad to hear the Under-Secretary of State explain how the Government intend to publicise the changes being introduced.
  We have no wish to delay the progress of this Bill. The Committee stage may well be brief and amicable, the more so because it is brief. I welcome the Bill. It has the support of all parties. The Opposition are glad to see it.
  4.48 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: As the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) rightly said, the discussion about exclusion clauses has gone on for a very long time. Referring to exclusion clauses, some 15 years ago the magazine Which? quoted a judge as saying that a contract was so one-sided he was surprised to see it written on two sides of the paper. A number of us have had experience of contracts of that kind.
  More than 10 years ago I thought of introducing a Private Member's Bill covering some of the ground now covered by this admirable Bill. Naturally enough, I went to the Consumers Association which in turn consulted its lawyers who found that in the 70 years which had elapsed

  1171
  since the passing of the Sale of Goods Act 1893, there had not been a single case in the High Court to test whether these exclusion clauses could override the basic provisions of the Sale of Goods Act.
  The reason why this point has never been tested in the High Court in that 70 years is, I think, perfectly plain. It is that in 99,999 cases out of 100,000 it is just not worth while for the consumer to exercise what legal rights he may have under the Sale of Goods Act because the legal costs of trying to establish his rights will be infinitely greater than the value of those goods.
  In my constituency I know of only one constituent who has tried to defend his rights under the 1893 Act. That man happened to be on National Assistance. He got full legal aid, every bit of legal aid he could get, and won his case on every point. Yet he kept returning to see me at my surgery and asked, "Why did I lose?" I kept saying, "You did not lose; you won", but he said, "I must have lost because I am worse off now than I was when I brought the action." This sort of situation is not good enough.
  I would reinforce, if I can, the remarks made by the hon. Member for Swansea, West who referred to the need for a small claims court. That seems to be an essential parallel reform with this Bill. I am not so pessimistic as he is about the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs. I hope that with his colleagues he will have a very close look at the experience in the State of New York, where a small claims court has been operating with enormous success for a number of years.
  Quite clearly, this Bill will have a very substantial effect even if very few cases arise from it in the courts. Clearly it will have have a most important effect in the motor industry. The hon. Member for Swansea West quoted from a report which appeared in Motoring Which? in July 1972. The magazine circulated 25,300 of its subscribers and discovered that 10 per cent. of all cars less than one year old had some major trouble in the gearbox and transmission. The magazine did not contact me. I seem to be statistically even more unfortunate than the average individual. In the course of the last five years I have
  1172
  purchased two Rover cars. The Rover appears from this survey to have a better than average reliability record, but both my cars developed major gear box trouble in their first year.
  Mr. Greville Janner: It depends on how one drives.
  Mr. Goodhart: It is supposedly a foolproof gearbox, one which is proof even against my gear changing. My ability in this sphere apparently transcends modern technological development.
  Perhaps the most important effect of this Bill will be to override clause 3(b) of the Motor Agents' Association order form. This will have a most important effect because it means that people who have cars on guarantee will not only be able to get a part replaced and the full cost met, but will also be able to hire a car to take the place of their new vehicle while it is off the road. That is a very substantial penalty against the salesman, and the car manufacturer who has supplied the agent in the first place. It seems likely that this will not only have an immense effect on the service side of the industry but can make this most important industry look drastically at the whole problem of quality control.
  I believe that this Bill is infinitely more important than the somewhat meagre attendance in the House this afternoon would seem to indicate. I congratulate the Government on yet another substantial step forward in their efforts to protect the consumer.
  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) was not quite correct about the genesis of this Bill. I raise this matter because I think it tremendously important, not because I was involved in the genesis, but because of the time factor involved in getting legislation like this into operation.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said that he wanted to introduce a Private Member's Bill which, as he probably knows, when we were in Government we were ready to back at that time, 10 years ago. In 1965 the then Board of Trade Ministers made it known that they wanted to introduce legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Molony Commission in regard

  1173
  to what we for convenience call phoney guarantee and warranties. We were persuaded to ask the Law Commissions of Scotland and of England and Wales to look at this matter and to come forward with appropriate amending legislation.
  I draw the attention of the House to the time factors that have been involved. As hon. Members may know, the Law Commissions then set up a working party. It was a very good working party, a very large one and a very competent one. It not only came out with recommendations and proposals for law amendments, but also raised a whole series of new questions upon which it wanted comments from people engaged in the various trades which would be concerned with the change in the law. I have with me a document containing provisional proposals relating to amendments to the contracting out of conditions of warranties applied in sections of the Sale of Goods Act. This document is dated 22nd May. 1968. It is worth noting that in this document which was sent to various trade associations for their views, the Law Commissions say:
  "In view of the urgency of this project it is requested that replies should be forwarded not later than 30th September 1968."
  The replies came in and eventually the Law Commissions produced their report, which is the basis of this legislation. The point is that all this started in 1966, it was more or less knocked into shape by 1968, and we get the legislation in 1973.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman quite properly pointed out that this is only one part of what is now developing. He told us that the Law Commissions also have under consideration three other aspects of this legislation—liability in negligence, the application of all this law revision to services, and the difficult question of products liability.
  If we are to wait seven or eight years for every reference to the Law Commissions to come forward in terms of legislation, obviously we must alter the procedure. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we must find a better and speedier procedure for this essential and urgent law revision in consumer protection statutes and regulations.
  1174
  I hope that in our consideration of the Fair Trading Bill we shall not only accept that the Director-General of Fair Trading can consider such matters as law revision regarding exclusion clauses in contracts within the definition that he will deal with anything that is detrimental to the interests of consumers, whatever the words in the Bill may be, but also that we can lay down the times within which he can deal with these matters. Failing that, we shall have the sort of situation that we are having as a result of referring these matters to the Law Commissions—we hear about the mills of God, but by heaven these grind slowly enough—and it may be impossible to get speedily enough the revision that we want in the interests of consumers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, has rightly said that business interests have been using these phoney guarantees, which I suppose legally we would call exclusion clauses in implied contracts. Whatever kind of public impression they care to give about their good will and how necessary they feel it is to give good service to customers who buy their products, by having this arrangement they have been behaving in a thoroughly despicable fashion. They have been offering their customers what appear to be honest guarantees, in the course of which they have taken away from those customers the common law rights to which they would have been entitled in obtaining redress if something went wrong with the products that they were buying. It is time that this kind of dishonesty came to an end. Therefore, I welcome the Bill.
  You are not supposed to know what goes on in Standing Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but during the proceedings on the Fair Trading Bill I have been critical of the Minister for introducing complicated legislation to take the place of what I have described as the clarity and simplicity of the Sale of Goods Act, the Trade Descriptions Act, and so on. I am sorry that in order to redress something that has gone wrong in the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act we must have what appears, to the layman at any rate, to be rather complicated and complex legislation. I will accept the complexities. I will even accept that, as a layman, there are many parts of the Bill that I do not understand, and I will take

  1175
  the right hon. and learned Gentleman's word for what they are intended to do if the result is, first, that these phoney guarantees will be made illegal in the sense that nobody can rely on them again, and, secondly, that the implied terms in hire-purchase agreements—I do not wish to go into any detail about this matter—are also brought into consideration.
  I am glad that one of the difficult problems about a piece of legislation that, frankly, should not be on the statute book —namely, the Trading Stamps Act 1964 —is also to be dealt with. I hope that when we come to a final discussion on the Bill the Minister will be able to tell us to what extent the reference to the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods will apply to whatever eventually emerges from this Bill.
  I do not think that the Bill should be amended. It ought to go on the statute book and we should see how it works in practice. The time is coming—in fact, it is long overdue—when the whole of the Sale of Goods Act will have to be revised and modernised. Some experience of this revision of part of the Act will help when we finally deal with the Act as a whole.
  I welcome the Bill, but I hope that we can take note of the time factor in getting recommendations into legislative form and can find a new procedure which will be far speedier than the production of this Bill.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I was rather diffident about taking part in a debate in which so many right hon. and hon. Members with so much legal experience and expertise were also taking part. However, I am somewhat comforted to see familiar faces on the Opposition Benches from the Standing Committee to which reference has been made. Despite the exchange of compliments which has taken place in that Committee, I am almost alarmed to find myself in such great agreement with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams).
  Modesty almost, but not quite, prevented my mentioning that I feel great satisfaction at being the first hon. Member during this Parliament, early in Nov-
  1176
  ember 1970, to ask for this very measure. Although the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) followed my good example, I am particularly pleased that this measure is now before the House.
  My pleasure is tinged with some regret that the Bill applies only to the sale of goods, not to services. I am aware that this is because the recommendations of the Law Commissions are still awaited regarding the latter. But it is of little comfort to consumers to know why these recommendations have been so long in coming. It is because the representatives of the service industries, particularly cleaning firms, laundries and tour firms, have found that the cost of insuring against not having exclusion clauses would be so great and put up prices so vastly that they would probably price themselves out of the market altogether. I think that this can be of very little comfort to consumers because it is they who are carrying these costs at present.
  In making exclusion clauses in warranties and guarantees void, the Bill carries out the recommendation of the 1971 Law Commission that a simple ban on exclusion clauses would not be effective. I am very uneasy, however—and I was glad that my right hon. and learned Friend referred to this point—that even after the passage of this Bill guarantees and warranties can still contain exclusion clauses, which, although they may not be valid, will certainly mislead a great many consumers, most of whom do not know their existing rights under the Sale of Goods Act, let alone how they will be strengthened under this Bill.
  I was encouraged that my right hon. and learned Friend said that the Director-General of Fair Trading may look upon this as an unfair trading practice, but in the meantime I would hope that an informative pamphlet would be issued by the office of the Director-General of Fair Trading telling as many people as possible of their new rights under this Bill, in line with his specific duties following the enactment of this Bill.
  Indeed, one of the things to commend about this Bill is that it weaves its way so very skilfully in and out of those parts of the Sale of Goods Act which it amends and brings up to date. I should like to welcome particularly the definition of a

  1177
  consumer sale and the redefinition of a business transaction, because although exclusion clauses are still to be allowed in business sales the fact that they are to be subject to the test of reasonableness will provide an important safeguard for the small shop keeper, the small garage proprietor and the small business man by giving him protection against the large firm which, through its expertise, may seek to take unreasonable or unfair advantage of him by means of exclusion clauses.
  The criteria set out in the Bill, which had been amended in another place on Report, now follow very closely the guidelines recommended by the Law Commission. I think that this guidance will be of great assistance to the courts in their interpretation of such cases. Such guidance by statute is greatly welcomed by those of us who have been disturbed by the High Court findings in the case of Beckett v. Cohen, which created such an unfortunate and undesirable precedent. Such guidance by statute may make it possible to avoid this sort of thing in the future, and it is in fact something which we have been considering in connection with the Fair Trading Bill itself.
  The definition of merchantable quality —and this is another point which the hon. Member for Swansea, West raised—again follows very faithfully the recommendation of the Law Commission, with the addition of the words "if relevant" after "price", so that the price paid for goods is not always to be taken as an indication of their merchantable quality. I think that answers the question which the hon. Gentleman put. This again is a definition which is of great value to the general public. I wish they could be made more familiar with it in their own interest, and I support the points that have been made that the outstanding problem in consumer affairs today is that most people do not know their rights and, if they did, the odds are that it would not pay them to pursue those rights. This Bill does nothing to help that and so far the Fair Trading Bill does nothing to help it. We shall have to continue our fight to bring about these reforms.
  Apart from the actual new measures of consumer protection contained in this Bill, some of its value lies in its new definitions, its redefinitions and its clari-
  1178
  fication of certain points—for example, its clarification of the fact that a self-service sale in which no words are spoken is in effect a sale by description and that there is an implied condition, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that goods are of merchantability and that this too, does not always depend on a sale by description.
  I know that this was the subject of some controversy in another place because it was felt that this would exclude the rights of people who were not excluded from this definition of a self-service sale at present. It was the old story of the man going into a greengrocer's shop, picking up a melon and handing it to the shop assistant without a word, who would be covered by this definition; but what would happen to the man who went into the greengrocer's shop and asked for a melon and was given a banana? It would appear that he might be excluded by this definition of a self-service sale not being a sale by description. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to clear this point up.
  This is inevitably a very technical Bill and discussion of it becomes dehumanised, but I am sure that a great many hon. Members can take from their own constituency files a number of examples from real life of consumers being cheated of their sale of goods rights by signing guarantees and warranties which seem to them, quite understandably, to be protecting the very rights which are in fact being excluded. It seems to me that quite the most disgraceful and reprehensible aspect of the sort of conduct is that not only has deception been practised but these guarantees and warranties have been presented to people in such a way as to make them believe that their non-signature would be to their disadvantage. To my way of thinking this has been nothing more nor less than fraudulent misrepresentation because it has reduced from six years to 3 months consumers' rights under the Statutes of Limitation to sue for compensation within six years.
  I should like to mention particularly the deplorable practice of some motorcar manufacturers and their representatives who, in trying to put pressure on people to sign guarantees and warranties, have threatened to withhold vouchers for

  1179
  free service if they do not do so—vouchers to which the consumers were already entitled. I am glad to say that this practice is extremely uncommon in the case of British car manufacturers, but unfortunately it is quite common in the case of foreign car manufacturers and their representatives in this country.
  I promised to be brief, so I will end by expressing my congratulations to the Law Commission and to those who gave evidence to it, and my warmest congratulations to the Government for their interpretation of its recommendations and their introduction of this Bill. It is a modest and very useful complement to the very important and far-reaching consumer measures that have already been introduced this Session.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. Greville Janner: It is a pleasure to agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim). I object a little to her introduction about not being fit to debate with lawyers. It is a well-known tactic by a person who immediately demolishes the lawyers' arguments with a combination of charm and subtlety. That is a rather unhappy approach but is not nearly so deplorable as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), who finds no dissension in the Chamber so tries to create it within my own family. But that is to be expected, I fear.
  I want to refer to two points which the hon. Lady raised. The first is the question of putting up prices. One of the curiosities of dealing with manufacturers in this matter is that they say, "Do not bother to change this because it is very rare for us to rely on it. We are always prepared to go beyond the terms of our warranty, in appropriate cases anyway". On the other approach they say, "Do not change it because it would put prices up". I have found a delightful and wicked document which was put out by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. It is entitled "Comments of the Society on the Law Commission's Provisional Proposals" and in it the Society says,
  "Extension of the obligations to cover all financial loss would undoubtedly cause the prices of many goods to rise because of increases in sellers' insurance premiums. It is felt also that the extension should be restricted
  1180
  to a specified class of persons; the uncertainty of the class of persons proposed by the Law Commission would be likely to encourage purely speculative claims for damages.…"
  In fact, this makes nonsense of the claim that these people go beyond the terms of the guarantee and warranty. Usually they do not. They do so when they are forced into it, and if they have to put up their insurance premiums, that is one of the misfortunes which we shall all have to accept. Meanwhile, at least people have a better chance of knowing what they are getting. The combination of these two arguments is regrettable.
  Secondly, the hon. Lady said that exclusion clauses should not be permitted as such because the fact that they are there will undoubtedly mislead people. I fully accept this. I had hoped that, having regard to our long association in this matter, she might have mentioned the Sale of Goods (Fraudulent or Misleading Guarantees or Warranties) Bill, which modesty would have prevented me from mentioning were it not such an important measure, introduced on 21st January 1971 by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West by leave of the House under the Ten-Minute Rule and blocked by a shout of "Object" from the Government Benches. That Bill would have made it an offence to include such a clause, and in my view that is still the right way of dealing with it.
  Manufacturers should not be permitted to include this clause, and, with respect to the hon. Lady, it is not enough to say that one of the beauties of the Bill is that people will know their rights. Unfortunately, people do not know their rights, and those who need to know the most tend to know the least. The lack of applications for rent rebates despite enormous publicity is the prize example of people not knowing their rights. I do not believe that there will ever be enough publicity to remove the effect of misleading guarantees and warranties, and I hope that in due course the Bill will be amended to make their inclusion improper and not just void.
  The latest complaint in my constituency is of a large discount warehouse which includes such a clause. When my constituent complained, the warehouse staff made excuses. The constituent came to me and I raised the matter with the managing director, who immediately said

  1181
  that there had been a misunderstanding and matters would be put right at once. All constituents should plague their Members of Parliament to intervene with the business houses in this regard until the Bill comes into force. I am glad that the Bill will come into effect one month from the date of Royal Assent.
  The Bill will receive support from some surprising sources. I had an enormous flood of mail from all over the country in connection with my previous efforts, among others from the retailers of electrical appliances. They have to deal with the public and tell them that the manufacturers will not do what they want them to do. They bear the brunt of the attack, and are forced into a corner. They in general support this legislation and will be pleased to see it. So will the Association of Mail Order Publishers and many others who are the recipients of the wrath of the general public.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: One would have much more sympathy with the retailers of electrical goods if they informed consumers of their rights when they bring in electrical goods for repair. They are entitled to have those goods replaced while they are being repaired.
  Mr. Janner: That is a very broad statement of law which I am not sure is correct. That implies that the retailer informs the customer on complicated legal rights. The hon. Lady's suggestion is in cloud cuckooland. No one will say "Sue me if you like if things go wrong". It would not work anyway. The legislation is vital and necessary for the protection of the consumer, but it will at the same time protect many retailers.
  The main omission from the Bill is also a matter which I have brought before the House on a previous occasion, namely services. I was given leave to introduce the Exclusion Clauses (Services) Bill, which, again, was blocked from the Government benches. It is a great shame that the excellent measure now before us does not include services.
  I will give two brief examples. The way in which car park proprietors are including exclusion clauses in the contracts of those who park on their premises is a national scandal. They are making vast fortunes out of people who have no alternative but to use the off-
  1182
  street parking they provide. It is not, as the hon. Lady suggests, a question of signing a guarantee, nothing as firm as that, simply a statement on the ticket. Customers often have to leave their ignition keys. If someone in the employment of the proprietor crashes the car against a pillar the company accepts no liability and blithely says, "Claim against your insurance". That, for good drivers who have had reasonably good fortune, means the loss of their no-claims bonus. The sooner these disgraceful car park practices are dealt with the better.
  Secondly, I refer to the exclusion clauses used by local authorities when replying to purchasers' solicitors in conveyancing matters. I thank the Law Society for drawing this matter to my attention. When I asked some time ago whether the Secretary of State intended to issue a circular to local authorities advising them of the undesirability of adding exclusion clauses to their replies to additional inquiries or other questions raised by solicitors acting on behalf of proposed purchasers of property within their areas, I received the following reply,
  "A circular giving advice on this subject would be premature while the local authority associations are discussing the matter with the Law Society and while it is also being considered by the Law Commission which will be reporting to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February 1972; Vol. 831, c.173.]
  Will the Minister be good enough to tell the House the result of these discussions and what is to be done about the unfortunate exclusion clauses used by local authorities?
  The cry that has come from both sides of the House regarding small claims is a fair one. It has been said that it is a law which is available for the rich. It is also available for the poor. A person with a good case and no money can get legal aid. A person with a good case and plenty of money does not need legal aid. The vast majority of people who buy modest cars or modest electrical appliances cannot afford to take a case to court. They cannot even afford to win, and they certainly cannot afford to lose. It is about time that this was dealt with, and I regret that the Bill contains no provision to this effect.
  This law will soon be in full force. What should buyers do in the meantime? They must look out for themselves and

  1183
  remember that the Bill is not retrospective in its effect. It would be a mistake to believe that there is any protection against these scandalous, spurious and thoroughly fraudulent so-called guarantees and warranties until the Bill is brought into effect. Until then, members of the public should refuse to accept the guarantees, and especially they should refuse to buy a car from a dealer who insists on their signing a form. There are plenty of dealers who will not insist. Buyers should take their business to them. Secondly, they should know their rights even after the Bill has come into effect. They should realise that these clauses now mean something and later will mean nothing, that it is not illegal today to include them and that it will not become illegal in the future to include them. Thirdly, they should use their Member of Parliament when they believe that their rights are being taken away from them. It is part of our job to help consumers who are being cheated.
  Finally, what should sellers do? The answer is clear. All those who have seen fit to impose upon unsuspecting buyers these shocking documents called guarantees or warranties, which guarantee only trouble and warrant only legal problems, should withdraw them now. They should take them away from their contracts and cease to deceive the public before being forced to do so. They should not wait until the Bill becomes law and then for further action to be taken under the Fair Trading Act. They should stop deceiving the public now.
  I call upon the Motor Agents Association to remove Clause 3B from their contracts without further delay. It should not have been there in the first place and it is disgraceful that it is there now. There is no excuse whatever for any further delay in removing it.
  I hope that the Bill will be passed very soon and I trust that my deceased Exclusion Clauses (Services) Bill will also be taken over by the Government in due course, as they have taken over my previous Bill, but that next time they will give due acknowledgment.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: I acknowledge all the work which has been done in these matters by my hon.
  1184
  and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) but I shall not follow him in his emotional style on the topic, although he has every reason to feel emotional about a subject on which he has laboured for so long and with some success. He claims that the Bill is his, and the Law Commissioners could also be forgiven for making a similar claim. The Bill justifies the existence of the Law Commission. I do not know how we ever managed without it. The Sale of Goods Act has lasted since 1893 and no solution to the problem was discovered until the Law Commissioners became seized of the topic a few years ago, with the result that we are now to have a guarantee system which is checked and hindered. In the past it has acted as an oppression against the consumer.
  The fact that the Government have brought the Bill forward shows that we no longer believe in this country in the concept that both sides enter into a contract on equal terms. With the existence of the big corporations the consumer has to take an agreement or leave it. If someone rents a flat he gets a standard copy of a lease. Twenty years ago his solicitor would have altered it, it would have gone back and would have been altered again and the solicitors would send the lease back and forth amending and changing it. That does not happen today. The tenant takes the standard terms or leaves them. The same applies to motor cars and many other services and commodities.
  In that relatively new and contemporary situation the individual has no chance against the company, against the man who can afford the best legal advice. Therefore the State has felt obliged to take the view that, although it has hitherto believed in the freedom of contract, it now recognises that it must redress the balance in favour of the individual and of the consumer. That is the purport and effect of the Bill.
  It always seemed to me that the sending in of guarantee forms served two major purposes. First, it limited the company's, the vendor's liability. Secondly, it gave the vendor company useful information about how its sales were going in the country. If it received 10,000 guarantee cards back in a month,

  1185
  it knew that it had sold, say, 10,000 cars and it knew exactly when and where it had sold them. The system acted as a useful form of market research for the company.
  The sad fact was, however, that the consumer in the end believed that the only liability lay not with the person who had sold him the car, the electrical apparatus or whatever; he believed that his only remedy lay with the manufacturer. The system diverted him from realising that the person with whom he had done the deal was the retailer or the garage proprietor and not the manufacturer.
  The effect of the Bill is to preserve and assert the right of the purchaser to go to the vendor direct and not to be diverted by a belief that he can go only to the manufacturer. Certainly guarantees often remove the consumer's right to seek redress from the vendor. I hope that in future the consumer will realise that his right to deal with the garage proprietor, for example, remains intact. The guarantee system will continue to exist. All this means that the proprietor will have to look to his own lines of communication with his suppliers. That applies not only to garage proprietors but to vendors of all kinds of equipment. If he is to receive the writ he will want to ensure that the property in question was in good condition. It is to be hoped that this will have some effect in ensuring that products turned out from both British and foreign factories will reach the consumer in better shape than has hitherto been the case.
  Reference has been made to the fact that there is as yet no Bill relating to exclusion clauses for services. I believe that we should await the report of the Law Commission on that point. If the Commission can solve the problem tackled in this Bill it can solve the problem of exclusion clauses. I hope that when it is dealing with that problem it will be able to deal with the practice of the Post Office which excludes responsibility for its negligence. If it omits a subscriber's name from the telephone book at the moment, the subscriber cannot sue for the damage caused by the omission. The point was raised in the other place by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. It is to be hoped that the law will be altered so that the Post Office will
  1186
  be responsible for its own negligence as well as for any services that it provides.
  We are looking forward to further changes in the law and we hope that the effect of those changes will be to protect the consumer. There are those who believe that the consumer should not be molly-coddled and such people regard any step taken to protect the consumer as molly-coddling. We must recognise today, however, that the individual has no chance against the corporation and the Bill is a major step forward in protecting him in the future.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: First, I wish to apologise to the Under-Secretary because I shall be unable to be in the House to hear the whole of his speech. I have explained the reason to him and I think that he understands. It will be my loss because I always enjoy listening to him. He has a nice, gentle, mellow tone.
  Whether or not my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) considers that sufficient praise has been given to him by the Government for his efforts, I certainly intend to praise him for what he has done. He has been extremely active since he came to the House in drawing attention to the evils of exclusion clauses. As for the difference in merit between him and his distinguished father, I do not intend to commit myself except to say that I would veer slightly towards my hon. and learned Friend. Perhaps he will be kind enough not to convey that sentiment to the noble Lord, Lord Janner.
  All who have spoken so far have said how much they welcome the Bill. Of course, I welcome it, too, but before we all collapse in an orgy of self-congratulation we should perhaps put the matter into perspective. It is a good little Bill, but it is hardly a Bill to carry out a fantastic and revolutionary measure. It amends the 1893 Act and it has therefore taken us about 80 years to get round to doing something about it. I do not blame the Under-Secretary for that, however, The Court of Appeal has endeavoured to bend the law—although it would call it amending the law in its own way—to try to assist the consumer and protect him from the worst effects of the contracting-out provisions of the Sale of Goods Act.

  1187
  Parliament has therefore known for a long time that the Act has not been working properly. In 1963 the Molony Committee reported; in 1966 the Law Commission was set up to examine the matter in detail; the Consumer Association has been pressing for something to be done since 1957; and here we are in 1973 praising ourselves for having eventually done something about it. It must seem a little odd to the public. None the less, something has been done and I only hope that in 2063 we shall not witness Parliament eventually getting round to amending the Bill now before us.
  The delay is also a remarkable comment on the extraordinary way in which we conduct day-to-day dealings. Year in and year out traders and manufacturers have been allowed to get away with the disgraceful and discreditable practice of deliberately drawing up their agreements in terms that the consumer cannot possibly understand and cannot be expected to understand. They have thereby calculatedly set out to deprive consumers of rights that many did not even know they had.
  If that is called equality of bargaining, it is a very strange description. Equality of bargaining is a fiction. When dealers use elaborate and jazzy terms to advertise their goods, and so many pressures are put on the consumer to buy at all costs, under any circumstances, whether he can afford it or not, it is hardly surprising that he has suffered injustice after injustice over the years. The Bill will in some way redress the balance, and I welcome that.
  We have been praising the Law Commission for finding a solution. The Bill amends Section 55 of the 1893 Act. It does more than that, but that is what the House is mostly concerned with. I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its work, and wish that it could be brought a little closer to the work that Parliament does. But all that it has done is to say that exclusion clauses which are permitted by Section 55 shall no longer be allowed. That was recommended after two years' work by some of our eminent legal brains. Members of the public will regard it as a little strange that so much time should be devoted to coming up with what will seem to most of them as an obvious solution.
  1188
  There have been repeated references to the need to introduce similar legislation to outlaw exclusion clauses in con- tracts for services. An abuse drawn to my attention recently concerns offences under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act, with which the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and I are particularly familiar. He and I had something to do with putting it on the statute book. Under that Act it is an offence to send out demands for payment for goods or directory entries which the sender knows to be unsolicited. Unscrupulous trade directory firms are now sending out demands for payment for unsolicited entries in trade directories. But at the bottom of the demand, in very small writing, they state, "This is not a demand for payment". The courts may well construe that as meaning that the document is not a demand for payment, but any member of the public receiving such an invoice will think that it is.
  Those words are a fraudulent and dishonest way of getting round the Act. I shall send the details to the Under-Secretary and his Department, and I hope that they will examine the matter very closely. The matter shows the vigilance that must be exercised by everyone concerned with consumer affairs even after the Bill becomes law. Many firms, whether manufacturers or retailers, will try with the means at their disposal, no doubt with the connivance of lawyers, to find a way round the legislation.
  I do not want to go into the legal technicalities of the Bill. What the public wants to know is what it will do for them. I hope that it will mean that in future the seller of goods will be responsible for things that go wrong with articles he has sold—in other words, that the public will have redress for shoddy goods and goods that break down, and that no clever words in small print will do the consumer out of his rights.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) that there is already a great deal of confusion in people's minds about what their rights are, and even more confusion about how they can enforce them. The public are already protected. Most of the so-called guarantee forms have no validity, because the rights of the buyer are governed by the contract he signed with

  1189
  the retailer, if indeed he signs any contract at all. Most guarantees are totally irrelevant, but the consumer does not know that. He is led to think that the guarantee is the binding contract. In that sense the large, so-called respectable manufacturers who force gullible people—and that means many people—to rely on contracts of guarantee are behaving disgracefully.
  I should have liked to see the contracting-out clause applied to every contract, not only to consumer contracts but to contracts between dealer and dealer or between retailer and manufacturer. I have not been convinced that that would not he feasible by any of the arguments I have read, with great respect to the distinguished members of the other House, many of them the leading legal minds in the country, including the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chancellor and a former Lord Chancellor. However, we have come up with a typical British compromise.
  As I understand it, in contracts of a non-consumer nature it will now be possible for people to strike their own bargain, but if the court takes the view that it would he unreasonable to uphold the bargain, if it can be called a bargain, it can interfere. I can see a great deal of litigation resulting from that, and a great deal of court time being occupied. That underlines the need for a separate consumer court where the small consumer can pursue his small claim. If the county court is to be further cluttered up with disputes about what is or is not reasonable and about the interpretation of the six criteria, the inclusion of which I welcome, the waiting time at the courts will be longer than ever. It is no use giving consumer rights if they cannot enforce them.
  I was very sorry to note that the former Solicitor-General, the present Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, speaking over the weekend, said that he has had second thoughts about the feasibility of a consumers' special small claims court. I remember once having the great pleasure of debating with him at the Cambridge Union. He was an impossible person to debate with because when one said such-and-such was the thing to do he would say, "That is exactly right, that is
  1190
  what I intend to do"—with the collapse of the opposing party.
  One thing I was hoping he would do, because he was a Solicitor-General for whom I had great respect, was to institute some method by which the ordinary consumer could pursue his rights, with minimum cost, without the use of lawyers and all the procedural devices in courts. Since most of the transactions which will be covered by this Bill will be very small ones involving such things as electric irons costing £6 or £7, it will not be worth a consumer's while to pursue his claim in the county court. Therefore, a small claims court is an essential corollary to this Bill.
  Finally, I wish to take a point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly made, that some of the retailers or manufacturers in service industries had said that one of the reasons they cannot get rid of exclusion clauses is the cost. This argument is always put forward when one tries to get new legislation of this kind, as my hon. Friend and I saw quite clearly during the passage of the Unsolicited Goods Act. Whenever one tries to get a measure of consumer protection on the statute book those retailers or manufacturers who are intimately concerned say, "Of course we agree with you that it would be very desirable that this should be on the statute book and it is monstrous that consumers should be treated in this way, but do you realise that if this is done our prices will have to go up? That is the only reason why we are not actively supporting you in this campaign".
  That will not wash. Manufacturers and retailers say the same thing about unit pricing and date stamping. That was one of the reasons a retailer gave for saying it would not be feasible to date stamp. They must change their minds and realise that the consumer today has a very powerful voice. One of the reasons why he has a powerful voice is that the newspapers and other media have been very active in recent years in protecting the consumer. One cannot open a newspaper today without finding some consumer watchdog column. The Sunday Times, the Daily Mirror and the Sun all have such columns, and they all do a very good job of work. They will continue to be needed.

  1191
  We must not be complacent about this Bill and its effects. It is a useful little measure. I welcome it and I am glad that it is to be placed on the Statute Book, but it is only a very small, modest measure. Much more needs to be done. We must get as soon as possible similar legislation in respect of services, because that is where most of the abuses occur today. With those very minor strictures I, like everybody else, welcome what is essentially an all-party measure.
  5.52 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): This has been a very interesting though happily short debate on what is nevertheless an extremely important subject. I certainly welcome the many voices of approval and the almost unanimous welcome of the Bill that we have heard. There have been contributions from my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, all of whom have some degree of expertise, either as legislators or would-be legislators in this field, and all the contributions have been extremely helpful. The debate has helped me by enabling me to tiptoe delicately for the first time into consumer matters after having so often been on the other side in these debates. I will do my best to answer the various points that have been raised, so far as they do not raise matters of fine legal nicety. Those we shall have to look at and deal with later.
  Perhaps I can begin by reiterating the basic principles on which this Bill is based. As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his opening speech, we are seeking to redress the imbalance in bargaining powers which, under the 80-yearold Sale of Goods Act, has undoubtedly swung heavily against the consumer. We have, therefore, accepted the view of the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection and the Law Commissioners that the conditions and warranties implied in Sections 12 to 15 of the Sale of Goods Act represent a code of fair dealing for the consumer which he has a right to expect to be honoured whenever he buys goods.
  We recognise, of course, that, as many hon. Members have said, many problems arise in the purchase of services from exclusion of liability for negligence and from the general difficulties of the law relating to products liability. But as my
  1192
  right hon. and learned Friend said, the rights of purchasers of services are being considered by the Law Commissioners together with the other related problems in this very complex field of law and are to be dealt with in further reports in due course.
  The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) and the lion. Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) criticised at very great length the time taken to bring this measure to the statute book. I believe they echoed fears that it would take a long time to deal with these other points. I do not entirely share their view on the analogy of 80 years because I do not believe that the pressure in this respect has developed over a period of 80 years. I think it has occurred as a result of the changed economic circumstances in much more recent times. But I emphasise that this is not such a simple matter as the hon. Member for Accrington sought to make out. Perhaps merely in the consumer field it is, but it relates also to business transactions between persons in business just as much as to consumers and these are much more controversial and rather more complex. I will speak later on these matters as touched upon by the hon. Member for Accrington.
  There is, of course, an obligation upon the Commissioners to consult very wide-ranging interests in this respect. Looking at their report, one sees a very long list of organisations and interested parties who have to be consulted. Indeed, the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) urged the Government to talk to the National Chamber of Trade on a particular problem to which I shall refer later. I must emphasise that the Law Commissioners do not have to do just a little drafting with a scratchy pen. They have a formidable task. But they will have taken a note of the points made in this debate and, being men of great distinction to whom we are very grateful for the work they do, they will, I am sure, proceed as expeditiously as possible. Certainly, I can tell the House that when their reports become available the House need be in no doubt that the fullest and most sympathetic consideration will be given to any further proposals made for the protection of the consumer.
  It seems to be unanimously agreed that consumers should have an inaleniable

  1193
  right to the implied terms in the 1893 Act. There has been no general opposition to the proposals made by the Molony Committee and subsequently by the Law Commissioners that these rights should he brought up to date to take account of the vast changes which have taken place in commercial and consumer dealings since the 1890s; and therefore the central core of the Bill can be said to be based on a genuine consensus in the House and outside.
  This also applies to the subsidiary objective of the Bill, which is to align the positions about implied terms in different kinds of transactions so that the same protection is given no matter whether the transaction is a cash sale, an instalment credit sale, or a hire purchase or conditional sale. This equality of treatment is, in our opinion, an essential simplification for the consumer. In future he will have only to weigh up the balance of advantage as between paying cash or buying on credit, knowing that the conditions applying to both kinds of transaction will be the same.
  The third intention in preparing the Bill was that in business sales the weak should be protected while the strong should be allowed to contract together as they will. This has proved to be the area in which the range of view has been widest and in which, as a consequence, the Government have been faced with the most difficult decisions. The hon. Member for Accrington touched on this.
  The Law Commissioners found the world of commerce very much divided on the question whether there should be any control on exclusion clauses in business sales. They also found those who consider such control to be essential by no means agreed on the extent of control necessary. In the event, the Law Commissioners concluded that some protection was necessary in this area. They were almost equally divided on how this should be achieved. They did, however, agree unanimously that the ban on exclusion clauses which they considered necessary in the case of sales to consumers should not also be extended to business sales. In this respect the Law Commissioners were unanimous in disagreeing with the hon. Member for Accrington. Only after further consultation with interested parties and careful
  1194
  consideration of the possible solutions to this problem was it decided to allow exclusion clauses for business sales, subject to the test of reasonableness.
  We believe that this course holds a fair balance between freedom of contract and ensuring that sellers in a strong bargaining position cannot impose onerous conditions on weaker buyers. There are those who have argued that freedom of contract is the fundamental principle of our commercial law, and that to interfere with it by regulating the use of exclusion clauses will import uncertainty into the law and leave manufacturers uncertain as to the extent of their liabilities.
  There is some weight in this argument, but in the memorandum submitted to the working party by the Law Commissioners it was disclosed that only in a small number of business sales had unfairness or injustice resulted from exclusion clauses. The House will appreciate that we are not dealing with the situation as it was when the Law Commissioners took evidence or as it is now; we are providing for the situation as it will be when exclusion clauses are no longer permitted in consumer sales.
  In these circumstances the consumer will look to his supplier—who will generally be the retailer—for redress if the goods he receives are defective. It would be inequitable to leave the retailer alone to bear the entire burden of these changes. He must be allowed to pass this liability back along the chain of supply to the manufacturer, if that is where it belongs.
  The Law Commissioners, who took the view that the control of exemption clauses should be extended to the business sales side, said:
  "It would be morally and socially unjustifiable to reform the law at the expense of a single section of the trading community."
  We entirely accept this view, and this has led us to accept a further recommendation of the Commissioners, which is that those in the business community whose bargaining power is outweighed by their suppliers should be protected by exclusion clauses. The Bill empowers the courts to apply the test of reasonableness to determine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, it would be fair to allow a seller to rely on an exclusion

  1195
  term. I have dealt with this with some care because it has been the subject of great controversy outside.
  In this debate, however, most speeches have concerned consumer sales, on which subject there has been little disagreement. I will try to deal with all the points raised in the debate and if I fail to do so I will follow them up later. The hon. Member for Swansea, West asked whether cut prices could be used as a reason to deny the rights provided by the Bill in the case of retail goods. The answer is that traders cannot exclude on grounds of cut price or in consideration of a reduced price in a consumer sale. That will not wash. It cannot be used as a device to exclude. However, the cheaper price may be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration when considering merchantable quality.
  The other point which the hon. Member raised concerned the case of Beckett v. Cohen. This concerned a certain interpretation of the Trade Descriptions Act by the Divisional Court. An article in the magazine Which? said that the effect of this decision was not as wide as was feared. I have looked into the tourist aspect of this matter. Only a few package tours or hotel bookings are really affected by this decision, as we understand it. That view was also taken by Which?. We will certainly keep this under regular review.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not right that this decision has left the law on trade descriptions in this area in grave doubt, so that the number of prosecutions has been considerably reduced? Is it not correct that the court made it clear that the Trade Descriptions Act was not concerned with warranties as such but with false trade descriptions, so that it was not possible to impose a criminal liability upon people because they do not come up to the terms of their contract? This Bill is all the more important because of that.
  Mr. Grant: We should be in difficult waters if we sought to debate the details of the case. The point that I am making, broadly speaking, is that as I understand it, the decision of the court was that a person could not be caught under the Trade Descriptions Act for representations about a future event. On the other hand,
  1196
  certainly for tourist cases, the vast majority of representations do not come within that category.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Perhaps I may assist the Under-Secretary. The position appears to be that if a holiday company says, "This hotel has a night club", it is a representation of existing fact. The decision of the court does not affect such representation, and a person making a false representation of that kind would be liable. If an hotel which had not yet been built was being advertised and the brochure said, "This hotel will have a night club", the court's decision would appear to prevent the company which published that brochure from being prosecuted. In other words, if the hotel were not yet built, a person would be protected by the decision. If if were built he could be prosecuted.
  Mr. Grant: In a nutshell, that is precisely the point that I was seeking to make.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is having to face a barrage of interjections. I refer him to a letter I received from the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs dated 2nd January 1973, in which, speaking of this decision in the High Court, he says:
  "… it has served to underline the fact that the section in question does not cover statements which are merely promises for the future … In the nature of things, a holiday brochure is largely concerned with what will be provided in the future".
  Our concern is that a large number of people will be gravely misled and disappointed, and will have no possible recourse under the Trade Descriptions Act as a result of the interpretation now being placed upon that Act.
  Mr. Grant: Be that as it may—and I know the hon. Member for Swansea, West will have listened carefully to what has been said in the debate—this will not affect their remedies as a matter of contract. We do not want to delude ourselves that they are entirely without remedy if they find themselves in this situation. We will look at this question very carefully, but some of the fears, as, indeed, the Consumer Association pointed out, will have been slightly exaggerated.
  I will next take up the points raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs.

  1197
  Sally Oppenheim), who takes a very close interest in all these matters. She asked why exclusion clauses were not explicitly banned from consumer sales instead of allowing them to be included in contracts and making them void. The answer, I believe, is that in many sales standard forms of contract are used and in a number of cases this is convenient to both buyer and seller. The seller does not necessarily know in every case whether the sale is to a consumer or in the course of business. If a ban were imposed, he would break the law. A consumer might break the law unwittingly if he signed a standard form of contract with an exclusion clause. The same contract with a business buyer might be lost. Making such clauses void gives protection to the consumer and others entitled to it whilst avoiding this difficulty.
  The right hon. Member for Hillsborough, as did the hon. Member for Gloucester, questioned whether the Bill would invalidate phoney guarantees, about which we have heard a great deal. The answer is that consumers will be fully protected against phoney guarantees. Their rights cannot be excluded by guarantees, or in any other way.
  I agree that there is a problem in making consumers aware of their rights and I share entirely the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House and, in particular, by the hon. Member for Gloucester, as to the need for publicity to make these rights known to the consumer. We will use every available means to do this and we will look very carefully at the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Swansea, West, of securing the widest degree of publicity for the changes which have taken place in the law.
  I pass now briefly to the other important points made by the hon. Member for Swansea, West concerning the National Chamber of Trade. We must recognise that this is a matter of concern to shopkeepers great and small, and retailers in particular. I know it has been suggested that if retailers are to be expected to accept liability in every consumer sale for the conditions and warranties implied in the Sale of Goods Act they ought to have the right to pass that liability on to the wholesalers or manufacturers, if that is where it belongs. Those who hold this view believe that it is necessary to extend the ban on
  1198
  exclusion clauses to all sales and not to confine it to consumer sales. That, I believe, was the point of the hon. Member for Accrington. But, as I have said, all these points were considered very carefully first by the Law Commissioners and then by the Government before this very difficult and far-reaching decision was taken. Nothing that I have heard today or at any other time has led me to shift the balance of argument in favour of a complete ban on exclusion clauses in business sales. All the points made have already been considered.
  Indeed, it was those very arguments that led one half of the commissioners to say that they accepted the representations made on behalf of the retailers that they need a safeguard of legal protection. These same commissioners recommend the test of reasonableness as the most suitable safeguard. The other commissioners—and they were divided on this—thought that the arguments carried little weight and would have left the present business sales situation unchanged. However, they also accepted that if there was to be general control of exclusion clauses in business sales, they should take the form of a reasonableness test. We have therefore accepted and incorporated in the Bill the conclusion favourable to the retailers' case.
  Having said that, I answer the hon. Member for Swansea, West, by saying that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has only recently written to the National Chamber of Trade offering a meeting with officials. The National Chamber of Trade will no doubt respond to this letter in due course.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that answer. As I received correspondence from the National Chamber of Trade only this weekend, I am rather surprised to find that the hon. Member has so quickly agreed.
  Mr. Grant: I am sure that advantage will be taken of that offer.
  The last point raised generally by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and in particular by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and the hon. Member for Swansea, West, concerns the question of small claims courts. I would prefer that the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs were concluding

  1199
  the debate on this point because his comment and decision have to some extent been criticised. However, I am able to say that my right hon. Friend is not in any way dogmatic or doctrinaire on the matter of small claim courts. The purpose which hon. Members have advanced in the debate for such a court is one with which my right hon. Friend and I very much agree. The only difference between us concerns the method by which it should be implemented. It will certainly he salutary in promoting generally higher standards for manufacturers to be aware that consumers are able to seek effective redress. It is equally essential that when consumers are forced to seek redress they should have confidence in the machinery of justice. The aims must be to make this readily intelligible, generally accessible and effective.
  I recognise that the earlier system, with which at one time I was not wholly unconnected, was not generally regarded as meeting these requirements, and it was thought that there was a clear need to change the system. The important changes made last year in county court procedure were designed to achieve that end. The extent and value of these changes to consumers has not yet been fully appreciated. I very much hope they will be more fully exploited than they have so far been.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: I agree with the Under-Secretary that the changes in procedures in the county court have helped a great deal, and that judges and county court registrars lean over backwards to help the consumer in many ways. One of the reasons why consumers do not wish to pursue their rights is that they are frightened to go through the formalities of a proper court hearing. They would be much more active in pursuing their rights if they could go somewhere much more informal, where there might not be the wigs, robes and other similar things which tend to frighten ordinary people. Would the Minister bear that in mind?
  Mr. Grant: It may be that at the end of the day we should have to consider something of that nature.
  The view of my right hon. Friend is, I believe, that at this stage we should
  1200
  proceed within the existing system by making it simpler and more accessible to the small claimant.
  I repeat the point I was making: the changes that have taken place in county court procedure are not generally known. Enormous changes have taken place since the time when I had anything to do with them, and claims can now be brought by default summons. This allows for judgment without the necessity for any hearing. The registrar may now conduct a free trial review. This provides an informal hearing in the registrar's private room—with no wigs, I understand—to ascertain the real issues of the case. If the review shows there is no real dispute, or that the dispute is only as to the amount owing, the registrar will be able to give final judgment there and then. In my experience nobody has been terrified or intimidated by a registrar in our county court—at least, not in the modern ones.
  If the consumer issues a claim of £20 or less—which I suppose is the case in the majority of consumer claims—he cannot be made liable to pay the solicitor's costs of the other side, and steps are being taken to simplify county court forms. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is also proposing to conduct an experimental scheme in conjunction with citizen's advice bureaux, whereby in selected bureaux retired county court officers will be able to advise dissatisfied consumers who want to pursue a claim in court on the filling-in of forms and the presentation of evidence.
  There have been great strides, and I feel that those of us who come into contact with them, either professionally or through our activity as Members, could go a long way towards bringing these matters to the attention of consumers who, as I know from examples in my constituency, will find that the worst horrors of the county courts do not exist, and are past history, if not a figment of their imagination.
  I think that I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. If there are any which I have omitted I shall be glad to follow them up in writing or at the Committee stage—which I was glad to be told by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough would be short, in view of the 80-year delay it has taken to bring in this legislation.

  1201
  I agree with the hon. Member I or Accrington that none of us would wish to make too many claims for the Bill, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, we regard it as an important step along the road to providing the consumer with reasonable protection, and it should be seen as part of the developing policy which will give the consumer more rights and make it clear to him what those rights are. In this process his bargaining power will be increased and the imbalance which has been increasingly evident in recent years will be redressed.
  This process will also benefit manufacturers and dealers, because they will all be forced to look more closely at the quality of goods they supply, and if, as I firmly believe, the general standard of goods produced and imported is raised, it will be to the advantage not only of consumers but of British industry and commerce as a whole.
  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).

  CRIMINAL APPEAL RULES (EUROPEAN COURT)
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the Criminal Appeal (References to the European Court) Rules 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1786), dated 21st November 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December.
  It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, to consider at the same time the following two motions on the Order Paper, also standing in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends:
  That this House takes note of the Crown Court (References to the European Court) Rules 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1787), dated 21st November 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December.
  and
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment No. 3) 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1898), dated 27th November 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be annulled.
  Mr. Speaker: I assume that that is the wish of the House.
  Mr. Murray: It would have been my wish to have taken with these three motions the corresponding order for Northern Ireland, which is 1972 No. 5, and the corresponding Acts of Sederunt for Scotland, because it appears to me that they do for Northern Ireland and Scotland what these instruments do for England and Wales.
  With one exception—the general amendment part of the Supreme Court of Judicature Order No. 1898, dealing with the rules of the Supreme Court, which have nothing to do with the Community—these orders can be summarised as providing and creating the structure for dealing with references from the courts of this country to the European Court, on the one hand, and, on the other, for dealing with and giving effect to enforceable Community judgments in this country.
  I should, perhaps, express disquiet at the fact that there does not seem to be any effective parliamentary way in which one can bring these three aspects of the law together under one heading, as it were, because it seems to me that the Scottish Acts of Sederunt are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, and it may be that the same applies to Northern Ireland at the present time. I should be interested to learn what procedure is available for them.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The Northern Ireland orders are laid before Parliament. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right about the Acts of Sederunt in Scotland. It is different there.
  Mr. Murray: At any rate, there seems to be no satisfactory way in which we can bring together the courts of the three parts of the United Kingdom which comprise the courts of the country in order to get an overall picture. I do not know whether there is a parliamentary avenue by which this can be done, but I have not found it.
  It seems unsatisfactory that as we enter the EEC there is not some mechanism for doing this, because it is important to make assessments and forward projections of the kind of effects that orders of this kind will have upon the people of this country

  1203
  as a whole and not just simply the people of England and Wales on the one hand, or Scotland on the other, or, again, the people of Northern Ireland, so that we could achieve a balanced picture for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  The argument in support of that is powerful, because in making forward projections of that kind there is no real reason to suppose that the picture in Scotland or Northern Ireland will be very different from what it will be in England and Wales. In the light of this argument I press the Government to tell us what forward projections they have made as to the effects of these orders and, of course, the effects of the Community arrangements under which they are to operate upon litigants in this country.
  What investigations have the Government made, for example, of the probable additional workload on the European Court itself? Can we have some indication of the sort of delay that we are to expect from references to that court? These are matters upon which there is a certain amount of material to draw, because the original six members of the Community must have had similar difficulties at the time of their accession, when, for the first time their courts became subject to the overriding jurisdiction of the European Court.
  So this is not a matter on which we tread a path which has not been trodden before. It must be possible to make some assessment, however approximate, of the kind of workload which will fall upon the European Court as a result of the accession of this country, the Republic of Ireland and Denmark, although it is obvious that the assessment for this country is what is material to our people.
  What estimates have the Government made of the probable number of references from this country to the European Court? That, of course, will consist again of looking at previous European experience and also of looking at existing litigation in this country to see, having regard to the European Communities Act 1972, to what extent existing cases are already raising problems which would imply a reference to the European Court unless agreement is reached by the parties concerned about the interpretation of some particular piece of Common Market law.
  1204
  There must already be some information—whether it is available to the House I do not know, but I would like to know—by which the people of this country can be guided as to the impact of these orders upon their lives. What estimate have the Government made of the likely average delay resulting to litigants from references to the European Court? That is a matter of particular concern, because the law is not notorious for the speed with which it operates in every case. It is very speedy in some cases, but there are cases in which its delays are somewhat notorious, and it would be a very unsatisfactory state if, for example, a simple industrial accident case were to be delayed for years because of a reference to the European Court.
  I hope that the kind of doubt that I have expressed can be resolved by the learned Attorney-General, but it seems to me that the public are entitled to know, first, what forward thinking the Government have done in this respect and, secondly, the probable impact of these rules.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) said, we are considering three sets of rules. The corresponding Northern Ireland Statutory Instrument has been laid but it is not being considered today, and I understand that the Acts of Sederunt do not have to be laid before the House. All that I can do is to assist the House on the matters before it.
  The principal Statutory Instrument of the three before the House is that dealing with the rules of the Supreme Court. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, all these Statutory Instruments lay down rules of procedure to give effect to references to the European Court from United Kingdom superior courts and to provide for the enforcement of Community judgments in accordance with the order approved by Parliament in November.
  I shall answer the questions posed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Two separate matters are dealt with here. There is, first, the enforcement of judgments, which is dealt with in Rule 8 on page 3 of Statutory Instrument No. 1898, and, secondly, references to the European

  1205
  Court, which is dealt with on page 7. That provides a model of procedural machinery which is followed in the other two sets of rules, namely, the Criminal Appeal rules and the Crown Court rules.
  The Supreme Court Statutory Instrument—the principal one—also deals with certain matters with which the House is not so concerned—certainly the hon. and learned Gentleman is not—namely, amendments to various rules relating to proceedings for taxation, wardship, claims for exemplary damages, and so on. They are all recited, and I shall deal with them if the House wishes, but I do not believe that that is the purpose of this debate.
  What we are concerned with here is, first, the powers on page 3 of the Supreme Court rules relating to the amendment of Order 71. It is necessary to provide for the procedure relating to the enforcement of Community judgments. Provisions of the three Community Treaties give a direct right of enforcement. These rules that we are debating provide the necessary machinery for enforcing such judgments.
  I should tell the House that in the 15 years since the inception of the Community there has been only one case in which it has been found necessary compulsorily to enforce a Community judgment, and that was in August 1972. It is necessary to understand the area in which these matters will arise. The cases in which this procedure will be necessary—and they will be rare—will probably be concerned with restrictive practices and monopolies involving penalties or fines for failure to end an infringement, or with discrimination in transport charges involving transport operators who fail to provide the requisite information or end discriminatory practices. The ordinary sort of cases which come before the High Court in civil actions in this country and, I presume, in the Court of Session in Scotland, will not in the least be affected by any of the matters that we are dealing with in these Statutory Instruments.
  It is difficult to conjure up the kind of case in respect of which a criminal court would have to make a reference to the European Court. I find it difficult to think of such circumstances, but we have to make provision for the necessary
  1206
  procedure because, as every lawyer and every Member of the House knows, circumstances can arise which are beyond the contemplation of parliamentary draftsmen, Ministers or Members, and it is necessary to provide the machinery for dealing with such situations should they arise.
  It is difficult to think of the kind of case which a criminal court would refer to the European Court. The only example that comes to mind is when an action is brought against a person for an infringement of Customs duties and he puts forward the defence that no duty ought to be chargeable because it would be contrary to the provisions of Community law. It is difficult to contemplate any criminal cases being referred to the European Court, but there will be references arising in civil actions, for example, in such matters as restrictive practices and commercial undertakings in transport.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the right hon. and learned Attorney-General saying that there is no experience within the Community of criminal cases being referred to the European Court?
  The Attorney-General: I have managed to find only one such case, which is indicative of the rarity of such references. It arose under an Italian law of 1938 which authorised officially-approved and controlled milk depots, and a breach of the exclusive rights was a criminal offence punishable by a fine. A dairy company was prosecuted under the 1938 law and raised the defence that that law was contrary to the Community rules about State monopolies. The European Court held that the exclusive concession provisions of the 1938 law were contrary to Community law. That is the kind of case with which we are dealing. European Court orders have to be enforced, and what we are debating now is the machinery whereby that can be done. The most likely area for references is that of restrictive practices and monopolies, discrimination in transport charges and conditions, and the rules of competition for transport by road, rail and inland waterways. Any order made by the Commission to impose fines or penalties is subject to appeal to the European Court. If the European Court upholds the Commission's decision, the judgment of the European Court becomes enforceable and the order implementing that finding has

  1207
  to be enforced in this country. The designated national authority, whose function it will be to verify the formal authenticity of the incoming Community judgment in the United Kingdom, will be the Foreign Secretary. He or one of his officials will append it to an order of enforcement. He will state that the authenticity of the judgment has been verified and will order that it be registered for enforcement in the United Kingdom. Upon registration it will become fully enforceable.
  There is also power to enforce Euratom inspection orders. It must be said that none has ever been made, and it is not likely that one will be made, but a procedure for enforcing them must be provided in the Supreme Court rules. This relates to inspection orders under which the Commission may send inspectors, for example, to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted from their declared and intended uses.
  Community judgments and Euratom inspection orders will have validity in the United Kingdom under the treaties, and the implementing machinery provided by the Order in Council approved in November 1972 will make them effective. The general practice will be similar to that under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, though there will have to be certain modifications.
  There are nine new rules, and they speak for themselves. Rule 15 incorporates the definitions used in the Order in Council. Rule 16 provides for functions of the High Court to be exercised by a judge in Chambers or a Master of the Queen's Bench Division. Rule 17 provides for applications for registrations to be made ex parte. Rule 18 preserves the matters to be stated in affidavits in support of applications. Rule 19 deals with the maintenance of a register of Community judgments. Rule 20 provides for notice of registration to be sent to those against whom judgment is enforceable. Rule 20 also provides for variation or cancellation of registration within 28 days. Therefore, the Supreme Court will be given all the proper machinery.
  The second part of the rules of the Supreme Court deals with references to the European Court and this is covered by a new Order 114. The effect of Article 177 of the treaty, and similar provisions in the other treaties, is to confer on
  1208
  British courts and tribunals a power to refer to the European Court questions of validity and interpretation arising under the EEC and Euratom treaties. There is a duty to refer such questions when there is no judicial remedy under national law, namely when the question arises in a final court. It might be thought that in civil suits the House of Lords is the only final court, even though the Court of Appeal may refuse to grant leave to appeal to the House of Lords—and indeed the House of Lords may reject the petition for leave to appeal—but in criminal cases the Court of Appeal might be held to be the final court, because a certificate would have to be issued for there to be any further appeal to the House of Lords. The British courts also have a duty to refer questions governing the validity of Acts by the Commission under the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty.
  All these powers and duties are directly applicable and the jurisdiction which is conferred on English courts derives from the treaties. The process of obtaining a preliminary ruling from the European court is in the nature of a preliminary determination of a point of law. The European Court does not and cannot purport to decide particular cases; it merely gives a preliminary ruling on the general law. The national court retains unimpaired its jurisdiction to decide the case, although it must do so in the light of the ruling by the European Court on the point of law.
  Thus, the procedure will fall into the following stages. There will be a stay of proceedings in the national court when it decides to exercise its power to refer a question to the European Court. That court would then prepare a formal statement of the question of Community law for transmission to the European Court. The European Court would then be notified of what had happened and the procedure in the European Court on such a reference would be governed by the statute and rules of procedure applying to the European Court. When the matter is determined by the European Court, that court would notify the decision to the national court which has made the reference and the case would then proceed in the national court.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the delay which might arise on a

  1209
  reference. The delay would probably be about the same as now occurs in this country in civil actions between the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal—in other words, of the order of five months. This matter must be looked at in the context of the kind of issue which would have to be considered by the European Court. It would involve matters of restrictive practice, monopolies or unfair competition, and would have to be a specific matter requiring reference to the European Court.
  The procedure is set out on page 7 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment No. 3) 1972 Statutory Instrument. The first rule deals with definition. The second rule provides that an order may be made by the court of its own motion or on application by a party to the trial, and there is a provision that no order shall be made except by a judge in person. Rule 3 provides that the order
  "shall set out in a schedule the request for the preliminary ruling of the European Court, and the Court may give directions as to the manner and form in which the schedule is to be prepared".
  References will be made by the national court in much the same way as the procedure for a case stated is now presented by parties in the High Court. It is expected that the parties would draft the questions for reference, so that they could be settled by the national court.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: In dealing with Order 114 the Attorney-General also mentioned tribunals, and I wonder whether he did so inadvertently, since I notice in the rules no reference to tribunals. Do the Government have in mind any procedure for tribunals that is not embodied in these rules?
  The Attorney-General: I am sorry if I introduced the subject of tribunals. Any reference governed by these rules would be made by the High Court or Court of Appeal. In principle, there is no reason why a reference could not be made by a magistrates' court, but this is extremely improbable because of the subject matter and the issues involved. If it was the final court in civil matters it might well be the House of Lords which would make the reference, in order that it should receive the law from the European Court on that issue and on that point of law.
  1210
  Rule 4 provides for the stay of proceedings unless the court otherwise orders. Rule 5 provides the machinery of transmission to the European Court. Rule 6 provides for appeals from orders made by the High Court. It provides that an order shall not be deemed to be a final decision and that appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal without leave so that if the High Court proposed to make a reference there would be an appeal without leave against that decision to the Court of Appeal. The reference would normally be stayed until the Court of Appeal had heard the argument and made its own decision as to whether there should be a reference.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Would that apply equally to the Crown Courts dealing with criminal cases?
  The Attorney-General: There would be a stay, or there could be a stay. It is difficult to contemplate the kind of case in which a criminal court or a Crown Court with a jury would need to stay proceedings. The hon. Gentleman will see in the provisions of the rules that any such steps can be taken to provide and to give instructions on the form and manner in which the schedule is to be prepared, and that the court can on an application grant bail or do whatever is necessary pending the ruling of the European Court. It may be that a court may decide not so to do and may proceed to complete the issues which are before it and not to make the reference. The only example I can find is the Italian criminal case. I find it difficult to see how a Crown Court will ever be in a position to contemplate making a reference. Nevertheless, we have to provide the rules and the machinery in case such an unlikely situation should arise.
  Over the page there is the draft Form No. 109 which sets out the model form of order for reference to the European Court. It begins with the general indication of the Treaty provision or Community act or instrument with which the reference is concerned, and then orders the proceedings to be stayed until the European Court gives its ruling or until further ordered. The schedule indicates very generally the form in which it is envisaged that the court will couch its request to the European court—namely, a brief statement of the case from which

  1211
  the request arises, followed by the question or questions for the ruling of the European court. These should be set out as briefly and succinctly as possible.
  That is the order which establishes this machinery for the procedure to be followed when the Supreme Court makes a reference. The other two orders which are discussed with this order are the Crown Court rules and the criminal appeal rules which make provision should it ever arise that there needs to be a reference. Nevertheless, the House must bear in mind the nature and area of the law which would be under consideration when there is the necessity to make a reference. It is obviously a limited and a particularly specialised field. The rules of the Supreme Court have to be made to deal with that and that is what these rules do.
  6.55 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Irvine: I intervene because of the anxiety that I and many others feel that entering into the Community may involve a greater surrender than we realised. I mean the powers of Parliament but I refer also to our judiciary and our system of law. That being so, on occasions like this when rules of this kind are under discussion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find hon. Members on this side of the House often seeking assurances of one kind or another.
  The rules which we are dealing with seem to be, I must confess, open to little objection in the context to which I have referred. As I understand it—and I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will confirm this or point to any respect in which I am mistaken—the amendment to Order 71 of the Rules of the Supreme Court places the European Community judgments, so far as execution and enforcement are concerned, on the same footing as judgments obtained outside the jurisdiction under the existing law.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to certain modifications which were necessary in dealing with Community judgments. I take it that these are not modifications that in any way go to the substance of the matter and that Community judgments can be broadly dealt with as being like any other foreign
  1212
  judgment which it is sought to be enforced in this country. The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act provides that once registered, subject to certain safeguards, a foreign judgment can be treated as if it were the judgment of an English court. My understanding is that that is the machinery which is operated in the present statutory instrument.
  I turn to the matter of reference to the European Court for a preliminary ruling. The right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with this matter and it is clear that the ruling given by the European court on a reference cannot have the character of a judgment so as to be enforceable under Order 71 as amended by this instrument. He made that clear, I think, but I should be grateful for reassurance on the point. I should think that the preliminary ruling would not have the character of an enforceable judgment. Of course, the preliminary ruling on a point referred by the English court may often be conclusive on the substance of the issue of litigation. Even so, I take it that the procedure will be for the European Court, in such a case, to send back to the English court its decision on the preliminary point and, the action having been stayed in this country, the English court would then make an order and enforcement and execution would follow our own procedure thereafter. I should be grateful to know whether that is what is anticipated.
  I ask for assurances on the points that I have mentioned. Certainly the Opposition will watch the statutory instruments on these subjects with vigilant care, because the feeling is growing that in joining the EEC in the way that we have we may have given away more than we knew.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I, too, feel that we are sailing here in uncharted waters. I sympathise with the Attorney-General, who will find it very difficult to answer the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Sir A. Irvine).
  While I understand the point that the Attorney-General made that it was unlikely that a reference to the European Court would arise with any great

  1213
  frequency, I think that the House expected from the right. hon. and learned Gentleman a speech which gave clearer indications of the kind of delay which could be anticipated when a reference was made. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot cite any authorities because very few are available, but surely it was possible for his Department or that of the Lord Chancellor to make some inquiries from the European Court to elicit some information on this point—
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard me. I said that the delay was five months.
  Mr. Davis: I apologise to the Attorney-General. However, that seems to be an inordinately long period to wait for a reference from the European Court when we are told that it has so little to do in this connection. Has the right. hon. and learned Gentleman's Department made any representations to the European Court to determine why it should take this length of time? Is not it possible to expedite the proceedings?
  References are likely to arise with greater frequency in commercial cases, in cases where perhaps injunction proceedings are contemplated or are undertaken, and a delay of five months where normally speaking there would be a stay on the proceedings would be an inordinate period to wait. I do not say that that would always be a prejudicial situation, but, in a situation where one party has applied for an injunction and the other party is seeking to resist it, it is conceivable that a delay of that kind would be quite wrong.
  I appreciate that the rules say that normal proceedings will be adjourned pending the European Court's ruling. It is not a mandatory provision. Clearly for the most part courts will want to adjourn proceedings to obtain confirmation of the European Court's point of view on any matter to which reference is made. I ask the Attorney-General to indicate whether it is possible to persuade those administering the European Court to cut down this excessive period of five months.
  There is one other matter that I wish to raise. Perhaps it was in another passage of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that I missed. If it was, I apolo-
  1214
  gise. Unfortunately, my attention was diverted for a moment. Within the compass of time of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken, is there any possibility of the period being diminished, or will this be the minimum period within which a reference can be obtained?
  Where a reference is made under the aegis, so to speak, of one of the litigants will the legal aid system extend to it? I assume that the answer is that it will, because I also assume that the reference would be part of the litigation in question. Perhaps the Attorney-General can help on that point as well.
  I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's feelings about the infrequency of references in criminal proceedings will be borne out by events. If we are to anticipate delays of five months and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong about the frequency of these references, we may have a situation where a man is held in custody, possibly pending an appeal, already for an inordinate length of time, and he will have to experience a further delay of some five months. I think that most references will be made in civil rather than in criminal litigation, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the possibility of references being required in connection with the legality of customs duties and so on. But I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to clear up these specific points. One of the difficulties which may arise is that practitioners who are asked to advise on these matters, however infrequently the situation may arise, will be asked the delay and the effect of delay of the litigation.
  7.7 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Sir A. Irvine) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis).
  The hon. Member for Hackney, Central asked about the delay. The five months is an average. In certain cases it may be much less. In a heavier case it may be longer. This is the average, and it is similar to the delay which occurs here between a case in first instance and the appellate procedure between the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
  We have a Scottish judge and an English advocate-general who have joined

  1215
  the European Court of Justice. I am sure that their skill, expertise and talent will have a great effect upon that court. Both are men of outstanding ability. I have no doubt that with their influence all these procedures will be considered, and I hope that the least delay possible will occur.
  In a criminal case resulting in an adjournment for that length of time, it is inconceivable that bail would not be granted.
  Turning to the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill, the rules of the Supreme Court put Community judgments in substantially the same position as foreign judgments under the 1933 Act. There are certain differences because a Community judgment is automatically registrable once it has the certificate of the Foreign Secretary, and enforcement can be stayed only by the European Court.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm, either now or later, that the procedure contemplated by the Supreme Court of Judicature Rules with which we are dealing applies to a decision of the Council or Commission imposing a pecuniary obligation under Article 192 of the Treaty which is enforceable as a court order?
  The Attorney-General: Yes, I can so confirm that to the hon. and learned Member.
  I can give the second assurance which the right hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill sought. As would be anticipated, as a former Law Officer he interpreted the provisions in the rules perfectly correctly. The ruling of the European Court on this particular point would be a ruling of law which would be binding on the United Kingdom court, but it would refer only to that particular point. It remains with the United Kingdom court to make a substantive decision on the whole issue.
  With those comments in respect of the questions which have been posed, I invite the House to accept this machinery proposed for the Supreme Court in these matters of judgment and reference.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: The House is indebted to the Attorney-General for
  1216
  the clarification he has given to these matters. I cannot say that all the doubts of the Opposition have been resolved, but certainly the right hon. and learned Gentleman has contributed to the resolution of some of them.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Sir A. Irvine) raised the interesting question of the likeness of these provisions to the enforcement of judgments reciprocal provisions legislation. I think it appropriate to point out, having intervened during the last contribution by the Attorney-General, that Article 192, imposing pecuniary obligations on persons, is of course quite different from the judgment of a court. In that sense we are breaking entirely new ground and using enforcement machinery normally stemming from a judicial authority of some kind for matters which are not judicial, but are administrative decisions. This is a considerable departure from the administration of justice in this country.
  There are still doubts on this side of the House and I echo the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill who said that we shall continue to watch these matters with every vigilance and care. But in the circumstances I do not recommend my hon. Friends to vote against these statutory instruments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Criminal Appeal (References to the European Court) Rules 1972(S.I., 1972, No. 1786), dated 21st November 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December.

  Ordered,
  That Mr. John Prescott be added to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. David James, Mr. Alexander Lyon, and Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson be members of the Select Committee on the Maplin Development Bill.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to scrutinise delegated legislation.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to consider:—
  (1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

  (a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

  (b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

  (c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft) where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

  (d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure.

  (2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures,
  with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

  (i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

  (ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

  (iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;

  (iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

  (v) that there appears to be have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of sec-
  1218
  tion four of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

  (vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;

  (vii) that for any special reason its form or purport call for elucidation;

  (viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

  on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.
  That Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. Edward Gardner, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. Ernle Money, Mr. Ronald King Murray, and Mr. David Waddington be members of the Committee.
  That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.
  That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Committee to be appointed by the Lords; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
  That the Committee and any Sub-Committee appointed by them shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, of the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.
  That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to report from time to time, and that any Sub-Committee appointed by them have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.
  That the Committee and any Sub-Committee appointed by them have power to require any Government department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any instrument which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such instrument.
  That the Committee and any Sub-Committee appointed by them have power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any instrument.
  That the Committee have power to report to the House from time to time any Memorandum submitted to them or other evidence taken before them or any Sub-Committee appointed by them from any Government department in explanation of any instrument.
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee appointed by them such explanations as the department think fit.
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in this House only, being—

  (a) a statutory instrument, or draft of a statutory instrument;

  (b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or a draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or

  (c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution;

  and that they have power to draw such instruments to the special attention of the House on any of the grounds on which the Joint Committee are empowered so to draw the special attention of the House; and that in considering any such instrument the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Lords.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: I wish to ask a brief question. I wrote a letter to the Table Office some time ago to ask about what appeared to me an unusual use of powers under a statutory instrument. I was told that this Committee did not exist at the time but that it was to be revived. I understand that we are reviving it in this way. What has happened to delegated instruments in the interim, for there has been a gap? This committee does extremely valuable work. It has to look at statutory instruments and to consider whether an unusual use has been made of powers. Statutory instruments are very significant. They are not major legislation, but they can affect quite important matters. It is important to know what has been happening to statutory instruments which have been passed in the interim period.
  I am one of, I believe, a small number of hon. Members who get the full list of statutory instruments every day. Normally we get about eight. Sometimes they deal with small matters, such as the amalgamation of police authorities and on other occasions they deal with the marketing of eggs, but I think we can all recall occasions when statutory instruments have been used for very important matters. I think I can recall that a statutory instrument was used to suspend the constitution of British Guyana. This shows the wide range and importance of statutory instruments. Everyone in the House concerned with the preservation of democracy wishes to make sure that statutory instruments shall not go beyond the
  1220
  powers which are actually delegated. We should not have a situation in which a statutory instrument makes an unusual use of powers.
  If I recall the situation correctly, the committee has three broad bands of interest to consider. The important one is whether a statutory instrument makes an unusual use of delegated powers. I ask two questions on this. First, how long has been the period during which this committee has not been in existence? That is a very important question. Secondly, who on behalf of the House of Commons, or who on behalf of the Government, has been reviewing these statutory instruments in the interim? In other words, what has been happening in the meantime? I think all conscientious hon. Members look at statutory instruments every day to see whether something stands out a mile as unusual. Therefore I should like to have an answer to these rather important points.
  I think the Leader of the House may recall that I sent a note to him on this important issue of the Statutory Instruments Committee. He was very courteous, as always, in his reply. I said, "Here is a statutory instrument which I believe makes an unusual use of delegated powers." He sent me a very courteous letter saying that he hoped that the Joint Committee would be set up soon. For how long have we not had a committee? Secondly, what has happened to statutory instruments which have been laid before the House in the interim? Who has been considering them, and who has been making sure that they do not make an unusual use of delegated powers? I should be grateful to have a reply to these questions.
  7.18 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) for not being present in the House at the start of this debate. I was not expecting that it would come on so early and I did not think that tonight we should need to discuss it. I can tell my hon. Friend that we had a very long discussion on this Joint Committee just before Christmas on a day which we gave up to procedural motions. The motion we are now considering arises

  1221
  out of that debate and discussion and also out of the Brooke Committee's Report.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart asked two specific questions. We have not had a Statutory Instruments Committee for the whole of this Session, since November. We have been waiting to set up this committee which we hope in time will be followed by the sister committee, the merits Committee, which will enable many more statutory instruments to be discussed in committee, not necessarily to avoid debating them on the Floor of the House but to give an additional opportunity for hon. Members to take part in those discussions.
  Statutory instruments which have been laid before the House in the period between the beginning of this Session and now have not been considered by any Committee of the House. Therefore, up to a point we have had to take the risk whether they were ultra vires or whether anything else was wrong with them.
  A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House take a great interest in these matters. I believe that had they thought that a statutory instrument was not in conformity with the rules of the House, they would have quickly pointed it out. I hope that this Committee will start its work quickly.
  In the next few days I hope to put on the Order Paper the terms for a merits Committee. This will obviously need about a fortnight before we discuss it, and I should expect there to be a discussion on it. I hope that we shall also have a merits Committee.
  The purpose of a merits Committee is not to deny opportunities for the House as a whole to debate important statutory instruments; it is to give an additional opportunity for the many statutory instruments, whether they be subject to affirmative or negative resolutions, to go to a small committee for examination. I think that in the long run this will meet the convenience of the House. I am sorry that this committee has not been set up before, but it has taken some time to arrange a debate on procedure and to get this under way. I hope that the House will agree to allow the committee to be set up.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

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

  ROLLS-ROYCE LIMITED
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. John Stonehouse: In the House over two years ago the then Minister of Aviation Supply made a statement of the utmost gravity—namely, that Rolls-Royce Ltd. was proposing to make itself bankrupt. That was because Rolls-Royce had been advised that it was unable to meet the expected liabilities under the RB211 engine contract which had been entered into with the Lockheed Corporation.
  In the statement, the Minister said:
  "As the Board of Rolls-Royce have stated, the loss of resources already committed to the project combined with the losses which will arise on termination are on such a scale that they are likely to exceed the net tangible assets of the company. In the light of this situation the board have decided that they have no alternative but to ask the trustees of the debenture holders to appoint a Receiver and Manager."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February 1971; Vol 810, c. 1922.]
  It has become quite clear since that date that the board of Rolls-Royce was ill-advised to go into bankruptcy, because it would have been possible to renegotiate the contract with the Lockheed Corporation without the extreme step of bankrupting almost the, if not the, leading engineering company in the United Kingdom.
  The effects of that bankruptcy have been felt by British exports in all corners of the globe. It is indeed regrettable that it took place. The bankruptcy undoubtedly took place because of the pressure that the Government put on Rolls-Royce and the advice that was given by the Government to the directors of Rolls-Royce at that time.
  I wish to draw two points to the attention of the House at the opening of this debate because they are relevant to the point to which I want to come. The first

  1223
  point is that the bankruptcy was brought about not by a general failure of Rolls-Royce business activities on a broad front, and not by a failure of other projects, but because—this is confirmed by what the Minister said on 4th February 1971—the expected liabilities under the RB211 contract with the Lockheed Corporation would be greater than the assets that Rolls-Royce could command.
  The second point is that the Government were undoubtedly responsible for both the advice leading to the decision of the directors to go bankrupt and the pressures that were being put on the directors at that time.
  The Rolls-Royce situation is unique. There has been no bankruptcy like it before and I hope that there will not be one like it again. Because the circumstances are entirely unique I believe it is reasonable and fair for the Opposition to raise points about the Government's responsibilities towards those who have been directly affected by this bankruptcy.
  Had it been a normal bankruptcy of a company going on the rocks because, due to inefficient organisation'and running, it was unable to meet its liabilities in ordinary terms of trade, anyone associated with it, whether workers, shareholders or suppliers of components and raw materials, must take the consequences. However, we are not talking about a bankruptcy of that character; we are talking about a bankruptcy that was brought about by the Government in their unwisdom. We are also talking about a bankruptcy brought about not by a general failure of the business but by the failure of the company to see through a particular engine contract with the Lockheed Corporation—a priced contract which it could not fulfil with its existing resources.
  In the event, that contract was renegotiated on more favourable terms to the new Rolls-Royce company. This could have been done without the bankruptcy having to take place. Certainly there was everything in the interests of the Lockheed Corporation to renegotiate the contract because the whole of the TriStar programme was dependent upon the RB211 being provided as the engine power. If that had been withdrawn it would have been difficult for the Lock-heed Corporation to have re-engined the
  1224
  aircraft and met its commitments to airline customers.
  I emphasise that I am raising the issue about the Government's responsibility because this is a unique bankruptcy brought about by the Government, and therefore they must bear the responsibility for its effects.
  Another point which I think needs reiterating is that the RB211, which was the only reason for Rolls-Royce going bankrupt at the time, was a 70 per cent. Government partnership project. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in the debate on 8th February 1971, the Labour Administration:
  "made arrangements to provide launching aid of up to £47 million. That was intended to cover 70 per cent. of the estimated cost of launching the engine, which was then put at £65 million. Later, the estimated cost was increased to £75 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February 1971; Vol. 811, c. 52.]
  So the Government were 70 per cent. partners in the RB211 project.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranky Onslow): Can the right hon. Gentleman refresh my memory on this point? When that increase occurred, did the Government correspondingly maintain its share of the venture?
  Mr. Stonehouse: The Government took steps to assist Rolls-Royce in its financial needs by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation's making funds available of £10 million, and a further £10 million was also due to be made available. The Government were quite prepared to provide extra sums to Rolls-Royce to enable it to fulfil its responsibilities. When the Rolls-Royce RB211 contract project was decided upon the principle was that the Government would have a 70 per cent. share in the project. So this is again a case of the responsibility of the Government, as a majority partner, being intertwined in this project.
  The effect of the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce, and the subsequent State ownership of the remnants of Rolls-Royce in Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, has been that the new Rolls-Royce company has gone on with practically the whole of the old business that the former Rolls-Royce company conducted. In fact, under the terms of clause 8 of the agreement made between the receiver, Rolls-Royce Limited and Rolls-Royce (1971)

  1225
  Limited, and the Minister of Aviation Supply on 17th March 1971, it is quite clear that Rolls-Royce shall not commence any new trade or business, but shall concentrate on the old business with which Rolls-Royce Limited was concerned. So the whole policy of the Government in establishing the 100 per cent. State-owned Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited was to enable Rolls-Royce to continue all its business of supplying aero-engines and spare parts and, of course, to carry on with the RB211 contract once it had been renegotiated.
  Here again we see a most unusual example of bankruptcy. Normally, when a bankruptcy takes place somebody moves in, takes over the old company, breaks it up and sells the profitable bits. Some of these bits are continued and some are not; they are spread all round the place. In this case the Government took special and immediate steps to ensure that the business of Rolls-Royce went on almost as though nothing had happened. The Royal Air Force continued to buy engine parts and other equipment which it urgently required to keep its aircraft in the air and the overseas customers continued to buy from Rolls-Royce the spare parts and other equipment which they required.
  Rolls-Royce went on with most of its research and development programme virtually as though nothing had happened. Of course, there were economy campaigns, cutting down on overheads, and the like, but to the world at large Rolls-Royce has gone on as though nothing has happened. The Government took great pains to ensure that Rolls-Royce continued in business and they assured the overseas customers that they would continue to have the sort of service that they had enjoyed before. So this is a most unusual bankruptcy.
  What has happened, however, is that the worker shareholders have lost their money, although they may get a pittance when the receiver has done his job. But, in particular, the suppliers of Rolls-Royce have lost a considerable sum of money already, and the Government have done nothing to take into account the interests of the suppliers, who probably amount to many hundreds spread up and down the land. It is their interests that I seek to raise in the House tonight, because I think that the Government have a debt of
  1226
  honour to those companies which supplied Rolls-Royce right up to 3rd February 1971 believing that the Government were behind Rolls-Royce and that therefore it would be without risk that they would be supplying Rolls-Royce with the raw materials, spare parts and components that Rolls-Royce needed to carry on its business. As the Government had been publicly announced as a 70 per cent. sharer in the RB211 engine project, and as the Government had been publicly announced to be putting £10 million of IRC money into Rolls-Royce, any supplier would have been quite within his rights in assuming that the Government were determined to see the business of Rolls-Royce through and would not renege on their responsibilities as such a strong partner in Rolls-Royce.
  That was why so many companies went on supplying Rolls-Royce to the bitter end, without question. If Rolls-Royce had been an ordinary company, in the ordinary run of business, those companies would have decided long before that supplies would have to be cut off; they would not have taken the risk of supplying a company that appeared to be going down into some sort of bankruptcy. But the Government were very closely involved, and no doubt on occasion there was a nod or a wink to those suppliers that everything would be all right, that the Government were determined to back Rolls-Royce to the hilt and certainly were going ahead with the RB211 contract. which was the best contract this country had ever negotiated. Those nods and winks went on, so that the suppliers were lulled into a sense of security and went on supplying Rolls-Royce to the bitter end.
  Mr. Onslow: May I seek clarification again? Is the right hon. Gentleman speaking of the time before or the time after the last General Election when he talks of those nods and winks, and so on? Is he speaking of the Government of which he was once a member, or of this Government?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I am speaking of both Administrations and I am certain that this Administration were also responsible for giving the impression that they would honour their responsibilities as a major project participant with Rolls-Royce. Certainly that is the impression that many suppliers had, and we have to

  1227
  bear in mind not only the legal definition of the Government's responsibility but also what hundreds of suppliers thought was the position at that time and still think is the position today.
  Mr. Philip Whitehead: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that many sub-contractors believed, on about 10th or 11th November 1970—well into the period of this Administration—that the further Government assistance given to Rolls-Royce Limited was not contingent on the accountants' report and would make the company buoyant, and that they had every confidence in continuing to supply goods to the firm.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, at various times—in particular, in November 1970, the Government gave fairly clearly assurances that they would back Rolls-Royce. The suppliers were clearly under this impression. Now, more than two years after the Government-induced collapse of Rolls-Royce Limited, these suppliers have been paid a tiny amount towards the costs that they incurred in supplying Rolls-Royce with raw materials and components until 4th February 1971.
  I am not sure of the total amount outstanding. Will the Minister say exactly what is outstanding to the suppliers who have over the years, and particularly in the last few months up to the bankruptcy, supplied Rolls-Royce? I believe that it runs to tens of millions of pounds, but no one has been able to obtain a correct estimate. The Government should give it to the House tonight.
  About 15 per cent. has been paid up. A mere 15 per cent. after two years is a miserable sum of money. It does not even cover the interest charges on the money which the suppliers have to borrow to finance the outstanding debt. The 15 per cent. has been paid out on agreed invoices only. There is a tremendous backlog of invoices which have not been checked because the liquidator and others concerned have insufficient staff. Many suppliers have received 15 per cent. on only part of the money outstanding, and this compounds the problem they have to face.
  Many large firms are concerned, but there are also many small firms which can ill-afford the sort of loss they are having to bear as a result of the Govern-
  1228
  ment's dishonesty. I say "dishonesty" advisedly and I shall refer to that later. One company—Avica—is, I believe, owed about £80,000. The chairman of the company wrote to the Financial Times about this problem on 12th April 1972—well over a year after the collapse. It is now nearly a year since he wrote to the Financial Times, and still nothing has been done to meet his problems and those of the other small suppliers who are owed sums from about £50,000 to £100,000 apiece.
  These companies need an answer from the Government. It is not sufficient for the Minister to try to shelve the responsibility. He may be preparing to tell the House that the Government are not involved in this problem and that it is all to do with the new directors of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited and the liquidator. I advise him not to say that. It would be the height of dishonesty and evasion. The buck on this issue stops on the Treasury Bench and cannot be passed to the new directors, the receiver or the liquidator. The buck stops there, because it was the Government who made Rolls-Royce bankrupt, and it was the Government who nationalised the old Rolls-Royce and appointed the new directors of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited. The Government are one of the major customers, buying, on behalf of the Royal Air Force, engines and equipment which contain components and raw materials supplied to the old Rolls-Royce company before it collapsed. The Government have a total legal and moral responsibility, and it will not be good enough for them tonight to pass on the problem to the liquidator or the new directors.
  The Government have been buying from Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited equipment which includes materials supplied before the date of the bankruptcy. It is this aspect that can rightly be described as dishonest, because the Government are getting a financial advantage from the suppliers for which they are unwilling to reimburse them. That is another reason why this Government must come clean tonight and face their responsibilities.
  Some people will use strong language about this issue. They will say that the Government have embezzled the resources of the sub-contractors who supplied goods and equipment to Rolls-Royce that have since been supplied to

  1229
  the Royal Air Force as finished equipment. I do not know what terms to apply.
  As one of the Ministers responsible for aviation questions in the Labour Administration, I have some personal responsibility for the situation that has arisen. I believe that all Governments should accept a continuing responsibility for events of this character. Had the Labour Administration continued in office we would never have allowed this situation to have arisen. We would have honoured the responsibilities of the Government to the suppliers of the old Rolls-Royce Company. I ask the Government to honour their responsibilities and not to hide behind the new directors or the liquidator. The buck stops on the Treasury Bench. I hope that there will be a message tonight from the Under-Secretary of State that the Government see their responsibilities, are prepared to honour them, and will shortly make an announcement about the special financial assistance they will ask the House to vote to enable the Rolls-Royce suppliers to receive compensation for their supplies to Rolls-Royce before the bankruptcy.
  A further reason why this action would be to the advantage of the Government is that many of these small companies are the life-blood of the country's engineering strength. They provide much of the raw materials, the components and the systems that go into the finished products which are sent overseas, in terms of high technology exports. Any support we can give these companies will assist them in re-equipping themselves to face the battles of the export drive in the coming years. If the Government, in their wisdom, can afford to provide money to Clydeside and other lame ducks, there is no reason why they should not go out of their way to vote money which is due, in all honour, to the sub-contractors. It is by no means a subsidy. It is a debt of honour to them, but it will also give them some of the support they need at this critical time to re-equip themselves and build up their strength for the future.
  Will the Under-Secretary tell us what representations he has received from industry about this whole matter, what replies he has sent and, generally, what further action he proposes to take to deal with the situation that I have explained?
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Whitehead: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) for raising this important topic. I congratulate him particularly on behalf of all my constituents upon whom the blow fell with particular severity on 4th February, two years and 10 days ago. We are discussing a debt of honour, as my right hon. Friend said. When the Under-Secretary was a back bencher he anxiously questioned the then Minister on behalf of his constituency interests about these matters. No doubt he will recollect the anxiety we all felt on behalf of the sub-contractors in particular, and all of those involved in the wholesale shakeout which followed the bankruptcy.
  I go along with my right hon. Friend in saying that hindsight strengthens the view that many of us expressed at the time that this was an exemplary bankruptcy and that it was carried out hastily and unwisely. Those of us who asked at the time what real efforts had been made to contact the chairman of Lockheeds—Mr. Haughton—between 26th January and 4th February 1971, have learned not from the Government—because this matter has never been raised or debated here, any more that the White Paper on the circumstances of the collapse has been debated—but from other sources that some efforts, too little and too late, were made to draw Lockheeds into the process of renegotiation, an action which might have averted the need for the bankruptcy.
  The undertakings which were given even before the bankruptcy, and even before the Cooper Brothers report was in the Government's hands, were sufficiently convincing to the sub-contractors in my constituency and elsewhere—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will raise this point also—to make them go on supplying the old firm of Rolls-Royce for many months, during which it was clear to many people, including some who had previously been on the board of Rolls-Royce and who had substantial shareholdings in the company, that the company was in deep trouble. Sub-contractors in my constituency continued, out of loyalty, to supply Rolls-Royce when the repayment for their supplies was reaching them first after a delay of three months,

  1231
  then after a delay of six months, then after a delay of nine months and finally, of course, not at all.
  One of the reasons for continuing to make these supplies available was that they were assured, not necessarily directly by the Government of the day but by way of an understanding from the company at that time, that after November 1971 there was outstanding a further financial guarantee to the company, that it was not contingent upon the report of the accountants, that the company was therefore solvent, that it would continue to trade, and that the debts owed to them would be honoured. We know what happened. The over-pessimistic—as it turned out—report of Cooper Brothers was taken aboard in toto by the Government of the day, and the firm went bankrupt.
  There was a severe fall-out for all of my constituents and for people in other areas who depended upon the company. The ordinary shareholders to this day have not seen a penny of their money, nor may they ever. There was a particular problem for the worker shareholders, to whom my right hon. Friend has already referred. These were the people in the work force who had accepted shares in the company up to a limit of £500 in lieu of their salary—shares which were often held as a nest egg by the families concerned, sometimes for a generation, sometimes handed down through the family. They could not be sold on the ordinary market but they could always be sold back to the company at a guaranteed value. They were a hedge against inflation and financial difficulties for the workers concerned.
  In November 1970 my constituents who were worker shareholders were told by the company that there were financial difficulties at the time and that the company could not buy back the workers' shares. They were told that the company had to "lock them in" for the time being, until things improved. Once again the worker shareholders, and sometimes their widows who still held the shares, acquiesced. That attitude came of a lifetime's loyalty to the company. They told the company that they would not make a fuss or try to take civil action against it; that they would agree and that they wished the company well.
  1232
  Their reward was the bankruputcy of 1971. From that day to this no worker shareholders have seen a penny of the money owed to them for their holdings in the old company. Nor are they likely to, judging from statements by the Under-Secretary and the Department. The money is owed to them for the shareholdings in the old company.
  We now come to the question of the sub-contractors. Wherever I go in my constituency, visiting small suppliers—engineering firms, printing houses, the man who provided the newspapers, the man with the window cleaning contract or the people who were cutting metal on a sub-contracting basis up to the time of the bankruptcy; the people who had to wait longer and longer for the cheque from the old company to arrive—I hear the same story. They are owed money and they see an increasingly dim prospect of getting more than a small proportion back. These companies are the life blood of my town and similar communities which depended upon Rolls-Royce. To leave them in this way, virtually defrauded as they have been, seems nothing short of scandalous.
  Admittedly a small amount has been paid to those sub-constractors where agreed invoices are not at issue. Suppliers who are still needed for current orders by Rolls-Royce (1971) have also been paid. But for all the other subcontractors, for all those who may have civil actions pending for breach of contract and may in that sense be in a position almost analogous to sundry creditors, for worker shareholders and shareholders alike, the gap between what is apparently on offer from Rolls-Royce (1971) and the receiver/liquidator's valuation for the assets taken over by the company—the aero engine division—is so impossibly wide that they see no hope, even now, of an agreed solution.
  After the House returned from the Christmas Recess I put to the Under-Secretary a suggestion which had been widely current in the Press, namely, that the receiver/liquidator's figure for these assets was between £165 millions and £170 millions and the figure quoted by Rolls-Royce 1971—that is, the figure now on offer to the receiver—was about £35 million. I think I am right in saying that if that were the final offer there would

  1233
  not be a penny for a single shareholder and there would be a pretty poor payment to the creditors.
  But there is a problem here. When we put the point to the Under-Secretary we are constantly told—here I paraphrase what he told me in an Oral Answer about three weeks ago—that even if the figures are correct it is particularly inappropriate for the Government to intervene, that they cannot intervene in the dispute between the receiver and the company, and that it will have to be a matter for the impartial assessor. The difficulty is that the Government, wearing a different hat, are Rolls-Royce (1971). It is a wholly-owned public company. Some people do not like to hear it said, but it is a nationalised company. Quite recently the Government were able to effect substantial changes in the executive pattern of the company. They would not have been able to do that if Rolls-Royce had been a private company. It is not good enough for the Government to say that there is nothing they can do in the dispute, because they are Rolls-Royce (1971).
  The House, which has debated far too little the tangled affairs of Rolls-Royce Ltd., both at the time of the collapse and since, has a right to hear when the Government expect the independent assessor to report. Secondly, it has a right to know the present offer by Rolls-Royce (1971). We pluck figures out of the air, or, rather, from the daily Press, and the Government say, "They may be right, but we cannot intervene. We cannot do anything." Thirdly, we want to know what can be done for those who were virtually defrauded by the undertakings of November 1971, particularly the worker shareholders in the company. I apologise if that moves the debate one centimeter further than my hon. Friend's original subject.
  It is said that a week is a long time in politics, but two years for a community which depended on the Rolls-Royce company, and still depends on it, is a very long time. It is at least two years too long. I want the Under-Secretary to tell the House tonight when he expects the negotiations to be wound up, and at least what is the present position of Rolls-Royce (1971), and not to take refuge—as he has so often—in saying that the matter is nothing to do with him and that Rolls-Royce (1971) has only the most
  1234
  tangential connection with the Government. That is simply not the case.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I had better explain my locus and credentials for taking part in the debate. They arise from three separate matters. First, in West Lothian we have the largest organisation of its kind in the Western world, the giant forge of the Cameron Iron Works at Livingston, which makes a large number and variety of parts for Rolls-Royce. My second locus is that I have at length on different occasions raised the problem of creditors and small firms, a large number of which came to their Members of Parliament to express their embarrassment over what had happened. My third locus is that on the Adjournment—oddly enough, on another occasion when the business of the House collapsed—on Tuesday 29th February 1972, I initiated a debate which Was headed in HANSARD:
  "Rolls-Royce Ltd. (RB21 1 Aero-Engine)". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February 1972; Vol. 832, c. 319.]
  Today's debate, because it has started earlier than any of us expected, has given the opportunity to do some progress-chasing in an interrogative form. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary is briefed on the first issue I want to raise. If this had been my Adjournment debate I should have given him warning. I shall understand if he is not briefed. That issue concerns the rôle of the Bank of England. In the debate on 29th February 1972 I quoted the White Paper on Rolls-Royce and the RB211, which said:
  "The accepting houses were not informed by the Bank of England that the sum of £42 million to be provided by the Government would he subject to check by the independent accountants, because this check was essentially a matter of determining the exact sum to be paid by the Government to Rolls-Royce, and the Bank of England took the view that it was not a matter of such significance as to require them to draw it specifically to the attention of the accepting houses."
  I then said:
  "The question that arises is as to the whole rôle of the Bank of England in these difficult events.
  I should like to ask how the Government saw the rôle of the Bank and how they see this retie being any different for the Bank the next time. This might require some consultation with the Treasury, and perhaps inquiries can

  1235
  be made …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February 1972; Vol. 832, c. 325–326.]
  When he wound up the debate, the then Minister for Aerospace, the right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South (Sir F. Corfield) did not go into that rather important question. I do not blame him too much, because it was put at short notice. I would just put it gently to the Under-Secretary that while we all hope that there will not be a next time, certainly not in relation to Rolls-Royce, we must be wise, because we have been warned. What have the Government learnt about the role of the central bank and the joint stock banks in a matter of this nature? That is my first question. It is one that I believe to be worth asking, and I am glad to have the opportunity to ask it.
  The second issue concerns the speech of the then Minister on 29th February 1972. He said:
  "The procurement executive of the Ministry of Defence has been in very close touch on the technical side with the relevant executives in Rolls-Royce to try mutually to work out a much better system of technical reporting and technical cross-communication between the Government and the company. Equally, on the D.T.I. side, where we are more responsible for the management side, we have been doing the same exercise with regard to financial reporting. We have come a long way in agreeing with Rolls-Royce on the type of financial information we shall require, the frequency with which it is provided and, to a degree, the means by which it is compiled, because obviously accuracy and topicality are affected by that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February 1972; Vol. 832, c. 345–346.]
  I agree with the former Minister, as we all would, but it is worth asking, 12 months. later, "What has been learnt?" What would be different next time, even though a company other than Rolls-Royce was affected? I do not think that the matter was covered in the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) initiated.
  On patents, the then Minister said:
  "Here again there is no confusion in the law. The situation in regard to patents arises because of some rather curious provisions in the patent law of overseas countries over which we have no control. For this reason the Government acquired the patents. At the time it was thought that Her Majesty's Government should acquire the patents, the arrangement with the receiver was that, although there was no attempt to put an individual valuation on this large number of patents, it was recognised that in toto they
  1236
  would not come to anything like the £20 million. That £20 million covered the patents and the remainder of the advance purchase. I think the hon. Member for West Lothian is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February 1972; Vol. 832, c. 351.]
  I believe that on subsequent reflection few people would now say that asking questions about the issue of patents and patent law was either esoteric or making a mountain out of a molehill; because the truth is that the whole question of patent law becomes more urgent every day. Therefore, I should have thought it legitimate, granted the topic of my right hon. Friend's debate, to ask what has changed since that night when the Opposition successfully summoned the then Solicitor-General to come to explain to the House the intricacies of patent law. It seems to me that this is an important issue and it would be an opportunity for the Under-Secretary to report on the matter.
  The final issue I wish to raise, apart from the needs of my constituents and some other small firms who, in effect, acted as Rolls-Royce's bankers, is that of the Government's view of their philosophy in interference in the management of Rolls-Royce. I do not ask the question in a carping spirit although at Question Time the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the present Minister for Aerospace and Shipping have had some sharp exchanges with me with some mutual ill-temper of a kind in which I do not normally indulge. However, I believe that the question how the Government see their relationship with a company in the state in which Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. now finds itself is serious.
  The issue to which I refer was the leaving from Rolls-Royce of Mr. Ian Morrow and the way he was replaced—and supposedly the Government had a hand in it—by Norman Wilkinson and his colleagues who now run the firm. I do not want to stir up a whole lot of difficulties about the past. The question I am asking is not about the past. It is about the future and concerns the relationship and the philosophy of the relationship that any Government—or shall we limit it to this Government?—would have with a firm in the position of RollsRoyce—because the truth is that the whole difficult matter of the replacement of the senior management of Rolls-Royce

  1237
  left a bad taste, whether we like it or not, in quite a number of mouths. That is a fact which is indisputable.
  The question which is worth asking is this: in future, what would be different and how does the Ministry of Aerospace and that sector of the Department of Trade and Industry see their rôle in the choice of senior management? After all, it is on the decisions of senior management, a problem properly raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, that a company depends. Gently, therefore, and in no carping spirit I ask this serious and interesting question: how does the Under-Secretary see the role of himself and his colleague, the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping in —I will not say meddling but certainly interfering with the senior management of a very famous company? I speak as one who was and am still a friend of Sir Denning Pearson, a person who thought Rolls-Royce was very hardly treated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, by many people who were for ever singing the song of technical innovation.
  There are far too many politicians and newspaper columnists and others who berate this country for not taking advantage of some technological development, be it the jet engine or any other of the myriad discoveries made in Britain, and who then turn round when we do make considerable progress—in this case with the RB-211 engine, with all its intricate features—and say, "We should not have taken this risk. It was not properly thought out." This is a case of having one's cake and eating it. It is not a very attractive attitude in either politicians or journalists. To this extent I thought that Rolls-Royce were very roughly treated. I understand that the purpose of this debate is to look to the future and therefore I ask what would be the difference in the light of what was said on 29th February 1972 and in the light of subsequent debate?
  8.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): This debate has covered slightly more ground than some of us might have expected and has taken place at a more congenial time. Neverthless, even though there is an hour or more at my disposal I hope the House will forgive me if I do not attempt
  1238
  exhaustively to answer every point that has been raised, though I recognise that there is an obligation on those who stand at this Box to provide answers in due course if they cannot do so instantly.
  I respond first to the question of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), and in the same spirit. He was kind in his references to our past disagreements. I have no intention of provoking him or allowing myself to be provoked this evening, and I hope we can maintain this new-found amity on future occasions. I believe he will find a substantial answer to some of the questions he posed in the Government's observations on the Sixth Report of the Expenditure Committee under the heading "Public Money in the Private Sector" and in particular on page 3 and onwards in that document, if he studies it, where the Government reply to the four lessons which the Committee saw as being there to be learned from this series of episodes of the involvement of public funds in the private domain. If having read those he still remains in uncertainty or doubt I hope he will let me know. I will then do my best to give him an answer which will clarify the situation.
  I understand that even lawyers find it difficult to be absolutely sure on the law of patent, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think me cowardly if I refuse to venture into this treacherous area. I again undertake that he shall have an answer on that. Finally, on the question of the role of the Department in the appointment of management of the company I suppose it would be trite if I were to tell the hon. Gentleman that our efforts are directed to making sure that the best men are in the job at any given time; and I suppose it would also be trite if I were to suggest to him that from time to time circumstances and needs change. Although those are fairly rough and ready rules I hope he will take it that those are the ones by which Ministers seek to be guided.
  At the same time I have to tell the hon. Gentleman—and this may be an echo of past disagreements between us—that it would be extraordinarily difficult for any Government to put themselves in the position of committing themselves to make public the advice they received on any given appointment, and particularly to

  1239
  undertake to reveal the reasons why any person who may or may not have been considered for a particular appointment was or was not appointed. I hope he will understand that there is here an area which has to remain within a screen of confidentiality against which Ministers come to this Box and answer as best they can.
  I share the hon. Member's desire that we should not go back to acrimony on this occasion. I believe that Rolls-Royce has effective management and good prospects, and I do not wish anything to be said across the Floor of the House which is likely in any way to prejudice those prospects or to make anyone who deals with the firm or works for it feel otherwise than that he is engaged in a first-class enterprise which is a credit to this country. That is a fact. I am certain that we can all agree on that.
  I have to tell the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) that one of my first duties in this post, exactly a week after I was invited to fill it, was to answer an Adjournment debate initiated by his colleague the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) on the subject of workers' shares. It would be wrong of me to hold out hope to him now that I can say anything very different from what I said then. I recognise and have great sympathy with the plight of those whose savings were lost.
  I know that when this branch of the law is looked at, the opportunity must be taken to make sure that the flaw in the Rolls-Royce workers' share scheme which enabled the "locking-in" situation to develop is never repeated in any future employees' shareholding scheme because it is not adequately appreciated that circumstances can arise such as those which arose in Rolls-Royce. It is, alas, a fact that we have to accept, for shareholders as well as creditors, that a course of events has unfolded which leaves us with no alternative but to act as we have done. I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member framed his remarks.
  The hon. Member also raised the question of the contract with Lockheed, saying that it could have been negotiated more quickly. He will know how long it took to re-negotiate that contract, even with one of the major areas of uncer-
  1240
  tainty—the financial instability of RollsRoyce—established, so that it did not have an unsettling influence on the renegotiation. If he thinks it would have been easy to carry out those intricate discussions and negotiations with the status of Rolls-Royce undetermined I find it difficult to agree.
  Although the hon. Member claims this now—and I do not dispute his title to do so—with more conviction than he expressed at the time, with hindsight, as he admits, as events have passed what strikes me most forcibly is how little we knew for certain at the time, and how little was available in the form of firm information on which to take decisions. We had no idea of the situation which was developing and which would have such enormous implications. Having taken some interest in this at the time, from a position of no responsibility but one of close interest, I know that there was the eternal frustration of not knowing for certain what could be relied upon. It was this which made the problem so difficult—the most difficult which has ever fallen to be handled by the leaders of business and industry.
  Mr. Dalyell: The question we have to ask is: what will be different about the next time? Will it be any easier the next time there is such a calamity? Something ought to be done about this. If the roof is leaking before the storm we should not wait until the storm to do something about it and then wring our hands in agony and say, "We ought to have done this while the weather was relatively calm".
  Mr. Onslow: I hope that the forebodings of the hon. Gentleman can be established as unnecessary. I hope that we will not be starting from the same place again. We must look at the lessons to be learned from this case. The first lesson is that before a Government provide selective assistance on a large scale they must satisfy themselves that the company has the financial, technical and managerial resources to complete the contract. If that step had been taken—if the contract had been examined more closely, if the management of the company had been of a different calibre, if other things had not been as they were—it is possible that we would not have got into the situation that came to pass with the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce.
  Mr. Dalyell: If that were the scenario, some of us—and I would be one of them —would be wringing our hands at the lack of initiative and foresight we showed through not getting into the American market at the time. This has to be looked at not just from the point of view of Rolls-Royce. It is easy for us—and I am as bad as anyone here—to say, "This is what we ought to have done." But when Sir Denning Pearson and his colleagues won that contract in New York there was no Member of this House who was not in favour of it.
  Mr. Onslow: I always hesitate to quote myself, unlike Mr. John Smith, who until recently represented the Cities of London and Westminster in this House. I doubt whether quotations from one's speeches add spice to our conversations. I certainly would not make that claim in my case. However, having had occasion to read the report of the parliamentary exchanges when the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) made his first announcement about the contract, I have been somewhat comforted to find that among the questions he was asked was one from myself. I said:
  "While the whole House will welcome the order for the RB.211, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that sufficient financial and physical resources will be available to Rolls-Royce to enable the RB.207 to be developed in time for the airbus to meet the specifications which he has set?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April 1968; Vol. 762, c. 47.]
  Mr. Dalyell: A verys good question.
  Mr. Onslow: I will not quote the answer. The hon. Member can look it up for himself. It was not borne out by events.
  I come to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house). If he will forgive me for saying so, he made rather an odd speech. It is nearly two years and two days since his speech in the debate on 11th February 1971 on the Rolls-Royce Bill. He repeated tonight some of the things he said on that occasion, although perhaps he said them then with still more passion and vigour.
  He brought little new evidence to his cause this evening. He made an allegation about the Government having applied extreme pressure to force bank-
  1242
  ruptcy on the old Rolls-Royce company. I did not hear much evidence adduced for this. If he has some no doubt he will not hesitate to give it to us. In the whole of his speech I did not hear a single reference to the White Paper published just over a year ago, which he must have read. If the hon. Member did read it I fear that he may have forgotten some of it, because he will find set out there a clear and succinct account of some of the matters which seem to worry him. I direct his attention in particular to paragraphs 18 onwards of that White Paper, and suggest that he looks at what is written there. I remind him, as the hon. Member for Derby, North said, that this White Paper has not been debated by the House. As far as I know there has been no particular pressure from the Opposition for it to be debated. This suggests that it is taken to be not a tendentious or misleading account but basically an accurate and complete one.
  Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) requested an Adjournment debate on the White Paper a year ago. He received, I believe, a non-committal reply from the then Minister, and no debate has ever taken place.
  Mr. Onslow: I do not know how hard the hon. Member has pressed it since that time. I confess that I had no opportunity to read the speech of the hon. Member in that debate, not having had cause to do so at the time, and he, to my knowledge, not having pressed any of the matters he raised then in correspondence with me since I undertook responsibility for these matters.
  I hope I may say, therefore, without offence that there has not been any very great pressure or evident surge of interest in this subject. It come up occasionally in debates of this kind, but I believe I am right in saying that the White Paper has been accepted by the whole House without debate, and we are entitled to draw conclusions from that fact.
  Mr. Dalyell: I decided to let parliamentary sleeping dogs lie. It is true that I have not pressed the matter. I thought it was an opportunity to raise three seemingly sensible and appropriate subjects. This, by chance, was the opportunity to do so. I should not have pressed for an Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his explanation. I drew him into the argument because his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North seemed to be relying on him, mistakenly so, in my view.
  Mr. Stonehouse: The Minister is perilously near to treating the House of Commons to a brush-off. When he asks why these points have not been raised, he must bear in mind that everybody in the House of Commons expects the Government to do their job.
  There have been discussions between the Government and industry and representations have been made on behalf of all these firms. It is not in the interests of a satisfactory outcome for Members of Parliament on this side of the House apparently to be trying constantly to raise party political points. That is not our intention.
  It ill becomes the Minister, in replying to the debate, to try to make out that we have not been interested simply because these points have not been raised. We have been intensely interested, but during the past two years we have been expecting the Government to do something. The fact that the Government have not is the reason for the Adjournment debate tonight.
  Mr. Onslow: I wonder what the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman would have been had our roles been reversed. I wonder whether he would have taken sustained silence as evidence of continuing interest or as evidence of disinterest. I have a feeling that his inclination might have been to come to the latter judgment. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman would have been busy enough dealing with other matters pressed on him by those lion. Members who take the trouble to press them. I do not think that the right hon. Member is fair in suggesting either that I seek to brush the motion off or that there is anything in the way in which he himself has pursued his points over the last two years and two days which would lead me to concede him the point that he has shown a continuous and burning interest. Nevertheless, he has raised it tonight and I wish to reply to him tonight.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke, both in the motion and in his speech, of an
  1244
  expectation on the part of the Rolls-Royce suppliers of continued Government support for aero-engine projects. He implied that this involved the Government in a responsibility to provide compensation to the suppliers. In fact, he went rather further than that—as, indeed, he has done on other occasions. If that was his suggestion, I cannot accept that anything has occurred since the last General Election which fits his description of "nods and winks" on the part of the Government. I cannot answer for the old company; I cannot answer for what happened before the last election; but if the right hon. Gentleman is telling us now that some undertakings, explicit or implicit, were given, he may agree that they might well have been declared to the House.
  I must also tell the right hon. Gentleman that his assertions in that area do not necessarily correspond with other statements that have been made on the same subject. He may understand that when he first made these assertions, two years and two days ago, they attracted some attention. I can tell him that I, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee—as did other hon. Members as members of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee—went to some pains to press the point when witnesses gave evidence to the committee. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, and if necessary I can give him the column references for the evidence, that we had a categorical assurance that there was no such implicit or explicit total commitment to the project as I understand him to suggest. On that point at least he and I must disagree.
  It is true that the Government have a close relationship with firms in the aircraft industry. They are the main customer on the military side and also provide launching aid for civil projects. None of this alters the basic position of the aircraft companies as commercial concerns whose boards are responsible for the way a company is run, the busines it undertakes and the success it achieves. This is true of launching aid. The principle is that the Government's contribution is fixed in advance and calculated as a given percentage of estimated costs. Once the sum is calculated, it is fixed and there is no reason why anyone should believe that,

  1245
  because the Government are giving a fixed sum they will, if occasion arises, provide any money over and above that.
  In this connection the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) answered fairly specifically a Question on 22nd October 1969. Mr. Roebuck asked him
  "…whether he will make a statement about the assistance his Department gave to Rolls-Royce Limited in securing a contract for the RB211 engine from the United States of America."
  The right hon. Gentleman replied,
  "As a supplement to the statement I made in the House on 1st April, 1968, I can add that the launching aid granted for this very promising project is subject to a maximum of just over £47 million"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October 1969; Vol. 788, c. 279.]
  I do not believe that that answer can be described in the terms and conditions in which the right hon. Member for Wednesbury now describes it. We are dealing with commercial concerns and with contracts made by the Government with such concerns. It would be wrong and foolish for anyone to suppose that such contracts secure for a company a cloak of immortality making it immune from the realities of the commercial world.
  Whatever the Labour Government thought of the achievement by Rolls-Royce in landing the RB211 contract, their commitment was to provide up to £47 million launching aid. The fact that they regarded this sum as the maximum was demonstrated by their action when the costs rose. They did not increase their commitment. The present Government did not enter any open-ended commitment to the company to see the project through at whatever cost.
  Mr. Stonehouse: The weakness of the hon. Gentleman's case at this stage is that the Government are providing on-going support for the RB211.
  Mr. Onslow: I shall come to that. When I do, the right hon. Gentleman will not find it a weakness. I was reminding the House that we did not enter into an open-ended commitment. We offered up to £42 million extra launching aid for the engine, with the company obtaining extra loans from its own bankers. The company's own commitments were linked with
  1246
  the recovery of the money and depended also on the levy on sales. The White Paper sets out the story in full. The Government decided that they could not commit any further public funds to support the company, either generally or specifically for the engine, particularly in the light of the absence of any reliable estimates of the liabilities they would then be carrying.
  So, as the White Paper relates, the company appointed a receiver and he disclaimed the RB211 contract as an onerous one. Since the company was no longer to undertake the project, there was no question of Government liability to provide launching aid for it. During the critical time up to the time that the renegotiation of the project was completed, work on the engine continued only because of indemnity from the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman complains of the way in which contractors have been treated by the Government, it is less than fair of him to forget that had it not been for the Government's action in taking on the contract, making it possible for it to continue and establishing the new company to manage the enterprise of this engine and other projects so essential to our defence interests, very large numbers of jobs would have been lost together with a very large amount of money.
  It may help hon. Members if I try to answer one or two of the questions that were put about the present position of the creditors.
  Mr. Dalyell: One point is that a number of creditors held the view that Rolls-Royce was backed by the Government, and it is a nub point for the future that never again must there be a degree of ambiguity. There was a vague idea of what obligations the Government had. and what obligations they did not have. Therefore, the Government of either party have to learn that the dangers of ambiguity in a situation like that can be terrific.
  Mr. Onslow: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reads the Government's observations to which I have drawn attention he will see that we have learned that lesson. I am not so sure, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that he agrees that there was no ambiguity, but he and

  1247
  I would both agree that ambiguity in circumstances of this kind is wholly undesirable and unfair, and we see the consequences of this situation as something that should be avoided in future. This is similar, though on a smaller scale, to the consequences of the Beagle situation. I am certain that the relationship must be made so clear that the prudent industrialist cannot unwittingly blunder into a situation in which he finds that he has put himself at risk.
  It would be too much to try to protect the foolish industrialist from the consequences of his own follies, but I go as far as to say that a prudent business man should not be put in an intolerably ambiguous situation, though I qualify that by saying that I know of my own knowledge of people active in this area who did not take on business that was offered to them by the Rolls-Royce company for reasons which seemed good to them then and on which, perhaps, they had cause to congratulate themselves afterwards.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman making clear in this debate that the Government take no responsibility whatsoever for the debts of Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., although it is a wholly-owned company? Is that the message that is going out tonight to the suppliers?
  Mr. Onslow: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to convey that message. I should have thought that it was clear that the Government take responsibility for Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. in the event—which and I could scarcely conceive of—of a liquidation arising again.
  Mr. Stonehouse: We are talking about ambiguity. We have therefore to be careful that there is no ambiguity tonight. Are the Government responsible for the debts of Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., or are they not? There can be no ambiguity about that. There must be a clear answer.
  Mr. Onslow: The answer is not "Yes" or "No". The answer is that the responsibility for the conduct of the company and the management of its affairs rests with the men who run it. The Government are not the board of manage-
  1248
  ment. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. Should it come to the necessity of the company ceasing to trade in a liquidation situation, as it is a wholly-owned Government company the situation would be—and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with this—the same as that which occurred when the Beagle company went into liquidation. I am not seeking to draw any distinction between the two circumstances, except to say that Rolls-Royce is so managed and so much better set upon a business activity that there is no likelihood that it will go into liquidation.
  The Government are very much aware of the continuing hardship, and in some cases suffering, caused by the collapse of Rolls-Royce. The debate this evening has focused to some extent on the subcontractors and suppliers of the company. There is nothing new that I can usefully add about the shareholders, particularly the worker-shareholders, though I assure the House that it would give me great pleasure if I were able to find some way out of the situation to benefit them.
  To put the matter in perspective, perhaps I can give some figures about the number of creditors. The latest count puts the trade creditors, excluding financial institutions, as claimants for some £75 million. We believe that this is made up of 7,500 claims, though it does not necessarily follow that the receiver would accept that all those claims are established as amounts agreed to be due. I am afraid I cannot say how many of the 7,500 claims from these trade creditors come from sub-contractors and how many from people such as caterers, window cleaners, travel agents and so on. Our estimate is that Rolls-Royce had about 1,000 sub-contractors when the company collapsed.
  Mr. Whitehead: Since the hon. Gentleman has now told the House the amount of the claims outstanding at the moment against the old Rolls-Royce company, could he answer a question which I asked him earlier and which he has overlooked, namely, what is the present offer by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. to the liquidator for the assets?
  Mr. Onslow: I shall come to that point. The situation in which the subcontractors and others find themselves

  1249
  was the subject of passionate comment in the debate which took place over two years ago when I myself, since there were firms in my constituency which were affected, commented sharply on the situation. It is worth noting that although there were dire predictions at the time, it does not seem as though the consequences for any significant number of sub-contractors were so serious as to force them into liquidation. I do not try to belittle their loss, but I am attempting to put the matter into perspective.
  So far as I am aware, only a small number of the sub-contracting firms to Rolls-Royce have gone into liquidation since the old Rolls-Royce company itself went into liquidation. I have heard it said that the number is no more than might be expected in any other sphere of business activity. Some encouragement is to be derived from that, although I do not seek to exaggerate the situation.
  When the Government faced this situation and when all the factors had been assessed, the decision was taken that it would not be a responsible use of public funds to assume a very large unquantified commitment either by supporting the company with funds or by taking it over. Instead, the Government acted promptly to set up Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited to buy the aero-engine assets, and with the new company re-negotiated the RB211 contract. Both those policies provided an on-going source of business for the suppliers and sub-contractors of Rolls-Royce and also provided security for the tens of thousands of jobs involved, in Rolls-Royce and elsewhere.
  At the same time the success of the new company in establishing itself was in large measure due to the co-operation and effort of those who had suffered in the collapse. It is right that tribute should be paid to them, and I gladly do so. But it would be fair for the House to recognise that the Government played some part in making it possible for the project to survive.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically that there has been some comment—although without some research I cannot tell him precisely what representations I have received on the subject —about the components and materials, sometimes of substantial value, which were supplied to the old company, passed on to Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited and
  1250
  incorporated into the engines sold by it or used to manufacture components of engines sold by it.
  It has been suggested that the new company should pay the suppliers direct for those components. I think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman suggested. I hope that I can persuade him that that course would not be the right one. The components were supplied by the sub-contractors to the old company. Unless I am much mistaken, the nature of the relationship between the two would be such that title would pass upon delivery. They became the property of the old company although the old company had not paid for them.
  When the receiver took over the enterprise he sold the components and materials to Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited as part of the aero-engine assets of the old company. The new company is to pay the receiver a fair price for these assets. As the suppliers have sold the goods to the old company, like all other unsecured creditors they must look to the joint liquidators for satisfaction of their claim. The new company is paying for the goods in question but it is paying, as is necessary in liquidation situations, the receiver and his fellow liquidators. It cannot pay unsecured creditors of the old company direct. That is the position de facto. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there is some comfort to be drawn from the fact that the sub-contractors have gone on doing business in the same area, making the same machinery and the same components and supplying them to the receiver in the first case and then to the new company.
  It is not for me to say what terms and conditions they may have renegotiated. However, it is not wholly out of the question that in the process of renegotiation they have been able to obtain some compensation which will, if not immediately, recoup their loss and at least reimburse them for the onus of the additional interest which they have had to pay on loans required to meet the debt situation into which the old company placed them.
  There is no sense in not being matter of fact about this. It is what happens when companies go into liquidation. The only unique feature of the bankruptcy of the Rolls-Royce company was its size. Were it not for that, and, perhaps, its

  1251
  name, there would be less comment on what has occurred. It is possible for any company, whatever its size, to go into bankruptcy in the same way as the old Rolls-Royce company.
  Mr. Dalyell: One question which will be asked by the American owners of one of the large suppliers is, "This is what the Under-Secretary says, but what are the British going to do about altering their bankruptcy laws?" I do not expect an answer on the alteration of the bankruptcy laws from the hon. Gentleman tonight, but I should like some assurance that the Government are looking at what lessons can be learnt from Rolls-Royce. Next time we shall not be forgiven, least of all by the multinational companies whose employment we welcome in this country.
  Mr. Onslow: I keep trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman that we have learnt lessons. Perhaps, because I am going on at such length, he is forgetting that. I have no wish to detain the House unnecessarily. I take his point. I have not found that the consequences have been so damaging and there is respect in many parts of the world for the way in which we have reacted and the way in which the phoenix has risen from the ashes.
  I turn to the delay in paying the creditors. It is a matter of regret that the price for the aero-engine assets has not yet been settled. I believe that all the parties share that regret. It is not in anyone's interest to have this major uncertainty remaining. However, large questions of judgment must be involved in a situation of that size and complexity. It would be wrong for me to attempt to influence the joint liquidators to accept a lower figure than they think is justified.
  The Government did not wish to put pressure on Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited to go beyond what it believes to be a proper price. In the circumstances the only solution was to use the procedure freely agreed by both parties in advance for reference to an independent expert whose decision is binding. It is important to stress that. The nature of the decision is binding and there is no appeal from it. In doing this, the parties followed the provisions of the Heads of Agreement signed by the receiver and the
  1252
  old company in 1971. It is the receiver and his fellow joint liquidators to whom the creditors should look.
  I cannot avoid saying that the consequences of the commercial failure of the old company are the responsibility of the board of that company—
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great resentment in the industry, which feels that the Government are shaking off their responsibility behind this so-called expert against whose decisions there will be no appeal? There is the impression in the industry that the Government are not facing up to their real responsibilities. Will the Minister reconsider this decision to pass all the responsibility to this so-called expert?
  Mr. Onslow: No. I cannot reconsider that decision any more than I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what the figures are. It would be wrong of me to do so. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for Derby, North put his finger on what is the essential ingredient. The Government have an additional responsibility to pay, with the taxpayers' money, whatever may be the price for the assets agreed as fair by the independent assessor—
  Mr. Whitehead: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that if the gap is as wide as the figures which I quoted indicate, there is great cause for concern on the part of the creditors, who see the gap as one which, with the best will in the world, the independent assessor is unlikely to be able to bridge to their satisfaction.
  Mr. Onslow: I do not think that they are entitled to reach that conclusion. Equally, they would be entitled to be annoyed if it were suggested, or if it were a fact, that the Government had intervened to pick a figure out of the air and to say, "That is what we think is fair. Forget about the independent assessor. We shall cut through this and give you £X million." Even the creditors would not accept that as a fair figure. What is more the taxpayers would not regard the Government as having defended their interests. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Derby, North would seriously advocate that course if he had responsibility in these matters.

  1253
  I have spoken for longer than I intended. Even so I dare say that I have not wholly convinced the right hon. Member for Wednesbury that my arguments are unanswerable. In the situation in which we find ourselves, not as a result of any choice of our own but as a consequence of events which antedate substantially the last General Election, there has been no alternative but to go on as we have.
  1254
  I end on this note. I am sure that there is no desire on the part of any of those concerned in the settlement that it should be protracted longer than necessary. I hope and believe that we shall see matters move forward. I am sure that the parties themselves are well aware of the need to settle them and will press as hard as they can to a settlement.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Nine o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals
  School Meals
  EEC Organisations (British Employees' Children)
  EEC Organisations (British Employees' Children)
  Streaming
  Streaming
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Sex Education
  Sex Education
  Failsworth, Lancashire (Youth Club Facilities)
  Failsworth, Lancashire (Youth Club Facilities)
  Universities (Development)
  Universities (Development)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Vivisection
  Vivisection
  Language Schools
  Language Schools
  Maintenance Allowances
  Maintenance Allowances
  Higher Education (Pay)
  Higher Education (Pay)
  Secondary Education (Reorganisation)
  Secondary Education (Reorganisation)
  Schools (Fire Risk)
  Schools (Fire Risk)
EMPLOYMENT
  Counter-inflation Agencies
  Counter-inflation Agencies
  Youth Employment Service
  Youth Employment Service
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Industrial Workers (London)
  Industrial Workers (London)
  Birchenwood Gas and Coke Company
  Birchenwood Gas and Coke Company
  Pay (Notification of Proposed Increases)
  Pay (Notification of Proposed Increases)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Celia Ellen Rook
  Celia Ellen Rook
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Doctors (Special Risk Compensation)
  Doctors (Special Risk Compensation)
  Insurance Contributions (Mature Students)
  Insurance Contributions (Mature Students)
  Stockport Infirmary
  Stockport Infirmary
  Departmental Computer Centre (Livingston)
  Departmental Computer Centre (Livingston)
  Mental Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Mental Hospitals (Expenditure)
  Suicide
  Suicide
  Welfare Milk
  Welfare Milk
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  National Health Service Charges (Exemptions)
  National Health Service Charges (Exemptions)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Geriatric Day Centres
  Geriatric Day Centres
  Medical Profession (Inquiry)
  Medical Profession (Inquiry)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Child Allowance
  Child Allowance
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Married Persons (Income Separation)
  Married Persons (Income Separation)
  Personal Reliefs (Irish Residents)
  Personal Reliefs (Irish Residents)
  Low-paid Workers
  Low-paid Workers
  Thurrock Companies (Rateable Values)
  Thurrock Companies (Rateable Values)
  BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURES
  BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURES
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT (APPEALS)
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT (APPEALS)
  COURTS (BUILDING PROGRAMME)
  COURTS (BUILDING PROGRAMME)
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
HOME DEPARTMENT
  London Traffic
  London Traffic
  Democracy
  Democracy
  Fines
  Fines
  Immigrants (Importation of Capital)
  Immigrants (Importation of Capital)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Countryside Appeals (Mr. Robert Westly)
  Countryside Appeals (Mr. Robert Westly)
  Smokeless Zones (Solid Fuel Sales)
  Smokeless Zones (Solid Fuel Sales)
  Haigh Clifton Link
  Haigh Clifton Link
  Valuers (Borner Report)
  Valuers (Borner Report)
  Housing (East Suffolk)
  Housing (East Suffolk)
  A34-A6 Bypasses (Cheshire)
  A34-A6 Bypasses (Cheshire)
  Operation Eyesore
  Operation Eyesore
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Recreational Facilities (Local Authority Loans)
  Recreational Facilities (Local Authority Loans)
  Rating Revaluation
  Rating Revaluation
  Railways
  Railways
NORTHERN IRELAND
  IRA and UDA (Detentions and Charges)
  IRA and UDA (Detentions and Charges)
  INFLATION (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INFLATION (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  MINISTERS (PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS)
  MINISTERS (PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS)
  RATING
  RATING
  PENSIONERS (MEETING)
  PENSIONERS (MEETING)
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  FRANCE
  FRANCE
  PRESIDENT NIXON (TALKS)
  PRESIDENT NIXON (TALKS)
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL LIABILITY
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL LIABILITY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk
  Milk
  Grey Squirrels
  Grey Squirrels
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Middle East (Arms)
  Middle East (Arms)
  United Kingdom Citizens (Work Permits)
  United Kingdom Citizens (Work Permits)
SCOTLAND
  Hardboard Ceilings (Fire Risks)
  Hardboard Ceilings (Fire Risks)
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
  Loch Eriboll (Deep Sea Anchorage)
  Loch Eriboll (Deep Sea Anchorage)
  Rents
  Rents
  Housing (Disabled Persons)
  Housing (Disabled Persons)
  Local Government (Scotland) Bill
  Local Government (Scotland) Bill
  Secondary Schools (Names)
  Secondary Schools (Names)
  Recreational Facilities
  Recreational Facilities
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Agricultural Holdings (Tenancies)
  Agricultural Holdings (Tenancies)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Jute
  Jute
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Factories (Wales)
  Factories (Wales)
  Pre-packed Goods (Prescribed Quantities)
  Pre-packed Goods (Prescribed Quantities)
  Investment
  Investment
WALES
  Traumatic Units
  Traumatic Units
  Census
  Census

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

THE MIDDLE EAST: PEACE CONFERENCE PROPOSAL
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 now propose to the Security Council of the United Nations that a conference should be held at Geneva, representing all Governments concerned, to consider ways and means to bring peace to the Middle East.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, if at any time we thought that such a conference could assist a settlement we would not hesitate to propose it. But at present the attitude of the parties to the dispute would seem to rule this out.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she would not agree that in these last few weeks there have been very hopeful developments: King Hussein's article in The Times; his visit to Washington; the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and his colleagues, and the visit this week of the adviser of the President of Egypt. Are not all these facts which suggest that some big new initiative should be taken for peace in the Middle East?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think it is true that President Nixon said that peace in the Middle East must have a high priority. I agree that the article by King Hussein was most interesting, and I was glad to see also that he supported Security Council Resolution No. 242.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: PEERS' ALLOWANCES
2.38 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 whether the daily allowances for Members of this House when attending official meetings in Strasbourg are considered adequate, and whether account is taken of any loss sustained by inability to attend Parliamentary proceedings at Westminster.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I assume that in this Question the noble Lord is referring to the travel and subsistence allowances for Members of the European Parliament. We have little experience in regard to the level of the necessary expenses which will be incurred by the Members of this House when they are carrying out their European Parliamentary duties in Strasbourg or elsewhere. Nor do we determine the level of the allowances, for these are paid out of funds of the European Parliament itself. However, I have no doubt that the present allowance rates were determined after an assessment was made of the expenses incurred by Members of the European Parliament when attending meetings, and they are of course subject to review by that Parliament.
The expenses allowance for attending this House covers reimbursement of expenses actually incurred within a permitted daily maximum. As Members of this House will not incur such expenses at Westminster at the same time as they are attending meetings of the European Parliament or its committees, I do not think there is any question of financial loss as a result of their inability to attend Parliamentary proceedings at Westminster.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Leader of the House aware that he is indulging in a bit of sophistry, which is very unusual for him? Is he aware that in the other place those Members who are seconded to the Strasbourg Commission (or whatever it is called) are in receipt of their salaries, which were recently increased at a somewhat inflationary rate? Why should they have the

1393
privilege of receiving their salaries and receiving £22 a day allowance for going to Strasbourg, while Members of your Lordships' House are denied coming to this House and receiving, whether for expenses or for some other reason, the allowance which has been provided for? Does the noble Earl regard that as fair? Will he take note of the fact that the Prime Minister is always talking about doing everything fairly? Is not this an opportunity for putting matters right?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think it is right for me to comment on arrangements made for another place. However, I hope that the noble Lord will take my assurance that I am as zealous as my predecessors have been in seeing that Members of your Lordships' House get a fair deal wherever your Lordships' Parliamentary duties may take them.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he is not answering my question at all? Is he aware that, according to information that is conveyed to us through the medium of the Press—those organs of unimpeachable veracity which never tell anything but the truth—those who attend Strasbourg are finding it difficult to provide adequately for themselves? I recall a Member of your Lordships' House the other day sitting at a tea-table complaining about this. I offered my sympathy to him, and even went to the length of suggesting that we might form a small trade union of which I would become the secretary.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think we need to get a little experience in this matter. We have not a great deal at the moment and it would be very useful if, by one means or another, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, could join this happy band going to Strasbourg and other points East.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if a delegate to Strasbourg from your Lordships' House happened to be a provincial Member, living in the North of England or perhaps Scotland, and paying hotel bills in London, there would be no loss incurred in going to Strasbourg?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having
1394
drawn this point to my attention. I will certainly look into it.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the basic difference here is that Members of another place are in receipt of a salary, whereas Members of this House are entitled only to the reimbursement of expenses?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that of course is the position. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, earlier accused me of sophistry when I sought to explain it. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for having put this in good plain English.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, as regards the personal reference made to me by the noble Leader of the House, perhaps I might say that I should have declared an interest—I am always thinking of my future.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I say that I think that remark rejoices all Members of your Lordships' House?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, would the noble Earl the Leader of the House consider this point? I have no personal interest at all here. The daily allowance is given to noble Lords to help them to live in London. If and when they go to the European Parliament, I understand from the Leader of the House that the allowance ceases, yet the overheads with which they have had to obligate themselves in order to perform their Parliamentary duties here will undoubtedly continue. Could that point be considered in the future?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for having put that to me, and I am always happy to consider what he says. I think it is clearly a question which we should keep under review. These are very early days so far as our membership of the European Parliament is concerned. I, for my part, shall be very glad to keep the matter under review.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, does the noble Earl feel that if the allowances, or whatever they are called, are paid by the Parliament of Europe itself, rather than by the British Parliament or the British Government, they will be more adequate than the allowances which were always

1395
made to people who went to the Council of Europe from this country?
EARL JELLLICOE: My Lords, it is a fact that the allowances, especially taking into account the travel allowance, for the European Parliament are more generous than those paid to those delegates who attend the Council of Europe, the W.E.U. or indeed the Atlantic Assembly.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that because of the fact that they have to reside in London the allowances paid to provincial Members do not cover their expenses? Would the noble Earl feel able to look at that point of view, too?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that is another matter, and of course it may be covered by phase 2. However, I can assure the noble Lord that this is a matter which is never very far from my mind.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to bear in mind that the staple diet in Strasbourg is foie gran, which is rather expensive?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, My Lords—washed down by copious quantities of kirsch, too!

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: PEECHES OF DESIGNATED PEERS
2.47 p.m.
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 whether it is intended that the speeches of Members of this House at Strasbourg will be made available, and whether arrangements will be made to enable Questions to be asked in this House on such speeches and the general deliberations at Strasbourg.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, a verbatim record of the proceedings at Strasbourg of the European Parliament, containing speeches in the languages in which they were delivered (the so-called "Rainbow" version) will be available in the Printed Paper Office. The record for January is at present in the Printed Paper Office and will shortly be placed in the Library for reference.
1396
A verbatim record in English of all meetings of the European Parliament is published as an annex to the Official Journal of the European Communities. The issue containing the report of the January Session will be available to noble Lords as soon as it is received from Luxembourg.
Noble Lords who wish to ask Questions on matters arising from speeches made by Members of this House in the Assembly or from the deliberations there will be able to do so, subject to normal rules of your Lordships' House. There will no doubt also be opportunities to raise such matters in the course of general debates on Community matters.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some time ago this House approved the appointment of six of its Members? Therefore in a sense we elected them by a democratic process to go there. Is it not consistent with democratic processes that those we elect should make themselves available to be questioned about the deliberations and attitudes at Strasbourg? Would that not be democratic? May I ask what objection the noble Earl raises to it? As regards the information he conveyed to me, if I may say so with great respect, I am fully aware of the present position.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in fact we designated seven Members of your Lordships' House before December. I think the position is that the delegation and its Members are not directly and formally responsible to your Lordships' House, although, since the actual designations were made by this House, it lies within your Lordships' power to "undesignated." where in fact you have designated.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while accepting that those Members are not delegates and bound to report to your Lordships' House, would the noble Earl consider, in the light of the suggestion from my noble friend, that a suitable occasion should be provided for a debate of the Strasbourg proceedings, so that those Members of your Lordships' House who have been sent there could report on these matters? I think that such a procedure would be very informative to a number of us.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, of course I will consider that suggestion, and I am

1397
sure it is something that could easily be arranged through the usual channels. I think I will leave the matter there for the moment.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Earl accept that there is a subtle nuance which has crept in between what he has said now and what he said in replying to a debate on this matter on December 19, when he said that the Members would be accountable to this House? Just now he said that they would not be "responsible". Would he bear in mind that he said that they would be accountable, and ways and means would have to be found to bring that about?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if there is an inconsistency, I apologise to my noble friend. I said that on December 20, and I was answering in the context of designation. What I suggest to the House is that the whole question of the part we play in the European Parliament and our involvement in the modification of our procedures to accommodate this new situation are matters which we must look at as we go along. There is a great deal to he said, when we have gathered rather more experience, for debating it at the appropriate moment in the way suggested by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he does not think that a great deal of thought should be given before the House adopts the principle of questioning individual Members who have no Governmental responsibility? This could be a very slippery slope, indeed. I do not feel that the House should lightly take that route.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I think that our Companion to the Standing Orders provides (and the reference is to page 68) that Questions may be addressed not only to members of the Government but also to certain Lords as holders of official positions. It is our judgment that the members of the delegation to the European Parliament, however eminent, do not fall as such within the category of noble Lords holding official positions.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that I fundamentally disagree with the noble
1398
Lord, Lord Byers? May I ask the noble Earl for his advice? On the assumption that a Member of your Lordships' House has been delegated, seconded, or sent to Strasbourg, and he makes a speech with which I happen to disagree, may I put a Question down on the Order Paper about that speech and raise a debate as a result? Or, to put it the other way, suppose that Members of your Lordships' House do not make any speeches at all and do not uphold the dignity of the House or accept their responsibility by engaging themselves in the deliberations, can I put down a Question about that?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am advised that it would be in order for a Member of your Lordships' House to put down a Question asking whether the Government were aware of the views expressed by a particular Member of the European Parliament and what action Her Majesty's Government were proposing to take. It might be more difficult if that particular Member of the European Parliament had not opened his mouth.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, since I was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shin-well, may I tell him that I have no intention at all of answering him because I should then be in breach of the principle I am trying to uphold.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us whether the English version of the proceedings in the European Parliament is available immediately after they take place, or only after a considerable time lag? If it is the latter, how long is the time lag?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the "Rainbow" version is available in Strasbourg the day after, and then there is the question of transmission here. The English version takes a good deal longer. I think the present anticipated delay is something of the order of five to six weeks before it is available here, owing to difficulties of translation, which are being looked into.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would it not be easier for members of the Opposition to get the information they require if they sent delegates to Strasbourg?
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I just answer my noble friend and say that I think she has hit the nail on the head.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in view of the questions that have been asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, how is it that in the other place Members can put Questions on reports from the Chairman of the Church Commissioners, and also from the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee? They are not members of Her Majesty's Government.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, I suggest that that supplementary question goes a little wide of the original Question. If he were to put a Question on this subject on the Order Paper I, or another Member of this Front Bench, should be glad to answer it.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind that we are trying to build a bridge of understanding between the Strasbourg Parliament and our two Chambers here, and if we have to wait five or six weeks for a translation this does not make sense. We cannot keep in touch with what our representatives or colleagues are doing. Could my noble friend urge that it is possible in this day and age to produce translations much more speedily than that time period?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords. I agree with the general proposition put by my noble friend. I thought I had indicated in reply to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale that this was a matter which was being looked into with a degree of urgency. It is a question of staff.
LoRD IRONSIDE: My Lords, would the noble Earl say why we have to wait so long for translations of speeches which are probably made in English?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, there are, I think six official languages in the Community; therefore there is a chance that they may be made in five languages other than English.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the European Parliament already so obsolescent that it has not simultaneous translations?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that question is very wide of the mark. This is a question of printing, not of immediate, simultaneous translation.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider whether it is possible for interpreters here to translate the documents, rather than wait for them to come from Strasbourg, so that we may get these documents more quickly?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that is a possibility which can certainly be looked into. Also, since it is now three minutes to three o'clock, perhaps we may move on to the next Question.

STERILISATION AND VASECTOMY OPERATIONS
2.57 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that either under English or under Scottish law a woman must obtain her husband's permission for a sterilisation operation, but a man can have a vasectomy performed without the permission of his wife.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I am advised that there is no legal requirement either under English or Scottish law that the consent of a spouse must be obtained to the sterilisation of the partner.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask whether he would make this fact widely public, because there is certainly misunderstanding about it, particularly in Scotland.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I shall certainly be pleased to do that.

DOLLAR DEVALUATION: EFFECT ON STERLING
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice:
Whether they will make a Statement in the light of last night's announcement by the United States Treasury of the devaluation of the United States dollar.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend the Leader of the House will answer this Question at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

MEDWAY PORTS AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
QUEEN MARY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

EDUCATION (WORK EXPERIENCE) BILL [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable education authorities to arrange for children under school-leaving age to have work experience, as a part of their education. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

NATIONAL THEATRE AND MUSEUM OF LONDON BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Additional provisions relating to new authorities]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 50, line 9 leave out ("as he thinks fit") and insert ("being not less than 15 and not more than 25 of whom not less than one third shall be appointed by the local authorities within the area of each Regional Health Authority, namely the metropolitan county councils, the county councils, the metropolitan district councils, the Greater London Council, the London borough Councils and the Common Council of the City of London")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33 on the Marshalled List. There now has been time to consider more carefully the detailed reply which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made at the Committee stage to the many arguments that have been advanced for including the knowledge and experience of a reasonable number of elected local authority members in the strategic health-care planning and co-ordinating tasks of the Regional Health Authorities, and for the need, particularly in some cases, for the Regional Authorities themselves to be rather larger bodies than the normal 15 members envisaged in the White Paper. At that time I was encouraged, particularly by the noble Lord's undertakings to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, to reconsider certain aspects of the size and composition of the Regional Health Authorities in the light of our debate in

1403
Committee, to the point of withdrawing my own Amendment. I also took his point about the practical difficulties in some of the particular proposals we had made on the suggested method of joint local authority and Area Health Authority appointments and on the range of local authorities which should be involved in making them.
I must also take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for meeting us before this stage of the Bill to see whether there was any way of resolving our differences over the issues of principle as well as the practicalities involved, as was suggested in Committee particularly, I recall, by the noble Lord. Lord Vivian. However, having had that discussion, I was not really surprised to find that the Government were not themselves putting forward any Amendment to their original proposals in Schedule 1 as they seem to be absolutely, in fact almost obstinately, committed to their original concept of giving the Secretary of State complete power to select and appoint all the members of the Regional Health Authority in addition to the chairman, albeit after consultations with the interests specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill, thereby completely disregarding the arguments that have been advanced both inside and outside Parliament to the contrary.
Since we have already discussed the composition and the functions of the Regional Health Authorities at some length during the Committee stage on a range of Amendments submitted by a number of noble Lords, I will not attempt to-day at Report stage to repeat again in detail the basic objections we have to the Government's approach which were shared by other noble Lords and are already on the Record. We cannot, however, let this opportunity pass to-day without at the very least seeking to modify, if not to change, the Government's already out-of-date approach to these crucial questions which will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on the pattern and the quality of our health-care services in the future. We still find that their absolute doctrine of delegation downwards and accountability upwards has almost become the slogan, if not the symbol, of the unified Health Service which is now quoted automatically
1404
against any alternative form of reorganisation that is suggested; and their determination to separate the management of the Health Service completely from any form of public representation dominates, I would say almost to the point of obsession, the preparation and the planning of the new organisation through a rigid and a bureaucratic system of direction, control, monitoring, described in the Grey Paper from the Central Government machine downwards through a tight system of ministerial appointments to these major controlling bodies, who in their turn appoint all but four of the members of the Area Health Authorities.
In our view, it denies and precludes any element of direct or indirect democratic participation and co-operation of consumer or staff interests in the policy and decision-making process at the regional level, the area level or indeed the district level. Surely a social service such as the National Health Service must above all be adaptable and responsive to public needs and include and utilise local knowledge and experience of the direct care-giving level to the full, both in the provision of day-to-day services and at the strategic planning level where the overall decisions on objectives are taken, and where priorities, including resource allocations, are to be made. No attempt whatsoever, in our view, to devise a counter-bureaucracy to promote greater public understanding of the problem and the achievement of the National Health Service can ever be a substitute for real participation.
We are therefore seeking in this Amendment to persuade the House to provide at the least for an inclusion of not less than one-third of members of Regional Health Authorities to be appointed by the named local authorities within the areas of the regions, and also to allow for greater flexibility in the size of the 14 regions in order to reflect more fully the very real differences in the characteristics of their constituent areas and the actual number of matching local authorities which will be providing the complementary social services, including those with general planning functions. The health regions, as several noble Lords will know from the White Paper, will vary, on the one hand, from Region 14, which includes the county of Lancashire, with its population of 1,300,000 people,

1405
plus the ten metropolitan districts in Greater Manchester, comprising populations of between 200,000 and 300,000, to Region 4, which covers the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge with their much lower but far more scattered rural populations. Surely, it would be only sensible to allow for a larger membership for the former, if only to lighten the burden of members who, apart from the chairman, will be giving only voluntary and unpaid service at regional level. In our view, the local knowledge of elected local authority members, of the area they represent, of the people they represent, and of the complementary social services that they will be providing, is essential to the co-ordinated planning of integrated health-care programmes at regional level.
While the House is considering this general question of the composition of the Regional Health Authorities it might perhaps be convenient if I spoke also to Amendment No. 34, which follows this one, which is designed to include Area Health Authority members among the list of bodies to be consulted by the Secretary of State before he makes the appointment. When this question of including the knowledge and experience of Area Health Authority as well as local authority members in the deliberations of regions was raised in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, indicated that this would be achieved by arranging for the Regional Health Authority to be represented in the Area Health Authority membership of the joint local authority Area Health Authority consultative committees that are to be established under Clause 10 of this Bill.
Once again it seems that the policy of the Government is of delegation downwards, and they simply do not appear to trust those who will be in closer touch with the services at district and at area level and who surely should be allowed, if chosen by the Secretary of State, to contribute their practical knowledge of the working of the local health and community services upwards into the deliberations of the Regional Health Authority.
I cannot believe that the proposals we are making in these Amendments are either dangerous or unwise. On the contrary, we think that they could only benefit the regional planning of our health services. Nor could we accept that they
1406
would result in the Regional Health Authorities becoming a "collection of minorities", as I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, described them—indeed, as he feared—because those of us who have served on Health Service bodies and other public bodies know that this is simply not the way the system works in practice. Every new group that is committed to the management of a public service such as this in my experience quickly develops its own sense of corporate identity and its own sense of corporate loyalty, and to suggest that that can only happen if the Regional Health Authorities are composed entirely of Government appointees is, in my view, to fly in the face of all our experience.
I read with great interest yesterday in The Times the article by Professor Elliott Jaques on the planning and management of the National Health Service; but I am afraid that I cannot agree with the view he takes that to mix public representatives on accountable managerial bodies is to create confusion and irresponsibility. Nor can I believe that any noble Lord—and there are many Members of this House who have served on local authorities—would ever agree with such a conclusion. If we were to, it would be the end of democratic government as we know it in this country; and I for one, having served on a number of different kinds of local authorities and also on health and service bodies over a period of years, simply do not believe that it is impossible to provide efficient, accountable services and also encourage their development through a vigorous democracy.
Therefore I move this Amendment in the hope that it will receive wide support in the House, and that the Government will have the courage to depart from the somewhat rigid doctrine of complete separation of executive function and management function which they have adopted so far, and will agree that at least at regional level we should include the relevant local authority members, to enable them to contribute their knowledge (as I said before) both of the public they represent and of the services they provide to the strategic planning function of the region. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords I wonder whether it would be to the convenience of your Lordships and the

1407
Government if I were to speak to Amendment No. 34 so that we might then have a general debate on Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35. I am quite willing to take Amendment No. 34 separately, but it seems to me that it would be a saving of time if we could take them together; otherwise we should have to go twice over a great deal of the same ground.
I am afraid I cannot share the liking expressed by the noble Baroness for the idea that one-third of the members of a Regional Health Authority shall be appointed by somebody other than the Secretary of State. I appreciate the force of her arguments, but I can see this matter also from the point of view of the Secretary of State. These Regional Health Authorities will have immense power; they will supervise the spending of enormous quantities of public money, and it seems to me to be not unreasonable in those circumstances, as all the money will be coming from the Exchequer, that the Secretary of State himself should have the right to appoint all the members of the Regional Health Authority. I feel certain that some of these Regional Health Authorities will need to comprise more than 15 persons, and in that respect I share the view of the noble Baroness; but in the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Amory we have dealt with that point.
We are not proposing that any members of the Regional Health Authority should be appointed directly by the local authorities within the region. Our Amendment would establish three points: first, that there must be some persons on the Regional Health Authority who are local government men. We cannot accept the view that all of those who run the National Health Service at regional level should be management "kings" or "queens" and should have no special link with the people whom the hospitals and other medical services are going to serve. That is our first point.
The second point is that there should be four OT more such persons in each Regional Health Authority, and I am contemplating that it will be the Government's decision in the end to have 15 as a minimum, but in a number of cases to go above 15 in a numerical membership of the Regional Health Authority. Thirdly in our Amendment there is the point which I think was not mentioned at
1408
all in our debate on the Committee stage of the Bill, namely, that those who form the local authority tranche, so to speak, of the membership of the Regional Health Authority should be, at the time of their appointment, members of local authorities within the region. I feel quite sure that it would not be so satisfactory if the Secretary of State were to appoint people simply because they were good local government figures if in fact they were not, at any rate at the time of their appointment, serving in local government within the region.
What I think has bedevilled a great many of these debates and maybe has led to misunderstanding of the Government's purpose is the view set out in an uncompromising manner in paragraph 106 of the White Paper, which seems to cut off the members of the Regional Health Authority from any capacity or any duty to consider the interests and desires of the public in the planning which they are undertaking as a Regional Health Authority. Perhaps I may read again one or two sentences from the paragraph in that White Paper, in which the Government said
"The expression of local public opinion can be catered for in one of two ways. It can be done indirectly by including in the membership of the health authorities local people serving in a representative capacity. Or it can be done more directly, through bodies specially set up for this purpose, with direct links to the authorities. The Government prefer the second course. It allows each of the interests—management and the community —to concentrate on its own special function.…"
There it is said in the plainest terms that the desire of the Government is to have a Regional Health Authority which will consist of management characters; and they will be, as it were, checked on by the community health councils who alone are to represent the interests and desires of the public. This is what worries us exceedingly. I have great faith in the ability and imagination of Secretaries of State—especially the present one—to seek out and appoint good men to a Regional Health Authority, but our Amendment seeks to impress upon him through the force of law that there must be a direct element on the Regional Health Authority which is specially cognisant both of the local authority services and the public interest in the whole matter.

1409
I could understand the Government framing their plans as they have done if none of the services which will be taken over by the Secretary of State and the Health Authorities had ever been local services, but all the personal health services have been run exclusively by local government up to now and that is where one finds the knowledge of them. That is why it is imperative for the Government to include in the membership of the Regional Health Authority those who have experience of local government work and who can positively help the chairman of the Regional Health Authority and the Secretary of State in bringing the new system into successful existence and guiding it aright.
Probably there is not a great deal of difference between my noble friend Lord Aberdare and my noble friend Lord Amory and myself on this matter, but there has hitherto been an unwillingness to agree to any change in the Schedule, which lays down how the Secretary of State shall proceed to appoint a Regional Health Authority. I beg my noble friend Lord Aberdare to consider again whether there is not some means by which he can do something to satisfy the local authority associations—the four of them are unanimous on this point, though none has actually drafted my Amendment—and everyone concerned in local government that there is a real understanding by the Government of the points which my noble friend Lord Amory and I have been seeking to make and that there will be no possibility of the local government experience and knowledge being squeezed out or left out from these extremely important bodies, the Regional Health Authorities.
3.22 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I rise to demonstrate to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, that in spite of the strictures from them to which I was subjected on the last occasion when we debated this part of the Schedule, I remain quite unrepentant. One of the things bedevilling the whole discussion is exemplified by the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he referred to "management kings and queens." In the previous debate he spoke of the danger of the Regional Health Authorities being composed entirely of
1410
technocrats, but when one looks at the Bill as drafted it is clear from Clause 1(2)(a) that the Secretary of State will consult with county councils and local authorities in general before making these appointments, the purpose of the clause being to indicate that there will be on these bodies people with experience of local government.
In this sense I should not take objection to the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I believe I am right in saying—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that when in Committee a similar Amendment was before your Lordships the noble Lord called for the appointment of local authority people on the Regional Health Authorities. His Amendment which is before us to-day is not in the same terms, because it merely says that there should be appointed by the Secretary of State people who also hold a role in local government. This suggestion seems to me to be quite unobjectionable, even if it may be unnecessary in the light of the wording of the Schedule as drafted.
Those who support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Scrota are inclined to take the attitude that those who oppose it are being undemocratic and that the road to democracy lies in having people appointed by local authorities to these bodies which are called Authorities and which are accountable to the Secretary of State. Indeed, if they were not accountable to the Secretary of State democracy would break down, because the Secretary of State would not be able to be accountable to Parliament, and I could not think of a greater departure from democracy than that. My noble friend's proposal would not leave the ultimate decision in the hands of the local authority representatives on the Regional Authority, but it would be in breach of an important principle, which is that those who are accountable to, say, the Secretary of State must be appointed by the Secretary of State; if they are not appointed by him they are accountable to someone else or somewhere else, and one then gets a mixture on these bodies of two sorts of people.
It is suggested that this is a move away from democracy, but let us consider where we stand now. Hospital management committees now often feel that they are

1411
representative of the public at large, but they are not. They are appointed, in one way or another, by the Government—they are not elected by local authorities—and if one talks to the members of local hospital management committees one often finds that they say that as far as their representative functions on behalf of the public are concerned, they are nonexistent; they become rubber stamps and bow to medical opinion on the hospitals management committees. This Bill will take us to the establishment of an ombudsman, at any rate to begin with, and that is surely democratic. It will then take us to the establishment of the community health councils, and I am glad to see that the Minister has tabled Amendments which will mean that these councils will be composed entirely of people who are put there by local authorities and other bodies in the community and that for the first time there will be an opportunity for the public, patients, parents and everyone else to impact on the Health Service in a way that is not possible to-day.
I therefore suggest that this Bill is a move in the direction of democracy, and my personal experience of industry leads me to support it strongly. At one time in my career I was much criticised—indeed, I became quite notorious—as being the idealistic industrial democrat who would ruin the company in question because I should be letting democracy run riot. In fact, my colleagues and I in that company had clearly separated the management of the concern from the representatives of those employed in it, and by keeping them separate we had introduced a degree of participation which was acknowledged by trade unionists, shop stewards and employees to be of an unusually high order. It was based on a separation of executive management from the representation of employees. That is a principle which, with respect, some Members of your Lordships' House do not seem to understand. One looks at Europe to-day and sees the supervisory boards, partially composed of those elected by employees. I talked a year ago to the chairmen of three very large German industrial companies and I asked them, "What happens when you discuss wages and like matters on these supervisory boards? Does it not mean taking the negotiations
1412
out of the place where they usually reside and putting them into the supervisory boards?" All three replied, "We would not think of discussing issues of this kind in a supervisory board." I asked when the board would discuss such matters, and they said, "In an informal meeting when the representatives of the employees are not present."
That is the position into which one gets if one mixes these things. One plays at democracy instead of giving the public a real opportunity to impact on the Health Service. This must be done either through Parliament—in Parliament, on great issues of principle—or at a reasonably local level, which is catered for by the provisions of this Bill in the setting up of community health councils, with complaints about maladministration going through the ombudsman. With respect to my noble friend, I think she has this principle wrong. We all want the same thing—namely, an efficiently run Health Service. To get that, we must have sound managers, good technicians and people (this is where the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, comes in) with experience of local administration appointed to those bodies by the Secretary of State. Alongside that, one wants these community health councils to give an opportunity for patients and others to make their complaints. If one looks at the terms of reference of the community health councils one finds that they are very strong indeed. They give the councils great authority to investigate problems, visit hospitals and call for reports and the councils are going to have professional staff to aid them in their job. So it is on those grounds that, with respect, I believe my noble friend's Amendment is unnecessary and is a confusion of principles. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, seems to me to be entirely inoffensive and I hope that it will be considered.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has outlined so clearly the reasons for the next Amendment, which stands in his name and in my name, that I need not say anything more about it, but I should like to say that I agree with everything he said. I found myself in agreement also with nearly everything which the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, said. I am not

1413
going to rehearse our fears, which still persist, that this whole organisation may prove a very bureaucratic one, nor am I going to rehearse the reasons we gave at the Committee stage for believing that local government membership at the Regional Authority level and Area Authority level will be invaluable to those Authorities. The object of the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor is really the same, namely, to ensure, if we can, that local government participation will be real. I am not going to be tempted into a discussion in depth about democracy with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, because I want to preserve what little ammunition I have ready to try to persuade my noble friend Lord Aberdare (who shares our views to a much greater extent, I believe, than does the noble Lord, Lord Brown) to meet us as far as he can.
The other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, which I want to emphasise and with which I believe my noble friend will agree is that the local government members—and he has made clear to us that he believes that there should be some on these Regional Authorities—will be members who are currently engaged in local government and not people like myself who were once but are no longer actively engaged in local authority business and therefore not up to date. The next point we want to emphasise, and again I believe that my noble friend Lord Aberdare will agree with us, is that because of the very different sizes of these regions and their differences in complexity it is essential that the membership provisions of local government representatives should be flexible also and should be related to, among other things, the geographical features of the region. May I just mention the region in which I live, the South-West, which will consist of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Gloucester. If the participation is to be real that will clearly require more local government members than perhaps will a county which in itself is important and big, like Essex, or like several others for which I could quote a stronger case. We should like to know a little more from my noble friends, not so much about "whether", as he has told us that he believes that there must be a proper representation
1414
of local government members on the Regional Authorities, but "which" local authorities. I assume that they will be mainly the major authorities at the county level. We should like to know how they will be chosen and how he proposes that the numbers shall be related to the size and complexity of the region. We look forward with interest to his telling us to what extent he supports the principles behind these two Amendments.
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, may I on a slightly different point, return for a moment to the question of the cost of these and the other new authorities which are to be set up under the Bill? Your Lordships may remember that I raised this question on Second Reading and in Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was good enough to tell me that he would keep me informed. Many of us are anxious lest this proliferation of authorities should mean more money for administration and less money for the care of patients, for teaching and for research. I realise that it may be difficult at this stage for the Minister to give precise estimates of cost, but I am sure that the House would be glad of any further information which the Minister is able to give. For example, are we entitled to assume that as Area Health Authorities are going to do most of the executive work the staff and accommodation requirements of the new Regional Health Authorities will be less than those of the present Regional Health Boards? I hope that even now the Government will give some assurance, at least, to the House that if the new administrative set-up proves more expensive in staff, premises, and expenses generally, this will not involve a decrease in the money available for the real purposes of the Health Service.
3.36 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this Amendment which was moved by my noble friend, but after the speech by my noble friend Lord Brown I feel that one must say something. One fully understands that with his great experience of industry my noble friend Lord Brown would be disposed to take the line that what is good for industry is good for a public service, but I am afraid that one cannot accept that point of view if one has had much experience of local government and

1415
comparable public service. The two are not the same.
There is, of course, a very important managerial element in a great organisation such as the National Health Service, and in the article by Dr. Elliott Jaques which was printed in The Times yesterday some of the reasons why one must look carefully at management are clearly spelled out. For example, he said:
"The Grey Book"—
that is to say the handbook on management—
"has also taken a great stride forward by framing its organisation proposals in terms of working levels rather than in grades."
I believe that that is probably true and is something which makes the book on management valuable. But when one comes to the whole question of policy-making, not administration, then it seems to me that I must take issue with my noble friend. For example, he seems to be of the opinion that we have adequate safeguards for the public interest if we accept this management structure without going any further than the Bill as it now stands. He seemed entirely to overlook the fact that what we are discussing at the moment are the Regional Health Authorities, and he repeated to-day what he said in his own letter to The Times yesterday. As I did not take down his precise words to-day, I will quote from his letter in The Times in which, referring to the Ombudsman and the community health councils, he said:
"Never before has the public been so potently represented and so able to influence a national service."
I do not wish to be discourteous to my noble friend, but anyone who has studied regional matters will appreciate that neither the Ombudsman nor the community health council will have the slightest influence at regional level. It is not their function. Regional level is strategic planning on a wide scale, and it is for that reason that we are so much concerned that the public interest in policy-making shall be preserved. That is why we are at one with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in their concern that there shall be some organic link between the major local authorities and these Regional Health Authorities.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to ask her one question? Would the noble Baroness tell the House which members of the present Regional Health Authorities are elected to-day?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sorry to say that it seems to me that this again illustrates the lack of experience of my noble friend in such matters, because at the moment what we have are Regional Hospital Boards and they are concerned exclusively with the Hospital Service; they have no responsibility for the very considerable area of health care which is now to be transferred from the elected local authorities; nor do they have any real interest in the major social planning of the geographical areas in which their hospitals happen to be placed.
As I say, we are very much concerned that there should be this real link between the regional hospital authorities and the major local authorities. We make no bones about it that we would in due course wish to have regional provincial authorities of some kind; but we recognise that these are not possible yet, and therefore one cannot argue that they should be brought into the picture in this Bill. We hope that that may be something for the future. We must take the local authorities as they are to be under the Local Government Act.
Where we differ from the two noble Lords on the other side is that we suggest that the authorities should appoint their own representatives to the Regional Health Authority; that they should not be appointed by the Secretary of State. In support of this suggestion I think I might, perhaps helpfully, refer to the speech which was made at Newcastle-on-Tyne on Saturday by the Leader of the Opposition in another place, speaking for the Labour Party. I happened to be there and I also have the full context of his speech, so I am at an advantage, I suppose, over every other Member of your Lordships' House who was not there and who has had to rely on Press reports. I think a number of newspapers in fact quoted Mr. Wilson's expression of view about what he called the "fetishism" of the Treasury and the Civil Service of appointing members of governing authorities, and suggesting that if they were not directly appointed one would not be able

1417
to ensure strict financial control. He referred to this as the "Whitehall fallacy". He went on to say:
"We must get rid of the doctrine of Whitehall nomination. The governing authorities"—
and he was speaking now of the Health Service—
"must represent two groups, the producers of the service, in the medical profession and the other Health Service employees, and the consumers, through their elected representatives. How the representatives of the medical and other professions are to be selected is a matter for consideration; but if democracy is to mean anything at both area and regional level the consumer interest, the democratic interest, must be in control, and not a group of individuals nominated by the Secretary of State. In the short run, the democratic interest must be indirectly elected by local authorities, in the long run directly elected."
And then he refers to the possibility, we hope the probability, of regional authorities ultimately being established for a much wider range of functions than the Health Service itself.
I thought I should intervene at this stage, as I say provoked somewhat by my noble friend Lord Brown, so that the House should be in no doubt as to the way in which we are looking at this matter, although the precise form of our Amendment is of course necessarily tailored to local government as it is at the present time.

DOLLAR DEVALUATION: EFFECT ON STERLING
3.45 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if it is convenient to the House, I should like now to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor is making in reply to a Private Notice Question in another place. This is the Chancellor's Statement:
"I said yesterday that the consultations on the international currency situation were proceeding well. The whole House will be relieved that a solution has now been achieved.
"Early this morning an announcement was made by the Secretary of the United States Treasury. Its basic feature is a 10 per cent. devaluation of the dollar. This will involve a change in the official relationship of the dollar with Special Drawing Rights and gold. The Japanese authorities have indicated
1418
that the yen will be permitted to float. This also applies to the lira. Other major European currencies with fixed exchange rates are expected to reflect in full the 10 per cent. devaluation of the dollar relative to them. Sterling will for the time being continue to float, but, as I have said before, we intend to return to a fixed parity when conditions permit.
"The London Foreign Exchange Market was reopened this morning; but dealings are still affected by the uncertainties of the last few days.
"I welcome these new arrangements, and the House will agree that, compared with the events of 1971 (which also led to a realignment of currencies) a solution has on this occasion been found with remarkable speed, having regard to the range of interests involved and the complexities of the issues. This would certainly not have been achieved without the intensive consultations which took place over the weekend. As the House knows, we have throughout kept in very close touch with European colleagues. And I would add in particular that the way in which the United States, whose currency came under such severe pressure, has taken bold and constructive action in consultation with others, augurs well for future relationships across the Atlantic.
"But if the immediate difficulties have been resolved, the clear lesson to be drawn from the events of the past few weeks or so is the paramount need for constructive and speedy progress towards a more efficient international monetary system. We now need resolute determination to achieve results, and this will be my purpose when I attend the meeting of the Committee of Twenty next month in Washington."
My Lords, that is the end of the Chancellor's Statement.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating that Statement, and we are particularly glad to see that Her Majesty's Government have fulfilled the assurances for which we asked yesterday and resisted any pressure to return to a fixed parity. Would not the noble Earl agree that this is especially important in the light of the

1419
trade figures which were published this morning?
The noble Earl mentioned the action of the Japanese and the Italian authorities with regard to their currencies. Have the Government any information at all about the countries which will be following the United States dollar in its 10 per cent. downward rating? Is it likely to be the majority, or what is the sort of outlook on that point? May I also ask what further action will now be taken to protect the poorer, less privileged, people in this country from the consequences of what will, in effect, be a further devaluation of the pound sterling? Can the noble Earl also give us any idea as to what the effective additional burden will be upon Britain arising from her E.E.C. obligations, including of course the C.A.P. payments?
Finally, although we share the relief mentioned in the beginning of the noble Earl's Statement that some solution has been achieved, will he accept that we agree even more with what is said towards the end of the Statement, that there is now a paramount need for constructive and speedy progress towards a more efficient international monetary system?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement, and I welcome the announcement which he has made. It would seem that the questions and answers in this House yesterday were something in the nature of a curtain-raiser for the Statement made to-day. Would the noble Earl agree that until there is a satisfactory world currency there are bound to be periodic changes in value as between one currency and another; and would he agree that there is nothing inherently objectionable in the floating of a currency within certain limits?—indeed, it may have some merits. What is damaging is the degree of panic that accompanies an expected change in the fixed rate, and the amount of speculation that goes with that panic. Lastly, I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have yet been able to make any assessment of the effect of this latest Statement on our export prospects and balance of payments.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for the way in which they have responded to this Statement. I should like to say that I concur very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said at the end of his remarks. I think the moral to be drawn from these events is the need for rapid action on a multilateral basis towards a reinforcement of the whole world monetary system. That, as I repeat, is the aim which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have in his mind at the discussions in the Committee of Twenty next month. I am afraid that I have no additional information to give in reply to the noble Lord about what countries, if any, may follow the United States and the dollar at this stage. I will, of course, make a point of seeing that the noble Lord is informed on that as soon as any information reaches me.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked about an assessment from me on the effects of this devaluation on our balance-of-payments position on the prices position and, indeed, how it affects the Common Agricultural Policy. All I can say now is that it was a central purpose of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the intensive consultations that he has been conducting over the weekend, that the package of proposals eventually arrived at should enable the United Kingdom to preserve its international competitive position, and also should not interfere with our basic strategy of controlling inflation. But there are only a certain number of foreign exchange markets open at the present time; the rates which are being quoted reflect the disturbances of the last few days, and we do not know at this moment precisely where the sterling rate, for example, will settle. Therefore it is very early—in fact, it is quite premature at this moment—to try to strike a judgment as to the precise effects on our balance-of-payments prospects. Similarly, any effect on prices depends on a large number of factors. I would come back to saying that my right honourable friend judges that, in the main, this package of proposals is as satisfactory as anyone could have expected in the last 48 hours, and it reflects his determination that we should preserve our competitive position and our ability to control inflation.

1421
As regards floating generally, this is a matter on which the monetary experts agree very often to disagree. I think that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government, at least at present, that there is a great deal to be said for a general system whereby there are fixed but adjustable parities. However, I think it might be inadvisable to get into a long discourse on that subject at the present time.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Earl that prices and rates generally have not settled down, and accepting that he cannot give any precise answer at the moment to some of the questions I asked, would he not agree that our obligations under the E.E.C. arrangements will be increased as a result of this further devaluation of the pound sterling? Are we to understand that there will now be further negotiations about the C.A.P. payments? Regarding the question of the movements of other countries, the noble Earl says that he has no information as to which other countries, apart from Italy and Japan, will be changing their parity rate. But can he not say anything about Commonwealth countries? May I ask whether the Commonwealth countries were consulted, and whether he has any information at all about them?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, all I would say on the sterling area and the sterling agreements is that the agreements we have remain in operation, and we are remaining in consultation with the sterling area Governments about the implementation of the guarantee while sterling is floating. So far as consultation with the Community Governments are concerned, if I may I will content myself with saying that my right honourable friend will be in Brussels to-morrow in consultation with his colleagues.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell us why, in his opinion, this agreement will be longer lasting than the Smithsonian Agreement, which for us lasted about six months and for the rest only 18 months? Will he tell us why he thinks there can be a satisfactory international monetary system erected on the basis of a speculative international capital market the Eurodollar market which now tops the 100,000 million dollar mark and is completely uncontrolled and apparently uncontrollable? Why does he
1422
think it is possible to keep a planned international system going when the large multi-national companies can throw tens of thousands of millions of dollars around the world without anybody being any wiser? I wonder why his right honourable friend is so confident.
It seems to me that this situation has arisen just as we expected and predicted that it would, and unless a complete change takes place in the management of the international capital market there is not a hope that this situation will be more stable or more prosperous for us. The noble Earl says that he hopes the anti-inflation measures will not be imperilled, but does he not know that automatically our food prices are now going up proportionately as a result of our entry into the Common Market? How can he think that this will not affect the efficiency of the anti-inflationary policy? The policy is inflationary, not anti-inflationary.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should have to make a very long speech in order to answer the rather long speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. I was not asserting that these arrangements would necessarily last longer than the Smithsonian arrangements. What I was saying was that they were as satisfactory an outcome as I think any of us would have conceived, given the depth and intensity of the crisis to which the world monetary system has recently been exposed, and that they offered a satisfactory platform, not only for the forthcoming talks of the Committee of Twenty in Washington next month but also for the larger and vitally important negotiations which are likely to take place later this year between the United States and the Community. However, I would not dissent from the burden of the noble Lord's remarks if they point the way to the need for reinforcing the world monetary system. On that point I think we are all agreed.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, as the enormous capital movements unwind, no doubt causing secondary turbulences as they go, will the Government ensure that the minimum possible barriers to trade are erected by the various people in defence?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as a loyal member of the world trading system, we shall certainly do our best.

1423
We wish to have as free movement as possible, but these are not the easiest possible times.

ROYAL ASSENT
3.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT 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:

Consolidated Fund Act,

National Theatre and Museum of London Act,

Sea Fish Industry Act.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [H.L.]
4.0 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we have had a long and interesting discussion—
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am prepared to speak either before or after him, whichever suits him better. I do not think he is likely to agree with what I say, or even necessarily to satisfy my wishes. I listened to all the speeches on this group of Amendments, and I think I can safely say that I agreed with something that everybody said and disagreed with something that everybody said. I think we must realise that what we are discussing is the second tier—and the membership of an authority of the second tier—of the National Health Service, there being four tiers in all. There is the Secretary of State at the top, there is the district at the bottom —and this is really where all the work will be done, even though it may not be recognised by Statute. Then there is the area, the new body which is being interpolated into the system, and in between the area and the Secretary of State we have the region. I have to confess to your Lordships that I find that the regional authority may be necessary—I am not totally convinced by all the
1424
arguments—but I see it as a tier between the Area Authority and the Secretary of State whose powers will, I hope, be very limited indeed.
What we are discussing is the membership of the Regional Authority as it stands, and I certainly share all the misgivings of my noble friend Lord Cobbold as to what this may mean in the extra work, the extra bureaucratic work, that may be involved in the accountability of the areas to the region, and of the regions to the Secretary of State, and the contrary devolution downwards. Nobody whom I know thinks that there will be any less administrative staff at district level. I have yet to hear, though, of any less staff at the regional level, so the Area Authority will probably be added as an extra burden on the Health Service and ultimately on the taxpayer. We are, as I said, discussing membership, and I have given some consideration, while I have been temporarily absent from your Lordships' House, to what I think should be the right kind of membership.
In the Bill the Secretary of State is reticent about the actual numbers, and one point that I liked in the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, was that she was at least specific as to the minimum and maximum numbers that there should be. But I certainly could not go so far with her as to say that one-third of the Regional Authority should be local government members. On the other hand, I think there is a strong case for some local authority representation. I therefore unhesitatingly support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Brooke.
I do not want to enter into a duel with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, or even in absentia with Professor Jacques, whom I know and for whose opinions I have the greatest respect. I should like to see some of Professor Jacques's other opinions on this proposal published, as well as those in The Times. I agree with him very strongly that this is a National Health Service and that that therefore limits the majority of members to being appointed directly or indirectly by the Secretary of State. But I should have thought there was a very strong case at this, to me, superfluous Regional Authority level, for having the equivalent of what in the business world are known

1425
as non-executive directors, outside directors. I do not think this would in any way impinge upon the managerial functions that the authority has to exercise, but it would bring in at that difficult level, that almost fictional level, of the region, some idea of the needs as expressed to local authority members. Therefore, I very strongly support my noble friend Lord Brooke and I hope that he will in due course press his Amendment to a Division. I should also like to speak about the other matter—
LORD BROWN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one second before he passes on to another matter? I think the whole issue is bedevilled with difficulty over the use of words. A few minutes ago, the noble Lord said that he agreed with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, because it got some representatives of local authorities on to the Regional Hospital Authorities. With great respect, it does nothing of the sort. The Secretary of State—if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is accepted—will appoint them. They may be people with local authority experience, but they will not represent local authorities. It is these subtle meanings of words which are so pregnant in this discussion.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I am not quite sure about which words of mine are, or are not, subtle or are, or are not, pregnant, but I do not think I want to enter into too detailed a discussion with the noble Lord at this stage as to the exact meaning of every word that he used and I used. I think I know perfectly well what I meant and I only hope that most of your Lordships do as well. It is very important that there should be somebody appointed, if you like from outside but not by the Secretary of State, who can be critical at the Regional Board level.
I was speaking about the other Amendment which relates to the Area Health Authorities. This I would not necessarily support as it stands, but I think it brings into the open a very important point which has not really been discussed at any stage of this Bill; that is, the relations between the Area and the Region. At all stages, the Government have laid great stress on the importance of the Area Health Authority and the Secretary
1426
of State has reserved for himself the right to appoint the chairman of each Area Health Authority. I think this is right; I think this is wise. But what I want to know, and what I should like to hear from my noble friend, is how he visualises the relationships between the Area Health Authorities and the Regional Health Authorities. It is a little difficult to explain the kind of problem I have in mind, but I think I can safely say that most people know that on occasions the relations between the existing Regional Hospital Boards and hospital management committees have not always been as happy as they might have been. I think this is very sad and a great deal of blame can be expressed on both sides. I do not necessarily want to suggest that this applies always, but I think there would be a case for considering—even if it is only as co-opted members—that the Area Health Authority chairmen should form part of the Regional Authority.
I have had some opportunity of listening to the views of those in authority on this suggestion, and the only answer I get is, "Oh! well, that will place too much work on the Area Authority chairmen". If that is so I suggest that that might be met by the appointment of deputies. But I do not think that that is a very valid argument, and if the regional authorities are to have their powers limited and their wings clipped, as I think they should have, then it is more important that the Area Health Authorities, on whom the real burden of the executive work and the planning will fall, and who no longer have any direct access to the Secretary of State, should have a voice at the authority level on the board of the authority. I hope that, if possible, my noble friend and the Secretary of State will give a lot of thought to how they are going to limit the powers of the regional boards, so that we do not see what we have seen over the last 25 years—a considerable increase in the power of the regional boards, at the expense of the hospital management committees. I put forward those views about the Area Health Authorities not, I hope your Lordships will think, in any critical way particularly, but because I think it is a matter which has not been given enough thought; and many of us think that as the various Grey Books, Blue Books,

1427
and all the rest have evolved, more and more power has been taken away from the areas and given to the Regional Boards.
4.10 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think we have now heard all shades of opinion on this matter of the membership of Regional Health Authorities, and, having listened very carefully to what has been said, I hope that I can satisfy those noble Lords who have spoken on this side of the House that my views are not very different from theirs and that I can meet most, if not all, of their requirements. But I am afraid that, having had the pleasure of talking to the two noble Baronesses and the noble Lord opposite, though we had some useful discussions on this matter and perhaps more profitable ones on other matter, I think that the gulf in principle between us is probably unbridgeable, and is certainly unbridgeable in the terms in which the noble Baroness, Lady White, spoke to us to-day—reverting, I thought, to the Amendment that she had down at Committee stage—that is to say, asking for an Authority that was made up partly of consumers and partly of the medical profession, and leaving the Secretary of State in the minority.
Our view is that the Regional Health Authority, as the principal agent of the Secretary of State for carrying out his policies, should be appointed by him, of course after consultation. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said, he is responsible to Parliament for enormous sums of public money—almost £2,000 million a year; double the expenditure of the National Coal Board, for example, and more than I.C.I. or British Leyland. In view of those huge sums, we owe it, I should have thought, not only to the taxpayers but to all those of us who are not only taxpayers but potential patients, that they should be properly and wisely spent. I do not see how that can be assured unless the Secretary of State has real responsibility for the service which he administers. I believe, therefore, as I said on Committee stage, that he should have the freedom to appoint members of Regional Health Authorities for their own personal qualities, although undoubtedly included in those qualities will be experience of local government,
1428
medical knowledge and nursing skills, and the qualities of those other citizens who were described as outside directors, I think, by my noble friend Lord Reigate. I certainly think it would be wrong to provide for one-third of the membership of the Regional Health Authority to be nominated by the local authorities.
I should first of all like to try to assure my noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Amory that we believe in the need for the closest possible relationship between the local authorities and the National Health Service; but we believe this to be crucial at the Area Health Authority level. This is the level of the senior tier, of the county tier, in the non-metropolitan county. This is the tier where we believe it is essential to have every possible co-operation between the two bodies, and we have strained every muscle to ensure that it is there. It is written into the Bill in Clause 10; we have working parties examining every facet of collaboration; and we have even made one significant exception to the normal rule by allowing the local authorities to appoint themselves members of Area Health Authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, pointed to this illogicality at the Committee stage. It is illogical, but it is indicative of our desire for close co-operation and collaboration.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has put down a later Amendment to this Bill, No. 37, which dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's" of the cross-membership, the power of the local authority to appoint members to the Area Health Authority. He asks in his Amendment for four members, and I certainly intend to accept that Amendment. It is at that level, I suggest, that the local health services, which have been mentioned a great deal this afternoon, will be planned and administered. That will be the task of the Area Health Authority, and there will be those four members from the corresponding local authority. But at the Regional Health Authority level there is no corresponding tier of local government; and although I accept the importance of having local authority members on every Regional Health Authority, I think it would be disproportionate if they were to appoint one-third of them. One other reason why I think this would be dangerous is that it would at once arouse the suspicions of

1429
other interests, of other people, who are anxious to have the right to appoint members to Regional Health Authorities, and it would be very hard to resist their pleas.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has also spoken to his Amendment on Regional Health Authority membership—the next one, No. 34—and I must say that I have much more sympathy with this Amendment because it retains the right of appointment by the Secretary of State, but I hope I shall be able to persuade my noble friends that much of what they are pressing for will be provided in the arrangements for appointing members to the Regional Health Authorities. First of all, there will certainly be members from local authorities on every Regional Health Authority. Secondly—and this was a question which my noble friend Lord Amory put to me—these members will be appointed after consultation with the main local authorities in each region; that is, the counties, the metropolitan districts, the Greater London Council, the London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London. Thirdly, I can assure your Lordships that the people appointed by the Secretary of State will certainly be people currently active in local government. That is another assurance for which I think my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor asked me. Fourthly, the local authority members of the Regional Health Authorities will not be drawn, as will their counterparts on the Area Health Authorities, only from the metropolitan districts and non-metropolitan counties.
But, my Lords, I still think, as I tried to explain at Committee stage, that we should leave the Secretary of State some freedom to decide on the exact number of local authority members on individual Regional Health Authorities. As has been pointed out, the regions vary so much in size, in population, in complexity and in the number of local authorities concerned. It is true that we have proposed a minimum of four members on the Area Health Authorities, but there the situation is very different. Each Area Health Authority outside London will have a matching local authority available to make appointments. In the regions there is no such correspondence of boundaries, and there will be anything from three to eleven main local authorities within the health regions. I have a fear that to
1430
prescribe a minimum number of local authority members might imply some sort of right to representation which for some of the authorities, or even many of them, could not possibly be satisfied, in view of the numbers of them.
I think it would be useful, to help particularly my noble friend Lord Reigate, if I said something about the functions of the Regional Health Authority and the Area Health Authority and the relationship between them. What I will say relates only to England, because there are no Regional Health Authorities in Wales. I would say that there has never been any intention that the Regional Health Authority's function should be exercised by oppressive interference in the Area Health Authority's management of the services in its area. Since my noble friend Lord Reigate has been away, the reorganisation Circular HRC(73)3 has been issued (this was at the beginning of this month) to the existing health authorities and the joint liaison committees. This circular sets out the Secretary of State's decisions on the main proposals made in the Report on management arrangements. The Circular was sent to interested bodies for their views last September.
I should like to quote from paragraph 6. It says:
"The principal means of achieving accountability between the statutory authorities should be a planning and monitoring system closely linked to financial estimates and budgetary control."
It goes on:
"It follows that once plans and budgets have been agreed between the Regional Health Authority and the Area Health Authorities of the region"—
and I stress the word, "agreed"—
"it will be possible for responsibility for carrying out the plans to be delegated to the Area Health Authorities so that involvement of the Regional Health Authority in the running of the services for which responsibility has been delegated will be minimal."
The arrangement places a very large measure of initiative and responsibility for the planning of area services, and virtually complete responsibility for that operation, on the Area Health Authorities. It is therefore at the area level that close planning and working links with the local authorities are so important. The important role of the Area Health Authorities in planning as well as operating the National Health Service, and the

1431
close links they will have with their matching local authorities, will ensure that these local authorities have a full say in planning matters.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor specifically put three points to me. On the first, I can assure him, as I tried to do so last time, that not all the people appointed to these bodies will be management "kings"; they will be a cross-section of people with varying skills and qualifications, some drawn from local authorities, some from the medical profession. We are flexible on the total numbers of the Authorities. We have suggested about 15 as a manageable number. This will depend on the makeup of the region and I am prepared to be flexible on the total numbers, and flexible on the numbers that will be drawn from any one interest, be it local authorities or doctors. All I am asking your Lordships and my noble friend is to allow us flexibility not to write specific figures into the Bill. I can give a third assurance that the members of local authorities who will be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation, will be active members of local authorities.
Finally, I think that in considering Section 106 of the White Paper, to which he drew attention, we are at one in what we are seeking to accomplish; but it is rather a matter of using difficult words. There is a distinction between a body which collectively represents the interests of the public and a body whose members are individually appointed to represent the interests of a particular section of the public. The basic job of the R.H.A. and the A.H.A. must be to plan and administer services in the interests of the public. In that sense we believe that we shall meet what my noble friend is asking for in the new service; but we do not feel that the interests of the public are best served by setting up governing bodies which comprise a spectrum of sectional interests. What we are proposing is authorities whose members will for the most part be chosen for the personal contribution they can make.
My Lords, I digress for a moment to answer my noble friends Lord Cobbold and Lord Reigate on the question of cost. I shall quote briefly from the circular I
1432
mentioned; perhaps noble Lords would like to study it in more detail later. Section 44 says that reorganisation must be carried out within available resources of manpower and money. Section 45 says that the first task of the new authorities must be to constitute the teams in regions, areas and districts, to make appointments to the other bodies described in paragraphs 13 to 32 and to establish lines of accountability between authorities and staff at present providing services on their transfer to the authorities' employment on April 1, 1974, so that on that date all members of the staff know their responsibilities pending the determination of schemes of management. Section 46 says that the next main task of the authorities, with the help of their senior officers, will be to draw up and consider schemes of management covering appropriate levels below the top posts. This phase may take from 12 to 18 months after April 1. 1974: it is a long-term process. At the moment, the joint liaison committees are considering the matters of accommodation and staffing and individual costs will emerge from that.
My right honourable friend recognises that one of the prime objects during the period leading up to the reorganisation, as well as for some time afterwards, must be at least to maintain the present standards of service; and in requiring only these few main, though important, innovations he has in mind that an attempt to do too much too fast might jeopardise the standards and might also lead to unnecessary additional expenditure in administration. I can only say that these matters are only in my right honourable friend's mind. He is determined to move slowly in order not to build up a vast administrative machine at the expense of the services themselves.
Reverting to the Amendments that we are considering, I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, and I hope that, in view of the assurances I have given to my noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Amory, they may feel disposed not to move their Amendments.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in order to help

1433
the House and to save time, may I ask whether he would like to reply to the point that I made on Area Health Authorities within the area of each Regional Health Authority becoming a part of the Schedule under 2(a)? I mentioned this in connection with Amendment 35 when moving my Amendment No. 33.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to include Area Health Authorities among the bodies to be consulted before he makes appointments?
BARONESS SEROTA: Yes, my Lords.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I can only say that it might well be that the Secretary of State would decide to consult the chairman of some of the Area Health Authorities within a region before making appointments to a Regional Health Authority. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent him from doing so, or indeed, from consulting more widely among people who are A.H.A. members. But we think that it would be wrong to prescribe that the Area Health Authorities within the area of the R.H.A. should be consulted before R.H.A. appointments are made. The A.H.A.s are the agents of the R.H.A.s and are accountable to them in the line of responsibility; and we think it illogical that in appointing one body, the Regional Health Authority, the Secretary of State should be required to consult the agents of that body, the Area Health Authorities. So, my Lords, I am afraid that I am not happy about that particular Amendment and I could not advise its acceptance.
4.32 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am rather at a disadvantage over this matter as I have not been able to follow the whole of the debate. But I have listened with great care to the Minister's reply to the speech of my noble friend Lord Reigate. There is one matter which troubles me very much, and perhaps I might ask the Minister whether he could help me by stating the Government's attitude to a particular point. My noble friend Lord Aberdare appeared to me to regard it as being a virtue in these authorities that they should be non-representative;
1434
that is, that they should have no direct connection other than a decision by the Secretary of State to select someone who happened to have experience in local government or whatever it may be.
I can see that the power of the Secretary of State to appoint these bodies will give the Secretary of State confidence in the ability and personality of the bodies to carry out their duties. But what seems to me to be missing is the confidence in these bodies, which is so essential, from the people who are the users—the sick, the doctors and others. Is there no consideration in the mind of the Government that in fact these bodies should have some representative element on a local government basis and, I would have thought, on a wider basis as well? Not so much to provide confidence, so far as the Secretary of State is concerned, in the ability of bodies to use the moneys which the Secretary of State is providing for them to the best advantage of the public, but in the interests of ensuring that the public, the ordinary folk who are going to find these bodies very remote, have confidence in the way they are conducting an immense social service upon which the life or death of many people may depend.
My Lords, I have been very disturbed by the Local Government Act which we passed in the last Session. I have not been able to take any part in this discussion, but I am disturbed by the whole philosophy which seems to me to run contrary to the tradition of public administration in this country: the centralising of everything in the hands of the men in Whitehall who, for all I know, may well know best, and taking it away from those who at any rate know local conditions and local people in the local government organisation which we have brought into being. I fear that what will happen as a result of all this is not that the Secretary of State is going to use his best judgment, but that this will be completely in the hands of officials at all levels. That would apply to local government as well. I speak without any great knowledge, and I apologise for keeping your Lordships at this time, but I do not believe that this organisation will work over the long term because it will not be able at all levels to retain the public confidence which is essential in respect of every public service.
4.35 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think that I can answer in a word. My noble friend is striking at the root of the management arrangements that exist in the Bill. The fact is, as I tried to explain, that there are vast sums of public money involved and we are seeking bodies which will not be inhuman bodies. After all, everyone is a potential patient whether he be a doctor or a local authority representative. The members of these bodies will be selected by the Secretary of State for their personal qualities, for their overall experience, and we hope to get the best sort of organisation, one which ultimately will bring benefit to the patient.
The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, may like to know that what one gets now are reports like the Hospital Advisory Service Annual Report, a sentence from one of which reads:
"I am also concerned at the very considerable gap between generally accepted policies and the reality of the Service as patients find it."
This is because we have not got a proper management structure at the moment. But in order to safeguard the very patients that my noble friend is talking about we have introduced, for the first time, a new concept of community health councils to which we shall be turning if we reach that point at a later stage this evening—not to mention, in the last resort, the Health Service Commissioner.
4.37 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, first, on behalf of the whole House, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his very careful and detailed reply in relation to the arguments put forward about this very important group of Amendments. We have now debated this matter on a number of occasions, even before the Bill reached your Lordships' House when we were considering the Consultative Document and then again during the debate on the Queen's Speech at the beginning of the Session. Therefore, I will not attempt to go through all the arguments again. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, with a brilliance and incisiveness which I certainly could never emulate, said in a very few words what some of us have been saying so inadequately in very many more words. I think he expressed a feeling that, regardless of Party loyalties,
1436
is shared by noble Lords on both sides of the House; even by those who cannot support us in respect of the Amendment we are moving to-day. I very much hope that the Government will take heed of that because none of these feelings has been expressed—certainly not from this side of the House—in any anti-Government sense.
I longed once again to take issue with my noble friend Lord Brown but one really must resist the temptation to debate organisational theories when one sincerely holds beliefs which differ. I shall never convince the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and in fact he is the only ally that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has in this House. This has become evident time and again as we have debated these matters. I still find it very difficult to see why you spend more wisely if you are an appointed member of an authority than if you are an elected member. That is something I cannot accept. Nor can we on this side of the House accept that there is this rigid division between the management and the representative function.
Yesterday afternoon, when we listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, telling the House how in the area of her local authority she had set about formulating a policy of sex education in the local authority schools, I could not help thinking that it was a perfect demonstration of the best kind of member-officer relationship as demonstrated in local government and one which combined management and representative functions. I could certainly not put it in better words or give a better practical illustration than the noble Baroness gave.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness, who knows so much about these matters, whether she would not agree that there are many examples of excellent member-official co-operation in the present National Health Service?
BARONESS SEROTA: Yes, my Lords, and I am only too anxious to encourage it. One of my fears at the moment is that the rigid structure which is to be imposed will discourage that. I think that this fear is genuinely felt by many who are concerned with the development of an efficient Health Service to-day. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I had a feeling that he was, through

1437
assurance though not through acceptance of the Amendment itself, seeking to meet the points made by his noble friends Lord Brooke of Cumnor and Lord Amory. It is, of course, entirely for them to decide how they receive the noble Lord's remarks. But in the case of the Amendment which I moved I think that, quite rightly, fairly and frankly, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, stated that there is a deep division between us on the grounds of principle.
This is a point that I made at the Committee stage but I withdrew my Amendment at that time because the noble Lord gave an undertaking to think about it again and kindly agreed to meet and talk with us. But there is this division on principle and, as I said in Committee, there are occasions when one should not
seek to paper over the cracks. We on this side—and I hope that the House will agree—have not sought throughout the passage of the Bill to press Amendments to a Division or to take up the time of the House by repeating arguments over and over again on individual details involved in the legislation. We have sought to concentrate the attention of the House on principle. That I think we must seek to do to-day through this Amendment, which I am unable to withdraw, because I feel we ought to test the feeling and to see where noble Lords stand on the important issue of democratic principle involved.
4.41 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 93.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Greenway, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Alport, L.

Hale, L.

Royle, L.

Arnherst, E.

Hall, V.

Rusholme, L.

Amulree, L.

Hayter, L.

St. Davids, V.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Sandys, L.

Ardwick, L.

Henley, L.

Seear, B.

Arwyn, L.

Heycock, L.

Segal, L.

Balogh, L.

Hoy, L.

Serota, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shacklcton, L.

Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Longford, E.

Stow Hill, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Loudoun, C.

Summerskill, B.

Byers, L.

McLeavy, L.

Swaythling, L.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Thurso, V.

Citrine, L.

Meston, L.

Vivian, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nunbumholme, L.

Wade, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Ogmore, L.

Walston, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Essex, E.

Peddie, L.

White, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller]

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

George-Brown, L.

Rhodes, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Clwyd, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Ailsa, M.

Cole, L.

Eccles, V.

Albemarle, E.

Colville of Cutross, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Colyton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Atholl, D.

Conesford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Auckland, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Fortescue, E.

Balerno, L.

Courtown, E.

Gisborough, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cowley, E.

Gowrie, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Craigavon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Belstead, L.

Croft, L.

Gridley, L.

Berkeley, B.

Daventry, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Blake, L.

de Clifford, L.

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

Brock, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Drogheda, E.

Hanworth, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Brown L.

Dundonald, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ironside, L.

Molson, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Monck, V.

St. Helens, L.

Killearn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sandford, L,

Kindersley, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Selkirk, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Northchurch, B.

Semphill, Ly.

Kinnaird, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Somers, L.

Limerick, E.

Oakshott, L.

Strang, L.

Long, V.

Onslow, E.

Strange, L.

Lothian, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lovat, L.

Porritt, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swansea, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Reigate, L.

Templemore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rothes, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Mansfield, E.

Rowallan, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Merrivale, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Young, B.

Milverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.50 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 34:
Page 50, line 9, at end insert ("including four or more persons who at the time of their appointment are members of local authorities within the Region.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this Amendment in the general debate that we have had on the noble Baroness's Amendment, and I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Aberdare said. I feel in some difficulty, but in view of the series of explicit assurances that my noble friend gave in his reply and his promise that he will accept my similar Amendment when we come to it relating to Area Health Authorities, and having had an opportunity of discussion with my co-signatory, my noble friend Lord Amory, during the course of the Division, I propose not to move this Amendment.
4.51 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 50, line 25, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
("(d) any federation of workers' organisations which appears to the Secretary of State to be concerned and any voluntary organisation within the meaning of section 13 of this Act and any other body which appear to him to be concerned; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises from an undertaking I gave at Committee stage to the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota. She had an Amendment down to include trade unions and voluntary organisations in consultations about appointments to Regional Health Authorities, and I hope the
1440
Amendment we now have on the Marshalled List will satisfy what the noble Baroness had in mind. I beg to move.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure, especially after the discussion and decision that we have just had, to be able to thank most sincerely and genuinely the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for moving this Amendment which, as he has just explained, springs from a request which we made at Committee stage. I was particularly pleased, though perhaps a little surprised, to see the way in which the Government have decided to word it. The words "any federation of workers' organisations" are, in my experience, fairly unique in a Statute. All I would ask the noble Lord is whether in fact the phrase is meant to include all ranges of staff employed within the Service in recognised workers' organisations. We are, of course, equally pleased to see the specific reference that will now appear in the Bill about "any voluntary organisation", in view of their contribution to the Service.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the phrase "federation of workers' organisations" means the Trades Union Congress. The difficulty was over the wording of the phrase. I understand that the T.U.C., as such, meets only once a year and therefore we had this difficulty in finding a proper form of words. It has always been the practice of the Secretary of State, in appointing Regional Hospital Boards, to consult with the T.U.C., and these words really mean the T.U.C., but if there were to be any other federation of workers' organisations which appeared to the Secretary of State to be concerned, then I have no doubt that would be covered.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 51, line 7, after ("members") insert (", being not less than four in any area,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter really arises out of the statement in paragraph 98 of the White Paper that the Government intended that four members of the Area Health Authority should be appointed by the corresponding local authority. However, the number four did not appear in the Bill, and it seemed to me desirable that a minimum of four should he statutory and that the terms of the Bill should indicate that number to be a minimum and not a maximum. I have been encouraged by hearing from my noble friend Lord Aberdare a few moments ago that both Regional and Area Health Authorities might be of different sizes and that the amount of local authority representation on them might vary accordingly. I was even more encouraged by hearing him say that he intended to accept this Amendment. That being so, perhaps I need say no more. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, not only for his courtesy and kindness in not moving his Amendment No. 34 but also for having moved this Amendment No. 37 so briefly. Certainly I confirm that I am happy to accept the Amendment. The figure of four is, we feel, a good figure to have as a minimum. It is right and sufficient within a total body of 15. However, as he says, it is a minimum figure and there could well be Area Health Authorities of a larger size, or Authorities in London, with more than one London borough in them, where there would need to be more than four members appointed by the local authorities. I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
4.57 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, as the Minister has indicated in the Amendment we have just accepted, that he is prepared to contemplate appointing more than four members where circumstances warrant it, there is perhaps rather less force and urgency in Amendment No. 38 than we had originally supposed. Frankly, we should much prefer to have a guarantee of not less than one-third of the total
1442
number; but in the circumstances and in view of the acceptance of Amendment 37, we do not propose to move this one.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 51, line 8, at end insert ("as full members of the Area Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a variant of a much less good one which I tabled at the Committee stage. The Amendment is now so worded as to express exactly what I mean, which I failed to do in Committee. I think I need only explain how it arises. It is because of some uncertainty resulting from statements made by the Government and by the previous Government that perhaps these local authority representatives on the Area Health Authority were there only to make links with the local authority services, and not as full members in their own right, with no limit on their power to speak and act, sitting alongside their colleagues as full members of the Authority. If my noble friend will give that assurance and say that these words are unnecessary, I will ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, once again I am grateful to my noble friend. I can give him the absolute assurance. There is no question at all that as the Schedule stands at present local authority members (those appointed by the equivalent local authority), just as the other members appointed under the terms of paragraphs 2(1)(b) and (c), will be of full standing and expected to take their full part in the local authority teams. In those circumstances and with that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment, because otherwise I should meet various other difficulties in connection with it.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in the light of that assurance, I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 51, line 8, at end insert—
("(e) The Chairman or a member of the Family Practitioner Committee for the area of the Area Health Authority.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing

1443
in the names of my noble friends and myself. The reason for this Amendment is very similar to the reasons for an earlier Amendment that we did not press regarding Regional Health Authorities. When we come to the Area Health Authority we feel it is of greater importance. We are well aware that the family practitioner committees will be appointed by the Area Health Authority. This is the delegation downwards that we have been hearing so much of during the course of our debates. We think it is quite unrealistic for the Area Health Authority to proceed with its work and deliberations without having some spokesman on the side of the family practitioner services. When considering the National Health Service in toto the family practitioner services are an extremely important part of it. If the Area Health Authority is to have a proper and comprehensive view of the state of the Health Service within the territory for which it is responsible, it appears to us that it ought to hear the voice of those who are running that part of the Service which is in the most intimate contact with the patients and families concerned. We cannot see any but an ideological objection to this proposition and therefore without more ado I hope very much that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we agree with the noble Baroness that there should be a common element of membership between the family practitioner committees and the Area Health Authorities. We agree with her that it is of the greatest importance to ensure that there are members who belong to both bodies to encourage the proper integration of the family practitioner services with the rest of the health services. For this reason we have laid it down in Part II of the Schedule dealing with the setting up of family practitioner committees that of the 11 members appointed by the Area Health Authority at least one shall be a member of the Area Health Authority. In fact the Amendment of the noble Baroness is slightly less generous, because we specify at least one member.
1444
The reason I am not very happy with the proposal of the noble Baroness is that it would make for a less integrated service. It would have the result of making the family practitioner committee appear to be an independent body instead of, as is proposed at present, a key element but still a committee established by the Area Health Authority. I hope that we are at one in wishing to see the complete co-ordination between the family practitioner committee and the Area Health Authority, although we prefer to see it dealt with in this way because we think that the suggestion of the noble Baroness would make it appear that the family practitioner committee was something rather separate from the Health Service, which I am sure is not her intention at all.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, we were well aware that it was the intention that there should be a movement downwards from the Area Health Authority to the family practitioner committee. We were suggesting that there should be some movement upwards as well. I do not think there is very much point in our pursuing this argument. The Government's whole philosophy in this matter is one with which we do not agree and we shall have to agree to differ. We do not feel that putting a member of the Area Health Authority on the family practitioner committee is the same as putting a member of the family practitioner committee on the Area Heath Authority—there is a different relationship between the two. We believe our view of this to be the right one and one that would be in the public interest. It does not mean that if you do it our way round you eliminate the other appointment. The two could be side by side; the attitude of the members might well be different. However, this is not an Amendment which we propose to press—the other place may take a stronger view on it—and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 51, line 13, leave out from ("profession") to end of line 14 and insert—
("(b) such bodies as the relevant Regional Authority may recognise as being, either in its region or generally representaitve of such pro

1445
fessions other than medicine as appear to that Authority to be concerned.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships may think that there is no very great significance in this Amendment. As you will observe, what we are proposing is to divide sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2(2) in Part I of the Schedule into two parts. The reason is that if it is left as at present in the Bill in our view it gives too preponderant a position to the medical profession as compared with representatives of other professions which are concerned in the National Health Service. Of course we want to have representatives of the medical profession on the Regional Health Authority, but as the paragraph is drafted it might well be that only the medical profession would be concerned, and if the consultations were carried out with representatives of the medical profession there would be no necessity to carry out consultations with other professions which are also deeply concerned with the wellbeing of the National Health Service.
We have tabled this Amendment in order to make it quite clear that we placed very considerable value on the other health professions, as well as the medical profession, and that they should be referred to in a separate paragraph. It is for that reason, and to emphasise the importance which we think should be laid upon the other health professions, that we feel the Schedule could be improved if it were set out as proposed in our Amendment instead of as it stands at present in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my darkness is illuminated. I was wondering what the noble Baroness had in mind with this Amendment because, as she rightly said, its effect would be to leave the provisions exactly as they stand at the present moment with regard to consultation. I now understand what she has in mind, and I can give her the assurance that we shall be requiring the Regional Health Authority to consult more than with just the medical profession. I can support that with a quotation from paragraph 99 of the White Paper which said:
"The R.H.A. will be required, before making its choice, to consult with appropriate organisations. These organisations will include those representative of the main health professions,
1446
as it is intended that A.H.A.s should include in their membership people of authority and experience who themselves are members of the healing professions."
So this goes a good deal wider than simply the medical profession. If the noble Baroness would be kind enough to allow me to think about this Amendment I should prefer it. It makes no difference to the Bill as it stands, and if I could consider the matter further, now that I know exactly what she has in mind, we might be able to come some way towards meeting her.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. As he appreciates, it is really a difference of emphasis and we believe that such a difference would be valuable because, although the White Paper makes the issue fairly clear, we are dealing here with a Statute. If the noble Lord would look at this again I should be grateful. We believe that there are reasons for suppossing that our Amendment might serve a useful purpose, but, in view of the noble Lord's assurance that he will look at the point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.10 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 52, line 18, after ("borough") insert ("the Inner London Education Authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42 in the name of my noble friends. The point here is that the Inner London Education Authority is of course unique; there is no counterpart in any other area of the country. Because of that, we felt that in the consultative processes which are outlined in this part of the Schedule it was important that, where appropriate, the Inner London Education Authority should be brought in. One appreciates that the School Health Service is an extremely important element in the Health Service and therefore co-operation between the education authorities and the National Health Service is going to be of great significance, not least in an area such as London where in many parts there are such acute social problems. It was for this reason that we felt it was a pity that, in a pattern which might suit the other the Inner London Education Authority

1447
parts of the country very well, in London could not be brought in. For that reason we suggested this Amendment to this part of the Schedule. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Baroness has touched on a difficult point, because we hoped in the appointments that are made to Area Health Authorities by the local authorities that one of the types of interests and experience among the members should be that of education. The noble Baroness has relevantly pointed out that this raises difficulties in the Inner London Area with the Inner London Education Authority. So, if it will not surprise her too much, I am prepared to accept her Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I thought our logic was irrefutable. We are of course delighted and thank the Minister very much.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 54, line 24. at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State may make such provision as he may determine as aforesaid for the payment of a pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of the chairman of an authority other than such a Committee.
(1B) Where a person ceases to be the chairman of an authority other than such a Committee and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for him to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may make to him a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine as aforesaid.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment provides a general enabling power to permit the Secretary of State to pay superannuation benefits or compensation to the chairman of a Regional Health Authority, Area Health Authority or a special health authority. While such chairmen might be remunerated under the power in paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 1, we do not have any plans to provide a pension scheme for them nor do we propose to establish a custom of paying superannuation benefits to them. Nevertheless, circumstances could arise in which we would want to pay such benefits or compensation to a chairman on an ad hoc basis, and it is desirable that power to make such payments should be available. If it became necessary to exercise it, the amount of the payment
1448
and the conditions on which it would be made would depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case. I beg to move.
5.14 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment intended to remedy the omission from the Schedule of a power to loan or second officers from one Health Service Authority to another in circumstances where permanent transfer was inappropriate: for example, the meeting of a need for emergency cover while a permanent arrangement was being made. The Schedule provided only for loan or secondment of officers between Health Service and local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 6, after ("of") insert ("another authority or"). —(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to remove inconsistencies in referring to the staff concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 8, leave out ("employees") and insert ("officers"). —(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is a similar Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 12, leave out ("employees") and insert ("officers"). —(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 55, line 16, leave out from ("than") to ("a") in line 17.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47. The removal of these words makes clearer the intention of this sub-paragraph, which is that the Secretary of State shall have power to direct that either a Regional or an Area Health Authority shall employ particular officers, and removes a practical difficulty. As the Bill is drafted, if it were desired to provide an officer with a post in an Area Health Authority in a different region it would be necessary for the Secretary of State to direct the Regional Health Authority to take him

1449
on their strength, then by another direction to transfer him to the second Regional Health Authority, which could then direct the receiving Area Health Authority to employ him. I am sure this would be a very clumsy method of accomplishing the objective, which would normally be in the interests of the employee. The Amendment would facilitate his transfer. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 55, line 29, at end insert—
("10A. —(l) It shall he the duty of the Secretary of State, before he makes regulations in pursuance of the preceding paragraph, to consult such bodies as he may recognise as representing persons who in his opinion are likely to be affected by the regulations.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State or as the case may be of a Regional Health Authority, before he or the Authority gives directions to an authority in pursuance of sub-paragraph (3) or (4) of the preceding paragraph in respect of any officer of an authority, to consult the officer about the directions or to satisfy himself or itself that the authority of which he is an officer has consulted the officer about the placing or employment in question or (except in the case of direction in pursuance of the said subparagraph (4)) to consult with respect to the directions such body as he or the Authority may recognise as representing the officer.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is one of a series which I promised the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in our Committee stage. It imposes on the Secretary of State a statutory duty to undertake consultation with staff interests before making regulations under paragraph 10 of Schedule 1, and obliges him, or in appropriate cases the Regional Health Authority, to undertake suitable consultation or ensure that such consultation has taken place before making directions under paragraph 10. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I should like to express appreciation to the Minister for having tabled this Amendment and for, again, having fulfilled a promise he gave at Committee. May I say that he appears to have made a very good job of it. Perhaps he will feel that the Bill is the better for it and the Health Service may work the more easily because of the inclusion of the Amendment. It is with gratitude that we acknowledge his action.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
Clause 7 [Functions of authorities]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 7, line 14, after ("of") insert ("functions conferred on the Secretary of State by section 9(1) or (2) of this Act or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a series of three Amendments—Nos. 49, 70 and 71—on the subject of community health councils. I do not know whether the noble Lords and Baronesses opposite would like to deal with community health councils now, or whether we could take this Amendment formally and when we came to Amendment No. 70, the principal Amendment, which will fall within Clause 9, deal with the matter at that point.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I believe it would be for the general convenience if we followed the suggestion of the Minister and discussed the community health councils when we reach Clause 9.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 49.
Clause 8 [Local advisory committees]:
5.20 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("a Regional Health Authority") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 50 to 63 inclusive and also Amendment No. 69. The effect of these Amendments is to impose the duty of recognising local advisory committees on the Secretary of State, once he is satisfied that they are representative of the professions concerned at both Area and Regional level.
When we discussed this clause in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Brock, argued that we should follow the Scottish Act and impose the duty of recognising local advisory committees on the Secretary of State. I accepted that there were advantages in the proposal which would enable the Secretary of State to
LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 64:

1451
intervene at local level, for example if there were unresolved disputes between an Area Health Authority and a profession over recognition of a committee. These Amendments together transfer the ultimate responsibility for recognition to the Secretary of State. I emphasise the words, "ultimate responsibility", because it would clearly he impracticable for the Secretary of State and his Department to scrutinise the arrangements proposed for the several hundred committees. But I am sure that this was not the intention of the noble Lords who raised the matter. The Secretary of State will delegate his responsibilities to the appropriate Health Authorities, but he will now be able to intervene at local level should the need arise. I beg to move.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for tabling these Amendments which concede the Amendments moved in Committee by my noble friends Lord Platt, Lord Amulree and myself.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 51 to 63 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 29, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a Regional Health")
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Secretary of State")
Page 7, Page 8, line 1, leave out ("a Regional Health Authority") and insert ("the Secretary of State")
Page 7, line 2. leave out second ("the") and insert ("a Regional Health")
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Secretary of State")
Page 7, line 14, leave out ("by a Regional Health Authority").
Page 7, line 15, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Secretary of State")
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("the Authority") and insert ("he")
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("A Regional Health Authority") and insert ("The Secretary of State")
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("by the Authority")
Page 7, line 22, leave out ("its") and insert ("his")
Page 7, line 23, leave out ("the Authority") and insert ("he")
Page 7, line 35, after ("by") insert ("reference to the region of").—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No, 64:
Page 8, line 43, leave out ("the Authority") and insert ("it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult the committee with respect to such matters and on such occasions as may be prescribed.
(4A) A Regional Health Authority.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendment No. 64 and at the same time speak to Nos. 65 and 67. These Amendments impose a duty on Area Health Authorities and Regional Health Authorities to consult their local advisory committees on such matters and on such occasions as may be prescribed in regulations. The Amendments discharge the undertaking I gave during the Committee stage to amend the Bill so that regulations can be made to impose on the authorities a general duty to consult their advisory committee. This is a matter on which the medical profession have strong views and we are here following the example of the Scottish Act. I beg to move.
LORD BROCK: My Lords. I should again like to thank the Minister on behalf of my noble friends and myself for conceding these Amendments.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 65, which is consequential:
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 43, leave out ("the committee in performing that duty") and insert ("such a committee in performing the duty imposed on the committee by the preceding subsection"). —(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 9, line 5, leave out form ("if") to end of line 9 and insert—
("(a) for references to a region of an Authority there were substituted references to Wales;
(b) for the words "Regional Medical" in subsection (1) there were substituted the words "Welsh Medical";
(c) for the words "the Authority" in both places in subsection (4)(a) and for those words and the words "A Regional Health Authority" in subsection (4A) there were substituted the words "the Secretary of State"; and
(d) in subsection (4) the words following paragraph (b) were omitted.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 66 amends subsection

1453
(5) of Clause 8 and is necessary to fit this subsection, which applies the provisions about regional committees to Wales, more clearly and appropriately to the wording of the preceding subsection as revised by Amendments Nos. 50 to 63. In Wales, it will be for the Secretary of State himself to recognise and to meet the expenses of the all-Wales committees. There will be no Health Authority to which it can appropriately delegate this and it would be for the all-Wales committees to advise the Secretary of State directly. The requirement imported into subsection (4) by Amendment No. 64 that a Regional Health Authority shall consult its committees on such matters and occasions as the Secretary of State may prescribe is obviously not relevant to the all-Wales committees however, since the Secretary of State will of course consult them on all matters that he considers appropriate. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, needless to say, we make no objection at all to these Amendments. As the Minister was speaking, I was thinking that this will add even more to the travelling time of some of our compatriots in Wales. It is rather surprising that when the Bill was originally drafted it was not recognised that there was a difference between England and Wales in these respects.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, think it arises only because we have amended the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, in that case I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, Amendment No. 67 is consequential on Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(4A)"). —(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 9, line 11, after ("Authority") insert ("of which the area is in England or Wales").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to remove any doubts which might arise that, because of the application of the preceding
1454
clause to Wales in subsection (5), as amended by Amendment No. 66, subsection (6) might not apply to Wales. In Wales, as well as in England, it is intended normally to delegate to Area Health Authorities the functions of recognising area committees while preserving of course the ultimate control of the Secretary of State. The new words, "of which the area is in England or Wales", make it clear that all the provisions of Clause 8(1) to 8(4)(a), including the duty to consult the areas as prescribed, apply to the English and Welsh Area Health Authorities, equally. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, Amendment No. 69 is consequential on Amendments Nos. 50 to 63. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 24, after ("by") insert ("reference to the area of"). —(Lord Aberdare.)
Clause 9 [Community Health Councils]:
5.29 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 10, line 5, leave out from ("of") to ("thinks") in line 8 and insert ("the Secretary of State to establish in accordance with this section a Council for the area of each Area Health Authority or separate Councils for such separate parts of the areas of those Authorities as he").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to Clause 9, dealing with community health councils, and we are grateful to noble Lords opposite for having already agreed to Amendment No. 49 which is the preliminary Amendment to this series, which comprises 49, 70 and 71. The three Amendments impose on the Secretary of State instead of the Area Health Authority the duty of establishing community health councils and making consequential changes.
I listened with great care at the Committee stage to a host of criticisms of the community health councils and one particular criticism that rang out loud and clear was that there must be no interference of any sort by the Area Health Authority in the appointment or other administrative arrangements for the community health councils. I have

1455
therefore tabled a number of Amendments which I hope will meet with the approval of your Lordships and which are based largely on what was said in the course of the Committee stage. I am grateful to all those noble Lords throughout the House who gave us the benefit of their advice during the Committee stage, which enabled us to produce these Amendments.
This first group of Amendments lays responsibility for the appointment of community health councils on the Secretary of State. I believe this was originally an idea put forward by my noble friend Lady Ruthven, and I am glad that we have been able to adopt her suggestion. On the other hand, as I said in Committee, it will be impossible for the Secretary of State to carry out the detailed work involved in appointing some 200 community health councils in England. The intention is that he will delegate his powers to the Regional Health Authorities, except of course in Wales, but will retain ultimate responsibility and be able to intervene locally if necessary. The detailed work, however, will be left to the Regional Health Authority and it will' he specifically made clear that it will not be possible to delegate it below the Regional Health Authority.
Amendment No. 49 to Clause 7, which has been passed, provides a safeguard in that the Secretary of State's directions to Regional Health Authorities under the amended Clause 9(1) and (2) will need to be put in regulations, and these will be subject to Parliamentary control. I hope that this meets one of the objections about the community health councils in transferring the responsibility for their appointment from the Area Health Authority in effect to the Regional Health Authority. I beg to move.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, I rise to thank my noble friend Lord Aberdare on behalf of myself and my noble friend Lord Amulree for tabling this Amendment and for giving the proposals we made in Committee his consideration. I am now much happier about the situation regarding community health councils. I only hope that the Minister will be able to do something about the membership, staff, finance and accommodation.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, as this was also the sense of an Amendment which my noble friends and I tabled in Committee, I, too, on behalf of my noble friends, would like to thank the Minister for having had second thoughts on this matter. He is right, of course: he had not one single voice of support for the Bill as originally drafted because everyone—that is, everyone apart from those who drafted it—could see how ludicrous it was to propose that the community health councils should be appointed by the very body whose duty they had to watch. We are therefore glad that after what I know have been extensive consultations the Minister has made these Amendments, which we are happy to accept.
As we come to the subsequent Amendments, I hope very much that he will feel able to spell out in some detail the way in' which his mind is working, because, as he rightly says, the details will be filled in later in regulations. We all know only too well that even if such regulations are subject to Parliamentary control, they are not subject to Amendment. It would therefore be extremely helpful if the noble Lord would go into some detail as to how he proposes the regulations should be framed in order to deal with the various consequential matters which will arise from the subsequent Amendments to a clause which, it is fair to say, has aroused more public interest than almost any other part of the Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 71:
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit discharge the duty aforesaid by establishing a Council for a district which includes the areas or parts of the areas of two or more Area Health Authorities; but the Secretary of State shall be treated as not having discharged that duty unless he secures that there is no part of the area of an Area Health Authority which is not included in some Council's district."). —(Lord Aberdare.)
5.35 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 10, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 76 and 80. These three Amendments specify the proportions of each community health council that should be appointed by the various bodies concerned. This also follows on the discussions we had in Committee and I hope that the proposals we are now putting before your Lordships satisfy most of the points that were made at that stage. The effect of the Amendments is that one-half of the community health council will be appointed by district councils. That was a proposal which I think generally commended itself the last time we considered this matter. One-third of the community health council will be appointed by voluntary bodies with special interest in the National Health Service, and the decision on which voluntary bodies shall have the right to make appointments to this one-third is to be decided by agreement between the Regional Health Authority and the equivalent local authority.
BARONESS SEROTA: Equivalent?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords, either the county council or the metropolitan district. Perhaps I should not have used the word "equivalent" in this context. It is the Regional Health Authority and the county council or the metropolitan district.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: From the top ten?
LORD ABERDARE: No. It is the equivalent tier at the Area Health Authority level. It is the county council or metropolitan district, or the London borough in London. They will agree which voluntary bodies shall have the right to appoint one-third of the community health council. The remaining one-sixth of the council will be appointed by the local health authority after consultation with the county council or metropolitan district or London borough. They will consult various bodies including women's organisations, the Churches, youth organisations, immigrant organisations and so on. They will be given an opportunity of making suggestions for this one-sixth membership. In this one-sixth membership, too, will be included people who may have special knowledge
1458
of the National Health Service—for example, people who have given service on hospital management committees or other present Health Service bodies.
This goes as far as one can go to making the community health council completely independent and yet having on it not only members from the lower tier local authority but also from the voluntary bodies who have special interest in the health field and also from a number of other bodies who may be interested and able to give useful service on these community health councils. The districts will appoint their own people, the Regional Health Authority and the county council or equivalent will have to agree on which voluntary bodies to nominate and the remaining one-sixth will be appointed by the Regional Health Authority after consultation with the county council or its equivalent. I beg to move.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would it be convenient if I addressed some remarks to Amendments Nos. 80A, 80B and 80C which stand in my name and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, the Minister having referred to Amendment No. 80 which stands in his name?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if we took the next group of Amendments together because there are a number of Amendments in the names of various noble Lords which affect the pattern which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has described. I wonder what his attitude would be to that.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I was hoping that we could discuss this particular Amendment, and any others that bear on the membership, and then we could discuss separately the other questions which are important, such as staff, premises and so forth. Would that meet the noble Baroness?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, that would meet both my noble friends Lord Pargiter and Lord Brown, and also myself, because Amendments Nos. 80A, 80B and 80C affect membership, as do Amendments Nos. 77, 78, 79 and 80. I should have thought we might discuss those together and, as the noble Lord suggests, leave out the other Amendments referring to premises and other such matters.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister a question? A great many of the things which my noble friend has done are first-class and will be of great help to us. But as we are supposed to be a kind of watchdog on the Area Health Authorities, and also on the local authorities, so far as the latter have functions to do with the sick and the handicapped, in the Grey Book in the plan, on page 28, exhibit 3, we are connected by dotted lines with local authorities, Area Health Authorities, district management teams, et cetera. I do not know whether most people realise that the local authorities are some of our greatest bugbears in that they have done nothing to help. For instance, there is a shortage of accommodation for those who can be discharged from hospital but who have nowhere to go. A particular case came to my mind of a patient who remained in an orthopædic hospital for three months because the local authorities had not been able to arrange that his doorway was made wide enough for him to bring in his chair. If we are to be of any use to the patient, the community, the person whom we are supposed to serve and represent, we ought not to have so many local authority representatives, or whatever they may be, on these community councils as well as voluntary workers and other bodies of people who are interested in the Health Service and particularly in the patient, the consumer.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 80A, 80B and 80C, which are all concerned with the same point; namely, that county councils should be entitled to be represented. There is an important reason why they should be entitled to be represented. After all, let us take one of the first issues: they are the planning authority. A question will come up about the siting of buildings, hospitals and all sorts of points on which the community council will be consulted, and it would help at least if there were some knowledge going between the council and the county council at the initial stages, not after the planning application is made, but about the sort of application that might be made and that would be likely to be successful. Another question that arises is that the county councils outside London and the metropolitan counties
1460
are the education authorities. Again, the health education service comes into this, and it is important that there should be a direct link between county councils and the community health councils.
May I add a further point? There is no question of a conflict of interest here with other authorities. All three, the A.M.C. and the rural and urban districts have agreed in principle that it would be desirable and in the best interests of cooperation that county councils should be represented. It may be said that the same argument will not apply altogether with regard to metropolitan counties. It applies to a lesser extent, particularly in the question of planning in some aspects of the social service. I need not go into these matters at length, but it would be helpful if the Minister would agree that these words can be inserted so that there is no question that the counties will be represented.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I support and express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, for speaking on the Amendments which stand in both our names. I agree entirely with what he said. Our feeling is definitely that most of the representatives from local government on this body should come from districts. But, having said that, I feel that there is great value in having also one or two representatives from the county council itself. That would be of great value to the community health council itself, and it would also be of great value to the county council to be kept in touch with the discussions that take place on that council. Because of the mutual advantage that will come from this proposal, I hope very much that my noble friend may be able to agree with the views that the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, has expressed.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77. It occurs to me that the Minister may wish to reply first to the movers of Amendments Nos. 80A to 80C. I am quite sure that I speak for the House if I say that we should have no objection to his speaking twice if he gave a reply to these different Amendments first before speaking to his own Amendment No. 76 and to mine, No. 77. I should like to know which way he would like to take it.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, are we not getting into deep waters? We are now speaking to Amendments which are some way ahead. Would it not be better if we took the Amendments in their order, and then we should all know where we were?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my noble friend has a good deal of sense in this matter. We should be getting very much out of order if I leap to my feet and answer every Amendment. I should be happy to answer my noble friend Lord Amory and the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, in one go, perhaps after the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has spoken.
5.48 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for Amendment No. 76, because it goes a very lone way towards democratising the community health councils. I have spoken at some length on the need to keep a management structure intact, but equally I am correspondingly very much in favour, in fact "insistent" —if I may use such a word—in making certain that the community health councils represent local authorities, the public, patients, and all the rest. These Amendments go a long way. My noble friend Lady White and I have put down Amendment No. 77 which was drafted prior to seeing the Minister's own Amendments. Apart from one issue, in my own view it is not required, but the important difference between Amendment No. 77 and Amendment No. 76 is that Amendment No. 77 makes it possible—it is not mandatory in any sense—to enable the Minister at some later date to introduce a very new principle in terms of representation on bodies such as the community health councils, in that it would permit of direct elections being held in a locality to put such people on a community health council.
I have been impressed on many visits to the United States by the great enthusiasm and attention which the public pay to the many elections of that kind which take place in that country. I do not want to follow the analogy too closely, because I am violently opposed to the American practice of electing officials, which leads to some very strange results indeed. But there is no doubt that local
1462
elections, other than for the conventional borough councils or county councils, arouse a great deal of interest enabling people who are interested to take part in the specific aspect, such as the Health Service, which is of great importance to the community.
I have no suggestions as to how this might be organised; I do not know whether my noble friend Lady White has. It is a very complex matter. This Amendment, or the substance of it, if adopted, would permit of experiments to be made in the future which would be exciting and, I think, interesting, and I should have thought it was possible to include in a Bill of this type an enabling clause, so that the Minister would not be prevented from an experiment of this sort, which I think is a nice thing to do; it means that we are experimenting with a little change, which I think we often badly need in our society.
I am not going to press this Amendment too strongly, because I acknowledge the great step forward made by Amendment No. 76; I think we have to acknowledge that the Minister has paid a great deal of attention to the views expressed in the House, and is to be congratulated. I leave him with the thought that to make room for such experiments is important. I emphasise that the Amendment as drafted is not in any way mandatory; it may lie idle for years. But it might be a very convenient way of getting some members on to the community health councils in the future, and I hope that the Minister will consider it very seriously.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, if I may follow up what my noble friend has said, the Minister will recall that at Committee stage I proposed a very similar Amendment indeed, which, as Amendment No. 77 now proposes in rather more specific terms, would have made it possible for directly elected persons to be members of the community health councils, certainly not mandatory at this stage, because I think we shall need a great deal more consideration, and possibly more experience of how such bodies are going to work, before we come down firmly on one side or the other. I do not wish to go over again all the arguments I put forward on Committee as to the value, in my mind, of at least a proportion of directly elected persons. But I

1463
was very glad that, although my noble friend Lord Brown and I do not agree on certain other aspects of this Bill, on this we are entirely at one. As he said, it is something which we used to have in our local administration, but which over a period of years we have dropped. It seems to me that with increasing centralisation there is much to be said for going back to locally directly elected persons for particular functions and the community health council would be a very obvious body to choose for such work.
I still hope that the Minister may be willing to put into the Bill the possibility of directly elected membership, and not keep it out altogether. This does not in any way commit the Government. It might not be used for a very long time, but at least we should not be preventing anybody from doing it. As I understand his own Amendments, I think perhaps the position is a little more fluid now than it was under the Bill before his Amendments were proposed, but perhaps he could enlighten us on that. I have every sympathy with the Amendments that would include the possibility of a county representative, not that I should have thought more than one would be necessary, but there is something to be said for the county authority having some knowledge of what the community health councils are worrying about.
At the other end of the scale, my Amendment No. 79 asks that in Wales, where under the Local Government Act we have community councils as part of the reorganised local government in the Principality, we should recognise the fact by including at least one person appointed by the community councils in the area. After all, the community councils in Wales are very much the grass roots authorities, and surely, that being so, it would be entirely appropriate that they should have some place upon the community health council which is also intended to be concerned with grass roots problems. The reason why we had the community councils included in the Welsh part of the Local Government Act, whereas neighbourhood councils are much more cloudy bodies so far as England is concerned, was, I suppose, that we have large rural areas where it was felt that something below district level was very much required.
1464
The same kind of argument applies equally to community health councils. Areas which are now full counties will become districts under the reorganisation of local government in Wales, and some of them are very large indeed in area, although often scanty in population. The county in which I now live in Wales, Montgomeryshire, stretches from the English Border just West of Shrewsbury to the sea; it is a very long county indeed. Therefore it seems to us that community councils are likely to be set up in such a county and that they should have some place, therefore, on the community health councils. Our Amendment No. 78 is really inspired by the thought that in some parts of the country, at least, there may not be sufficient members of district councils who are willing and able to man the community health councils, partly, again, because in the thinly populated rural areas a great deal of travelling will be involved in their normal work as district councillors and they may not wish to take on the extra duties of supervising the Health Service.
We were therefore much interested to see in a Bill which has appeared in another place, although it has not yet reached us, the Water Bill—where there is also provision, in different circumstances of course, for appointments by local authorities—that in Clause 3(12) it states:
"Members of a Water Authority appointed by a local authority or authorities may be members of that authority or one of those authorities or other persons."
This seemed to us to be an interesting and helpful extension of the powers of local authorities to appoint people on to other bodies. It seemed to us appropriate that this might also be made possible in this Bill, so that if there is to be a community health council, whose membership could be between 20 and 30 in number, and half of it, as the Bill now stands, is to be appointed by district councils, those councils might not find it easy to man that community health council entirely from their own membership. Therefore it would be desirable that they should have an opportunity, if they so wished, to suggest that some other persons chosen by themselves should be put forward. Again this is in no way mandatory; it might not very often happen, but we think it would be a useful and helpful addition to the Bill. It is particularly

1465
necessary because, in the appointments to the other sections of the community health council, the Regional Health Authority will not be consulting at district level, it will be consulting at county council, metropolitan district, or London borough level, as the case may be.
Therefore, if the district, which is going to be much closer to the community health council, feels that there are certain individuals that it would like to be members of the community health councils, this would give them the opportunity to put forward possibly one or two individuals who they feel would be appropriate people. That would leave the Regional Health Authority to consult with the other higher tier of local authorities about representation of, on the one hand, the voluntary organisations which are concerned with the Health Service and, on the other hand, the other organisations which do not have a direct connection with the Health Service. As I understood the Minister, that is what he means by his distinction between the two groups of people who are not appointed by the district councils. He said that one-third would be from voluntary organisations, and that those voluntary organisations who were to be allowed to nominate would be designated by the Regional Health Authority in agreement with the appropriate county council, metropolitan district, or London borough, as the case may be.
This is an important point, because the voluntary organisations with whom we have had discussions have said that they would wish to choose their own representatives. This method would make it possible for them to do so, because they would know how many places were to be filled and which voluntary organisations connected with the Health Service were on the list, and, if they could agree among themselves, they could put forward precisely the number of names to fill the number of vacancies available. Therefore, in effect they would be appointing their own. If, on the other hand, they did not succeed in agreeing among themselves —and I am afraid one has to contemplate that this is at least a possibility—then, as I understand it, it would be left to the Regional Health Authority (and here I am not clear), to decide, after consulting with the county council. Or is the position that there must be agreement
1466
between the two before any name is put forward? Perhaps we could clear up this minor point.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the intention is that for the one-third nominated by voluntary bodies with interests in the Health Service, there should be an agreement between the Regional Health Authority and the county on which organisations should have the right to nominate. Presumably that would include, in certain cases, that one body might have to nominate more than another. But the constitution of the different voluntary bodies would be left entirely to the different Regional Health Authorities and the county councils to decide. Then it would be up to the voluntary body to choose the person they wanted to put up.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, this is not quite clear, because there may well be more voluntary organisations connected with the Health Service than there are places. As I say, if they can all agree among themselves and choose the correct number to represent the total of voluntary organisations connected with the Health Service in the area concerned, that is fine: but supposing they do not, and that you have a much longer list of voluntary organisations eligible to nominate than there are places? What exactly happens if the voluntary organisations do not agree, and they nominate more people than there are places? Does the Regional Health Authority choose, or does it have to agree with the county council as to which individual names are to go forward, and not just as to which organisations are to be permitted to nominate? It is a different point.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, our intention was that if, for example, there were ten places to be filled by voluntary bodies, the Regional Health Authority and the local authority concerned would nominate ten voluntary bodies, each to put up one. This is something that we could think about again, but that was the intention. I do not know whether the noble Baroness wants to take this point any further.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I must say that that was not what I understood the Minister to be proposing. Of course this is not actually in the Bill, it is only the Minister's gloss on the Bill. Quite

1467
frankly, I should not have supposed that that in itself would be an appropriate way to proceed. There might very well be some areas in which there are too few, and some where there are too many voluntary organisations. For example, we have been told that in one London borough there were nearly 200 voluntary organisations of one sort or another who had some connection with the Health Service. Even if a good deal of pruning is done on such a list you might very well find yourself with local organisations, including friends of hospitals and so on, as well as the big uniformed organisations, who might consider that they had every right at least to put forward proposals.
It seems to me that this particular matter needs a good deal more consideration, and perhaps consultation with the voluntary organisations. It is a matter of detail, but I think it is quite important. As I understand it, for the remaining one-sixth there is no dubiety that it is the Regional Health Authority which has the last word, although it is proposed that it should consult with the appropriate local authorities. The position for the remaining one-sixth is rather different.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would allow me to interrupt for one moment. As I understand it, the voluntary bodies themselves realise that in some cases there will have to be some sorting out done by somebody, and I understood that their feeling was, on the whole, that the local authority might be the best body to do the sorting out that was required. I understand now that the noble Lord is suggesting that that sorting out process should be done by the Regional Health Authority and the local authority in agreement. It could be that the voluntary bodies would accept that as a sensible way of doing it—I do not know; but I think that there is no dispute that they feel that somebody will have to do the sorting out.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I doubt whether we can carry this very much further at this stage; but before the regulations are put before us, on the assumption that these Amendments are accepted, it seems to me that there must be a good deal more consultation, because
1468
I think that there is a certain confusion. I must say that we on this side had not fully understood what the noble Lord was suggesting. Having said all that, and having put forward one or two detailed propositions, we should be very glad to have the views of the noble Lord on the other detailed propositions—including if I might just emphasise one of them, our Welsh community councils.
6.9 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this matter, and I am extremely grateful for the generally favourable reception to the proposal for the makeup of the community health councils. I will certainly take away the problem that the noble Baroness has touched upon. The difficulty was that at the Committee stage—and it was brought out again by my noble friend Lord Amory—in general we had the feeling that the voluntary bodies would never agree on their nominations. If we could have some method by which they proposed their own members, this would be ideal. However, in default of that, we had suggested this compromise of the Regional Health Authority and the county, or equivalent authority, being given the final decision in the matter. This is certainly a matter of organisation which I will take away and give more thought to.
We have touched on a number of future Amendments which also go to the question of membership. The noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, has waited a long time for a reply to his Amendments Nos. 80A, 80B, and 80C, to secure representation of the county, including the metropolitan county, on the community health councils in their area. The reason why we have put forward the district councils as being those who will fill 50 per cent. of the places is our anxiety that the community health councils should be made up of local people drawn from local voluntary bodies and district councils, and speaking for the local community. It was for that reason, and also taking into account the point the noble Lord made about the metropolitan county—which may come out at 2·8 million people in up to ten metropolitan districts —that we had not originally thought of the county as necessarily being represented on the community health council. However, I can see the advantages that

1469
he put forward in his proposal, and there is certainly no reason why the county councils should not preserve a local link by appointing to a community health council someone who lives within the community health council's district. I should therefore be happy to accept the Amendment in principle, if he would allow me to have a look at the wording to make sure that it is all right to put it into the Bill. But, in principle, I shall see that we accept that Amendment.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord and say that I am perfectly happy to accept that proposal at this stage? Therefore I shall not be moving the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: Then, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brown, spoke to Amendment No. 77. We could not, as I think he realises—he put this Amendment down before my own Amendment—accept that two-thirds of the members of community health councils should be appointed by local authorities. We feel that this would upset the balance of the council, and my noble friend Lady Ruthven made the point that the balance is very important. I must say that I admire the forethought of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, in wishing to insert this permissive paragraph about direct elections, but much as I admire their initiative it is really not appropriate to put it into this Bill. As I tried to point out at Committee stage, it has some constitutional effects or implications and, much as I should like to help the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I do not really think I can accept that Amendment or that idea at the present moment. I was interested to hear how it works in America. Considering the poll that is achieved here for some local district elections, I am not too hopeful that there would be much interest in electing these community health councils; but perhaps it would be better to see how they turn out. If they prove to be the effective bodies that we hope they will he, and if in future there is a great demand to sit upon them, then perhaps we can revert to that idea.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, spoke to Amendment No. 79, the idea behind it being that at least one member
1470
of each health council in Wales should be appointed by the corresponding community councils. I think she knows that I found that a very attractive idea when she first mooted it at Second Reading. The only difficulties, it seems to me, are the practical ones, which are overwhelming. On average, there are likely to be about 40 community councils for every community health council in Wales, and it would be an impossible task for them to select one or more persons to represent them on the community health council. We have provided for 50 per cent. membership for district councils. They can appoint members of their own committees or, as I shall assure the noble Baroness in a minute on Amendment No. 78, they can appoint people not members of district councils to represent them, and I should hope very much that the districts would consider appointing people from community councils. In fact, I hope she will agree that I should suggest to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that, in giving guidance to the district councils on appointing community health councils in Wales it would be a good idea to suggest that members of Community councils should be included among the persons that they nominate.
Finally, to go back to what the noble Baroness said on Amendment No. 78, it is not necessary to put this provision into the Bill. Local authorities are not debarred from choosing non-councillors when making appointments to bodies outside local government. I am not sure why this specific power should be given in the case of water boards. I have noted the provision in Clause 3(12) of the Water Bill and there are special circumstances in relation to water boards, but that certainly does not affect the power of district councils that we are now considering, and I am advised that legally this provision is unnecessary. Indeed, the same view was taken when the Local Government Act 1972 was going through the House: namely, that local authorities are not debarred from appointing people other than councillors to bodies outside local government. So I hope that with that assurance she will feel that she need not move that Amendment. I think I have answered all the questions that have been asked on various Amendments, and perhaps we

1471
could go back to Amendment No. 72 which I have moved.
6.17 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 10, line 34, after ("staff") insert (", premises").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 we are now moving on to another group of Amendments which concern staff, premises and expenses of community health councils. These two Amendments delete the specific reference in subsection (4)(c) to the making available of staff and the payment of expenses by Area Health Authorities, and include a reference to premises in the amended version. This, again, is an effort to meet your Lordships who felt that the Area Health Authorities should be excluded from having any responsibility for staff, premises or payments. What we intend is that the Regional Health Authority should be responsible for the community health council's finance. This is consistent with the intention that the Secretary of State should delegate to the Regional Health Authorities new responsibility for establishing comunity health councils; and so the Regional Health Authority would not only establish them, but would also pay their expenses.
So far as premises are concerned, I see the force of the argument which was advanced in Committee, that to use National Health Service accommodation might be unacceptable for presentational reasons, but I think that this is really a matter which we should leave for local discussion by the community health councils when they are established. The regulations will be drafted with that in mind, and they will not require community health councils necessarily to use National Health Service premises.
On the question of staff, we still see great merit in the community health councils using staff seconded to them by the Regional Health Authorities. This, we feel, will work to everyone's advantage. The officers concerned will enhance their value to the National Health Service, and therefore their career prospects in the Service; and the community health councils will get the assistance of people
1472
knowledgeable about the health services and the working of the administrative machine. But it is certainly not our intention to oblige community health councils to take staff in whom they might not feel confidence, or who for one reason or another would be unacceptable to them, and they would have the right of veto on any individual officer who might be proposed by the Regional Health Authority to serve with them.
I hope your Lordships will feel that, again, we have gone as far as we can to meet the views expressed at Committee stage in showing flexibility in regard to the premises, in giving the responsibility for expenses to the region and in saying that, although we see the advantages of having staff seconded from the Health Service to work with these community health councils, at the same time we would give the community health council the right to refuse or to make representations about the particular staff who it might be proposed should serve with them. I beg to move.
6.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, we have been discussing so many Amendments together that I am not sure whether I ought not to ask permission to speak again, or whether I am allowed to speak again, because we have been discussing so many different Amendments; but I think I will phrase my speech in the form of questions to my noble friend. The first one is: will he accept that, personally, I think he has come a very long way to meet us in this matter. The main thing we were concerned about was that the Area Health Authorities should have no part, really, in the setting up or the running of these community health councils, and we are very grateful to him for meeting us over that. I think he has also come a long way to meet us over the question of composition; and also in what he has just said about premises.
The one point I am still a little unhappy about is on staff, where he has come a little way to meet us, I think. Our feeling was that in the matter of staff the community health councils really should be autonomous, and should be able to choose their own staff; and I am sure that is right in principle if these bodies are to be really independent. I

1473
accept that there may be cases where it would be good experience for the individuals concerned, and that the community health council itself might be well served by a secondment, but I believe that the right of the community health councils to appoint members of their staff from outside should be enshrined somewhere. I think my noble friend has stopped short of doing that, as I understood him to say that while he and his colleagues felt that in most cases it would be a good plan to have members of staff seconded to these councils, the councils would have the right to object to an individual, would have a veto over an individual. The implication of that is that then another individual would be put forward. That would be a rather invidious process, I would have thought. I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to go a little further with that, and, while sticking to his point that in many cases he feels the councils will be well served by having a staff seconded to them, will be able to say that, nevertheless, the council should have the right, if they felt it would be advantageous to them, to appoint members of staff from outside.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I wonder whether I might say just a word on that point. In principle, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, is perfectly correct: a body of a representative sort should, in principle, be able to choose its own staff. But, having been thinking about this, I think that what the Minister has put forward has great advantages. Let us imagine the position if a large number of these community health councils were allowed to choose their own staff—a very small number; one or two people each, I suspect. They make the appointments, and the new body meet together for the first time. They will not know each other very well, but eventually they make decisions. In many cases, they will perhaps make rather poor decisions. This is inevitable, when you are choosing people; many councils appoint people who later do not prove adequate.
Now, when they want to dispense with their services—and we know what happens on committees when we have to dispense with the service of officials—there is a great reluctance to do so because they are being cast back on the market. If you follow the other route and accept
1474
the right by the Regional Health Board to veto nominations, then, later if they become dissatisfied, I have no doubt the provisions would enable the community health council to go to the region and say, "We should like to change", and there would be no difficulty. The individual is part of the staff of the National Health Service, and he can be posted back after this excellent experience to some other post. So you get a flexibility, and eventually you end up with the people you want. By doing it the other way, you might end up for a very long time indeed with people you do not want. In the case of trade associations in this country, of which there are over 1,000 —and I used to see members of these trade associations when I was at the Board of Trade—the level of officials was very often really quite deplorable. I do not say all of them, because many of them were very good officials. This was because of the difficulty that always existed of getting rid of unfortunate appointments. I rather fear that this will happen in the case of the community health councils, and for these reasons I rather like the Minister's proposal.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I was rather confused by what the noble Lord said about the right of veto, because one does not quite understand whether the right of veto applies before the person is appointed or after.
LORD ABERDARE: Before.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: If it is before, then it is rather difficult for the community health council to know enough about the person to veto him. If it is after, then it is rather pejorative. So I think the position would be much better without the right of veto, and that the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, is a very much better one.
6.28 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, we are of course very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has come quite a long way to meet us in the sense that, having agreed that the Area Health Authorities should not appoint, he has also agreed that they should not be responsible for expenses or for staff. I am sure that we would all realise that one

1475
cannot have direct financing from the Department to the community health councils, that therefore one has to have some intermediate body, and that the Regional Health Authority is the obvious one if one is not going to have the Area Health Authority, which none of us wants. So I think there is no real problem over the expenses: with one proviso, of course; namely, that in any guidance which may be given to Regional Health Authorities on this matter it should be made quite plain to them that if community health councils are to do a real job of work they must be allowed to pay for staff which has adequate status to represent the community health councils in their work. Because if a community health council is to be effective, then it must have the services and the guidance of somebody who is not just a relatively junior officer of the Health Service on his way up, but someone who is able to stand up to the Area Health Authority if he thinks that there is real reason to have differences of view about the way the service should be organised in the area, and who is able to tell them with some real significance what it is that the council feels strongly about. If the staff is too junior or is without adequate experience and standing, then the community health councils will be a cypher and will not be the effective part of the National Health Service which we all want.
I think this is a very important proviso. It is not something that one puts in the Statute, of course, but I think we would wish to have some assurance from the Minister that if the Regional Health Authorities are to be the financing bodies it will be made quite clear to them that it is the Government's intention that the community health councils should mean something, and that they should therefore be staffed accordingly.
On premises, again we are glad that the Government have agreed that there should be flexibility. I am particularly glad about that because I think we are at a point where many experiments are being made in connection with the representation of consumers' interests over a wide field. For example, some local authorities have established welfare rights officers to advise members of the public how they are to deal with the social service
1476
benefit conundrums with which they are likely to be faced. In the next few years we may see the establishment of offices in various areas to help the citizen in his confrontation with authority of various kinds. Therefore the offices of a community health council might appropriately be under the same roof as the various local authority bodies, including the citizens' advice bureaux, which are set up for this purpose. I am glad that the Minister has agreed that there should be nothing cut and dried about the matter of premises.
The disappointing part of the Minister's statement, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, rightly stressed, is this question of the staff. It appears to me that the community health council ought to have the right to appoint its own staff and that the only veto should rest not with them but with the Regional Health Authorities. If the R.H.A. thought that the community health council was being ill-advised in its choice, the R.H.A. might then exercise a veto. That would be entirely proper and appropriate, especially as the R.H.A. is to be the financing body. If one were told that the community health council could appoints its own staff with the consent of the R.H.A. that would be acceptable. I do not think that the public will accept that the community health council is going to give the kind of protection that we understand it is intended to give, if for example, a member of the public is presented with the name of somebody who works in the Health Service and is told, "If you do not like Mr. X, you may have Mr. Y." That is not independence and it will not be seen to be independence. It appears to me that it would be far better, and in line with the whole spirit of the discussions that we have had in this House on this sensitive matter of the community health councils, if they were given the right to appoint their own staff subject to the consent of the R.H.A. That would be the right way round.
I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister that this matter will be reconsidered. Having come so far as he has—and we much appreciate it—in this matter of taking the opinion from all quarters of the House on the community health councils, I am sorry that he has not felt able to come this little further on

1477
the vital question of the independence of the councils in the appointment of their own staff. I understand his view that it would be useful for the Health Service or for certain individuals in it to have some experience in community health service work; but I believe that that could be arrived at in other ways, in service training and so on. It is not right that one should subordinate the independence of the community health council for the benefit of the staff of the Health Service as a whole. Other ways could be found of associating members of the regular staff of the Health Service with this community work. Wtih that proviso, I hope that we can accept the Amendment put forward by the Minister; but I also hope that he will think again on this question of staff.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will consider carefully the constructive compromise on staffing suggested by the noble Baroness.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my noble friend is out of order, having spoken twice on this Amendment; but I take his point and I am grateful for what has been said about the two Amendments. I certainly take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the finance available to the community health councils should be sufficient for them to do their necessary duty. I can assure the House that that will be so. We are desperately anxious that the community health councils should be of value to the National Health Service. It is this very desire that they should be useful bodies that has led us to propose that the staff should be provided by the National Health Service. We are afraid that in certain cases—and the noble Lord, Lord Brown, made this point—they might appoint somebody who had the idea that the two bodies were antagonistic and that they were there simply to snoop round, to find holes in the sheets or the paint flaking off. We do not see the community health councils in that light; we see them as much more constructive bodies, criticising district and area management in its major functions in what it is providing for the hospital patients and in its whole policy within the district.
1478
I was interested to read in the Health and Social Service Journal tor February 3 a leading article headed, "Advice for Community Health Councils". They made this point better than I. I quote:
"The chief danger is that it"—
the community health council—
"will lack the expert knowledge needed to challenge the authorities on the really vital aspects of planning and performance. Its members will therefore confine themselves to testing the meals served to hospital patients and criticising the general practitioner appointment systems."
That is the worry. The article goes on to recommend some quite different solutions, but I take this as pointing to the danger which we are anxious to avoid. It is that danger and that anxiety that the health councils should get off to a good start that led us to think that there would be advantages if the staff were seconded from the National Health Service—not just that we were making them take the National Health staff because it was good for the National Health staff, although we see advantages in the career structure of the staff themselves. We are not intending to muzzle or to antagonise. We saw the benefits that I have tried to explain. I recognise the criticism has been made on this point, the one point on which I failed to satisfy everybody. I will certainly see that it is looked at again in the course of discussions before any regulations are made. I hope that I have answered most points.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, Amendment No. 74 goes with No. 73. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 34, leave out from ("Councils") to end of line 36.—(Lord Aberdare.)
6.40 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 10, line 36, at end insert—
("(cc) the consultation of Councils by Area Health Authorities with respect to such matters and on such occasions as may be prescribed;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment goes perhaps a little further than I was asked to go in Committee so I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have bent over backwards to

1479
make the community health councils as good as we can. This Amendment enables regulations to be made requiring the Area Health Authorities to consult the community health councils about
"such matters and on such occasions as may be prescribed".
In most cases an A.H.A. will, I am sure, take the initiative and will want to consult the councils, but it may be useful to have a specific power to make regulations requiring them to do so about prescribed matters on prescribed occasions. I am sure it would be wrong, and probably impracticable, to attempt to list all such matters and occasions in detail, but the regulations might specify the kind of circumstances in which consultation will be required. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I think we would all agree that this is a very satisfactory extension of proposals for the community health councils and is one that we welcome.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 72. I beg to move Amendment No. 76.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, at end insert—
("(4A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to exercise his power to make regulations in pursuance of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection so as to secure as respects each Council that—

(a) at least one member of the Council is appointed by each local authority of which the area or part of it is included in the Council's district and at least half of the members of the Council consist of persons appointed by those local authorities;

(b) at least one third of the members of the Council are appointed in a prescribed manner by bodies (other than public or local authorities) of which the activities are carried on otherwise than for profit; and

(c) the other members of the Council are appointed by such bodies, in such manner and after such consultations as may be prescribed;

but nothing in this subsection shall affect the validity of anything done by or in relation to a Council during any period during which, by reason of a vacancy in the membership of the Council or a defect in the appointment of a member of it, a requirement included in regulations in pursuance of this subsection is not satisfied."). —(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 72. I beg to move Amendment No. 80.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 13, after ("section") insert ("—
"local authority" means the council of a London borough or of a district as defined in relation to England in section 270(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 or of a district mentioned in section 20(3) of that Act (which relates to Wales) or the Common Council of the City of London; and"). —(Lord Aberdare.)
6.45 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 9 insert the following new clause—
Appointment of Ethical Committees.
". —(1) The governing body of every institution in which treatment under the National Health Service is provided (hereafter in this section called "an institution") shall appoint a committee to be known as "the Ethical Committee" of that institution.
(2) The Ethical Committee of an institution shall consider the ethical aspects of medical experiments proposed to be conducted on persons receiving treatment in that institution.
(3) At least one quarter of the members of an Ethical Committee shall be persons who are not medical or dental practitioners, nurses, midwives, registered pharmacists, ophthalmic or dispensing opticians and who do not hold any position in or employment under the National Health Service."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this Amendment I come back to the attack on the question of ethical committees and to what I am afraid we must refer to, in a kind of verbal shorthand, as experiments on patients. Noble Lords will recall that during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I put forward an Amendment in these terms for the setting up of ethical committees in institutions under the National Health Service; and also at that time we attempted to lay down what they should consider and what their terms of reference should be. In a very useful debate it was pointed out that it would be very difficult to draw the line between what was, and what was not, an experiment and that what we were putting forward was to a certain degree unworkable. Not everyone to whom I have spoken accepts that argument, but we felt it right to accept it and to come back to your

1481
Lordships with an Amendment just setting up an ethical committee.
I think it quite clear that if you have an ethical committee of this sort and that it is statutory in hospitals and other Institutions, people who have problems Know exactly where to go. It has been pointed out that a great majority of hospitals and National Health Service institutions have such committees. I think it true that there is a small minority which does not have them. What is particularly important is that a large majority of the committees do not have any serious lay representation outside, say, the hospital secretary. We think it important that lay opinion should be represented in respect of these important matters.
Now I come to the slightly delicate task of talking about the kind of case which may arise. On the last occasion I did not quote any particular case because I was anxious that we should concentrate entirely on the question of deciding what kind of experiments there are, whether they are well substantiated and whether they are permissible. Nevertheless one cannot, I think, get away from talking about the disquiet that may exist in the public mind, whether justified or not. I hope that in my short examination of a particular case and a particular newspaper report it will be borne in mind by your Lordships that what I am discussing is not whether or not the report is accurate, but the fact that this is the kind of thing which presents itself from time to time: that a patient in hospital, particularly one who is most defenceless and weak, has a genuine fear and anxiety, and that we can go some way to meet those fears and anxieties if we are seen to set up the appropriate machinery for discussing these problems in a proper way.
My Lords, the paper I am proposing to quote from is the Newcastle-on-Tyne Journal in which there is a report of a paper given at the British Medical Association Conference last year at Leicester. I shall not quote the name of the doctor concerned, not that I think there is anything which is in any way derogatory of him. In fact, I have written to him asking for his gloss on one or two or his remarks, but I have not had a reply. That is not his fault; it is probably mine, because I was not able to give him enough
1482
time. He was talking about the method of deciding what kind of operation to conduct in cases of breast cancer, and the fact that in a number of hospitals, in order to try to discover what operation is best for dealing with this, a series of experiments is set up whereby the surgeon does not know which operation he is going to perform on the patient, let alone the patient knowing, until he opens a brown paper envelope which tells him who by chance has been selected for this patient. Your Lordships do not need to be reminded that in operations for breast cancer, which are operations of a particular psychological as well as physiological importance, there is a great deal of difference between the operations which can be performed and their drasticness. The doctor was quoted, whether rightly or not, as saying:
"The surgeon was not allowed to decide what was the best for the patient."
I have had time to talk this matter over with a number of people, including the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and as he is here and can correct me if I get it wrong, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to paraphrase, as I understand it, what he told me about this kind of approach and experiment. He said that this kind of experiment does go on; that it is an absolute condition that the surgeon concerned genuinely does not know which is the better operation; that if, in spite of the fact that this procedure of opening envelopes has been set in motion, the surgeon feels that in a particular case operation A is better than operation B, he can and must do operation A and set aside that operation out of the series which is considered for comparative purposes for statistical analysis afterwards. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, went on to say that, because we genuinely do not know which of the two operations is the most effective at the moment, such a series of experiments, if conducted under those safeguards, will save lives in the end because it will give us the information that we need.
There may be some of your Lordships who would not accept that. I am quite prepared to accept, at any rate for the basis of this discussion, that that is an ethical procedure, properly arrived at, which can be pursued, but I would point out that if the doctor in this report was

1483
correctly reported, he said that the surgeon was not allowed to decide what was best for the patient. I have no means of knowing whether any cases such as that referred to by the doctor in that report in fact occur, but what I do know, and what can be proved without any shadow of doubt, is that this kind of topic does arise, is discussed, is reported in important and reliable newspapers, and is something about which patients increasingly know and about which they have increasing worries.
It does not seem to me, my Lords, that there can be any objection to setting up ethical committees in hospitals, whose business it is to consider, and to be seen to consider, the ethical implications of this kind of experiment or any other kind of experiment. I agree that we cannot give them detailed recommendations as to how they must operate and how they must organise their decisions; but I feel that the mere setting of them up and the knowledge that they are there—and I believe that just as they have increased over the years in number, so their functions will increase and will get to be understood and realised—would go a long way to meeting some of the real fears, doubts and troubles which people have.
Let me go back to this particular case of breast cancer—a highly emotive subject, and rightly so. This particular cutting was sent to me by a lady who talked about her own fears and doubts as to the whole procedure of experiments of this kind, and about the doubts and fears of her friends, relatives and people to whom they had talked. This is the kind of thing to which we, if we are talking now about what we should do under the National Health Service for the rights and protection of patients, should be paying attention. I would ask the Minister, even if he thinks the Amendment in this revised form is not the right Amendment, to consider something equivalent to it, because I believe that we must pay attention to doubts and fears, which may be unreasonable but which nevertheless exist. I beg to move.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, as I have been quoted, I would say straight away that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has given a true account of the little discussion we had.
1484
This is a most difficult issue. I may say that I am entirely in favour of ethical committees, which have been recommended by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Physicians and which exist in most of the big hospitals. The difficulties of accepting the Amendment as it stands seem to me to be (though no doubt we shall hear from the noble Lord who is going to reply) to define "an experiment", and also to get over the question of "The governing body of every institution in which treatment" is provided. That might mean a health centre or anything. The conditions would have to be carefully laid down. I might also say that the suggestion that one quarter of the members of the committee should be laymen is rather too much. But these are details. The real difficulty is exactly as the noble Lord has described, and it is a serious one.
Let us take a less emotive subject. I can tell your Lordships something, which is just as true as the account the noble Lord has given, on the subject of acute coronary heart disease. I am sure all your Lordships would think that if you had an acute coronary attack you ought to get straight into an intensive care unit in hospital. We do not even know whether that is right, or whether you are not safer at home and left to your own devices. It is quite true that we are not certain of the answer. And we are not certain, furthermore, whether there are any criteria on which we can say this case ought to be in hospital and that case should stay at home. There are dangers, of course, in moving people in ambulances. I was chairman of a joint committee of the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health and Social Security, and we decided on a random experiment. This is where we are on dangerous ground again, but how else can you do it? We said that doctors who were willing would, by drawing a card or whatever it might be, send this case to hospital and that case would stay at home, but that if a doctor felt there were special reasons, then he would keep the case out of the experiment altogether—as was done in the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I may say that leading cardiologists were against this experiment: they said that it was unethical. They came to see the first twenty or thirty cases, and the cases

1485
in class A who had gone to hospital had obviously done better than the cases in class B. One cardiologist in this case said, "I told you it was not an ethical experiment" —and my very naughty friend said, "I am afraid we have mixed up the categories: those are the ones who stayed at home and these are the ones who went to hospital. I am so sorry for the mistake." And the cardiologist did not then say, "It is an unethical experiment, you should keep them all at home." I do not know what the logic of that is, but it is a good illustration of how difficult these things are and how the only way to find out about certain things is to carry out random experiments. I am sure it is not all white or all black, and I hope that by this kind of research sooner or later we shall be able to say that we know the kind of case which is safer at home and the kind of case which is safer in hospital. At the moment we do not know that, so this kind of experiment must go on, however difficult it is—and I fully understand the devastating effect it can have on the lay person who knows only half the story.
So far as I am concerned, I am all in favour of ethical committees, and if we can find a way of writing them into the Bill without running into great difficulties in our definitions, I shall support this Amendment. If, on the other hand, we are again assured (as I believe we were at Committee stage) that the Department took the view this was better done by advice or directives than by writing it into the Bill, then I would also accept that. I would certainly accept that, if there are these committees, there should be some lay representation on them: how much would be a matter for discussion.
7.2 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, on the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, indicated that he would return to his suggestion of the insertion of a new clause which would make the appointing of ethical committees a statutory obligation. In the course of discussion he selected me upon whom to launch a direct frontal attack, because he alleged that I had merely said in general terms that legislation was not necessary—indeed, that it was undesirable—and he invited me at this later stage to spell out my reasons in more detail. My first point is that I cannot accept the
1486
contention that I was deficient because I did not spell out why I thought special legislation was not necessary. However, I am prepared to meet the noble Lord's challenge on this matter, although it requires a certain amount of time. I should say also that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has presented full reasons why legislation is unnecessary, and I can see no reason to repeat the arguments already presented.
We all agree that ethical committees are desirable in order to govern and control the relationship between doctors and patients so that nothing is done that will be harmful, unnecessary or unpleasant for the patient, unless it is entirely connected with diagnosis or treatment, and that studies or investigations done for research purposes alone must be closely scrutinised and approved by a body of responsible people.
We must first ask whether such committees are in existence or whether statutory direction is needed for their formation and, if they already exist, whether their function is already recognised. I suggest that the question goes back to those claiming that special legislation is necessary to bring them into existence. I indicated very clearly that they are in existence and are functioning, and that this is the first, and certainly a very important reason why special legislation is not needed. This I spelt out and will repeat.
Some years ago action came from the profession itself to secure the formation of ethical committees. The Medical Research Council issued a report in 1963 on Responsibility in Investigations on Human Subjects and its advice was passed to all hospital authorities by the Ministry of Health in 1964. Indeed the M.R.C. has just issued yet another statement on Responsibility in the Use of Medical Information for Research in January 1973, since the Committee stage on your Lordships' House. In 1967 the Royal College of Physicians issued a report—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Platt—that was supported by the Royal College of Surgeons. In this year also the Ministry of Health re-issued the M.R.C. report previously circulated by the Ministry in 1964 "because a complete new generation of junior hospital staff has since appeared." In the following year (1968) the Ministry of Health

1487
issued a directive to hospital authorities requesting that they should each form an ethical committee to deal with those matters to which attention had been drawn by the M.R.C. report.
Last year the Department of Health made an inquiry to follow up the extent of the response to this request. As I stated clearly at Committee stage, the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health had issued letters and documents stating that in every case throughout the country each teaching hospital authority had organised an ethical committee, and that three-quarters of all hospitals concerned with clinical research had already done so. About one-fifth of these ethical committees included lay members. These are impressive figures and by themselves should indicate that there is no need for special legislation. I submit that they constitute a powerful argument such as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, says I did not give. The few hospitals that have so far not formed an ethical committee can very readily be stimulated to do so. I cannot see that legislation is needed.
It would appear that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, either did not hear what I said or considered the observations unworthy of acceptance. I presume that he would not doubt the truth of these facts put forward by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health; so I can only assume that his unwillingness to recognise the existence of these committees is because he doubts the good intent and genuineness of the hospital authorities who have already formed ethical committees, and he considers that they are a sham.
The hospital authorities are well seized of the importance of honouring the intention of this action that they have taken. There are plenty of doctors and others also who are fully sensitive to the need to exercise proper control. There is no fear that the matter will be neglected or treated casually. I recently approached my own teaching hospital authorities for permission for a young graduate research assistant to make observations on environmental conditions in the operating theatres and intensive care units as they affected the comfort and wellbeing of patients. This work is in association with the Department of Health and is
1488
supported by a special grant. The observations were to be of an entirely non-invasive character and in the nature of things could not impose any discomfort, suffering or danger to the patients. The hospital authorities could well have said to me, "As you are consultant emeritus of the hospital, director of a research department at the Royal College of Surgeons and a former president of the Royal College of Surgeons, and as the work is supported by the Department of Health, we can accept that it is in order for you to do it." In fact I was told that I must first observe the hospital rule that full details of the proposed research should be submitted to the ethical committee on a special form; and this I have done. This is the way these matters are routinely and generally conducted. I think this at once throws back to the initiators of this Amendment the responsibility of showing why it is necessary. Why should they think that doctors, hospital authorities and the Royal Colleges are insincere and unreliable in their conduct of this important matter?
Having, as I think, shown that it is already being handled effectively in a decent voluntary manner and that there is no need to legislate to achieve it, I will put forward some other reasons why the matter is better left to the good sense of the profession and not be surrounded by controlling legislation.
I foresee great difficulties in separating control of clinical research from what is properly the freedom of clinical decision, of clinical responsibility, which we think is entirely a matter for each individual doctor. I do not intend to enter into a full presentation of clinical freedom, because that is extremely difficult; but essentially it means that the doctor who is responsible for the treatment of his patient should be able to give that management and treatment which he thinks is proper and should not have his judgment interfered with or compromised by the intervention or direction of an outside person or body. His decisions, conduct and advice must be responsible, reasonable and not neglectful or basically harmful, but he should not be intimidated against his own careful judgment and opinion.
It is in this field that difficulties may arise, especially when it involves new

1489
methods of investigation or new methods of treatment, particularly if an operation of a new type is involved. In order to get away from a somewhat vague generalisation and to be more particular, I will, with some reluctance, give an instance from my own experience. Many years ago we were occupied with the development of operations for heart disease. One type of operation that had been brilliantly successful had been acclaimed as such throughout the world. In spite of its success, I felt that it was lacking in that it followed a principle of secondary importance, and that we should rather follow a principle of primary importance. This involved an entirely new and untried procedure of an operation on the substance and structure of the heart itself. This had not hitherto been done with success, but I was able to demonstrate that it could be entirely successful and, indeed, my first patients were alive and well some 24 years later. The principle is now fully accepted and marks the first important steps of advance in successful operative treatment of many heart diseases. But within a few days of taking this new step that proved to be absolutely justified I was told by a colleague, "You had no right to do that when you had an alternative operation available that had already proved successful." In other words, I was being accused of unethical practice.
The anxieties and responsibilities I had had in carrying out what I considered a thoroughly justifiable procedure were in no way lessened by this remark and, indeed, my feeling of resentment is still sharp a quarter of a century later. It is only slightly modified by my knowledge that the step has been fully accepted and that I should have been lacking if I had not followed my conviction that it was the type of operation that was needed. I repeat, it was indicated that I was being unethical. I suggest that the existence of means of placing me under legislative constraint would not have been desirable. I have given this example from my own experience, but it could be multiplied many times. Take the question of transplantation of organs, especially transplantation of the kidney. There was a time a few years ago when the ability to transplant kidneys with any degree of success was rejected and much was written
1490
and spoken against it, including ethical objections. In spite of this unfavourable atmosphere some surgeons persisted and have achieved a degree of success that fully justifies the procedure and shows that the way lies open to much more transplant surgery that can be as beneficial as kidney transplantation.
During the past two or three decades we have witnessed immense advances in many fields of medicine and surgery. The immense progress could easily have been adversely affected by certain restraints. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, stated that the general underlying intention of the new clause is acceptable both to the Department of Health and to the profession. But he stated very clearly yet another objection allied to what I have just said: that a matter of this sort, where the details are constantly changing, is one that is not best dealt with by legislation. He was sure that there is general agreement on the basic need to protect the patient and also on the need to protect clinical freedom and the advance of medical knowledge. These are not irreconcilable, but any law, any precise definition, would soon be outdated. The Minister said that what is needed is an understood procedure and a constant adaptation to changing circumstances.
The Medical Research Council's statement in 1963 on responsibility in investigations on human subjects emphasised the heavy moral onus on the profession, severally and collectively, not to abuse the trust of patients. It lays down circumstances in which the fully valid consent of the patient must be obtained and it recommends that other experienced colleagues should be consulted where appropriate. It also stated that a detailed code of rules was impossible to draft. I submit, therefore, that the evidence is abundant that the profession is fully aware of its responsibilities in this important matter, that it has considered it fully and conscientiously and that it can be trusted to see that the necessary precautions and safeguards are carried out in the way that they should be.
It is also clear from the course of events, of decisions and directives on the part of the Department of Health, that genuine and successful steps have been taken by the Government to make clear

1491
what their wishes are in this important and sensitive matter, and that the follow-up they recently conducted shows that their wishes are being properly observed by hospital authorities. No doubt more follow-up inquiries will be made, and I have little doubt that they will reveal that what is needed is being done even more widely and conscientiously. For these reasons, I repeat what I said earlier: that these proposals are not a fit subject for legislation; that they are already covered by present practice, and that any direction or guidance that is thought necessary with changing conditions can be achieved by simpler means than by Statute.
7.17 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, any layman who takes part in a discussion of this kind is, inevitably, treading on delicate ground, but this is a matter of some importance. The intention behind the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is a very good one, but there are one or two difficulties which we can all foresee. Medicine these days is, as we all know, becoming much more sophisticated. Technical equipment is becoming more involved, and intense training is needed in its use. Therefore I hope that medical students, when they start off on their career, are taught, among other things, the ethics which they must pursue. This seems to me to be an important matter and one which will go to the root of much that is implied in this Amendment.
The part of the Amendment which rather disturbs me is subsection (3) which quite rightly mentions that at least one quarter of members of an ethical committee should not be directly concerned with the Health Service. This is what I take it to mean. But, as we have heard regarding many other parts of this Bill, there are those who serve on the house committees of hospitals in an unpaid and therefore perhaps more objective section of the Service, who would be of intense value if we are going to have these committees. Completely to exclude anybody with any connection with the Health Service—if that is the intention—would probably lessen the value of any Amendment of this kind. I wonder whether the Minister has any figures available
1492
about how often, say, in the past year or two years it has become necessary to probe into matters of this kind, the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, quite properly mentioned. I feel on balance that our doctors in this country, as I mentioned yesterday, have a very high standard and code of ethics. As I believe that most hospitals have a code of this kind, it seems to me that the important thing is that those entering into the profession today should have instilled into them by those who are teaching them medicine the need for the highest standards in this field.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has paid a high tribute to the medical profession. I should like to repeat that, and to say also that in addition to his interesting speech we have had two most interesting and informative speeches from two very distinguished members of the medical profession. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said that he would be glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, how many experiments of this kind there may have been in the past, and whether there were any which were causing disquiet. Possibly there are not now. For the record, I would point out that in Committee I quoted, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, from a book called Human Guineapigs, for which I hold no brief at all—I do not know whether its allegations can be substantiated—but it cited a great number of medical experiments which it considered to be somewhat unethical. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his reply said:
"I understand that the cases cited in this hook were collected over a long period and from a number of countries other than the United Kingdom."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 25/1/73, col. 282.]
All I can say is that I have been through the book and there are at least 50 experiments from the United Kingdom over a period of about ten years from 1955 to 1965 which this particular writer alleges are in his opinion unethical. I admit that this was some while ago and what he says cannot be substantiated. I should like to make the point that the cases I was citing from that book were alleged to have come from the United Kingdom.
I was particularly interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and of the noble Lord, Lord Brock.

1493
There we seem to be at one. Lord Platt said that experiments must continue—and here I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I certainly agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Brock, said that ethical committees are desirable and indeed are in existence. I thought his speech gave a great deal of support to the whole question of ethical committees. We do not quarrel with that at all. All we are asking in this Amendment is that something which seems to be working very well on a voluntary basis should be written into the Bill and be made a statutory requirement. There is no form of dictation in these committees. The wording is that they shall "consider the ethical aspects"; they are not going to lay down in law about it. The great majority of their members will be members of the medical profession; and indeed it is merely going to extend what seems to be working very well in the words of the two distinguished medical Peers who have contributed to the debate. Therefore there is every reason why this Amendment should be accepted and this additional clause written into the Bill.
7.23 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, these are difficult and delicate matters. I do not complain that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has put down the same Amendment again, less one paragraph. It has stimulated a further interesting debate and we have again heard from the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and had a longer speech from the noble Lord, Lord Brock. I am afraid that my contribution cannot go much further than I went on the last occasion, because there really are serious difficulties in putting this matter into legislation, even if it were desirable to do so. I must say that I thought the weakest argument of all was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he said, quite rightly, what I confirmed last time and the noble Lord, Lord Brock, confirmed, that all hospital authorities where clinical research is undertaken have ethical committees, and therefore, Lord Strabolgi added we should put them into the Bill. I thought the opposite should be true. As they already exist in all hospitals where clinical research is undertaken, I cannot see the point of putting them in a Bill.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brock, referred to 75 per cent. of the hospitals where clinical research is done. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said "in all".
LORD ABERDARE: Well, my Lords, my information is that in all hospital authorities where clinical research is undertaken there are ethical committees, about one fifth of which include lay members. But the difficulty is that one cannot put matters of this kind into legislation. Lord Platt has already put his finger on many of the difficulties. I explained them, or tried to, at the Committee stage. "Medical experiment" itself is undefined and probably not sensibly definable. The word "institution" is very wide, because the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would mean that every hospital and probably every health centre would have to set up ethical committees which would never be called to meet and would therefore he rather redundant. At the same time, the word could not be held to cover medical schools, where a certain amount of research of this kind might go on. So there are grave difficulties in legislating.
Nevertheless, I must confirm again that we have undertaken to look into the possibility of further guidance and that we are in conversation with the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Physicians on the whole question. I confirmed on the last occasion to the noble Lord that this includes the question of lay membership. If he is seeking simply to reassure patients that suitable arrangements are made for the clearing of clinical experiments within the profession, then I think there are perhaps other ways one might look to do that rather than by simply putting it in a Bill. I am not sure how many patients read a National Health Service Bill before they go into hospital, but Lord Beaumont might think there are other ways in which we could reassure people that they are not going to be experimented upon.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken on this clause for again turning their minds to this extremely important problem. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brock, if I was discourteous to him at the Committee stage. I did not intend to be, and

1495
I am delighted that it in fact prompted him to unveil his full battery of arguments. On the question of lay representation, I must say that I do not think 20 per cent. of ethical committees having lay representation is a very overwhelming figure. It means that 80 per cent. of them do not have lay members. This is something which needs to be dealt with, and I am delighted to know that the Department is considering further advice on the matter. I only hope it will be far-reaching advice. I entirely take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that we drafted that part of the Amendment not too well. It is a difficult piece of drafting to say something which means "layman" in this situation. If we had been able to go further, I would certainly have paid attention to what he had to say.
I thought the interesting points that the noble Lord, Lord Brock, put about clinical freedom were not entirely relevant. Since we are agreed that we have ethical committees, and since the only purpose of this Amendment would have been to make those ethical committees statutory, without laying down in any great detail what they should do, it does not seem to me that that could in any way infringe proper clinical freedom. It certainly was in no way intended to do so. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was a little lighthearted when he made the crack about patients not reading the Statute before they to into hospital. That is entirely true but it is also true (and he knows it as well as the rest of us) that people as a whole have a great respect for their rights when they are entrenched and when they know that they are written into the law of the land, and although this would not become general knowledge immediately the mere fact that there is such a procedure and that it is statutory would, I am sure, have some effect.
It is with considerable disappointment that I must accept the statement made by the noble Lord. Lord Aberdare, that there is no suitable way to put a provision such as this into the Bill. It is with some satisfaction that we accept his reassurances about the advice that is going to be given, and I can assure the noble Lord, as I am sure he is aware, that a good many people will be keeping
1496
a watch on what advice is given and hoping that it really will be adequate. If it is not adequate this time there may be a case for improving it or even doing something statutory. I am not entirely satisfied, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Co-operation between health authorities and local authorities]:
7.32 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 12, line 44, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving Amendment and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 84 at the same time. Amendment No. 83 would merely provide for the inclusion of the clause that I am hoping to persuade the Government to accept. May I first say that I feel your Lordships have been very patient as the disappointments of the Inner London Education Authority in losing the school health service have been voiced, and have been very patient at what might be regarded as the rearguard action that has been undertaken from this side of the House to try to salvage something from the situation. I tried in Committee and I tried again yesterday to persuade your Lordships to give the Inner London Education Authority certain reserve powers that would enable them, in the event of failure in the School Health Service in one of a number of ways, to meet the situation and to ensure the continuance of the very high standards that have been built up.
I have been able to appreciate the force of the argument advanced by the Government and I have accepted that they were determined that ILEA should not have the reserve powers for which I asked on their behalf. I suggest that this Amendment is of a quite different kind, and because it is so different I hope it may commend itself to the Government. Indeed, I think there would be considerable advantage in its inclusion in the Bill.
Clause 10 requires health authorities and local authorities to co-operate with one another and to establish joint consultative committees. The purpose of the new clause that I am proposing is to secure co-operation between all the health authorities in Inner London and the Inner London Education Authority. It has been

1497
pointed out before, but I think perhaps it ought to be mentioned again, that the situation in London is quite different from that obtaining in the rest of the country, and the situation in Inner London is quite unique in that no less than seven Area Health Authorities are concerned in the area covered by the Inner London Education Authority.
The proposed Amendment would provide special arrangements for Inner London and could be used to ensure that if there was failure to maintain the school service at the very high standard and with the degree of uniformity to which the authority is accustomed, they would be able to bring home the difficulties to those concerned on the health side. They would be able to use their powers of persuasion to enable them to remedy the breakdown and to maintain throughout the whole of the Inner London area a uniformity of service which, if not maintained, would not merely cause concern to ILEA, it would also be very difficult indeed to persuade the parents that there was any good reason for the differences in treatment, the standards of treatment, the sort of place in which examinations and all the other things that go along with the School Health Service are undertaken, and that they should vary from place to place.
It may be said that Clause 10 of the Bill meets the situation adequately, but as I am advised it does not adequately do so. Clause 10(1) is designed to achieve the co-operation of health authorities and local authorities in securing, in general terms, the advancement of the health and welfare of the people of England and Wales. The aim of Amendment No. 84 is to secure a high and uniform standard of school health provision for Inner London schoolchildren, and more particularly to ensure that such provision is made, so far as possible, in the schools instead of elsewhere in order to avoid the loss of educational time and to foster a multidisciplinary approach by involving teachers, particularly in special schools —and London has a considerable number of them—in the care of children.
This is a far more specific aim than the general statement of intent in Clause 10(1), however worthy such a statement might be. Under Clause 10(2) the function
1498
of the joint consultative committees is to advise Area Health Authorities and local authorities on the performance of the general duty imposed by Clause 10(1) and on the planning and operation of services of common concern to those authorities. But there can be no guarantee under Clause 10 that a joint consultative committee constituted in this way would in practice be established. Even if it were, it is extremely doubtful whether the achievement of the aim of the Inner London Education Authority, and its specific aim—and I venture to suggest a reasonable aim—would be a matter of common concern. Will each Area Authority on the committee be concerned with the standard of provision over the whole of Inner London? The feeling is that it probably will not. Each Area Authority will be—rightly so in the view of most people—concerned with the priorities in its own area. Deficiencies in, say, inspection and treatment in the resources of, for example, Lewisham will hardly be a matter of concern to the Area Authority of Islington, where adequate facilities may already be provided.
In regard to the Inner London Education Authority's objective of providing Health Service facilities so far as possible in the schools, it would be embarrassing and inconvenient for the Authority and almost incomprehensible to parents and teachers if, for example, one Area Authority supplied physiotherapists in schools for the physically handicapped at a different level of provision than that of another, or if a third wished treatment to be carried on outside school, so creating a different situation there. I suggest that such a situation could arise if the Bill is enacted as drafted. The presence of the machinery proposed in this Amendment could ensure that such difficulties or inconsistencies were avoided and the ILEA'S aim achieved.
The position of the ILEA may not seem to be a matter of great concern to many of your Lordships. I repeat what I have said before; namely, that it is the largest education authority in the country and that the standard of its School Health Service was excellent compared with any education authority. Indeed, its standard of service was in many respects higher than most. It had the opportunities that others did not have resulting from the very size of the area it covered and the

1499
number of children involved. It has lost a very great deal and it is rightly concerned about the service available to the children in its schools.
I appeal to the Government, in considering this Amendment, to realise that whereas they have felt unable to agree to any of the other requests that have been made, this is a very reasonable request. I ask that there should be a joint consultative committee on which the ILEA has a right to participate. I hope that we shall not get a refusal from the Minister on a matter that would give so much satisfaction where so much has been denied and where there is so much justifiable concern. I beg to move.
7.43 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, the House will understand, from the previous discussions that we have had on the Bill as it relates to the area of Inner London, the concern which has prompted the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, to table this Amendment and to speak to it in the way he has. I put it to the noble Lord, as I admit I have done before, that I genuinely do not think that what he proposes is necessary. As the noble Lord knows, the position is that the main proposals for collaboration and joint consultative committees are as set out in Clause 10 and follow the recommendations of the Working Party on Collaboration. The particular arrangements needed for London will be looked at by a subcommittee which has been set up by the Working Party to look at the whole range of Health Service local collaboration issues in London. I gave a specific assurance about this only yesterday in this House.
In his remarks, the noble Lord seemed to query the effect of Clause 10 and wondered whether it could possibly achieve the result which he wishes to achieve in his Amendment, and perhaps I may clarify this point. Clause 10(2) provides for the Inner London Education Authority to be represented on a joint consultative committee for each Area Health Authority forming part of the ILEA area. That is something which the noble Lord does not want. There are, however, powers in
1500
Clause 10(4) to vary these arrangements and it is for consideration whether, instead, there should be a single joint consultative committee for all the education or health matters in the ILEA area comprising representatives from ILEA and the seven Area Health Authorities. But whereas the noble Lord would like to write it into the Bill now, I am asking him to agree to have it looked at by the subcommittee which has been set up and which is shortly to meet.
The noble Lord asked whether each joint consultative committee will be concerned with the Service over the whole of the Inner London area. This will, of course, be up to each J.C.C., but as the ILEA will be represented on each of those J.C.C.s, I do not think the noble Lord's fears have any foundation in this respect. I ask the House not to prejudge the arrangements which will be looked at now by the Inner London sub-committee of the Joint Working Party.
The Amendment would entail statutorily another committee in addition to the joint consultative committees which are to be set up under this clause. As I have said, the London sub-committee is about to look at the matter and I assure the House once again that the powers in Clause 10 are sufficient to enable the Secretary of State to ensure the establishment of the type of joint consultative committee which is envisaged in this Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the hour is anything but early, and the attendance in your Lordships' House is now quite thin compared with the good attendance we have had all day. It would be very foolish of me to think of pressing this matter further, even if I thought there was value in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, speaks of my fears. I assure him that they are not my fears alone and I trust that the Minister will take away with him the thought that these are the fears, the considered fears, of the ILEA as legally advised and that the Amendment has not been lightly tabled. Nor did I lightly decide to move it tonight in view of what the noble Lord said yesterday.
When I said that the acceptance of this Amendment would give comfort where there is now concern, I was merely relating what happens to be the truth. The

1501
strong feeling of the ILEA is that it is necessary, if they are to play the role they wish to play in the school health service, for this provision to be written into the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating what he said yesterday about the sub-committee of the Joint Working Party. I am glad to have his assurance, and pleased to have it on record, that the subject matter of Amendment No. 84 will come before them. As the noble Lord was speaking, I seemed to detect something of a recognition that the Government are not absolutely positive about the future and if they will keep something of an open mind that at least will be a slight achievement. Having regard to the situation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.51 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 85.
After Clause 13 insert the following new clause:
Research
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to take all reasonable steps to promote and organise research in all fields of medical science, diagnosis, treatment and technology, and to make available all such finance and other resources as he considers reasonably necessary for that purpose."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long over this Amendment which your Lordships may have noticed is in identical terms to an Amendment which was before the Committee on the Committee stage. At that stage I presented my argument in full in support of it and I certainly shall not seek to repeat what I said then. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, at the conclusion of that argument very kindly indicated that he would like to think the matter over and since then he has been (if he would allow me to say so) extremely helpful in indicating to me the result of his thinking. I am most indebted to him for going into the matter so carefully. He indicated also what he thought would be appropriate steps that might be taken with reference to a specific case which I mentioned in the course of my argument. I am most indebted to him also for approaching the matter on that basis.
In those circumstances, my noble friends and I thought to ourselves whether it would be in the public interest that we
1502
should revert to the matter on the Report stage of this Bill. After some hesitation—and I frankly so admit—we thought that it would be right at any rate to have the Amendment tabled again, and in order that it should not, as it were, be withdrawn from the arena of argument, present shortly the case for it. I say at once that I will not seek to divide the House upon it though I should like the express view of the House when the argument is concluded.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, indicated that he thought that the existing language of Section 2 of the 1919 Act and Section 16 of the 1946 Act adequately covered the position and provided adequately for the prosecution of research at a pitch of intensity which was desirable in the public interest. My noble friends and I have carefully reconsidered that language. I have it in my hands, I have copied it out, but I do not propose to read it to your Lordships because I do not think that I should be serving any useful purpose by so doing. All I would say is that having most carefully reconsidered that language we do not think that it is adequate to place upon the Secretary of State a precise and specific duty to look after research, to see that if research is not already done by some other responsible body something must be undertaken in order to see that any necessary fields left uncovered are properly catered for.
My Lords, it is in those circumstances that I and my noble friends put the clause again before this House. As I have said, I hope that even now Ministers may think that the circumlocation of Section 2 of the 1919 Act does not achieve the objective which is necessary in this context. Having said that—and having asked the noble Lord to have one more look at that language to see whether he thinks that its very imprecise, circumlocutionary nature, permissive in character, is adequate—I ask the House to accept this Amendment and would add no further to the argument which I have just put before your Lordships. I beg to move.
7.55 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord moved this Amendment in Committee, he created a difficulty in the sense that on the one hand the noble and learned Lord, Lord

1503
Stow Hill, expressed his concern (and he has repeated that concern to-day) to see that all reasonable steps should be taken by the Secretary of State for Social Services "…to promote and organise research" and to make available the necessary finance. I am bound to say that I am not entirely persuaded that there is a great deal of difference in effect between that Amendment—and I entirely understand the reasons for the noble and learned Lord tabling the Amendment—and the situation as it exists to-day whereby the Secretary of State has a power to do as he wishes. However, that is as may be because, as the noble and learned Lord would immediately say to me, "We can always tidy up the wording".
There was, however, a second real difficulty; namely, that although the noble and learned Lord asserted that his Amendment would not interfere with the independence of those who were involved in research, there is no gainsaying that the Amendment is bound to conflict with the division of responsibilities for medical research between the Medical Research Council which comes under the budget of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, the universities (which are, of course, funded by the universities themselves through the U.G.C.), and research funded by the Department of Health and Social Security direct.
It was for that reason that the Government felt unable to accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment as it stood. But what I believe the noble and learned Lord would wish at this stage is to have a reply from me to one particular point which was raised in Committee, and I am in a position also to offer some positive action in response to the reason which prompted the noble and learned Lord to table this Amendment. In Committee, I regret that I launched off into the rapids of the situation about constitutional practice as to where Ministerial responsibility for medical research should lie, and the noble and learned Lord was so good as to withhhold any criticism until there had been an opportunity for us to have a private discussion. I am advised that Ministerial responsibility for research depends upon the nature of the activity for which the funds are sought.
1504
When the noble and learned Lord wrote on behalf of a distinguished doctor at a famous medical school it appeared that general funds were being sought and that is the reason why the noble and learned Lord received the reply from my right honourable friend's Department that this was a matter for the U.G.C.—and in the final analysis it would have been for the medical school's own university—and therefore this was not a matter for which my right honourable friend was directly responsible. Subsequently, after the noble and learned Lord had kindly discussed the matter with the Government, I understand that the school may have had in mind funds for some specific research, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will now arrange a discussion with the school at official level to advise about the appropriateness of possible approaches either to the M.R.C. or to the Department of Health and Social Security. As the noble and learned Lord knows, I am only too ready thereafter to arrange for him to discuss with the appropriate Minister who has ultimate responsibility if he feels that that would be useful, bearing in mind that if the activity were to fall into the M.R.C. field the immediate decision whether to assist financially is for the M.R.C.
I hope that perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, may consider that this renewed debate, as well as the debate in Committee, has had some profit in it. After the very close scrutiny which has been given to research, not least to medical research, and not least again in a long debate which was initiated in this House by my noble friend Lord Bessborough, the Government really cannot accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment as it stands because it would alter the balance of responsibilities which has been arrived at for research in this country. But the Amendment has enabled the House to take a further look at the matter, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord may take the view that that has been of assistance also in the case which originally prompted him to table the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I venture to rise to my feet again only to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, once more for his attitude in this matter. He has taken steps which will be very helpful and,

1505
as he knows, I have already taken him up on his offer. I am most indebted to him. For the reason I gave I do not formally ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment because I feel that it should be left on the Table for further discussion in case other views should prevail.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 19 [Provisions supplementary to Section 18]:
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is a further Amendment which lays a duty on the Secretary of State to consult staff interests, in this case when making orders under Clause 18, or what is at present subsection (1) of Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 36, at beginning insert—
("(1) Without prejudice to the duty imposed on the Secretary of State by subsection (2) of the preceding section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before he makes an order in pursuance of that section or the following subsection, to consult with respect to the order such bodies as he may recognise as representing persons who in his opinion are likely to be transferred or affected by transfers in pursuance of the order.")—(Lord Aberdare.)
Clause 33 [Administrative provisions]:
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, this is in substance the same as an Amendment which I moved at Committee stage, but after consultation with the Minister's Department it has been more felicitously worded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 10. at end insert ("and it shall be the duty of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales to include among his officers such persons having a command of the Welsh language as he considers are needed to enable him to investigate complaints in Welsh ")—(Baroness White.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very happy to accept this Amendment, and I congratulate the noble Baroness on her excellent drafting.
Clause 34 [Matters subject to investigation]:
8.1 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 88:
1506
Page 34, line 21, after ("has") insert ("not received proper and adequate medical care or attention or that he has").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage discussions on this aspect of the Bill, which deals with the Ombudsman, some anxiety was expressed as to whether the wording of the Bill might not have the result of unduly limiting the jurisdiction reposed in the Ombudsman. Your Lordships will be aware, of course, to begin with, that the Ombudsman, or perhaps I should describe him as the Commissioner, cannot investigate under Clause 34(4) "any action in respect of which" there is "a right of appeal, reference or review" and so on, or in respect of which there is "a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law". Under the next subsection he is prohibited from investigating any matter which relates to "general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services or pharmaceutical services". Under Schedule 3 he is prohibited from investigating any action which arises out of "the exercise of clinical judgment".
May I, at the outset of this argument, say at once that I myself, and my noble friend, Lady White, who has put her name to this Amendment, recognise that clearly every clinical judgment of a doctor cannot possibly be submitted to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. It would be quite absurd to propose such a thing; it would bring the whole medical service to a halt, or it might do so. I certainly do not propose anything of that sort. But it did occur to my noble friend and myself to wonder whether, with those limitations, the further limitation which is contained in subsection (3) of Clause 34 is itself not too restrictively drafted. Under that subsection — and it is from that subsection that the Commissioner derives his main jurisdiction—he is empowered to investigate "an alleged failure in a service", an "alleged failure …to provide a service which it was the function" of a relevant body to provide; "or (c) any other action taken by or on behalf of a relevant body". If one looks earlier in that Clause one sees what a relevant body is—broadly speaking, in the present context, Regional Health Authorities, Area Health Authorities and so on.
The restriction which I should like to draw to the attention of the House consists in these words; he can investigate any such alleged failure or any such other action
"in a case"
and only in a case,
"where a complaint is duly made by or on behalf of any person that he has sustained injustice or hardship in consequence of the failure or in consequence of maladministration connected with the other action".
Are the words "injustice or hardship" too restrictive? I know that the noble Lord thinks they are not; he has already very kindly indicated to me in a letter that he thinks the word "hardship" is quite wide enough to cover anything which should be within the purview of the Commissioner. The word "injustice" comes from the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, which is, as it were, the fons et origo of all this Ombudsman jurisdiction.
I should have thought that in the very nature of things when you are talking about a Health Service "injustice" is hardly the right word. The complainant is not going to say "I have been unjustly treated". He might in the rare case, but I should have thought that in 99 cases out of 100 there would not be any question of injustice; so the operative word will be "hardship" The Commissioner will have to be able to say to himself when he looks at the ground of complaint, "Yes, this complainant is complaining of what I can properly regard as a hardship within the meaning of that term". In a very large number of cases there will not be hardship. Supposing it is mere inconvenience, or mismanagement, or his having been subjected to a risk to which he should not have been subjected but where there have been no unfortunate consequences as a result.
What one has in mind, surely, in this context is the possibility of a patient's not having received proper and adequate medical care or attention. It is those words that I seek to insert in this restricting phrase, in this phrase which defines the area of the Commissioner's responsibility. In other words, he will be able to make an investigation into an alleged failure, and so on, where a complaint is made
1508
"by or on behalf of any person that he has not received proper and adequate medical care or attention or that he has sustained injustice or hardship."
I do not seek to take out what is already there, but I do seek to add words which seem to me to be appropriate to cover the cases—99 cases out of 100—in respect of which complaints are likely to arise.
The noble Lord, as I said, thinks "hardship" covers that already. Take the kind of case where somebody says, "This hospital is hopelessly badly managed. I have been three times to the out-patient department; I have waited the whole morning and I was not reached; nobody came to see me; my turn did not arrive." That is thoroughly bad management. It is thoroughly inconvenient. Is it hardship? I should have thought it was very doubtful whether it was hardship. I mentioned the case where a person is subjected to risk. Suppose, because the hospital is badly managed, he is put in a position where he might have sustained serious harm but fortunately did not do so. He has not sustained hardship. What has happened is that he has been exposed to an unnecessary and improper risk, fortunately without bad results. That, I should have thought, could not be said to be, within the meaning of this phrase "hardship" something which falls within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, in relation to which he is given power to make an investigation. That is the point which I would seek to make in support of Amendment No. 88. May I also, while dealing with it and in order to save time, say that Amendment No. 92 is simply consequential on this Amendment; if Amendment No. 88 is acceptable to your Lordships, No. 92 will be consequential upon it.
It might be a saving of time to your Lordships' House if I also shortly argue the case in favour of Amendment No. 93. That is directed to precisely the same objective. It is an Amendment to Schedule 3 which says that the Commissioner must not investigate any action which stems from a clinical judgment. I accept that as a principle, but you may constantly have cases in which a doctor makes a mistake of clinical judgment—and that, I accept, should not by itself be the subject of investigation—but the

1509
surrounding circumstances are such as to seem to suggest that that type of mistake must have been due to some mismanagement on the part of the hospital as a whole. The doctor might have been a doctor who plainly had inadequate experience to deal with that type of case; he might have been alone and not able, under the hospital arrangements, to seek help or to communicate with somebody who could handle a case of that sort; he might not have been supplied with the appropriate equipment. Various things stemming from bad management in that hospital might have resulted in his being unable to form a better clinical judgment than he in fact did.
It is in order to deal with that kind of case that in Amendment No. 93 my noble friend and I propose that, while the clinical judgment should not be subject to investigation by itself so that one preserves the really important principle, nevertheless if the Commissioner thinks, when looking at the surrounding circumstances, that there is some ground for thinking that there was mismanagement on the part of the hospital as a whole and independently of that error in clinical judgment, then in that case, and only in that case, he is empowered, by the words which we have selected for our Amendment, to look at the whole matter. He can then ask himself whether this was really a case of mismanagement or whether there was no mismanagement and the error of clinical judgment was just an error of judgment on the part of a qualified doctor with all the help he required, with all the equipment he needed, and was simply one of those errors of judgment to which all human beings are unfortunately prone. That is the case in favour of Amendment No. 93. and it seeks to achieve the same sort of objective; that is, to prevent what perhaps otherwise might be thought to be an undue restriction of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Commissioner. I beg to move.
8.13 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I was suffering yesterday from "hardship" due to maladministration, and I had neither food nor drink from 12 o'clock noon until 10 o'clock at night. This evening I dashed away for five minutes to try to get something to eat, hoping
1510
that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, would take at least 40 minutes over his Amendment No. 84. Unfortunately, he seems to have rushed through it, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has rushed through Amendment No. 85, which I am sorry to have missed. However, I must address myself to the matter in hand, which I understand is Amendment No. 88.
As I came in, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was saying—and I understand that it is fully accepted in this House on all sides—that it is not to be the business of the Commissioner to interfere with matters of clinical judgment: a doctor must be allowed to prescribe what he thinks is right for his patient, and the patient has a remedy at law, and so on, if the doctor has in any way misprescribed. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply. It seems to me that these particular words almost completely deny what the noble and learned Lord was asserting (that is, that there should be no interference with clinical judgment), because I cannot interpret the words, "not received proper and adequate medical care" in any way except that they are a complaint against the clinical judgment of the doctor. I agree, of course, that in the particular case it could be argued that the doctor's decision, in the circumstances, was right, but that he had not got the proper apparatus, the department was inadequate and so forth. But it does not seem to me, in my comparative ignorance, that anything drafted into this Bill makes that at all clear. It seems to me that this brings the Commissioner right into questions of clinical judgment. If so, I would suggest that we are in for a rather long debate on some more suitable occasion.
8.16 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I must say that I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, in his definition of "hardship". I think that many of us have suffered from a certain amount of hardship in the course of this evening's debate. I think that I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that the "hardship" really covers some fairly basic suffering of an individual, which would cover the sort of case that he has in mind. Certainly I agree with the

1511
noble Lord, Lord Platt, that, as drafted, Amendments Nos. 88 and 92 verge on bringing clinical judgment into the matter, and I would not wish to accept those Amendments.
First of all, I do not think that they are necessary. Clause 34(3) already enables an aggrieved person to complain about failures in the service, or failures to provide a service, which result in hardship, and this would include hardship resulting from inadequate medical care or attention, provided, of course, that it was not otherwise excluded from investigation, for example, by the clinical judgment provision in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3. May I give the noble Lord an example or two which I think meet his point? A Health Service Commissioner would be able to investigate a complaint that a doctor failed to examine a patient as a result of a breakdown in the normal administrative process. That would be hardship. If the patient had had to wait for an excessive time for admission to hospital, that too would be a hardship. But it is desirable to keep the wording of the Bill as tight as possible, and to avoid adding superfluous words.
I would particularly suggest that the words in the Amendment would be undesirable because they refer to "medical care or attention". Either this would mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, fears, that it would be widening the Health Service Commissioner's remit into the field of clinical judgment or, if it is merely intended to clarify the terms of reference, then it would be unacceptable because it is not only medical care and attention that one receives in the National Health Service; there are nurses, physiotherapists, social workers and others involved, and it would be inappropriate to refer only to the doctor's role by stressing the medical aspect of care. We have this delicate question where we must keep the clinical judgment of the doctor completely free from investigation, but everything up to that point constitutes hardship if it is a failure of service, and I should think that the noble Lord would find that this works effectively right up to the borderline of clinical judgment.
The noble Lord very kindly also spoke to his Amendment No. 93. We had some
1512
discussion on Committee about this matter, and I appreciate the desirability of giving the Health Service Commissioners as much discretion as we can in the exercise of their functions. Indeed, there are several places in the Bill where we have done this. For example, Clause 34(4) gives discretion to investigate cases that could be taken to court in certain circumstances. Another Amendment that we have not yet reached, that to Clause 35(4), will give discretion to investigate complaints made directly by staff of health authorities. But I do not think that this is an area where discretion is appropriate.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 has been most carefully drafted. It excludes from investigation only those cases where it is solely action resulting from clinical judgment that is at issue; that would be the diagnosis the type of treatment prescribed or a decision to restrain a mental patient, for example. There can be no question of a Health Service Commissioner challenging a clinical judgment in such matters. But there will of course be the odd borderline case—and I think this is what the noble Lord has in mind—where it is not immediately clear whether an action complained of is, or is not, covered by the clinical judgment exclusion. For example, a complaint might be made about visiting hours because a hospital was unreasonably restrictive in allowing visitors in. On the other hand, it might be that the patient's condition did not allow frequent visiting. In borderline cases of that sort, the Health Service Commissioner will have power to resolve these problems under Clause 34(7), which gives him the right to determine whether he can initiate an investigation, and for that purpose he will be able to call upon expert advice if he needs it. I think this is the way in which we can go furthest to satisfy the noble Lord's difficulties. Where a borderline case is concerned, he will be able to call on expert advice. I hope that that answer will satisfy the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put this one question to him? I am conscious that I have not intervened earlier in this debate, but I should like to ask whether the Commissioner would be able to deal with a case where a

1513
patient did not have access to a consultant, which, as the noble Lord will know, very often happens. The Commissioner might feel that such a case had not been dealt with with proper and adequate medical care or attention, if a junior doctor was in charge although a consultant was ultimately responsible. Would that sort of case come within the purview of the Commissioner? I am only asking for information on this point. I entirely agree with what the Minister has said but, if possible, I should like to get that point clear in my mind.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if I may speak again, with the leave of the House, I would say that that was very much a borderline case and just the sort of case where the Commissioner would wish to take professional advice.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, in order not to incur the reproach of adding to the hardship of your Lordships' House I should not have ventured to intervene again, except that I really feel rather provoked by the answer which the Minister gave and by what, in my submission, is a misunderstanding by my noble friend Lord Platt. May I first answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Addison? If a patient could not obtain access to a consultant and if my Amendment No. 93 were accepted, that might form the subject of a complaint and there might be an investigation into the matter. If my Amendment No. 93 were not accepted, then it would be a matter of clinical judgment and there could be no investigation. That is the answer which I would give to my noble friend and, with great respect, I cannot help thinking that it is the right answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that Amendment No. 88, which in one sense is too narrow because it uses only the word "medical" and there are other aspects of the art of healing, nevertheless entrenches upon and trespasses upon the doctrine that the Commissioner is not to be allowed to investigate matters of clinical judgment. With very great respect, it does absolutely nothing of the kind. If the noble Lord will look at the Bill again, he will see that it is perfectly specific and clear. Clause 34 states what the Commissioner may investigate, and if you look at subsection (5) you
1514
will see that he is not to investigate anything which, in the terms of Schedule 3, is described as "clinical judgment". I do not in Amendment No. 88 seek to limit that provision in the very slightest degree. What I seek to do in Amendment No. 93 is to limit it in this sense, to give the Commissioner power, notwithstanding the other provisions in the Bill, to investigate a case of clinical judgment where there are surrounding circumstances to point to the conclusion that the error in clinical judgment was due to some mismanagement on the part of the hospital. To go back to my noble friend's example, where the doctor who made the error was plainly a doctor who was not equal to the task and where a consultant would not have made that error, if my Amendment No. 93 were accepted there could be an investigation into whether a consultant ought to have been called upon to look after the patient. I hope that I do not speak with any warmth to either my noble friend Lord Platt or to the Minister, but I am really tempted to point out what I submit is a very serious error in the reply which I have been given. My Amendment does not have that effect. I shall not endeavour to repeat again the purpose of it, but I venture to protest against its being subjected to criticism to which it is not open.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.27 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 34, line 41, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 45.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I come back to a subject which we discussed at Committee stage. At that stage, both the Minister and noble Lords connected with the medical profession brushed it on one side, on the grounds that the people referred to in Clause 34(5), which this Amendment seeks to delete, are not employees of any relevant body and therefore would not come within the purview of the Ombudsman. I can of course fully appreciate that argument but, on the other hand, I do not think we ought simply to leave the matter there without at least giving it some further consideration. In the first place, I am quite sure that the general public will be astonished when they discover that the Health Service Commissioner is not to be allowed to look at

1515
anything whatever to do with general practitioners, dentists, opticians or pharmacists. They will have supposed that the Ombudsman, as they will call him, will be there to help any patient in his relationship with the National Health Service. So that, as a matter of public concern, it is only right that we should stress the fact that this very large gap in the responsibilities of the Ombudsman is something which has not been widely appreciated, and which will cause considerable disappointment when it is.
I am also concerned about the existing position under the arrangements for complaints in this part of the Health Service. We have the Davies Committee looking at complaints in the Hospital Service, but I am afraid that we are not to have the benefit of their wisdom because, as we all know very well, they will not report until this Bill is through Parliament. That is most regrettable. I should like the Minister to inform us what investigations, if any, there have been into the working of the service committees in this part of the Health Service. My information is that, while in general the service committees who hear complaints about what will be called the family practitioner service work reasonably well, there are undoubtedly instances where they do not.
As your Lordships may know, anyone who takes a complaint to a service committee is entitled to have with him either a paid advocate or what is called an assistant. In certain circumstances his assistant may be an official of a trade union or of a society, but not necessarily so. A paid advocate is allowed to advise his client, but not speak: an assistant, on the other hand, may speak. This is the procedure which is laid down; and, of course, it is a sensible one in so far as such a hearing could be dominated by an experienced professional advocate. But I am told that when appearing before such a committee a complainant does not receive as a natural right a statement of his position, that he is very much dependent upon the good will or efficiency of the clerk concerned, and that in fact the clerk does not always tell him what his rights or position may be. I have been told of various instances in which these rules have in fact not been fully observed. So I should like to know, in the first place,
1516
just what steps are taken to see that the service committees follow the procedure which is laid down, and whose business it is to check on this.
These committees meet in private. Again, this is understandable, because if allegations are made against a doctor which are not well founded, it could nevertheless be very damaging to his reputation. Again, one does not complain about that, but it makes it all the more essential that one should be entirely satisfied that the procedure is a proper one and that the rules are in fact carried out. So far as I know, my Lords, there is no way by which a lay person who cannot afford a paid advocate can obtain advice in preparing his case. There is no representation service that I know of at the present time to help at such a hearing. He has to try to stand up to the medical evidence; whereas the doctor will almost always have some professional person to advise him from one of the medical defence unions, and normally takes out insurance to cover this sort of expense.
It is because one feels that the scales are rather heavily weighted against the complainant that one had hoped that the Ombudsman might act as, in a sense, a court of appeal. I have already, at an earlier stage of the Bill, pointed out that if a complainant is not satisfied with the decision of a service committee a right of appeal lies, either with the complainant or with the professional person concerned, to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State appoints a legal adviser, a medical adviser and another medical assessor to hear the appeal. But, as I stressed, the person who loses the appeal is subject to costs, which can be extremely heavy. This aspect worries me very much indeed, because what we are concerned about of course is that justice should be done and should be seen to be done. A doctor, as part of his normal expenses (and I presume he could also set such an expense against tax) takes out an insurance policy to meet such contingencies; the ordinary citizen does not. The ordinary citizen is not insured against this kind of thing; it is not a risk which most of us would think should be covered by insurance, that we should have to meet the costs of any such appeal. It therefore appears to me that in this particular sector of the Health Service one is not

1517
satisfied that justice is both done and seen to be done.
It may well be, for the reasons that were put forward when we discussed this matter on a previous occasion, that it is not possible to amend the Bill in the way that we have suggested, by bringing this sector of the Health Service within the purview of the Ombudsman. But if it is not, then I think one really would wish to have some assurance from the Minister that the considerations which I have put forward will be looked at by the Department, with some idea of the manner in which this might be done; because I think some of the points that I have made would not come within any review by tribunal machinery, particularly in such matters as skilled advice for someone who is appearing before such a committee or this matter of, as I say, the award of costs, which must be a very important deterrent against taking the matter to appeal if one is not satisfied in the first place.
One other question which I might ask is whether the community health councils would be able to proffer advice in this particular area to anyone who was taking a complaint to a service committee. Would that be part of their recognised functions, if they thought it a desirable thing to do? As I say, that might be one way to redress the balance between the lay person and the professional person. At the moment it is not something which seems to me to be fair, and I shall be very interested to know whether the Minister has given further thought to this since we discussed it at Committee stage. I beg to move.
8.37 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this matter up again. I do not agree with her that there are all these difficulties over complaints made to service committees. I think that, on the whole, they work extremely well. The working of these committees was last looked at in 1966 in the course of a joint study by the then Ministry of Health and representatives of the medical profession, and the arrangements generally are under the oversight of the Council on Tribunals. I think that should be some reassurance to the noble Baroness that they are properly conducted. As to the matter that she touched on about help to the complainant,
1518
the fact is that complainants may be assisted in the presentation of their cases by some other person, but neither side to the complaint may use counsel, solicitor or other paid advocate to conduct their case. So mostly they are informal hearings; mostly the complainant and the doctor only appear and in most cases, therefore, the costs are very small. Even so, executive councils have discretion to contribute to costs, and in fact may be directed to do so by the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness also asked me about the position of community health councils. Certainly they would be in the same position as any other person, and if they so wished they would be able to proffer advice, to a person in connection with a complaint through the statutory procedure. My Lords, we think that this statutory procedure is working well, and, as I say, it is under the oversight of the Council on Tribunals. It is part of the present arrangements with the medical profession, and any desire to change it would need a great deal of discussion with the medical profession before the change could be adopted. I feel that generally these arrangements are working reasonably well.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about the costs on appeal?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not know what costs will be involved on appeal. Cases come to the Secretary of State and he then gives his judgment. I do not know what costs will be involved.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I ask another question? I cannot speak again. On appeal, advocates are allowed and they have to be paid; therefore the costs on appeal could be quite considerable. That is the point I made strongly on the last occasion as being so uncertain as to be a great deterrent.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, as I said before, the Secretary of State has power to contribute towards the costs.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 35 [Provisions relating to complaints]:
8.42 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 35, line 27, leave out ("other") and insert ("by some body or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to remove the restriction in Clause 35(2) which prevents bodies of persons as distinct from individuals from making complaints to a Health Service Commissioner on behalf of an aggrieved person. The Amendment will make it possible for such bodies as community health councils, voluntary organisations or local authorities to take complaints to the Commissioner in cases where the aggrieved person has died or is unable to act for himself. Perhaps he may be mentally ill or physically handicapped. The purpose of the Amendment was to meet points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, on Committee stage. I am grateful to her for drawing our attention to what was a flaw in the provisions for the Health Service Commissioner which would unnecessarily have limited to individuals this ability to take grievances on behalf of those who were unable to act for themselves. There may be cases when one of the voluntary bodies in the National Health Service feels it right to do so, and the subsection, as amended, will give the necessary authority. I beg to move.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for coming so far to meet us, and I am extremely grateful for his writing fully to me about the whole subject. I have listened to his description and we very much welcome the fact that community health councils and voluntary organisations can present appeals. But I should like to say that this is so only if the aggrieved person is dead or incapable. That is the first point. The second is that I read his letter almost for hours. It was extremely complicated. He did his best to explain, even to somebody as simple as I am, what it meant; but I could not find out whether it could apply to nationalised industries, local authorities or parts of nationalised industries—which was the main point that I made when we discussed this issue on Committee. We on this side feel that they are precisely the bodies most responsible and greatly experienced—especially in the nationalised industries—in occupational diseases. These are the bodies—and this goes back to my first point—
1520
who could apply for, say, three or four people who had not had the kind of treatment they ought to have had but were, fortunately, still alive and not mentally handicapped.
What we were anxious to get across on Committee was, first, that we could not see why the nationalised industries, so responsible and so experienced, should be left out; and, secondly, why, in cases where it had been found that there were complaints which applied to the same kind of diseases or treatment, a communal approach (if I may put it that way) could be made by the experienced body on behalf of a group of people who were, fortunately, not necessarily dead and not mentally incapable. Although I read the noble Lord's letter with gratitude, I still could not feel, unless I am wrong, that he met that point. From what he has said to-night, I am still at sea. Could he clarify this?
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, following what my noble friend has said, may I very shortly put this question? As she pointed out, the Amendment relates only to a case where the individual in question is not capable of making a complaint on his own behalf. Clause 35(1), in terms, says:
"A complaint under this Part of this Act may be made by any individual, or by any body of persons whether incorporated or not …".
Putting aside for the moment local authorities and so on, what I should like to ask the Minister is this. In what circumstances can a body of persons, an incorporated body of persons, a limited company, make a complaint? In order to make a complaint, must the limited company be able to show that within the meaning of Clause 34(3) that limited company is a person complaining that he has "sustained injustice or hardship"? In what circumstances is it envisaged that a limited company could, within the meaning of that subsection, complain that it had "sustained injustice or hardship"?
In the course of the argument my noble friend referred to companies. For example, I.C.I. was referred to. That is a limited company. I think somebody made the supposition that poisoned food had been served in the canteen of I.C.I. and that 20 people, employees of the company, had been poisoned and that they

1521
were not properly looked after. In those circumstances, could the I.C.I. complain? And, in order to complain, would the I.C.I. have to be able to say, within the meaning of subsection (3), that it was a person which had "sustained injustice"—hardly "injustice"—or "hardship"? It is rather difficult to say in those circumstances that it had sustained hardship. Or would it be able to say: "I am making a complaint not on my own behalf but on behalf of those 20 people who have been poisoned by this food and who have not been properly looked after"? Is that the approach which is to be made by the I.C.I., if they could make a complaint in those circumstances?
The question is, first, could the I.C.I. make a complaint in those circumstances? Secondly, would the I.C.I., in order to make a complaint, have to show that its complaint was that it had "sustained injustice or hardship"? I feel myself that there is some ambiguity about the wording here. The Minister has had an extremely tiring afternoon, and to start posing these questions is rather putting a hardship upon him. I should be happy if at a later stage he would give consideration to it. He might, after consideration, think that the language is ambiguous and that some change ought to be made.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not tired and I do not agree that any change whatever is required in this clause. May I try to explain. I admit that it is complicated, but I do not think it is really as complicated as it sounds. The first point to grasp, which I think follows the example of the Parliamentary Commissioner and which I think is correct and right, is that the person making the complaint should be able to do it for himself. Clause 35(2) says:
"Where the person by whom a complaint might have been made under the preceding provision of this Part of this Act has died or is for any reason unable to act for himself,"
the complaint may be made by somebody else. I think we must accept that in normal circumstances a complainant makes the complaint on his own behalf.
What we propose by this Amendment is that any body may act as the personal representative, as well as the "other individual" mentioned in the original text.
1522
We now make it possible for any body to act on behalf of that person who is unable to act on his own behalf. That includes local authorities, nationalised industries, community health councils—any body. It does not even go to the exclusion of local authorities, as in Clause 35(1)(a).
There is another case, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, where in Clause 34(3) it states:
"… where the complaint is duly made by or on behalf of any person …"
As the noble and learned Lord knows, "any person" covers a number of people in a company or other group of people. This is a case where a body of persons—the noble and learned Lord mentioned I.C.I.—can put in a complaint on their own behalf as a body of persons. From this sort of complaint there is excluded the local authority or other public body because, as with the case of the Parliamentary Commissioner, it is felt that public bodies have direct access to Ministers and other ways of pursuing their own complaints. But where it is a public company, like I.C.I., and if they can substantiate that they have cause for complaint, and that they have suffered a hardship, then they can complain themselves. I should think that this is just the sort of case—a very rare case—where they might have a complaint; where, as the noble and learned Lord suggested, there was an outbreak of food poisoning or some such thing, and the ambulance did not arrive for an hour and a half. I think that that is just the sort of case, but that it would be very rare. So I think that everything is perfectly clear. I hope that I have not confused it still more, and that the cases at which the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness are looking are covered.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, since I can only ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, a question before he sits down, may I ask whether he is aware that we are deeply grateful that in his last few words he has made the situation very much clearer than it was before? The noble Lord should realise that we still worry about this communal business, but we are very much more satisfied, in the light especially of the last two sentences of

1523
what he said, and we are much happier than we were before.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, before we express our utter satisfaction, may I ask the Minister what happens if the food poisoning occurs, for example, on the premises of the National Coal Board? Surely that would be a matter of day-to-day administration where the Minister has no direct responsibility, and I cannot see that the N.C.B. is in any better position than I.C.I. would be in circumstances of that sort. It seems to me that to include nationalised industries "or undertaking or part of an industry or undertaking" is quite absurd in this connection. Suppose that under the mixed economy which we enjoy the Government take shares in an industry, as they may well do and indeed as they have done on a number of occasions, but have no part in the management of the industry. Is the Minister really telling the House that in those circumstances people affected by food poisoning and who are on the premises of some establishment belonging to such an industry are in a different position owing to their intimate relationship with the Minister—which in fact they do not have—than the employees of a private undertaking? And what proportion of shares would the Government have to have in order to bring this part of the Act into operation? I seriously suggest that the Minister should look at this again. I do not think the point would arise very often, but I cannot see the logic of the provisions of Clause 35(1)(a). I do not think the Government are covered by the Minister's otherwise extremely helpful Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if by leave of the House I may speak again, I would say that I think we are splitting hairs. This is in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act. It repeats the matter that exists there and, on the whole, statutory authorities and bodies constituted for the purpose of public service does not seem to me to cover companies in which there have been investments. These publicly-owned undertakings and local authorities have access through other channels, and I think it is much better to leave it as it is in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask whether he will acept my sincere thanks for his explanation?
8.58 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 35, line 43, at end insert ("; but a Commissioner may disregard the preceding provisions of this subsection in relation to a complaint made by an officer of the relevant body in question on behalf of the person aggrieved if the officer is authorised by virtue of subsection (2) of this section to make the complaint and the Commissioner is satisfied that in the particular circumstances those provisions ought to be disregarded.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which I hope meets the wishes of the House, because there was a great deal of criticism during the Committee stage about the rigidity of not allowing staff to complain, on very rare occasions, direct to the Health Service Commissioner. This Amendment gives the Health Service Commissioners discretion to investigate complaints made to them direct by members of the stall of Health Service Authorities on behalf of aggrieved persons who are unable to act for themselves, without such complaint having first been brought to the notice of the responsible health authority and without the authority having been given an opportunity to investigate and reply to the complaint.
We had a very full discussion during the Committee stage about the issues involved. The present Amendment is similar in substance to the one which was moved on that occasion by the noble Baronesses, Lady White and Lady Scrota. I am still convinced, both on grounds of principle and also on what is practicable, that it is right, and indeed essential, that the Health Service Authorities should in general take responsibility for inquiring into and, where possible, resolving complaints made against the service that they provide or which it is alleged they have failed to provide, but I was equally convinced by the very strong arguments in the debate that some room should be left for handling the exceptional complaints in an exceptional way. That is the point of the Amendment. It will enable a member of the staff of whatever status or grade to go

1525
direct to the Commissioner with a complaint made on behalf of a patient unable to act for himself. I should expect that such patients would be predominantly in the long-stay hospitals, which is the group of hospitals about which most anxiety was expressed. The decision whether to make his own investigation straight away on receipt of a complaint will be a matter for the Health Service Commissioner. I should not imagine that the need to do so would arise very often, but whether or not that proves to be the case, the Amendment provides the Commissioner with the discretionary power which I think your Lordships desired that he should have. My Lords, I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, we are extremely grateful to the Minister for having been sensitive to the very clear opinion of the House on this matter which was in no sense expressed only from these Benches. The anxieties of the Committee were expressed strongly from both sides, and especially, as the noble Lord rightly said, in connection with the long-stay hospitals. It is mostly in those hospitals that one will be in the situation of a patient who is not in a position to make a complaint for himself. We were glad also to hear the noble Lord make it plain that the term "officer" covers people of all grades, so that any member of the staff who feels that there is something seriously wrong as it affects patients will be entitled to take his complaint direct to the Commissioner. The one thing that slightly worried me was whether a doctor or other professional person is necessarily an officer. What happens if a doctor feels that he wishes to go direct to the Commissioner in respect of some grievance? Can the noble Lord clear my mind on that point?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not sure about it. I should have thought that he was not an officer, but I will have to let the noble Baroness know.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I should be grateful, because in our Amendment we were careful to draw the distinction between those who were employed by and those under contract to the relevant body. This is a matter of importance. One can envisage circumstances in which it would be advisable for a doctor to have the opportunity of going
1526
directly to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner in those circumstances investigating forthwith.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt, but it struck me that what we were trying to get at in this connection was very much the case of victimisation. I hardly think that this would apply to a doctor. We are anxious about a person who may be frightened of making complaints. I do not think doctors would come into this category.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, as one who took part on this matter on the Committee stage and as president of a voluntary organisation that has had a great deal to do with these questions, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for meeting us. Like my noble friend Lady White, I am not clear about the meaning of the word "officer". The noble Lord has told us that it means a member of staff of whatever status or grade. But I should have thought that in the years ahead the noble Lord's words may not be known, because you cannot expect members of the public or even of the legal profession, to go through the minutiae of Hansard to find out what an Act means. This is rather a late stage in the Bill, but I should have thought that there was a case for defining the word "officer" in the interpretation clause, Clause 39. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider that suggestion? If it cannot be done in this House, perhaps it could be done when the Bill goes to another place.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord for the effort he has made to meet the points that were raised on all sides in Committee. I am very conscious that we put him under considerable pressure at that time. I really believe that the Amendment he has just moved will be of immense value in this legislation. I think it will give confidence to the staff in the Service and to the public, and I see it as a great improvement to the Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I could sense how strongly she felt on this point. It has suddenly come to my mind in regard to doctors that "officers" includes all National Health Service staff except

1527
family practitioners. So that term would include a doctor in a hospital, if that intimation helps.
Clause 46 [Expenses of new health authorities]:
9.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 43, line 4, at end insert—
("(d) to the Greater London Council sums equal to the expenses which the Secretary of State determines are incurred by that Council for the purpose of performing the functions conferred on that Council by virtue of this Act.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may recollect that yesterday I moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 inclusive, which were agreed to by the House. The effect of those Amendments was to exempt the London Ambulance Service from being transferred from the Greater London Council to the Department. This Amendment is consequential upon those Amendments. In effect, it provides for the payment by the Secretary of State to the Greater London Council of such sums as are incurred through the organisation and provision of the London Ambulance Service. Your Lordships will know that the Greater London Council is not a rate-levying body, and up to this time it has (to use the word) precepted the boroughs; I would prefer to say indented for the cost to each individual borough. The Government have contributed to the cost through the rate support grants to each borough. I am informed that, so far as the Ambulance Service is concerned, about 40 per cent. of the cost has been met by the Government.
When this Bill becomes an Act, the boroughs will no longer have any Health Service function and there will be no block support grant in this respect. Having looked at the Local Government Act, I am not sure that a block support grant could not still be maintained in respect of the Ambulance Service under the provisions of that Act. To say that that is obscure is putting it mildly, and therefore this Amendment has been drawn, as it were, to fill the breach.
My Lords, for two reasons I would submit that this is a matter of equity.
1528
Your Lordships' House accepted the principle that the London Ambulance Service should still in the future be run by the Greater London Council. Secondly, in my submission, the use to which the service will be put will be by the National Health Service and the patients who are treated by it in one form or another. It is only right, in my submission, that the country, and the taxpayer in that form, should pay for it.
My noble friend spoke to this Amendment yesterday afternoon, at column 1256 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and said one or two fairly unkind things about the Amendment. When one looks at it in relation to the section as a whole, in my submission it then appears quite reasonable. It is not beyond the wit of my noble friend and his Department between now and when this Bill becomes an Act to devise, if I may use the phrase, an accountability system. Apart from that, and putting on my county council hat for a moment, there are other provisions where, on the face of it, a local authority is given a blank cheque, or what seems to be a blank cheque, notably concerning the improvement of roads. I very much hope that your Lordships will give this Amendment your blessing, as happened yesterday with Amendments 2 to 7. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should not wish to oppose this Amendment, since it has been proposed by my noble friend as consequential to the Amendments that were carried yesterday. All I want to do at this point is to repeat my uneasiness about a system under which one authority calls the tune but another authority pays the piper. The effect of the Amendments already carried is that the Greater London Council will call the tune and this present Amendment. It seems to me that what the Social Services must pay the piper.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, am sorry to think that the noble Lord feels that London will call a tune that will not be to the liking of the Government. It seems to me that in what the noble Lord said in Committee when we were considering this matter he acknowledged that the Greater London Council was doing precisely the job that the Government wanted to be done, and

1529
even if the Bill had remained as the Government wished it to remain, the cost, in view of the fact that the Greater London Council was going to do the work, as it were, on an agency basis, would have been the same. There really is no problem here. It seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has put the matter extremely reasonably and I doubt whether any who were in this House yesterday when we discussed the matter would feel that there is anything of substance in what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said with regard to any difference between he who calls the tune and he who pays the piper. I think that the concern that has been expressed has no basis in fact. I hope the Government will appreciate that in London there is a unique situation and that the need for the Ambulance Service is being met in a meticulously satisfactory manner, in so far as it can be met, and that no improvement is to be gained by introducing change for change's sake. The important thing—
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I would certainly never accept that we are introducing change for change's sake. I tried to explain at great length yesterday what the purpose was, and I see no point in going over all those arguments again.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if that is all the noble Lord has to say, then I think we can let the matter rest, because your Lordships' House decided this matter yesterday.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should not like to let my Amendment go through, or otherwise, on an unpleasant note. I should like to thank my noble friend for the attitude he has taken now. I am not being facetious when I say that I hope the tune which will be called in future is as congenial as it has been during the period of the London Government Act 1963.
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments of enactments]:
9.11 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
1530
Page 58, line 8, after ("3(1)") insert ("or 3(2)(a)(i)").—(Lord Belstead.)
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, this Amendment is also a drafting Amendment, like the last one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 20, leave out from ("words") to end of line 22 and insert ("from "local" to "treatment" there shall be substituted the words "Secretary of State to carry out the functions conferred on him by section 3 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973."").—(Lord Belstead.)
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 58, line 27, leave out from ("words") to end of line 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to delete from Schedule 4 a drafting Amendment which was originally proposed to Section 1 of the National Health Service Act 1946. This Amendment had given rise to some anxiety on the part of the professions which provide family practitioner services. They were concerned that it might blur the important distinction in the 1946 Act between the services which the Secretary of State has a direct responsibility to provide and the family practitioner services, which are provided by the contractor professions and where the Secretary of State's duty is to secure their effective supervision. I move.
9.14 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 66, line 24, leave out ("Act of 1946") and insert ("Acts of 1946 and 1947").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment makes for Scotland the technical drafting change made for England and Wales at Committee stage to maintain the present position under the National Health Service Act 1951 that no charge may be made in respect of a dental or optical appliance supplied by a hospital to a patient for the time being resident in a hospital. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 66, line 34, after ("Act") insert ("at the end of the definition of "children's

1531
glasses" there shall be inserted the words and which are supplied for a person who was, at the time of the examination or testing of sight leading to the supply of the glasses or of the first such examination or testing, under sixteen years of age or receiving full-time instruction in a school within the meaning of the Education Act 1944 or the Education (Scotland) Act 1962."
(2) In that Schedule,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to fill a gap in the National Health Service Act 1951 so that the range of spectacle frames with which children can have their glasses free of charge may be further improved. The 1951 Act introduced charges for the supply of spectacle frames and lenses except for "children's glasses", which were defined as "glasses for which a standard type of children's frame is used". The intention was that this exemption should be for the benefit of children only, but the Act did not expressly provide that adults should not be supplied with such glasses, or that they should be charged for the supply of them.
It has always been open to children to have their glasses fitted to National Health Service frames from outside the children's standard range, on payment of the appropriate charge. For older children the frame charge only is payable, but for children under the age of ten the lens charges are payable as well. There has, however, been growing pressure to extend the children's standard range of frames to include some of the more attractive plastic frames which are in the general range. Last year we took the first step towards this by transferring to the children's standard range one such frame which was already regarded as more suitable for children; but we have not felt able to go any further under existing legislation, because of the likelihood that adults might then demand and obtain glasses fitted to such frames without having to pay any charge. This would defeat the intention behind the provisions in the 1951 Act and cause an unacceptable loss of revenue. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 100 is to keep the provisions relating to the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland in line with those for the Health Service Com-
1532
missioners for England and Wales. I beg to move Amendment No. 100.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 33, at end insert—
("131A.—(1) In section 46(2) of that Act leave out ("other ") and insert ("by some body or").
(2) In subsection (4) of that section at end insert ("; but the Commissioner may disregard the preceding provisions of this subsection in relation to a complaint made by an officer of the body subject to investigation on behalf of the person aggrieved if the officer is authorised by virtue of subsection (2) of this section to make the complaint and the Commissioner is satisfied that in the particular circumstances those provisions ought to be disregarded.").—(Lord Aberdare.)
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Amendment remedies an omission among the repeals set out in Schedule 5. I beg to move Amendment No. 101.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 21, column 3, at end insert ("Section 79.").—(Lord Aberdare.)
Clause 57 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 49, line 9, leave out from ("Scotland ") to ("may") in line 10 and insert ("and the National Health Service (Scotland) Acts 1947 to 1972")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment provides a new collective title of "the National Health (Service) Acts 1947 to 1973" by making clear that the present Bill may be cited together with the Scottish Acts up to 1972 which were given a collective title in Section 65(2) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972. The revised wording is technically more accurate and conforms to the similar provision relating to the legislation for England and Wales. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Amendment applies to Scotland two provisions in Schedule 4 to the Bill amending the National Health Service Act 1951. I beg to move Amendment No. 103.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 26, after ("41") insert (", 55(2), 56(1)").—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 49, line 26, leave out ("92") and insert ("97, 115")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is first, to delete an inappropriate reference to the Public Health Laboratory Service Act 1960, which does not apply to Scotland; secondly, to give effect in Scotland to the changes being made in the provisions governing the membership of the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors; and thirdly, similarly to apply the revised definition of hovercraft which is embodied in paragraph 115 of Schedule 4. I beg to move.

  HOUSING: COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS
  HOUSING: COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS