Sitting of 25 January 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    South-East Asia
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand on the renegotiation of the five-Power defence agreement in South-East Asia.
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): The five-Power defence arrangements will be among the subjects for discussion during my right hon. and noble Friend's current tour of the Far East and Australasia.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do the Malaysian Government want us to retain troops in the Far East?
    Mr. Gilmour: Yes. We have no reason to doubt the Malaysian Government's continued support for the five-Power defence arrangements.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: As peace in Vietnam may prove to be illusory, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government attach great importance to the maintenance of a peace-keeping force in that region? Will they encourage the Australian and New Zealand Governments to continue their contribution by guaranteeing that the British contribution will not be diminished in any way?
    Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the Government attach importance to these arrangements. We think that they are valuable and we hope that they will continue.
    Mr. John Morris: Have the Government any contingency plans in the event
    618
    of Australia and New Zealand not replacing existing ground forces in Malaysia and Singapore? Would it not be ludicrous if in that event we continued with what are called the five-Power arrangements? Would not the whole thing be reduced to a farce if that happened?
    Mr. Gilmour: As the right hon. Members knows, the Ministry of Defence always has contingency arrangements for virtually everything. As the right hon. Gentleman is also aware, however, there is no immediate likelihood of what he described happening. All these matters will be discussed by my right hon. and noble Friend.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend consider augmenting the British naval presence in the area since naval forces do not require the same degree of base facilities and infrastructure support as land forces?
    Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend will know, we always keep the level of our dispositions under the five-Power arrangements under review.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the proposed increase in the current year's arms spending of £2,854 million a year by more than £400 million next year in cash terms.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: No, Sir. Details of defence expenditure in 1973–74 will be contained in the Defence White Paper, to be published next month.
    Mr. Allaun: The Minister has already announced an increase in real terms. Since Britain is spending a higher proportion of its gross national product on arms than any other Western European NATO country except Portugal, should not we be reducing the level to their average, thereby saving £500 million a year? Why are we taking on this extra burden and the additional burdens in the next three years as shown by the recent Government survey?
    Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Member knows the answers very well. For one thing we spend a far smaller proportion of our GNP on defence than the Russians

    619
    and we spend less on defence than some other European countries.
    Mr. Peart: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. East (Mr. Frank Allaun) was asking whether we were paying a reasonable contribution relative to other NATO members. I assume that we are, but what is the percentage increase?
    Mr. Gilmour: The exact figure will come out in the defence expenditure White Paper, but I believe it is about 5 per cent.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Will the Minister indicate whether the other countries in Eastern Europe are now spending less on arms than they were last year or the year before?
    Mr. Gilmour: I have no reason to believe that that is so.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Duffyasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the operation of the British Army in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on operations in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Since the House adjourned before Christmas the Army has continued to mount patrols and selective search and arrest operations throughout the province and the security forces are making considerable progress in the fight against terrorism. For three days over Christmas the Provisional wing of the IRA called a cease-fire, with the direct result that the level of violence including bombing and shooting attacks fell. After the cease-fire ended, the toll of death and destruction inevitably increased but, thanks to the strenuous efforts of the security forces, it has nevertheless been reduced to a level some 60 per cent. below that of last July.
    Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister recall that the last time he answered Questions he dealt with one from me about the morale of the troops and that within a week all the Press had headline reports that 28 members of the Second Battalion of the Paratroops had applied for discharge rather than return to Northern Ireland? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that through parliamentary Questions and correspondence I have continually sought to improve the morale of the troops through improved accommodation and that I am probably the only hon. Member to do so? Will the Minister now act entirely out of character, eschew the vicious personal smears and confine himself precisely to saying what he is doing to improve the well-being and morale of the lads over there?
    Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Member sometimes uses odd methods to improve the morale of our troops. I was in Northern Ireland last week and I found morale extremely high.
    Mr. Goodhart: Will my hon. Friend convey our congratulations to the British Army units in Northern Ireland for their most encouraging successes in recent weeks? Will he also give our congratulations to the GOC Northern Ireland who deserves our warmest thanks at the end of a most arduous and difficult tour of duty? Is it not the case that the strain on the Army of internal security operations in Northern Ireland is still very great and that the quickest way of relieving that strain is to build up local defence forces? Will my hon. Friend put fresh vigour into the recruiting drive for the Ulster Defence Regiment and, so far as he can, for the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
    Mr. Gilmour: I entirely accept and am grateful for what my hon. Friend said by way of congratulations to the troops and the GOC. I am sure that the whole House will echo them. I accept also the difficulty of the conditions in which our troops are operating. However, as my hon. Friend knows we attach considerable importance to the UDR and we are giving urgent attention to recruiting.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I also commend the successes of our forces but in view of the need to replace Regulars with local forces as soon as possible will my hon.

    621
    Friend now introduce Regular companies into UDR battalions? Will he also see what can be done to establish some form of Home Guard, whether under military or police auspices, drawn from both communities?
    Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend will realise that we keep all these options under review. I think, however, that the provision of Regular companies of the UDR would need legislation. The UDR is in a sense in the nature of a Home Guard. I agree that not everyone who joins is able to serve exactly where he lives but his locality is taken into account so far as possible and I am not at the moment convinced that any further force would be useful.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman seriously reflect on his observations in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) a few moments ago and the offensive remarks, if I recall them rightly, made on a previous occasion? Will he pay my hon. Friend the compliment of confirming that he has taken a great interest in the welfare of our troops in Northern Ireland and will he withdraw any suggestion that he has made either today or on previous occasions? Will he tell the House in terms what has been done to improve accommodation and deal with matters of that kind in Northern Ireland since this matter was last dealt with at Question Time?
    Mr. Gilmour: I have nothing to withdraw in what I have said to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot regard his normal interventions or remarks relating to the Army as being helpful. As I said earlier we have done a good deal to make the conditions under which our soldiers live in Northern Ireland much more tolerable. In the nature of things, they have to some extent to live uncomfortably. Their morale is extremely good.
    Mr. Pounder: As there have been so many false dawns in Northern Ireland over the past three years and as my hon. Friend has referred to violence having fallen by over 60 per cent., presumably since Operation Motorman in July, may I ask him to tell us how that sort of figure is quantified, bearing in mind that while the number of bombs may have diminished the number of awful and
    622
    hideous assassinations has been on the increase?
    Mr. Gilmour: It depends on where one takes the date. The number of incidents of violence has fallen in recent weeks from the high level of six months ago at the time of Operation Motorman. I did not intend to suggest that the level of violence is not far too high. It is and we are not at all satisfied with it.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: While I have always supported the Army and all it does in the difficult and arduous conditions of Northern Ireland, may I ask the Minister to give us the guarantee that it will continue to carry out these difficult duties with complete and utter impartiality between the sections of the community? This is vital to the future of Ireland.
    Mr. Gilmour: Of course I can give that guarantee. The Army meets violence from wherever it comes with the right amount of violence and it is entirely impartial in the performance of its duties.
    Captain Orr: Can my hon. Friend say whether in the event of the Ulster Defence Regiment having to be fully mobilised, under any circumstances, there are enough weapons at present in Northern Ireland to equip each soldier?
    Mr. Gilmour: As far as I know, the answer is "Yes". I will look into this.
    Mr. Stallard: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to give a date for the ending of the occupation of Casement Park by the Army?
    Mr. Gilmour: No, I am not. I visited Casement Park and in my view it is a useful location for the troops and an important position for them to occupy under present conditions.
    Mr. John Morrisasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the conditions of service of soldiers serving in Germany who are temporarily transferred to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he is now taking to ensure that no British Servicemen are worse off financially as a result of emergency posting to Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): It is my objective to ensure as far as possible that no Serviceman sent on a temporary tour to Northern Ireland is worse off financially as a result.
    Mr. Morris: Does the Minister recall that 17 men of the Welsh Guards returned to this country from Germany on 8th December and were obliged to pay duty on the motor cars they had purchased in Germany? Is it not a great scandal that they and 23,000 other soldiers are at risk since they have the expectation that if they serve in Germany for more than 12 months they will be able to import goods tax-free? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the letter from my constituent which says that this is tantamount to soldiers having to pay for the privilege of serving in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Blaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing to my attention the case of the Welsh Guards who suffered in having to pay duty on the importation of their cars. I am glad to be able to tell him that it has been agreed in principle that in exceptional cases involving tours of duty in Northern Ireland a Serviceman may be reimbursed in circumstances such as these. The detailed instructions are in course of preparation.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does my hon. Friend realise that many of us think it wrong that any soldier who has to leave a comfortable home in Germany to undertake arduous duties in Northern Ireland should lose money? As a step in the right direction, will my hon. Friend consider paying separation allowances earlier than 31 days after going to Northern Ireland, which is the present limit?
    Mr. Blaker: I know my hon. Friend's close interest in this question. As my right hon. and noble Friend has explained, he is having this question reexamined. My hon. Friend will understand that it is a difficult one with wide ramifications.
    Mr. Morris: I am sure that the whole House appreciates the Minister's response. Does he agree that these Welsh Guardsmen suffered a miserable experience on 8th December and also a miserable
    624
    Christmas awaiting the result of representations? May I take it that his answer will apply to them?
    Mr. Blaker: Indeed it will apply to them, and I regret the anxiety they suffered.

    Fishery Protection (South Coast)
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that the speed and capability of the fishery patrol vessels operating along the South Coast are adequate to deal with foreign trawlers fishing within the 12-mile limit.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): Yes, Sir. The vessels most commonly used are coastal minesweepers and minehunters which have a good all-weather seagoing capacity, remarkable manoeuvrability and an operational speed of about 15 knots. I actually spent two days on one, HMS "Brinton", during the Christmas Recess.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the inshore fishermen on the South Coast are concerned about the increasing number of foreign trawlers fishing within the 12-mile limit? Is he aware that many of them view with scepticism the efficiency and capability of the vessels he has mentioned?
    Mr. Buck: I met some of my constituents at sea and they did not share the doubts expressed by the hon. Gentleman. These are extremely seaworthy craft and we will do everything to see that the high morale among the fishery protection people is continued and that a high degree of coverage is maintained and, if possible, increased.
    Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this is a serious matter for fishermen in the Straits of Dover and in Folkestone and Hythe? Is there any means by which they can notify these fishery patrol vessels when intruders come into their area?
    Mr. Buck: I realise the seriousness of this matter. This is one of the reasons why I was so keen early in my ministerial life to see this type of work going on. The main means of communication between the fishing vessels and the Navy

    625
    protection vessels seem to be very good. There is the closest liaison, as I saw when I went to sea with these craft.

    502 Squadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will re-form No. 502 Squadron of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): This question is something of an old friend. I can only reply as I have done previously that I have no plans to re-form this unit.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind my hon. Friend that No. 502 Squadron was the first special reserve squadron formed for the Royal Air Force and could appropriately be the first reserve squadron to be re-formed now to fulfil a special need, namely for border and coastal surveillance and casualty evacuation and to build up the local indigenous forces under the Crown, particularly at a time when the Irish Army aviation is re-equipping with armed Cessnas and is perhaps even considering armed jet Provosts?
    Lord Lambton: No one would deny that the re-forming would have certain uses but what we have to consider is whether they would be adequate bearing in mind the amount of money that would be spent.

    French Nuclear Tests
    Mr. Spearingasked the Minister of State for Defence if he has received an invitation for any personnel for whom he is responsible to observe the forthcoming French nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: No, Sir.
    Mr. Spearing: Is that not strange in view of the Foreign Secretary's pronouncements about the rôle of the European outlook in world affairs? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government will be represented in any way at these tests in view of what I have pointed out?
    Mr. Gilmour: The French Government have not yet confirmed that there will be a test series this year. If nuclear
    626
    tests are carried out we shall, as in the past, take all appropriate steps to look after the health and safety of the inhabitants of our dependent territories in the area.
    Mr. Marten: In view of the feelings of Australia and New Zealand about these tests, may I ask whether the Government have made any recent attempt to persuade the French Government to sign the test ban treaty?
    Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend is aware, the French Government know full well our views on this. We hope that in due course they will sign the test ban treaty. As my hon. Friend probably also knows, we voted for a resolution sponsored by Australia and New Zealand asking for an end to nuclear tests in the atmosphere.
    Mr. Peart: Would it not be helpful if the Government made a forthright declaration and said that they specifically supported the New Zealand Government in their attitude? Is he aware that many people feel that the Government have been rather quiet and that they have allowed President Pompidou and Mr. Debre, the Minister of Defence, to get away with things? Is it not time to speak up for the British people?
    Mr. Gilmour: The fundamental difference between the two sides of the House is that we do not believe that a strategy of indscriminate denunciations and declarations is ever very effective.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that only yesterday I received a letter from Pitcairn Islands saying that the flora and fauna have suffered the most devastating damage as a result of nuclear fall-out and that the British authorities responsible for this area are entirely oblivious to the fate of the islanders? Will my hon. Friend make inquiries to help the population of this distant outpost of the former British Empire?
    Mr. Gilmour: I was not aware of my hon. Friend's recent correspondence. He is quite wrong in saying that we are oblivious to what goes on in Pitcairn Island. Our radiological surveys have not indicated any damage to health in the area round the island as a result of the French tests.
    Mr. Loughlin: Is not a serious principle involved here? Is it not time for the Government to support New Zealand and Australia in their contest against what is, in effect, a serious crime against humanity since all nuclear tests are likely to damage not only the people now living on earth but future generations?
    Mr. Gilmour: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's alarmist language. The French Government are well aware of our views and we supported the Australian and New Zealand resolution in the United Nations.

    Security Operations (Training)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of State for Defence what new training procedures have been introduced into the Army as a result of security operations in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Blaker: The situation in Northern Ireland has not led to changes in the basic pattern of Army training but it has naturally led to a greater emphasis being placed upon internal security duties. Before being posted there, units undertake intensive training in all aspects of internal security operations and supplementary training courses are provided to meet specialist requirements.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Has my hon. Friend given thought to the possibility that Northern Ireland is a precedent which might be repeated? Should not training procedures be introduced which would turn the Army into something more of a national security force than it is now?
    Mr. Blaker: We study in all their aspects any lessons that are to be learned from Northern Ireland. I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind but it is right to say that the Army's rôle in internal security will continue to be subject to the same principles which have applied in the past—that is, of subordination to the civil power and the principle of minimum force.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that on 16th November last he promised to investigate for me reports that UDR vehicles had been reported flying the Red Hand Flag of Ulster? He promised to reply to me but
    628
    so far there has been no word. Have investigations been completed?
    Mr. Blaker: I have investigated the point which the hon. Member put to me and could find no substantiation for it.
    Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Would not my hon. Friend agree that new techniques have been added to regiments such as my own, which are normally equipped with Chieftain tanks but which have recently been in Ireland on foot? Is it not the case that the techniques of a security rôle are being extended to those who would not normally operate in this way?
    Mr. Blaker: I agree about that. One of the remarkable and encouraging features of the performance of our troops in Northern Ireland is that units which were not primarily designed to fulfil an infantry rôle have adapted themselves very well to such a rôle.

    Land (Public Access)
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has for allowing greater public access to land held by his Department in the countryside.
    Mr. Blaker: Our policy is to allow the public access to land held by the Services provided this is consistent with Service use and with the safety of the public. This policy is currently under review by the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Nugent of Guildford which is examining defence land holdings.
    Mr. Clark: While I appreciate the Department's need for land, there is a strong feeling in the country that the Defence Department is holding on to too much of it. Will the Minister hasten this important report and bear in mind the removal of eyesores in the form of corrugated sheds which were built under the auspices not of his Department but of the War Department?
    Mr. Blaker: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says about eyesores. We shall do our best within the limits of the available financial resources. Between the years 1961–62 and 1971–72, 191,000 acres were disposed of by the Services and the general trend has been towards further reduction. The Nugent Committee is expected to report in the near future.

    Harrier Aircraft
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will announce the findings of the project definition study on a possible naval variant of the Harrier aircraft.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: A full statement about the naval variant of the Harrier aircraft will be made when the project definition study has been completed.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend speed up this study and announce a decision in principle in the forthcoming White Paper to embark the Harrier aircraft in the forthcoming through-deck cruisers? Export orders for the naval variants of this unique and exciting aeroplane may hang on a British naval service requirement.
    Mr. Gilmour: I am afraid that I cannot speed up the project definition study any more than it has been speeded up already, nor can I tell my hon. Friend what will or will not appear in the Defence White Paper.
    Sir R. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we have for years been awaiting a satisfactory outcome from all the trials and experiments? Will he try to prevent the admirals from having too much to do with designing naval aircraft? Does he realise that many of us suffered from this during the war, and will he insist on getting an aircraft not necessarily perfect but capable of taking off from the deck?
    Mr. Gilmour: I agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I should not like to enter into any further inter-Service rivalry.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On the last occasion when the Minister of State replied to Questions on this subject he blandly said that 90 of these aircraft were being sold to the United States Marine Corps and nil to the Royal Navy. Is he still content to slum along in that way while the Russians build their first new aircraft carrier?
    Mr. Gilmour: On that same occasion I pointed out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the United States Marines were using this aircraft in a ground support
    630
    rôle, which is a quite different rôle from that in which the Navy would employ such aircraft.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Ugandan Stateless Persons
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now amend existing regulations to permit Uganda stateless persons to join their families and dependants at present in camps in Great Britain.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The Government made it clear from the outset that, while we accepted our responsibility for United Kingdom passport holders and their dependants, responsibility for others from Uganda was a matter for the international community as a whole. We fully recognise that this is a distressing human problem and my right hon. Friend is in close touch with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about it.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that, apart from the inhumanity which results from divided families, many of these stateless Asians are the breadwinners for the family and that without them their families will be compelled to stay in the camps for a long time and be dependent on the social services?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of the situation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers and the position of breadwinners. We are anxious to do what we can to speed up the process of resettlement and the reunion of these families.
    Mr. Redmond: Although the whole Ugandan Asian episode caused by the racialist Amin is most distressing and appalling, will my hon. and learned Friend understand that we feel that this country has done its best and that we cannot take in more immigrants until the existing immigrants have been properly absorbed?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am conscious of what my hon. Friend says. We have taken in just over 26,000 United Kingdom passport holders and their dependants from Uganda since the Government of Uganda expelled them. I agree with my hon. Friend that we have nobly carried out our

    631
    responsibility to them. I equally agree with him that, much as we may sympathise with members of split families, we have to look at this situation carefully in relation to its overall effect.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: We certainly appreciate the noble rôle that Britain has played. We are here talking about 300 people out of 26,000. While we fully recognise that the Government should not take in all and sundry, regardless of what papers they hold, could not the Minister use the existing immigration rules which enable him to extend compassion in cases of hardship? Will he consider whether there are questions of hardship here in which the Government could exercise their discretion?
    Mr. Carlisle: As the hon. Lady has said, there are about 300 in Europe. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State recently saw the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in London. My right hon. Friend has extended an invitation to the High Commissioner for Refugees to meet him when he is here towards the end of this month. My right hon. Friend may be in a position to say something after that meeting has taken place.
    Mr. Stanbrook: I ask my hon. and learned Friend not to give way on this issue. Whatever obligations we owe to British passport holders, we owe none whatever to aliens.
    Mr. Carlisle: I hope I made it clear in what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) that we are fully conscious of the difficulties of this problem. We are anxious to arrange the earliest possible resettlement and reunion of these families, in conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is for this reason that my right hon. Friend hopes to have an opportunity to meet the High Commissioner when he is over here in the near future.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister accept that both sides of the House are grateful for the consideration which his Department gave to reuniting some of the families over the Christmas and New Year period?
    Mr. Carlisle: I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

    Inspectors of Constabulary
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the present rôle given to the inspectors of constabulary, including the chief inspector; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Carlisle: Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, including the chief inspector, have certain statutory duties, prescribed in the Police Act 1964. I regard the inspectorate as extremely valuable in providing a link between the Home Office and the police service.
    Mr. Fowler: I do not dispute that last statement, but I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the article touching on this problem which appeared in The Guardian last month. Is it not a great pity that the police service is losing a man of the experience of Frank Williamson? Will not my hon. and learned Friend examine the position to see whether inspectors of constabulary, in view of their experience, play a sufficient part in making decisions on police policy?
    Mr. Carlisle: I welcome the great contribution that Mr. Frank Williamson made in his time with the police and particularly with the inspectorate, and I have read the article to which my hon. Friend refers. The inspectorate plays an important rôle in that it both inspects and reports to the Secretary of State on the efficiency of all police forces. I hope there is no feeling that its rôle has been diminished. That is certainly not the wish of the Home Office.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: What plans has the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing in an independent body to examine complaints made against the police force? Has he any such plans, and when are they likely to be implemented?
    Mr. Carlisle: I have great admiration for the hon. Gentleman, but for him to get that in as a supplementary on this Question exceeds all ingenuity. I understand that one of his hon. Friends has a Private Member's Bill dealing with complaints, and we must await publication of it.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Victorian Photographs (Hill-Adamson Collection)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations have been made to her about the offer of the Hill-Adamson collection of Victorian photographs to the National Portrait Gallery by the Royal Academy; and whether she will take steps to ensure that this collection will remain intact and available to the British public.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): None, Sir. The National Portrait Gallery has been able to purchase the photographs through the generosity of an anonymous benefactor.
    Mr. Hamling: That is a most satisfactory state of affairs, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department has some public responsibility for seeing that collections of photographs and of documents are available for historians and writers on the 19th century and that nothing should be done to allow such collections lightly to be dispersed or, indeed, exported?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that many national collections interest themselves in photographs and, since November 1972, licences have been required for the export of photographic material which is more than 70 years old.

    Teesside Dispute
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement about the inquiry which she has instituted into the dispute between some teachers and the Teesside Education Authority.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The committee of inquiry was set up jointly by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Employment under the chairmanship of Professor John Wood. We are grateful to him and his two colleagues for agreeing to serve. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the committee began its hearings yesterday and is continuing today. We are glad that the parties have found a formula
    634
    which enables normal working to be resumed in Teesside pending the report of the committee.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the school recess I suggested that there should be an inquiry into this dispute? Why did the Minister wait until the children went back to school before ordering the inquiry?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Department was grateful for the helpful advice offered by the right hon. Gentleman. We could not intervene until the parties concerned had exhausted the conciliation service of the Department of Employment. A representative of the local authority came to see the Permanent Secretary on 8th January, Mr. Casey saw the Permanent Secretary on 9th January, on 10th January we endeavoured to arrange talks between the two parties and on 11th January my right hon. Friend set up the inquiry. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that she acted with all due speed.

    Schools (Northumberland)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial assistance she is able to offer the Northumberland Education Committee to provide new schools, equipped to the desired standard, following the recent deputation of the chairman and director of education of the county council.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the special circumstances of this case it has been decided to allocate to the authority an additional £45,000 for the current year 1972–73. My noble Friend is writing today to the chairman of the education committee informing him of this.
    Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that decision, which will be greatly welcomed in Northumberland. I hope we may look forward to many other occasions when we shall be as grateful as we are on this occasion.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: If we are to see further triumphs of this nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) had better revise her decision not to contest her seat at the next election. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House think that her decision is premature and should be placed under immediate review.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Meat Prices
    Mr. Ewingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the action taken by Her Majesty's Government on the question of meat prices.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): While I am concerned at the increases in meat prices since the prices standstill, I do not consider that there are further practical steps which the Government could take to limit the effects of a world meat shortage, but we are keeping in close and regular touch with all sections of the trade to ensure that price increases are kept to a minimum.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the hon. Lady aware that people all over the world are today celebrating the anniversary of the birth of Scotland's national poet, who must have foreseen the advent of this Conservative Government when he said:
    "Some hae meat, and canna eat,
    And some wad eat that want it".
    Is she further aware that the number of people who have no meat has increased rapidly because of her Government's policy? What does the hon. Lady propose to do about the situation? Is she further aware that the Minister's statement yesterday gave no reassurance for the future?
    Mrs. Fenner: I share the hon. Gentleman's delight at the celebration of the birth of the great Scottish bard, but we are living in a time of world beef shortage and the Government have done everything possible to encourage expansion of home production. We feel that in the medium and long term this is the best answer for housewives.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that the conclusion of the quotation given by the hon. Member is
    "But we hae meat and we can eat,
    And sae the Lord be thankit"?
    If the hon. Gentleman were a housewife shopping for beef in supermarkets last week, he would have found himself well able to buy beef, even if his salary was
    636
    far lower than it is. Beef prices certainly have fallen.
    Mrs. Fenner: I agree.
    Mr. Peart: Will the hon. Lady convey to the Minister of Agriculture that we expect him to make a public apology for misleading people at the last election in his promise to reduce and control prices? Will he now admit that he was wrong?
    Mr. Jay: Why did the Minister of Agriculture agree on Tuesday night in Brussels to a further steep rise in the price of bacon, and why did he not have the courage to come to this House to make a statement on this subject?
    Mrs. Fenner: What the right hon. Gentleman says is inaccurate. There was not a steep rise. The work done by my right hon. Friend the Minister over the last two evenings in discussions in the EEC has resulted in the bacon stabiliser remaining until July.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Would my hon. and fair Friend agree that the price of beef is difficult enough without the Opposition adding to it a further element of hysteria?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the hon. Lady agree that because of prices the consumption of beef, veal, pork and mutton in this country is now less than it was in the last calendar year of post-war rationing?
    Mrs. Fenner: Certainly beef eating has gone down slightly compared with the period mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but it has been balanced by increases in the consumption of other forms of meat.

  COUNTER-INFLATION PROPOSALS
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for a further meeting with the Confederation of British Industry.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave on 23rd January in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).—[Vol. 849, c. 217–20.]
  Mr. Meacher: When the Prime Minister next discusses the fairness of his phase 2 proposals, will he explain how it is fair that a £20-a-week wage earner, who will get his allotted £1·80p a week wage rise, will find that over the next year he will lose £1 in family income supplement and also a further £1·50 a week in real terms, according to the Treasury's estimate of price calculation, and will end up 70p a week worse off? What is fair about a net loss?
  The Prime Minister: What the lower-paid worker gets under this arrangement will come about as a result of negotiations within his own negotiating group. It is not limited in the way the hon. Gentleman states. If those who are negotiating wish the lower-paid worker to get more, he will get it. On the question of disregards, we have already taken the step of extending them from six months to a year, for the very purpose the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: In view of the convulsions in economic thinking which appear to be taking place in many quarters, is there any way my right hon. Friend can find of conveying to the CBI the concern, and indeed apprehension, at the fact that Dr. Bracewell-Milne is leaving its board? Dr. Bracewell-Milne has always been sound and consistent with his economic advice and it is worrying if this change will mean any great disturbance to the CBI leadership.
  The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the CBI. It is not a responsibility of Ministers.
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the progress of his Government's policies to combat inflation; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I made a full statement on this matter in the debate yesterday on the Government's proposals set out in the White Paper "The Programme for Controlling Inflation: The Second Stage", Cmnd. 5205, and in the Counter-Inflation Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: Having listened to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday and reread it, may I ask whether he is aware that one can come only to the conclusion that, whatever else he does, he is unlikely
  638
  to stop the racket in house and land prices? Perhaps the Prime Minister would care to refresh his memory about what occurred during the election campaign. He had a fancy answer to the problem of mortgages. What did he mean by introducing the Merret-Sykes proposals and the Australian system? If he cannot explain them, can he say what has happened to them?
  The Prime Minister: They are still where they were.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Bearing in mind the fact that the nation's greatest need in a period of inflation is improved investment, has this House ever heard a more irresponsible and damaging speech than that made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, in the middle of which he threatened to confiscate profits and to introduce a capital levy? Is not that a certain way of driving investment anywhere but to this country?
  The Prime Minister: I agree completely with my hon. Friend, and when the Leader of the Opposition adds to that the complete nationalisation of the land of this country, indeed he is doing harm.
  Mr. Bidwell: Is it not a fact in the present British economic crisis with which the Prime Minister is trying to grapple that, apart from 1931 and unlike the Labour Government's experiences, the Government are trying to depress the existing standard of living of the British people in order to put more into investment? Would it not be cleaner and more honest for the Prime Minister to explain that that is the real fact of the matter?
  The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman considers the figures I gave yesterday about the increase in prices last year of between 6½ and 7½ per cent. and the increase in earnings, it must be apparent even to him that there has been a very large increase in the real standard of living of the people.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made in London to the Association of

  639
  Municipal Corporations on 13th December, on the question of local rates and related matters.
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will put in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policy to the Association of Municipal Corporations on 13th December.
  The Prime Minister: I did so on 14th December, Sir.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that many local authorities recognise the inevitability of soaring rates—a fear confirmed by an article in the Sunday Times last weekend—and that, unless the Government do something drastically to reform local government finance and in the interim increase the rate support grant, vast increases in rates are inevitable and the promise in the White Paper to monitor rates will be simply eyewash?
  The Prime Minister: There is no justification for the hon. Gentleman's comment that local authorities inevitably will face soaring rates. Most local authorities are already assuring me that as a result of my speech exactly the reverse will happen. They tell me that they are keeping their local expenditure under control. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know what the Government have done, I can tell him that we have increased by about 50 per cent. the domestic subsidy to the rates. For the next year the effect on the domestic rate poundage will be 6p in the £ on the new values, which is equivalent to 15·4p on present values. This compares with 10½p this year.
  Mr. Dalyell: Which local authorities have given the Prime Minister that assurance?
  The Prime Minister: A very large number of local authorities have told me that my speech in Guildhall was too severe on them and did not accept the inevitability of soaring rates.
  Mr. Jessel: As the rates bear so heavily on so many householders, will my right hon. Friend consider transferring the whole of the cost of education from ratepayers to the Exchequer?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot give any undertaking on such a question.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
  Mr. Speaker: If it relates to Questions, may we take it at the end of Question Time?
  Mr. Jenkins: It was only to ask you, Sir, to invite the Prime Minister to answer Questions Nos. Q10 and Q11 which are addressed to him as well as Q2 and Q3.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
  Mr. David Stoddart: Why is the Prime Minister always so out of touch with what is going on in the country? Will he now say which local authorities have told him that the increases will not be substantial? All the evidence shows that as a result of Government action and increases in cost many local authorities will have to increase their rates by between 20 and 40 per cent. Will not the Prime Minister take stringent action by increasing the grant to ensure that ratepayers are not abused in this way?
  The Prime Minister: I have already described the additional grant being made to help domestic ratepayers. If the councils of the Labour Party intend to increase their rates extortionately, the hon. Gentleman had better bring his influence to bear on them to stop it.
  Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that, although the aim of the revaluation is merely to spread the rate bill more fairly, some areas, notably the big cities, are finding that revaluation will lead to an increase in the rate bill? Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that the ratepayers of Birmingham, for instance, may be relieved of a soaring rate burden?
  The Prime Minister: In the course of the debate yesterday I said that I was prepared to see the leaders of councils in the great cities and that arrangements were being made to that end. Revaluation does not justify any increase in local expenditure. Revaluation gives a different balance between the rate-paying sectors of the community. It is only right with changing property values in industrial premises and houses that this should be done. The reason why there are more anomalies than usual is that the Labour Government deferred the revaluation

  641
  which was due in 1968. If fairness is to be maintained between one householder and another it is right that revaluation should take place. The problems of some of the great cities arise from the fact that there have been different calculations about the populations of those cities. This is quite separate from the question of revaluation.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I hope that the Prime Minister will learn to calm himself at Question Time. When he referred to the recent Government assistance towards rates, why did he not mention that the Labour Government's policy of increasing the assistance to the domestic ratepayer each year was interfered with by his Government when they came to office by halving the amount of the increase? At best, he is only catching up with what he failed to do. When the Prime Minister referred to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Rates are too high, never mind my question being too long. The Prime Minister referred to Labour councils. Will he assure us that no Tory councils will increase their rates, and will he name the Labour councils which he has just attacked?
  The Prime Minister: One of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters was stating his experience. He said that many councils would increase their rates by as much as 20 per cent. I replied that if they were Labour councils the hon. Gentleman had better use his influence to stop them doing so.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister answer my question—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that everyone would calm down.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister answer the question? In the first place he has altered the wording of the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart). Will the Prime Minister assure us about the Tory councils? Finally, will he name the Labour councils to which he has referred?
  The Prime Minister: I will reply to the example of self-control and imperturbability we see before us. We shall monitor what is happening to the rates of all councils. Where they are unjustifiable we shall take action. [HON.
  642
  MEMBERS: "When?"] When the Bill is through the House. The Opposition can help in that regard.

  EXCHANGE RATE
  Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to raise the matter of the exchange parity of the £ sterling when next he meets the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Douglas: Does not the Prime Minister accept that this is a point of grave concern to Commonwealth countries, especially in view of the disruption of world trade and the fact that the developing countries, many of them in the Commonwealth, will suffer a reduction in their standard of living due to currencies fluctuating downwards?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with that analysis of the situation. The fact is that the prices of many raw materials from developing countries have been increasing rapidly. This is one of the problems facing this country today and obviously the developing countries are bound to have improved incomes as a result. The reason why I replied "No" is that all financial matters are discussed by the Commonwealth Finance Ministers at their annual meeting. They will meet in September as usual. If there are any questions affecting the financing of developing countries, they can be discussed at that meeting. Aid to the developing countries is normally discussed at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting. It is a normal item on the agenda.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity at the next meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to raise with the Prime Minister of India the fact that there are 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, including 18,000 civilians, still in prisoner-of-war camps, and that the recognition of third parties does not come into this question as the release of American POWs within 60 days of the cessation of hostilities has shown?
  The Prime Minister: We are not waiting for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference to deal with these matters. We have been continuously in

  643
  touch with all the Governments concerned to try to bring about a reconciliation and to solve these problems. There has been an agreement on this matter, and we are doing our utmost. We have been doing so for a long time.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to address the European Parliament at an early date after the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 7th December last.—[Vol. 849, c. 499.]
  Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend agree that he should seek an early opportunity to discuss with the other Government leaders in the Community the formulation of a strategic policy for some of Europe's major industries such as aerospace so that they may be agreed upon and worked upon and not distorted or thwarted by our industrial competitors outside Europe?
  The Prime Minister: The whole question of the industrial base of Europe was discussed at the summit meeting in Paris. There is general agreement among the Heads of Government about this matter. I do not think it is a matter on which I should be expected to address the European Parliament at this stage, but it is one in which we as a nation have considerable interest, as have France, Germany and Italy.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Whether the right hon. Gentleman makes the address OT not, will he advise or help the House by giving us some guidance on the parliamentary safeguards which still adhere in this House and, having regard to the Common Market rules and decisions, how this House can take steps to ensure that there is not a mass influx from the Common Market of doctors and other professional persons with qualifications quite inadequate in judgment against the rules of this country? Will he tell us how we can prevent that under the deal he has done with Europe?
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter for the Council of Ministers in its dis-
  644
  cussions; but if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues took part in the deliberations in the European Parliament they could use their influence there.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the European Assembly has no powers to deal with this question that this Parliament used to have? The relevant talks are those that he held with President Pompidou and others. Will he tell us whether we have any power to control people coming into this country to exercise professional skills which we do not regard as adequate in the rules of this country?
  The Prime Minister: It is a matter for the Council of Ministers on the recommendations of the Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman wants the European Assembly to have influence over these matters, he could better gain that by carrying out his responsibilities and sending a delegation there.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, in answering my supplementary question on Questions Nos. Q2 and Q3, deliberately distorted—in fact twisted—my remarks about local authorities and rate increases. I made no reference to Labour local authorities—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of an answer is not a matter of order for the Chair.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Counter-Inflation Bill.
Motion on the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 Extension Order 1973.
TUESDAY 30TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Authority

645
(Weapons Group) Bill [Lords], until 7 o'clock.
Motion relating to Merchant Shipping Regulations.
Motions on the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Orders.
WEDNESDAY 31ST JANUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
THURSDAY 1ST FEBRUARY—Supply (6th Allotted Day): There will be a debate on Secondary Education, which will arise on an Opposition motion.
Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Motions on the Value Added Tax Orders relating to cars, and works of art, antiques and scientific collections.
FRIDAY 2ND FEBRUARY—PriVate Members' Bills.
MONDAY 5TH FEBRUARY—Debate on a motion to take note of the White Paper on Public Expenditure to 1976–77 (Command No. 5178).
Motion on the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that there will be a statement next week by the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the questions directed to her by my right hon. and hon. Friends concerning some of these staged political meetings in schools? If she does not take any responsibility for what happens in the schools, will he ask his colleague, the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, to make a personal statement on this matter in the House?
Second, respecting debates in this House and the conduct of business on Bills, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the adequacy of Government representation in debates? Is it not a scandal that we should be debating steel at such a critical time today without a Cabinet Minister speaking? This would have been inconceivable in any steel debate in our period of office, and this is a period when there are thousands of redundancies. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government, in further stages on the Counter-Inflation Bill, will have adequate
646
Cabinet representation not only on the labour side but on the industrial and financial side?
Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in saying that it is not my right hon. Friend's responsibility for the organisation of conferences for schools. As such, she has no responsibility for them, and it would not be right to make a statement on them.
Regarding steel, we originally planned to have the Supply day on Wednesday and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would have been present to take part in the debate on that day. It was only at the last minute that we changed the time of the debate and are having it today instead. We explained at the time that this would mean that my right hon. Friend would be unable to be here without a major change in a very important discussion that is going on in Washington at this time. Since we are to have another debate shortly on the White Paper we thought this was a reasonable view to adopt.
Concerning representation by my right hon. Friends on the Committee stage of the Bill which we are taking on Monday, I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said; but the actual representation must be a matter for the Government.
Mr. Wilson: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further? I think he misheard me. I did not say that the Secretary of State has no powers in these matters, I said "if she thinks she has no powers in these matters". In fact, she has powers under Section 68 of the relevant legislation if the right hon. Gentleman would care to look it up. In any case, the right hon. Lady ought to have some concern for this kind of behaviour within the educational system. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at that matter?
Regarding the debate on steel, we understand there is a problem about the absence of the Secretary of State. I know where he is today. I have been in touch with the Prime Minister about it. But this is not a concession to the Opposition, because originally we asked that yesterday's debate should take place on Monday. We could have had the debate earlier this week.
Mr. Prior: Regarding the Secretary of State for Education and Science, I believe that it is for local authorities—[HON. MEMBERS "No."]—and for school governing bodies to make up their own minds on these matters. It is only fair that if we give local authorities this responsibility they should take it.
Referring to the steel debate, my right hon. Friend would like to have been present. However, the White Paper on steel will be available within about two weeks and we can have a debate after it has been digested.
Mr. Marten: Will my right hon. Friend tell us something about the impossible situation which has arisen due to the fact that between 1st January and today, the 25th, not one piece of paper appears to have emanated from the EEC to this House? Certainly nothing is available to hon. Members, so we do not know what the regulations or draft directives are. May we have a statement on that situation?
Secondly, may we have a statement next week by the Attorney-General on the legal position which arises out of this situation, because it is very serious?
Mr. Prior: On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be informing the House about the legal position on Monday.
On the first part of the question, I apologise to the House that there have been delays resulting from problems at both ends in the supplying of all the EEC documents, but large numbers have now come through. I hope that my hon. Friend will find enough documents available anyhow for him to get a start on some of the problems.
Mr. Urwin: Will the Leader of the House consider providing time to debate the somewhat disgraceful decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment rejecting the proposal to build a new reservoir at Kidder to augment the dreadfully low water supplies in the Northern Region? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision, which was made by public announcement outside this House, leaves the Minister completely unchallenged? May we have a debate on this matter, or will the Minister be
648
instructed to make a statement to the House so that he can be questioned more closely on a decision which is causing grave concern in the Northern Region?
Mr. Prior: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I think he has an early day motion on the subject. I cannot promise Government time for a debate. I hope he will find other opportunities to raise the matter.
Mr. Kimball: Can my right hon. Friend say if he has had any indication from the Opposition whether at any time during next week's business we shall get the writ for the Lincoln by-election'? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new and up-to-date register on which the city of Lincoln could poll would be in force on Thursday, 15th February'?
Mr. Prior: As Leader of the House I have a good many curious responsibilities, but thank heavens that is not one of them.
Mr. Peter Archer: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 96, signed by nearly 100 hon. Members, which relates to Government proposals for an enclosure movement to be practised upon the ocean? Will the House have an opportunity to debate the matter while there is yet time, or shall we find ourselves debating methods of closing the stable door long after the horse has bolted?
[That this House, recalling Early Day Motion No. 271 in 1968, signed by nearly 100 hon. Members, notes that, as was there recommended, the ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction was declared by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1970 to be the common heritage of mankind, but deeply regrets that since then this principle has been steadily eroded, in particular by the actions of Her Majesty's Government in proposing the apportionment of the ocean floor into separate licensed blocks, each to be separately policed by the licensee state, and by listing for discussion at the next Law of the Sea Conference a proposal entitled, Exclusive economic zone beyond the territorial seas, which would effectively remove from mankind the richest part of its heritage, endanger freedom of scientific research, and increase the likelihood of international conflict.]
Mr. Prior: The latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is always a problem for the Leader of the House. It is always a problem to get business in front of the House when it is still topical. I will bear in mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. This was an issue which, subject to Mr. Speaker's ruling, could have been discussed during the foreign affairs debate just before Christmas.
Mr. Money: In view of the constant statements in the Press that it is the intention of the Home Office Ministers to legislate in the near future on crowd safety, will my right hon. Friend give us some idea when an opportunity will be given to the House to debate the Wheatley Report?
Mr. Prior: I will report what my hon. Friend has said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I have nothing further to add today.
Mr. Pavitt: In view of the radical and vast changes resulting from the Government's change of policy on the organisation of research councils, including medical research, will the Leader of the House provide the House with the opportunity to discuss the changes which will be put in train by Government policies?
Mr. Prior: I spent seven hours sitting on this bench on Monday when we discussed research and development, including the future of research councils. There were never more than 10 hon. Members in the Chamber the whole afternoon.
Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether by next week the Booz Allen Report on shipbuilding and shipping will be available? That information will enable us to arrange for a debate. We will then know when some action will be taken to help shipbuilding and shipping, which is very necessary to the United Kingdom and, in particular, to my part of the world.
Mr. Prior: I recognise the importance which my hon. Friend attaches to the report. I will check with my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping when the report is to be available and I will make arrangements for the House to be informed.
Mr. Shore: Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a further statement by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the result of his negotiations in Brussels earlier this week? Every family in the country is affected by the results of the negotiations. Major decisions have been made, and all we have had is an unacceptable Written Answer in today's HANSARD.
Mr. Prior: I thought that for the convenience of the House it would probably be best for my right hon. Friend to make a statement on Monday, and this he will do. There were good reasons why we did not want to make a statement today. I thought that the Written Question which my right hon. Friend has answered would enable hon. Members to be informed of what was going on. I thought that we could then have an oral statement on Monday, and my right hon. Friend will make the statement on Monday.
Mr. Sproat: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has come to a decision on whether we shall have a Scottish Select Committee this Session?
Mr. Prior: Almost, but not quite. I should like to be able to make an announcement within the next week or so.
Sir G. de Freitas: Does the Leader of the House remember that only a month or so ago he hoped to find time to debate Royal Commission reports and some of the many outstanding Select Committee reports? When shall we have that opportunity?
Mr. Prior: Before Christmas we had the debate on the Select Committee reports on procedure. Since Christmas—on the first day back—we had a debate on the four Select Committee reports on science and technology. That is not a bad start. We shall have another debate on Monday week on public expenditure.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: With reference to Early Day Motion No. 134, may we have a statement next week from the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications regarding the announcement by the IBA of a London Weekend Television interview with Mr. O'Connell contrary to the Act and the laws of a friendly State?
[That this House deplores the failure of the independent broadcasting authority to discharge its duty under section 3 of the Television Act 1694 in that it allowed Mr. David O'Connell, a leader of the Provisional Wing of the IRA, to appear on London Weekend Television and to incite murder and violence against Her Majesty's Forces and loyal subjects in the United Kingdom; further regrets the affront to the Government of the Irish Republic, co-operation with which is essential to the defeat of terrorism implicit in the holding of the interview in Eireann territory where this organisation is illegal and Mr. O'Connell is sought by the forces of law and order; and calls on her Majesty's Government to take appropriate action forthwith.]
Mr. Prior: That is a matter for the broadcasting organisations themselves. However, I think that hon. Members from both sides of the House would share the views of those who signed the Order Paper.
Mr. English: Does the Leader of the House realise that contrary to his earlier reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) we have not yet received, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's assertion before Christmas, any of the proceedings of the European Assembly, to which some hon. Members went? Does he not agree that he should have gone to the meeting of Presidents of the European Legislatures rather than send Mr. Speaker and a Junior Whip?
Mr. Prior: I have noticed the motion on the Order Paper signed by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. Mr. Speaker was invited, and, as the motion recognises, he behaved in an admirable way. We are delighted, Mr. Speaker, that you went. If on a future occasion it would meet with the wishes of the House that I should go in your place, that would be the right time to consider it.
Mr. Evelyn King: Reverting to the question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), will the Leader of the House tell us on how many occasions in the last year there has been industrial trouble at the Stationery Office? Is not this situation beginning to constitute a serious interference with the legislative process? Shall
652
we not soon have to consider some form of alternative arrangements?
Mr. Prior: Without notice I cannot give the details for which my hon. Friend asks. However, I hope that the difficulties that we are experiencing for the moment in the distribution of literature, particularly that emanating from the EEC, can be overcome shortly. I understand—but I am subject to correction—that a great deal of material has arrived in the Vote Office. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who asked me a question previously, would tell me what it is that is missing that he requires immediately, I will see what can be done.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask for the help of the House. There is to be a very important debate in which many hon. Members want to speak, and there is a lot of other business to be dealt with. I ask hon. Members to be brief and to understand if I cut these questions short very soon.
Mr. Harold Walker: The Leader of the House should be aware that it is more than six months since the Robens Committee's report on industrial health and safety was published. Will he tell us when we shall debate this very important report?
Mr. Prior: I recognise that it is a very important report. I certainly cannot find the time for it within the next week or so. I will see when we can find time and how it fits in with the Bill which the Government are hoping to introduce on the subject. I will let the hon. Gentleman know the position.
Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Leader of the House aware that we listened to the Prime Minister's reply about rates with increasing astonishment, especially as it seemed to take away from what he was offering yesterday, to meet the case of the five big cities. Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister that his answer was wrong and that the difficulties over revaluation are entirely due to the movement of the burden of rates from industry to the domestic ratepayer? That movement will affect 27 per cent. of the domestic ratepayers in Birmingham. The city council can do nothing about it.

653
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Prime Minister or some other Minister to make an early statement in the House that he will discuss the matter with the five cities.
Mr. Prior: Not next week, Sir.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it will help if I inform the House that for the debate on Wednesday 31st January on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, hon Members may hand into my office by 9.30 on the morning of Tuesday 30th January their names and the topics which they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic. I should point out that this Bill includes only certain Supplementary Estimates for the current year—namely, those set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 39 and 40.
In conformity with the long-standing practice of the House, it will be in order on Second Reading to refer only to expenditure covered by the Supplementary Estimates embodied in the Bill. Before I hold the ballot, it will be necessary for me to scrutinise the topics notice of which hon. Members will have handed in to see whether they are in order. I shall put in the ballot only those topics which I am satisfied are in order. I will publish the result of the poll later on Tuesday 30th January.
Mr. John Grant: On a point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is a general point of order, it should come later.

IMMIGRATION
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, I should like to make a statement about immigration policy.
Control over the rate of Commonwealth immigration was first introduced in 1962 and has since been strengthened by successive Governments because it has been generally recognised that there is a
654
limit to the rate at which any nation can absorb new immigrants without endangering good community relations. The Government are convinced that at a time when our housing and educational resources and the social services generally are under severe strain this policy must be not only continued but further strengthened.
Britain has a responsibility towards those residents of Commonwealth countries who, following independence, retained their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and, therefore, their right to United Kingdom passports. With this in mind, it is all the more important to reduce the immigration of citizens of other countries—both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth—to the inescapable minimum.
The instrument for controlling the immigration of both Commonwealth and foreign nationals is now the 1971 Immigration Act which came into full operation on 1st January. The Government wish to make clear, in particular to employers in this country, that work permits under the 1971 Act will be issued very sparingly indeed and that this stringency will apply to Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries alike.
Following the recent debates in the House and in another place, I am today publishing revised Immigration Rules—one set for EEC and other non-Commonwealth nationals and a second separate set for all Commonwealth citizens. These amended rules reflect the Government's determination to ensure strict control of immigration: but, so far as is consistent with this, I have attempted to meet the clearly expressed wish to give the freest possible access to Commonwealth citizens whose close family ties are with this country. There are four points to which I want briefly to draw attention.
First, Commonwealth citizens with a grandparent born here will not have to obtain a work permit or be subject once here to any form of supervision; but will be granted entry clearance which will enable them to come to work and to settle here for as long as they like. Since they will not be patrials with an unrestricted right of abode as defined in the Act, they will, of course, remain liable to deportation as well as requiring the initial entry clearance to which I have referred.

655
Second, and because of what I have just said, Commonwealth citizens who marry women resident here or with a right to reside here will themselves be admitted for settlement provided they have a grandparent born here.
Third, the maximum period of stay of young Commonwealth citizens coming here for a working holiday will be extended from three to five years and the new rule emphasises that the period for which they are initially admitted will normally be 12 months.
Fourth, and more generally, I am making a number of changes relating to visitors, dependants, family deportation and appeal arrangements, which take as much account as possible of the views expressed in the recent debates. One example is that for all visitors the minimum initial period will ordinarily be six months and a longer period is readily to be granted.
The arrangements I have just outlined apply to substantial numbers of people in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, but in practice those wishing to come here for permanent settlement from these countries are, we believe, likely to be few. I intend in any case to keep the working of these rules under the closest possible scrutiny and to make timely changes if these prove desirable.
I turn now to the question of United Kingdom passport holders. When Asians resident in Uganda were summarily expelled last year the Government immediately accepted their obligations to our passport holders who had nowhere else to go, and the people of this country responded with characteristic generosity to the plight of the refugees. But the mass expulsion from Uganda and the necessity to cope with it has regrettably created a new situation. The Government consider that to have a similar burden thrust on us again would impose unacceptable strains and stresses in our society and, not least, would endanger our ability to carry out our duty to those immigrants already resident here.
The Government therefore think it right at this time, when we have just swiftly and honourably accepted the Ugandan Asian refugees and when there is no threat to United Kingdom passport holders elsewhere, to make it clear that while we shall continue to accept our responsibility
656
to United Kingdom passport holders by admitting them in a controlled and orderly manner through the special voucher scheme, this is as much as it is reasonable and realistic for us to do if good community relations are to be maintained in Britain.
I make this statement now so that the Governments and individual people concerned may be aware of the exact nature of Her Majesty's Government's policy in this matter.
Our first responsibility as a Government is for the well-being of all the people in this country. No one should be in any doubt about our determination to discharge that duty through effective control over entry from overseas, through orderly arrangements for those whom we admit, and through the pursuit of positive policies to maintain and improve good community relations.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: In making this statement and in laying the new Immigration Rules before the House, the Home Secretary has now split the rules on European and EEC citizens, from those concerned with Commonwealth citizens. Since important issues are involved in both, we shall, of course, seek time to debate them. The only opportunity that the House has to debate the major change which is made in our whole immigration structure as a result of entry of the EEC—indeed, the only control that Parliament can exercise—arises in a debate on the Immigration Rules. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House will recognise the importance of parliamentary debate and discussion on this major alteration in our way of controlling immigration policy.
This statement reveals clearly the need for a complete new policy of citizenship. On the first page of the statement, the right hon. Gentleman announces that Britain must do all she possibly can to restrict immigration to the minimum. On the second page the door is open wide to all those who have a grandparent born in this country, and on the last page it is closed to those who hold British passports and are citizens of this country.
Let us make no bones about it. We are still in a position of having a shaky, illogical and unjustifiable policy, and it

657
is high time that we had proper discussions about citizenship.
I should like to ask the Home Secretary the following questions. First, does he believe, in straight constitutional terms, that it is right to overthrow a decision taken in Committee by this House, and a decision that was taken in the House of Lords, with regard to the position of people whose grandfathers were born in this country, by means of administrative rules? I must ask the right hon. Gentleman that question because it seems to some of us, to say the least, constitutionally a very dubious exercise.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the position with regard to appeals for those who wish to come to this country for a short time? We on this side of the House welcome the Home Secretary's recognition of the position of those who want to appeal against refusal of entry, and he has now made this equivalent for all Commonwealth citizens and for aliens as well. We would ask him whether he would allow appeals against refusal of a right to visit to be made in this country, because of the obvious extreme difficulties involved in returning to Australia or Canada for someone on a short visit to this country.
Thirdly, what controls does the right hon. Gentleman propose to exercise for those who take or keep a working holiday for up to five years, as the House will recognise that after four years a person can apply for citizenship and the removal of restrictions? This could be a very wide loophole, although not one which the Opposition would wish to oppose if the Home Secretary can give us proper assurances.
Finally, at the end of his statement the right hon. Gentleman referred to what we all recognise to be the extremely difficult position of United Kingdom passport holders in other parts of the world. As national Governments cannot always control the circumstances of crises, will he give the House the assurance that there will be full consultations with other concerned Commonwealth Governments, so that we can avoid being put in the almost impossible position of a crisis in which our compassion and decency as a country is placed on one side of the scales and the concern of the Home Secretary to
658
avoid a flood of refugees is placed on the other side of the scales?
Mr. Carr: I note what the hon. Lady says about the debate of both these sets of rules. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is listening, and I feel sure that we shall look sympathetically on such a desire, which I imagine is widespread throughout the House.
The hon. Lady refers to the need for this country to have a new policy of citizenship. I have already made clear that the Government have already embarked upon such a review, although I think it should be repeated that this is a very complex matter and, while we shall work hard on it, it would be foolish to imagine that the answers will come quickly and easily. But the review is going on.
But, having said that, we ought to make it clear that we need not be ashamed or in any way feel ourselves wrong in recognising close and genuine and recent family ties with this country. That does not, however, in any way belittle the fact that we need a review of citizenship.
The hon. Lady said that in making this concession, this relaxation, towards those with grandparents born here we were overthrowing a decision of the House. That is not so. There is a fundamental difference between the full grandpatriality which would have existed had the Bill gone through in its original form and what is in these rules. First, these people will still be subject to control in a way that the full patrial will not. The entry clearance can be refused, and they remain subject to deportation. Moreover, full grandpatriality as originally proposed could have been changed only by a new Act of Parliament. This relaxation I am announcing today can be changed as easily as it has been introduced, or modified or removed. I said particularly that we wish to keep the results of all these changes under very close review, and would not hesitate to introduce changes if necessary.
As to the hon. Lady's question about appeals by short-term visitors, I see the point she makes. I am afraid that I have to say "no" to her actual question, because we believe that experience both here and in other countries has shown that to grant the right of appeal here to

659
people who come without proper documents would lead to an enormous pile-up of the appeal machinery and have dangers concerning our immigration control. But we shall be as reasonable as we can, and I think that what I have said about normal visitors is symptomatic. Also, by better publicity in the countries concerned we shall do what we can to indicate to people how easily they can get clearance documents and, although they do not have to have them in order to come in, stress to them that it will ease their passage and make the danger of misunderstandings at the ports much less if they get entry documents before coming.
On the point about working holidaymakers, under the 1971 Act the position is now different from what it was, and at the end of their five years, although they have an automatic right to apply for registration as citizens with a right of abode in this country, they no longer have an automatic right to get it. Therefore, that is why I felt able to extend the maximum period from three years to five years; because the control would still remain.
Finally, on the very important point about United Kingdom passport holders. I appreciate what the hon. Lady said about that. This is a grave national problem. Other Commonwealth Governments have been fully informed about the way our thinking has been developing. We understand their problems, and I think that by and large they understand ours. I can only say that of course we are ready to talk to any Commonwealth Government who would like to come to talk to us about it.
Mr. Maudling: I was largely responsible for seeking the approval of Parliament to the Act which these regulations implement. Therefore. I suppose that I am the main cause of my right hon. Friend's recent headaches. Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the good sense of his proposals today, which I hope will be generally accepted?
Mr. Carr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, to whom I would say that my headaches were very short and the advantages of his Bill very great.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Home Secretary none the less aware that the reason why the majority of the House rejected the
660
proposed regulations was that the House thought that they were a nonsense? Just as the right hon. Gentleman's mind has been wonderfully concentrated by a defeat in this matter, we are still in an Alice-in-Wonderland situation.
First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is broad support for the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) that there should be a citizenship law introduced for the avoidance of doubt? Secondly, are we not still in the position that a British husband may be joined by his non-British wife but that a British wife may not be joined by her non-British husband, and that this has caused grave stresses?
Finally, while I accept that legal obligations and social stresses very often conflict, surely with regard to United Kingdom passport holders we cannot have it both ways. Either we accept an obligation or we reject an obligation to admit them. If we accept the obligation, how does the right hon. Gentleman square that with the idea of controlled and orderly entry, and what does he mean by it? What does it mean to a person who may or may not be expelled? We hope that it may not happen, but one simply cannot pretend that the problem does not exist.
Mr. Carr: I must say to the right hon. Gentleman once again that the very fact that we have announced that we are to make a review of our whole British citizenship laws is an indication that we think that the time may have come when changes will be needed, but it is a complicated subject the resolution of which will not be easy or quick.
On the point about the husband and wife dilemma, I am following what was done by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Home Secretary, and for a reason which I understand and fully support—I understand it much better now that I am Home Secretary, perhaps, than I did previously—namely, that it is a fact, although I am sorry to say this, that men were coming into this country in order to marry as a means of obtaining settlement. Women, to their credit, have not yet started to do that. If they were to start. I should have to treat women as severely as men. But in order to maintain the strict control over immigration which

661
I believe the whole House accepts now to be necessary I am afraid that this present rule is necessary, with the pressures upon us.
On the third point, about United Kingdom passport holders, what we are saying is that we have a responsibility—we admit that—but that we must, if we are to accept it in an honourable and decent manner, be able to take it on board in an orderly and controlled way and that everybody cannot come in tomorrow. What I have said is that we announced a scheme following the 1968 Act, we believe that we can continue to operate on that rough sort of order of magnitude. We were doing so before Uganda even, and we have been doing so for some time. But at a time when there is no crisis we think that it is both right and honourable to announce to the world that we cannot do more than that.
Sir G. Sinclair: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us on this side of the House welcome his reassurance that the strictest control will be imposed on immigrants coming here to seek residence? Will he recognise that many of us welcome his statements about British passport holders in East Africa and elsewhere, based as they are on a heavy responsibility to protect all communities in this country from the extra strains that would come from another unexpectedly large and rapid influx? Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend give us some reassurance that, before they are finally made, these rules can be revised as a result of the Commonwealth consultations that are now in progress?
Mr. Carr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to the general content of my statement. I assure him that the Commonwealth rules can be revised at any time. New rules can be produced at any time, and certainly as a result of any outcome of the Commonwealth consultations that have started.
Mr. Bidwell: May I ask whether, in the interval between the rejection by the House of the rules as they stood and today, the right hon. Gentleman—or the Foreign Secretary—has undertaken consultations with Commonwealth Governments?
662
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that, notwithstanding that Pakistan is not yet technically part of the Commonwealth, he will honour the position of Pakistan citizens in this country and that he will address his mind to the question of the separate State of Bangladesh and the effect on its citizens in this country who are not designated Commonwealth citizens by virtue of the 1948 Act?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House and the nation as a whole that, whatever the future has in store for us on this issue, he, the Home Office and any British Government will never discriminate on grounds of colour, race or ethnic origins?
Mr. Carr: I assure the hon. Gentleman about that, and he will see that basic statement at the beginning of both sets of rules.
On the question of consultations, the immigration policy and rules of any country are its own affair, and it is our experience that other countries not only do not expect to be consulted about these matters but often would prefer not to be. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that nothing has been done without prior knowledge of the Governments most likely to be concerned, and I repeat that we are ready to talk whenever they want us to.
The new Act and the rules operate only in respect of those who arrive here after 1st January of this year. Anyone who was here before then is not affected.
Sir Robin Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable disappointment that the initial period of entry for visitors and those coming on working holidays from Australia and New Zealand is identical with that laid down in the rules that were rejected? Is there any reason why these young people who come here after a long and expensive journey should be treated any worse than those coming here for that purpose from the European Communities?
Mr. Carr: I assure my right hon. Friend that they will not be treated any worse than those coming from EEC countries. I believe that when my right hon. Friend has had time to study the rules he will find that that is so, but if

663
there is anything in the rules which makes him think otherwise I shall be glad to have it drawn to my attention.
My right hon. Friend expressed his disappointment—regardless of the comparison—at the shortness of the initial period. The normal initial period that I am proposing for young holidaymakers is 12 months, and six months for all visitors, with an explicit statement that longer periods should be freely given. This is a difficult matter to decide. Having looked at all the risks, and having looked, too, at the experience of other countries, I have come to the conclusion that it might endanger the integrity of our basic immigration control to give much longer initial periods without any chance of checking on what people are doing.
Miss Lestor: I support the Government in upholding the right of British passport holders in Uganda to come to this country. There is, nevertheless, considerable disquiet among many people that the application of the policy of allowing only British passport holders to come to this country from Uganda has excluded some members of a family. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about the small but significant number of people, particularly men, separated from their families who have been allowed to come here?
Mr. Carr: I am very much aware of this intense and pressing human problem. It is not only a British practice, rule and experience but an international one that responsibility lies with the head of the family. What we did in these unfortunate cases was at least to provide—which it was not our obligation to do—a temporary haven for wives and children for the sake of their safety, but we made it clear that we would expect, and would help, them eventually to be reunited with their husbands in third countries.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is visiting Europe and looking into this problem, among other things. He will be in London next week, and I hope to have meetings with him. I assure the House that I shall make clear to him that he will have our full help in solving this problem and getting the families reunited as soon as possible.
Mr. Powell: While I note the distinction between patriality under the 1971 Act and what is proposed in the rules in regard to persons with one grandparent born in this country, may I ask my right hon. Friend to recognise the undesirability and danger of a rule-making power under an Act being used either to alter a principle that has been decided by the House or to introduce a new major distinction of policy that was not considered in the course of that legislation?
Mr. Carr: I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend. Under the Act and the rules—and, indeed, under the rules applying under previous Acts—it has been common practice to remove certain categories of people from the current system of control. For example, under the previous system doctors and various other people have at times been removed from the need to have entry vouchers.
The same applies under the new system. It is our practice to remove from the need for work permits certain categories of people, realising that we can always restore them when needed. I think that that amount of flexibility is important and meets some of the objections that my right hon. Friend made to incorporating such a wide patriality clause in the Bill.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Thorpe: I would have liked Mr. Speaker, to make this point of order in a different form but I thought that for the convenience of the House it would be best to make it at the earliest opportunity, and I hope that in that respect I may have your guidance.
Before the Prime Minister's Questions the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that I had referred in column 508 of yesterday's HANSARD to a particular campaign being run by a national newspaper which I said I supported and to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred in his speech. However, if one looks at the right hon. Gentleman's speech at column 497 it becomes clear that the paper in question has been runing two campaigns, and that the right hon. Gentleman, without in any way expressing his view on either campaign, was critical of that newspaper for failing to give credit to the Opposition for themselves having

665
pioneered the first of the two campaigns, that of VAT on children's clothes. To that extent I inadvertently put into the right hon. Gentleman's mouth words which he did not use in his speech. I think that he and I agree that this is not a matter of the greatest magnitude, but it seemed to me right that the record be put straight.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point, Mr. Speaker, another evening newspaper has sought to whip up what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He thought I was talking about a campaign about a property Bill. I think it will be within the recollection of the House that I was not; I was talking about VAT on children's clothing.

FOOD PRICES
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Edward Milne) has given me notice of his intention to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House said that a statement on this matter would be made on Monday.
Mr, Edward Milne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The increase in food prices arising from yesterday's negotiations in Brussels of the Common Market Agricultural Ministers.
I apologise for shortening by even a few minutes the vitally important debate on the steel industry which is about to take place.
The subject matter of this request is patently specific; food prices and their effect on the community are Britain's No. 1 talking point. The subject is important because of the detrimental effect which the negotiated price increases will have on the health and nutrition of our people, particularly our older people and our younger children. Its importance can also be stressed in regard to the employment prospects of shop and distributive workers, who despite the efforts of their unions, are already numbered among those in Britain whose wages are
666
affected by the food price negotiations which we seek to debate.
This important subject is an outstanding example of the betrayal of the interests of Britain and its people by those who voted for EEC entry on the terms proposed by the Prime Minister and his Government on 28th October 1971.
It is urgent because next Monday the House will be debating the Second Reading of a Bill designed to curb the earnings of those most affected by the food price agreements made in Brussels yesterday.
Finally, it is urgent and important because if we are able to debate this matter it will halt the decline of the influence of Parliament among the ordinary folk of this country, who are losing confidence in the ability of this House to protect their interests.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice of the tonic that he wished to raise. I do not think he need bring it to the Table, because I am aware of it. I have considered the matter, and I made a preliminary observation to him. I am afraid I cannot accede to his request.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 12TH FEBRUARY
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook.

Mr. J. James A. Hill.

FIRST SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE
Sir M. Galpern: I have to report from the First Scottish Standing Committee that, having called the attention of the Committee to the disorderly conduct of the hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) and Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald), and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I have been directed to report those Members to the House.
The Members named in my report were not nominated to serve in our Committee appointed to consider the Local

667
Government (Scotland) Bill but they were present in the body of the Committee room when the Committee first met on Tuesday this week. I called upon them to withdraw but only one complied with my request. When the Committee reassembled this morning the same hon. Members were again present and failed to comply with my renewed request to them to withdraw. In these circumstances the Committee agreed to the motion which I have reported. As the House will know, neither a Standing Committee nor its Chairman has power to discipline Members and it is for the House to decide what action, if any, it wishes to take.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move the following motion relating to a matter of Privilege,
That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately from the Committee Room; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order.
I very much regret, as I have no doubt do very many hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald), Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) should have thought it right to repeat their demonstration at this morning's meeting of the Standing Committee on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. It is a long-standing tradition of this House that the authority of the Chair is invariably accepted. By refusing to comply with the request of the Chairman of the Standing Committee the hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman concerned have challenged that authority. Whatever their views about the size and composition of the Standing Committee—and I recognise that they hold their views strongly—it is quite wrong that they should express those views in such a way. By doing so they have taken action which impinges upon one of the most
668
fundamental privileges of this House—the position of the Chair. It is quite wrong to suggest that no other method of making their complaint was available to the hon. Members.
Subject to your views, Mr. Speaker, the size of the Committee and the question of Liberal Party representation are not matters for discussion today. This has been referred to on a number of occasions on the Floor of the House. It cannot be said that there was no opportunity for discussing this matter in an appropriate way. The question of the selection of Members to serve on the Standing Committee is also not a matter for discussion today. It is a matter entrusted to the Committee of Selection. It is not in any way a matter for the Government or for me. That is not, however, the issue now facing us.
The House now has to decide whether it can accept that hon. Members who have been unable to secure what they want through the proper procedures should then be permitted to attempt to secure what they want by refusing to obey the requests of the Chair. If such a precedent were accepted and such demonstrations were repeated, the standing and authority of this House and the orderly conduct of our debates would be seriously threatened.
In my view there is only one decision that the House can take. The Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill must be empowered to require hon. Members who are not members of that Committee not to sit as members of it. I think the House will agree that it is important that this issue should have been settled when the Standing Committee comes to meet again next week. I submit, therefore, that the House should proceed to consider this motion straight away.
Mr. Thorpe: Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, I wonder whether he would help the House. Is he suggesting that the House of Commons should be asked to make a privilege law simply by passing this motion? If so, perhaps he would give us the precedents for Parliament taking that decisison. Alternatively, is he asking that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to see whether it should be a matter of privilege, in which case it would be for Mr. Speaker to rule

669
whether it should be given priority? Could he also tell us what are the precedents for the rather unusual procedure he is asking the House to adopt?
Mr. Prior: I think these are matters for you, Mr. Speaker. From my point of view there are no proper precedents for the action that has been taken. What I am saying to the House and am about to come on to now is that I have not had a chance to put this on the Order Paper, which would have been a reasonable thing to do and would have given hon. Members time to consider it in advance.
Mr. Thorpe Mr. Thorpe rose——
Mr. Prior: Not until I have gone a little further.
It was naturally my hope that the demonstration would not be repealed this morning. In view of the urgency and the nature of the issue, however, I think it would be right to consider it straight away.
Mr. Thorpe: It simply will not do for the Leader of the House to rise at the Dispatch Box and ask the House to agree to a motion and, when asked where are the precedents and what does he mean by it, say "That is a matter for Mr. Speaker to explain." Mr. Speaker is not there to explain what the Leader of the House means. The House is entitled to ask the Leader of the House what he means and where the precedents are for this action. Will he please tell the House?
Mr. Prior: What I am asking Mr. Speaker to rule on is whether he accepts this as a matter of privilege. I am also at that time asking the House, if Mr. Speaker should accept that, to come to a decision straight away. I am giving my reasons why I think that the House should come to a decision straight away.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has pointed out that the motion is not on the Order Paper. Would it not be more satisfactory, in the interests of business today and of the House itself, for the motion to be taken on Monday, which would give the Leader of the House time to get what he
670
wants without disrupting the business of the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to finish, and then I will give my ruling.
Mr. Prior: I nevertheless recognise that, although the immediate issue may be a relatively simple one, it raises more general questions.
Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that notice of the motion should have been given? The Leader of the House prefaced his remarks by saying that this is a matter of privilege, but he is not referring it to the Committee of Privileges. Under Erskine May surely we should have notice of the motion?
Mr. Speaker: I must make it clear that with regard to matters of privilege it is for me to rule. I can rule that the matter can be debated at once or I could suggest that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It is a ruling for me.
Mr. Prior: It might be thought that this incident points to the need to confer greater powers upon Chairmen of Standing and also of Select Committees rather than that the whole House should have to interrupt important business to consider what action to take in circumstances such as these. I should not like to express a view upon that without further consideration, but I believe that it would be for the assistance of the House if the Committee on Procedure were to consider this wider aspect at its leisure. It is with great regret that I move the motion.
Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, Sir, if you would indicate at this stage whether the simple matter on which you are going to rule is whether there is an issue of privilege involved which in your view either should have precedence over the other business of the House for the purposes of debate or should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Speaker: If I am allowed to make my Ruling, I shall make it.
I have considered this matter. There was one occasion about 46 years ago when a Speaker drawn from the ranks

671
of the Liberal Party submitted his views to the House of Commons on this matter. He pointed out that this place will not work unless the authority of the Chair is respected. That is a matter on which I must stand absolutely firm. This is a matter of privilege, and I so rule. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the motion which the right hon. Gentleman is submitting.
Mr. Edward Short: The Leader of the House has asserted that it is a matter of privilege and you, Mr. Speaker, have said that it is a matter of privilege. Therefore, we must regard it as a matter of privilege.
I agree at once that the authority of the Chair must always be upheld. There is only one rule about Chairmen—one backs them or one sacks them but one does not mess them about.
Having said that, I think I must express my view that we are making very heavy weather of this. There may be something wrong with the way in which the Committee of Selection operates. In particular, there may be something wrong—I am not saying that there is—with the arithmetical formula by which the relative party strengths on our Committees are decided. There may be something wrong with the mechanism by which the Committee of Selection receives its names. Surely these are matters to be dealt with through the usual channels by intelligent, civilised discussion and not by a sit-in.
The Leader of the House has moved his motion, as he is obliged to. He has no option about it. If he presses it, I shall support him; but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press it. The right hon. Gentleman has moved the motion, and that is all he is obliged to do, for three reasons. First, there are still some doubts on the privilege point in our minds. Secondly, this is a very small matter; it is a storm in a teacup. Thirdly, and more substantially, if we debate this—and it is debatable—it would eat into an extremely important debate. It would be outrageous if we debated this footling matter when we have before us a debate on an issue where thousands of our fellow men through the country are to be declared redundant. It would be monstrous if we took time out of that debate to debate this motion.
672
I therefore appeal to the Leader of the House, now that he has moved the motion, to seek the leave of the House to withdraw it and let us see through the usual channels whether we cannot find a solution. I have not been involved in any discussions on this matter. I do not know whether there is a solution possible, but there may be one through the usual channels. Let us have a go and see whether we can find a solution to it and not debate the matter today.
Mr. Speaker: May I seek to help the House? If the House were to debate the matter today it would be an extremely narrow debate. The question is simply whether a Chairman who has been defied should have power to deal with the matter. The rights and wrongs of what caused the controversy are not debatable today. It is a very simple issue.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Surely the House will use common sense. It need not he a prolonged debate. The case is clearly made. The request has come from the Chairman of the Standing Committee to give him some power to allow him to conduct his Committee work properly. That is clear in the report given by the Chairman of the Committee.
I should have thought that the strength of the House is that it can use common sense and make quick decisions, which are clearly in the interests of our procedures. This incident, however lightly it was taken, is clearly a case of disorderly conduct by certain Members, disorderly conduct which they have repeated. I should have thought that the House could without any more delay agree to what has been asked for by the Leader of the House so as to settle this one question. Wider matters that flow from that as regards the powers that Committee Chairmen should have can be discussed on another occasion.
Mr. David Steel: I greatly hope that the Leader of the House will heed the commonsense words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and agree, on my giving certain undertakings on behalf of my Liberal colleagues who are involved in this, that there is no need to pursue the motion.
Referring to something you have said, Mr. Speaker, and to the opening words

673
of the Leader of the House, I should like to pay a tribute to the Chairman of the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: I think that we shall get through this difficult and important, but not necessarily complicated, matter more quickly if hon. Members will listen in silence to what is being said.
Mr. Steel: Those of us who disrupted the Committee's proceedings recognise that it placed a special strain on the Chairman's authority, and we would not wish to do that in any way.
Secondly, in considering whether or not to pursue the motion the House is entitled to an explanation of what occurred and why it occurred.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That I will not allow.
Mr. Steel: In that case I can say only that we must proceed with the debate today, because the situation is that last night the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and I saw the Leader of the House and asked him to refer the whole matter to the Committee on Procedure for an inquiry and that we would let the Committee proceed this morning with its work, in which case there would have been no difficulty this morning. It is because of the right hon. Gentleman's obstinacy that this morning's events took place. Moreover, I must point out that during the Second Reading of the Bill——
Mr. Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to tell the House that he and his colleagues will allow a Committee to proceed? Surely he has no power to say "We will allow".
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: That point of order reinforces my view that this is a very simple matter.
Mr. Steel: Before the Second Reading debate on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill the matter of the selection of the Committee was raised on the Floor of the House——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question of the Selection Committee and its conduct is governed by a separate motion on the Order Paper. That is completely irrelevant. The only point at issue today is what is to happen if a Chairman is defied and what powers he should be given.
Mr. Richard: As a Welshman sitting for a London seat, I have no interest in the proceedings of the Scottish Committee. But as one who sat through many hours under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) on the Sound Broadcasting Bill it seems to me, after examining Erskine May, that there may be doubt about whether the Leader of the House is entitled at this stage to move the motion he has. May I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 607——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. and learned Member because I have ruled that the Leader of the House is so entitled.
Mr. Richard: I am not questioning your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am merely pointing out the effect of it. [Interruption.] On page 607 of Erskine May there is a very specific statement on disorder in Standing Committees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston will know. It is a paragraph of Erskine May that those of us who were on the Committee examining the Sound Broadcasting Bill had occasion to consider a number of times. It says:
"A standing committee has no power to punish one of its members, or any other person, for disorderly words, contemptuous conduct, or any other offence committed against it, but can only report the offence to the House."
It goes on to say:
"The provisions of S.O.s Nos. 23 and 24 have not been extended to standing committees."
The provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 23 and 24 which are set out in the appendix to Erskine May at page 1024, says:
"Mr Speaker or the chairman shall order any Member or Members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day's sitting."
As I understand it the Leader of the House is asking us by his motion to amend and extend the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 23 and 24 in respect of the proceedings of this one particular Committee. Would it not be

675
much more sensible and in accordance with the general view of the House that if the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are to be amended in this way it should be done after mature consideration by the House and not on a motion of which we have not had notice, which is not on the Order Paper, and which is moved at this hour, holding up a most important debate?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It was because of the behaviour to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred that this limited and restricted motion was put forward. The general consideration is for the Committee on Procedure.
Mr. Steel: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask about the narrowness of the debate? In his opening speech the Leader of the House made certain critical remarks about those of us who sat in on the Committee, saying that other opportunities were open to us to make our complaints. If that remark was in order, is it not also in order to say how those other opportunities were denied to us?
Mr. Speaker: Order. No. Since then I have accepted the motion and shall decide upon the limits of the debate accorded to the motion.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would it not help, in view of the time and the business ahead of us, if we had one further fact before the House apropos of the narrow and restricted point we are considering? It is that the Committee was able to begin its proper procedure on the Bill at a late hour this morning when those who wished to draw attention to a particular grievance had done so and had withdrawn. There is, therefore, as far as I am concerned and, I believe, as far as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) is concerned, no desire for the situation to continue. We wished to draw attention to a point to which we felt we had been unable to draw attention, and we have done so, and we now wish to leave the matter as it stands for further consideration at a later stage, provided that the Leader of the House will give us time to do so.
Mr. Prior: If the House could have an assurance from all the hon. Members who sat-in on the Committee, I am quite
676
certain that at this stage it would be much more sensible if I withdrew the motion. I would be prepared to do that, and I hope I can receive that assurance.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whatever the merits of the issue, we cannot have bargains across the Floor of the House. We have a report from the Chairman of the Committee which is the subject of a motion by the Leader of the House. I am in favour of withdrawing it not as part of any bargain but in order that the House can have a little more time through the usual channels to discuss the matter on the clear understanding that when there have been further discussions we might clear up some of the background to the problem. It must be on the clear understanding that the Leader of the House must then bring forward a motion, because we cannot treat the Chairman of a Standing Committee in this way and have the matter bargained by oriental-type negotiations across the Floor of the House. I believe that the Leader of the House was responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Central (Mr. Edward Short). Perhaps he would withdraw the motion so that the matter may be further considered, knowing that we must at the end of the day back the Chairman.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: As one of the members of the Committee I believe that it is right that one point of view should be heard. I should not like to compete with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his description about oriental bargaining. This is the wrong place to conduct such bargaining. I wish to make it clear, however, that within my hearing certain hon. Members this morning said as they were withdrawing that they would come back again on Tuesday [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If all the hon. Members involved are now saying that there is no need for a motion to be put, there is no argument and the usual channels can discuss the matter. But, according to my understanding, it is not bargaining to proceed under the threat of being disrupted again in the way that we have already been disrupted at two sittings. The usual channels should, of course, discuss the background. But, provided it is clearly understood from the hon. Members involved that they have

677
now made their point, it would be wise to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Grimond: I said nothing about turning up on Tuesday and I have no intention of doing so. I am perfectly prepared to give the undertaking. We wish to get on with the debate on steel. I regret any form of oriental bargaining, but I should also like the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that, as well as agreeing that the usual channels should consider the matter, our substantive points about Select Committees should be considered. These are matters for all hon. Members, and it is a basic point for the Committee on Procedure. I hope that the Leader of the House can therefore say that they will be reconsidered.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a distressingly long list of speakers for the next debate. If the hon. Members concerned do not intend to repeat what they did, this motion is quite harmless and the House would perhaps do much better to give the Chairman that power.
Mr. Prior: These are very difficult matters for the House. We want to try to reach the right decision as quickly as we can. I believe that the right decision is to take the advice you have given us, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Members do not attend on Tuesday or any other subsequent occasion, any motion that we may pass today will have no effect. I would have thought that it would be far better for the House to allow the motion to go through, and then no one will be any worse. That
678
is the quickest way to bring this to a conclusion.
Mr. Thorpe: May I put one point through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the House? The argument he has advanced cuts both ways. If the power is not required it seems to be a dangerous one to grant on the nod. The House of Commons has existed without this power being granted to a Chairman. If a case is made out for it, it ought to be a matter for careful consideration. It is not something to be made out without notice after a 20-minute debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately from the Committee Room; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order.

BILL PRESENTED
  MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING AND PYRAMID SELLING
  Mr. Raphael Tuck, supported by Mr. Edward M. Taylor, Mr. Costain, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. S. Clinton Davis, Mr. Patrick Cormack, and Mr. Arthur Davidson, presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of the practice of multi-level marketing, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2nd February and to be printed. [Bill 56.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

  CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1972–73
  Resolved,
  That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £406,287,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1973 for expenditure in respect of the Civil Supplementary Estimates set out in House of Commons Paper No. 40.

  DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1972–73
  Resolved,
  That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £184,701,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1973 for expenditure in respect of the Defence Supplementary Estimates set out in House of Commons Paper No. 39.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Higgins.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)
  Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March 1973, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

  STEEL INDUSTRY
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) to move the motion, may I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and other right hon. Gentlemen leave out from 'House' to end and add:
  'regrets the low rate of steel investment during the Labour administration; welcomes the plans
  680
  announced by Her Majesty's Government for the British Steel Corporation to invest £3,000 million in modernisation, thus safeguarding the future of 180,000 jobs and enabling the industry to compete prominently in world markets and to contribute to the competitiveness and growth of the rest of British industry; and further welcomes the prompt action proposed by the Government to minimise the social consequences where modernisation results in closure of an existing steel plant'.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: I beg to move,
  That this House, whilst welcoming Her Majesty's Government's abandonment of its intention to impose a ceiling of 28 million tons on the production capacity of the British Steel Corporation, calls for the speedy publication of a White Paper which will allow for investment up to the 43 million tons capacity originally planned by the Corporation, thus allowing scope for careful and detailed reconsideration of any plans to close steelmaking plants; and asserts that, in any event, no closure shall be permitted until guaranteed new employment has been provided in the areas affected.
  This debate has already been truncated and at one stage I nearly got up on a point of order to suggest that we might hold the steel debate in the Scottish Standing Committee. We would probably have got ahead with it then.
  The Opposition have chosen to debate the steel industry for three reasons. The first is that five weeks ago the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry promised a White Paper on steel. He said that he would produce it as soon as possible. That White Paper has not yet appeared and we on this side of the House wish to prostest in the strongest possible terms at the Government's lackadaisical attitude towards providing information on the steel industry which affects thousands of households and many communities. and which is causing great anxiety.
  Secondly, now that we have tabled this motion and forced the Government to anounce that the publication of the White Paper will be next month, we intend to make it clear in the debate what we want to see in the White Paper. While we understand why the Secretary of State is absent from the debate we hope that when the White Paper is produced he will come to the House and speak as the Minister responsible for the steel industry. Throughout this period we have not had sufficient information on the steel industry and we hope that the White Paper will give us that information.

  681
  Thirdly, we wish to probe the statement made to the House last month by the Secretary of State, a statement which the more it is examined the more it seems to have been designed with the intention of misleading and distorting rather than providing the information which the House has a right to expect.
  Again and again, for example, the Secretary of State talked about keeping steel plants open when on present intentions he means to close them. He said:
  "Steelmaking and hot-rolling at Shotton will continue …"
  That meant that Shotton was to be closed because he said that it would be until the end of the decade. Then there was Corby. This is what he said:
  "Steelmaking is likely to continue …"
  That was really Corby's death sentence. Dealing with Consett the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Consett will operate as a steelmaking concern certainly until late in this decade."
  That was how he announced the intended closure of Consett.
  There was an even worse example of deviousness in what the right hon. Gentleman said about East Moors. He said:
  "The future of East Moors and Brymbo are the subject of continuing discussion between the BSC and GKN."
  When he uttered those words the Secretary of State knew that the fate of East Moors was sealed and that Lord Melchett would be going down to Cardiff the following week to announce that verdict. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that the Secretary of State's ears will be singed across the Atlantic.
  Even more misleading was the Secretary of State's version of what has happened in Scotland. In Scotland he proclaimed that there was good news which should be greeted with rejoicing. He gave the impression that he was performing the two-card trick. He made no reference to the 7,500 redundancies to be made in steel in Scotland over the next five years. He dressed up as a new announcement the plan announced last June to expand output at Ravenscraig. He then had the nerve to attack my right
  682
  hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friends from Scotland for the manner in which they had received the statement.
  We all know that Scottish Members on this side of the House are politically biased, quite unlike the Government Front Bench. Let us get an impartial opinion from someone whose credentials as Lord High Commissioner for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and one of Scotland's best known bankers and financiers would be acceptable to both God and mammon. I refer to Lord Clydesmuir, Chairman of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
  Lord Clydesmuir has denounced the steel plan for Scotland as
  "a bitter disappointment to the hope of steel and engineering expansion in Scotland."
  He went on to say that the plan appeared to differ in only two respects from the original BSC plans which were considered disastrous in Scotland and that these two references were so lacking in definition, time-scale and commitment as to have little meaning. That is how the right hon. Gentleman's good news to create rejoicing in Scotland was received.
  The Secretary of State had some other good news. He proudly informed the right lion. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that
  "Investment in Scotland is likely to be about £400 million."
  That is a sizeable amount of money. Unfortunately no one seems to know how it was arrived at. Two weeks ago the Secretary of State for Scotland——
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Where is he?
  Mr. Varley: I do not know. Two weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman met the Scottish Trades Union Congress which asked him how the £400 million would be spent. He added it up as best he could. He talked about Ravenscraig, Hallside and the Hunterston ore terminal and the pelletisation plant and that was as far as he got.
  The trouble was that the right hon. Gentleman could only add it up to £200 million, leaving another £200 million completely unaccounted for. Naturally the Scottish TUC was dissatisfied, but not

  683
  as dissatisfied as the Secretary of State for Scotland. He was most upset, not because he did not have the answer, which he did not, but because the Scottish TUC had had the cheek even to ask him the question. He protested, according to the Scotsman:
  "I think it is unfair for the Scottish TUC to complain that they did not have sufficient clarification of the figure. I do not have this detailed technical information "
  I certainly hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland now has the information that he failed to provide in Edinburgh two weeks ago. We insist on having it from the Government Front Bench today. Otherwise we can only conclude that the £400 million announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was a bogus figure.
  In Scotland and Wales, in Shelton and Irlam and other parts of Britain, tens of thousands of workers spent Christmas and New Year in fearful ignorance of what was to become of them. That is why after the camouflage we demand the facts. First we want the facts about the jobs to be lost. The Secretary of State slipped into his statement the forecast that 30,000 jobs would be lost by the end of the decade. Speaking from this Dispatch Box I pointed out that the number of redundancies was 50,000. I was wrong. I grossly under-estimated the position. The following day the BSC admitted that the number of jobs to be lost would be 75,000, counter-balanced by the hope of creating an additional 25,000 jobs in the steel industry.
  But the situation is even worse. The Secretary of State's statement, as we have seen, did not include the 4,600 jobs due to be lost at East Moors. Nor did he include yet another 2,500 steel jobs which Lord Melchett has frankly confessed are to be wiped out in Wales alone in addition to those already announced.
  First we need to know the true figures envisaged for total redundancies and jobs lost and for the new jobs to be created in the steel industry. We want the facts. We want the facts about another statistic with which the Secretary of State made free. He boasted in his statement that
  "The investment required by the programme will sustain and create a large number of jobs, possibly as many as 75.000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1972; Vol. 848, c. 1576–89.]
  684
  What does he mean by that, if anything at all? In this context, talk of sustaining jobs is double talk for workers who are at work now and going on working. What kind of credit do the Government expect to be given for their bounty in refraining from deliberately casting men on to the dole queues?
  The Secretary of State gave as his figure "possibly … 75,000". How did he arrive at that figure? What did he mean by it? How many of those "possibly 75,000" jobs will be sustained and how many actually created? How many new jobs? What branches of the electrical, mechanical and civil engineering industries will be involved? In what areas of the country will the jobs be located? The Government must have this information. Officials of the Department must have compiled it to provide the Secretary of State with that figure. If the Minister for Industry or the Minister for Industrial Development does not supply that information today we shall come to the only possible conclusion, namely that this figure of 75,000 is completely phoney and was cooked up to bamboozle the House.
  We also want to know something about the other side of the coin, the jobs outside the steel industry which will be lost as a result of steel closures. When the closure of East Moors was announced last month, the Town Clerk of Cardiff, Mr. Lloyd Jones, made an assessment that thousands of jobs would be lost in Cardiff in addition to the 4,600 at East Moors. Mr. Lloyd Jones has sent to me, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, the Minister and other hon. Members a document containing an official estimate that the total number of jobs lost may approach 10,000. The document refers to the inevitable reduction of employment in Cardiff in the docks and among sub-contractors and local suppliers. Several thousand jobs will be lost in direct local suppliers to the East Moors works. The town clerk also mentioned the decline in employment amongst the milkmen, corner stores, garage attendants and so on who serve steelworkers in a private capacity.
  That is not just Cardiff painting a black picture to get favourable treatment. The same story is told by Mr. Ian Kelsall, the Secretary of the Welsh Confederation of British Industry. In speaking of the

  685
  consequence of redundancies at East Moors, Ebbw Vale and Shotton, Mr. Kelsall said that these decisions—and I quote from The Times of the 15th January:
  "will have serious consequences for many companies who service, supply and are contractors to the steel industry, both in the public and private sectors, and for the economy of these areas generally."
  On Monday of this week The Times—referring to the redundancies in Wales alone—said that these redundancies:
  "can at least be doubled when the effect on dependent industries, trades and services is taken into account."
  Even the Financial Times of Tuesday had something similar to say. The Minister cannot deny this evidence. It does not apply only to Wales. Scotland will be hit, as will be Irlam, Shelton, Corby, Consett, Stanton and Staveley and all the rest. These are jobs which, to use the Secretary of State's words, are sustained and created by steelworks now under sentence of death. How many will there be and what are the Government doing about it?
  Contrary to the impression which the Secretary of State attempted to foist on the House, the greatest impact of the rundown in steel will be in the years immediately ahead. On 22nd December the BSC made clear that the rundown in its total number of employees would be fastest in the first five years of the 10-year plan. At East Moors 4,600 are planned to go in the next three years, and the new jobs will come in the latter part of the 10-year period and will not cushion the impact in the first part of the period.
  That brings me to the mystery of the mobile mini-mills. Whenever an hon. Member asks him about the fate of any doomed area, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry puts in his thumb and pulls out a mini-mill. When the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) asked what was to become of Irlam, the Secretary of State replied:
  "Irlam is a possible candidate for a mini-mill in the future."—
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) asked about Shelton, back came the Secretary of State, quick as a flash:
  "Shelton is … a possible site for a minimill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 1581, 1594.]
  686
  We are told, too, that Bilston is on the mini-mill list. The Government have deliberately created the impression that before long, wherever one goes in England, Scotland and Wales, it will be difficult to avoid stumbling over a gleaming new mini-mill.
  The Minister for Industry gave the game away on Monday of this week at Question Time. When he was asked about mini-mills by the hon. Member for Withington, who wants one for Irlam, he admitted that there were to be only two mini-mills in the whole of Britain. One is already allocated to Scotland. So the question is, who gets the other mini-mill? Will it be Shelton, Irlam or Bilston, or will none of those three get it? Will it go to East Moors where Lord Melchett was reported as faithfully promising to build one if GKN decided not to? The communities in these areas have the right to know.
  The next subject on which we require information is the creation of new jobs. In his statement the Secretary of State spoke about working closely with the BSC and the trade unions concerned so as to minimise the social consequences. When Lord Melchett went to Shotton two weeks ago he spoke of the BSC as a catalyst in the creation of new job opportunities and he said to the workers of Shotton:
  "We could even engage in joint ventures. There are quite a lot of things we would be prepared to do."
  On 10th January the Financial Times industrial correspondent speculated that approaches might be made by BSC to some of its major customers for coated steel, such as refrigerator producers, and went on to say:
  "Too great an involvement by the nationalised BSC would almost certainly run into opposition within the Government and private sector industry."
  The industrial correspondent was saying that the Government would have objections to BSC participation in the way he described and in the way that Lord Melchett has said that BSC is prepared to help.
  I say on behalf of the workers of Shotton—for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) has fought so untiringly—and on behalf of all steelworkers facing redundancies that the Government will never

  687
  be forgiven if, out of dogmatic spite or dogmatic objections, they stand in the way of diversification by the BSC. For the Government to stand in the way of creating new jobs in the stricken areas would be very damaging and I hope they will not do so. We want to see the Government not advocating hiving-off but permitting and encouraging hiving-on.
  Yesterday the TUC met to consider what help it could give in this problem. The TUC has suggested that a committee should be set up to include the Minister for Industry, Lord Melchett and Mr. Victor Feather. When the idea was mooted a couple of weeks ago BSC immediately welcomed the proposal, but the Government have remained silent on it. We want to hear today that the Government accept the proposal and that they will get moving immediately on the TUCs suggestions.
  Again, we want information about the task forces which the Government are setting up. I do not share the cynicism of The Times this week which described the task forces as "window-dressing" and a "good public relations ploy". I want to know exactly what the task forces will do, their terms of reference and what powers they will have, if any. We want to hear about specific projects, a specific time-scale and specific areas.
  We want more information about advance factories. As the Minister who three years ago announced the last advance factory programme and who in opposition has persistently and vainly pressed for a new advance factory programme, I am delighted with the Government's sudden infatuation for advance factories as a means of dealing with unemployment. But the programme announced by the Government a few days ago has curious gaps. The whole of the North West gets only 55,000 out of 950,000 sq. ft. Irlam, which faces a dismaying future, has to be content with one building which a local newspaper described as
  "hardly more than a large shed".
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East on 21st December asked the Secretary of State what hope he could give to Shotton, the right hon. Gentleman promised to use every available method, including advance factories. Yet the Minister for Industrial Development excluded Shotton from his list of advanced
  688
  factories, airily dismissing its claims by saying that it could be examined for a future programme. That was reported in The Times.
  Another aspect of regional policy on which we need information is the designation of assisted areas. We know that the delay in announcing a mini-mill at East Moors is due to GKN's reluctance to construct such a plant in Cardiff because Cardiff is an intermediate area and therefore ineligible for the investment grants which are now, happily, restored to us. Will Cardiff, which will be hard hit by the BSC plans, be designated as a full development area? I understand that Cardiff Corporation has made a formal request which the Secretary of State has promised to consider. Will Irlam, also an intermediate area, obtain development area status? Will Shotton, now an intermediate area, become a development area?
  We want a full statement about how assisted area policy will help the communities which will suffer so drastically from the Tory Government's long drawn-out vendetta against the BSC. That is the real root of the trouble and the origin of the situation which the steel industry and the steelworkers face. The redundancies of today, tomorrow and the next day, and the Government's unpreparedness are a direct outcome of two-and-ahalf years of humiliation and harassment.
  First there was the constitutional monstrosity of the joint steering group, and the meddling of McKinseys, the American external consultants, paid by the Government to sit in judgment on the BSC. Then on 21st December the Secretary of State portrayed the situation in such a way that one would never think any of this had happened, that there had never been a joint steering group, that McKinseys had never reported and that there had been no report from the Select Committee. There has not yet been such a report because the Government did not set up the Select Committee until two weeks before Christmas.
  The Government boast of a £3,000 million investment programme. One would never guess that the BSC originally planned for a programme costing £4,000 million at 1970 prices. The Government claim credit for a cut of at least 25 per cent.
  The Government's record is equally discreditable when we consider the BSC's

  689
  capacity target. The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies) told the House on 18th March 1971 that Lord Melchett's target was 35 million tons by 1975 and 43 million tons by 1980. As recently as 9th November Mr. K. W. Atchley, representing the Scottish Confederation of British Industry, told the Minister for Industry at a meeting in the Department of Trade and Industry that 44 million tons was the right capacity, yet on Monday the Secretary of State claimed that the corporation could—that was his word, not "will"—achieve 33 million tons by 1980. If that target is reached—and there is no guarantee it will be—the corporation in 1980 will be 2 million tons short of its 1975 objective.
  We must compare that notional 33 million tons with the 36 million tons which, as recently as last week, the Secretary of the British Steel Corporation was still proclaiming as the revised target. But more of the truth can be discerned through the Government's spokesmen. The Secretary of State claimed that the corporation was producing 38 million tons "through the 1980s". That is the right hon. Gentleman's "double talk" for 1990. Again, on his own admission, the corporation in 1990 will be 5 million tons short of its 1980 objective. Scraping together every scrap of steel production he could find, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expressed the hope that including the private sector British steel production at the end of the 1980s "ought to reach"—again we admire his fastidious use of words—42 million tons. Therefore in 1990 there is the vague hope that the whole British steel industry may produce what the BSC alone hoped to produce by 1980. Let us make no mistake that this so-called strategy is a straitjacket fastened on to the BSC by the Government.
  In Shotton two weeks ago Lord Melchett told union representatives that it was a Cabinet decision, a political decision. Yet what is the national need for steel? It has been estimated that on the basis of a 3½ per cent. national economic growth rate the corporation would need to produce an annual output of 31 million tons by 1980. But we are now told that the Government are planning for a 5 per cent. growth rate and are asking trade unionists to accept their prices and
  690
  incomes policy on the basis of a continuing growth rate of 5 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed on Tuesday that the Government were on target for a 5 per cent. growth rate, yet many experts in the steel industry calculate that for every ½ per cent. increase in economic growth an extra 3 million to 3½ million tons of steel-making capacity is needed. This means that for a continuing 5 per cent. growth rate we shall need a steel capacity of around 41 million tons by 1980. Yet what the Government offer is the likelihood of 33 million tons.
  On this basis home production could not begin to satisfy home demand. This leaves exports out of account altogether. Even in 1971 the corporation exported 4·7 million tons and its plan for 1980 budgeted for 9 million tons of exports. It is obvious that in the national interest we should place the maximum emphasis on the encouragement of exports. Yet the programme so vaingloriously trumpeted by the Secretary of State would mean, not expanding exports, but importing steel on a huge scale. It is calculated that 1 million tons of steel imports adds £90 million to the country's trade deficit. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has converted the balance of payments surplus which he inherited from the Labour Government to a deficit for 1972 and that there are now forecasts that a monumental deficit is likely to pile up this year.
  Will the Department, which has direct responsibility for overseas trade, add to that deficit by forcing on the steel industry a policy which inevitably will involve heavy steel imports? The Government must think again and must accept the principle behind our motion.
  One by one the steel-making areas have put forward constructive alternative suggestions for their future. The Government must give an assurance before coming to any firm, final decision that they will give full and genuine consideration to all these alternatives, bearing in mind that in many cases the decisions which will have to be taken will be life or death decisions for the communities concerned.
  As so often with the present Government, a decision announced with trumpets blaring, in an atmosphere of bogus

  691
  euphoria, looks very different when examined in the clear light of day. The future of the steel industry, the steelmaking communities and the thousands of families who live in them is more important than the pride of any Government, especially that of the present Government. We demand justice for the steel industry and the steelworkers. It is in that spirit that I commend the motion to the House.
  5.27 p.m.
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'regrets the low rate of steel investment during the Labour administration; welcomes the plans announced by Her Majesty's Government for the British Steel Corporation to invest £3,000 million in modernisation, thus safeguarding the future of 180,000 jobs and enabling the industry to compete prominently in world markets and to contribute to the competitiveness and growth of the rest of British industry; and further welcomes the prompt action proposed by the Government to minimise the social consequences where modernisation results in closure of an existing steel plant'.
  The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) opened this debate on what is perhaps one of the boldest and most exciting decisions of this decade with a crabbing, distorted, misleading speech. I recognise his problems for he has behind him many hon. Members who, for understandable reasons, wish to keep open small works in their constituencies. Keeping them open cannot be consistent with the policy which other hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side wish to see, namely, a grand strategy for consumption and production of steel far in excess of that which has been justified by any predictions so far made. The hon. Gentleman went too far.
  The hon. Gentleman repeated the allegation of a vendetta between the Government and the British Steel Corporation, an allegation for which he knows there is no foundation. Although there has been a free exchange of views, there has been on both sides the will to co-operate in every possible way to achieve a strong and virile industry in the interests of those who are engaged in it and the country as a whole.
  The hon. Gentleman misquoted and selected figures given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade
  692
  and Industry. I will not respond to those now. I will give one or two examples of matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He referred to East Moors and alleged that my right hon. Friend misled the House and that the figures for East Moors were not included in my right hon. Friend's figures. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The figure for East Moors was included in the figures given to the House by my right hon. Friend. I could go on to deal with practically every one of the quotations or partial quotations given by the hon. Gentleman and correct him in that way.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the travelling mini-mill as though my right hon. Friend had suggested that there were to be a number of mini-mills. It was quite clear that my right hon. Friend said that there would be one mini-mill in Scotland and one other elsewhere for which there were a number of possible sites. This matter was made perfectly clear. If the hon. Gentleman did not know that, he cannot have been studying this subject on which he is the spokesman for the Opposition. It does less than justice to him, but if he has not managed to accept that basic fact it is time he did so.
  The hon. Member also referred to some apparent disparity between the rate of job rundown and that which was given in reply to a parliamentary Question last Monday. In that reply I made it clear that the rate of rundown in the next two years was estimated to be less than 10,000 people. I also made it clear, as it has been made clear throughout, that we were talking of a net loss of job opportunities over the period of this strategy—in other words over the next 10 years—of 50,000 people.
  However, much of the time for this debate has been taken up by other matters so I will not detain the House by responding to the variety of matters put to me by the hon. Gentleman. I hope to cover some of them in my later remarks.
  The Gentleman referred to the White Paper and to the fact that he had forced the Government to announce that there would be a White Paper. Again he did less than justice to my right hon. Friend. In his statement my right hon. Friend announced that there would be a White Paper. He also announced that it would

  693
  be published as soon as possible and, in response to a letter to my right hon. Friend, I replied to the hon. Gentleman and told him that we did not expect the White Paper to be published before the end of January. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are perfectly entitled to ask for the debate today, before the White Paper is published. However, they have done so in the knowledge that the White Paper would not have been published, so it is not for them to complain that the information that will be in the White Paper is not available in time for this debate.
  I now move to the strategy itself, because I believe that the House is more concerned with the general strategy, the considerations which have gone to build it up and the consequences of it than with exchanging profitless figures across the Floor of the House. In any event, I do not think that the hon. Member for Chesterfield will find that his figures are justified.
  The strategy that we have announced for the British Steel Corporation's longterm investment is a hold decision to invest very large resources in building a modern industry able to hold its own in the world. It will bring great economic benefits to many areas of the country. The hon. Member for Chesterfield referred to the establishments at Shotton and Cardiff. He did not refer to the great benefit which will come to places like Port Talbot and Llanwern. He preferred to look purely at the negative aspects.
  I recognise that to men at the works faced with partial or total closure this will come as a bitter blow. The industry has a tremendous tradition of skills and teamwork, and loyalties have been built up over a long history. It is not all that long ago that these steelworks were in separate companies each of which gave rise to its own loyalties. The belief of the men in each of those works in the strength and potential of their works is impressive and I appreciate their feelings when an apparently remote decision is taken that a business founded on their skills has no long-term future.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not only a matter of
  694
  the workers at Shotton? One has to consider the effect that the partial closure of Shotton will have on Deeside, which in the future looks like becoming almost another Jarrow. It will also affect Merseyside and the North West as a whole. The effect of the closure will be dramatic in the area. As a result of the Government's policies, there are already 50,000 men unemployed in Liverpool. That is what we are concerned about, and we want some answers.
  Mr. Boardman: I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about the multiplier effect of job loss. In turn he will recognise the multiplier effect of secure jobs and jobs gained and the security which will come with the growth policy pursued by this Government and with a strong and healthy steel industry, none of which could be achieved if we allowed the industry to run down in the way in which it was running down when the Labour party was in office.
  It is because of the consequences of plant closures and because the Government recognises the effect of these on communities that we pondered anxiously upon the strategy proposed by the British Steel Corporation. We wanted to be satisfied that it was the right course not only to create an efficient and profitable industry but also to provide the highest possible level of employment. An immense amount of work has been done by the Government and the corporation in their studies. We are confident that everything has been done to ensure that the decision is the right one.
  The need for rationalisation and the human problems resulting from it and from the structural and technological changes are matters which have been recognised by successive Governments. They were recognised in the 1965 White Paper and they were very much to the fore in the 1966 Benson Report to the Iron and Steel Federation which predicted a reduction in manpower of 100,000 by 1975 from the then industry total of 317,000. I am sure that I do not have to remind the House of the words used by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) when he was Minister of Power predicting the need to close down the smaller works and the need for large integrated works with the social consequences which

  695
  inevitably that would bring about. It was the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths), with a great knowledge of the steel industry, who echoed those thoughts in a speech which he made in December with a realistic recognition of the problems and acknowledged at the same time that they were problems which had to be faced and about which decisions had to be made. It is in accordance with that philosophy that the Government have made these decisions.
  Without taking up too much time in jogging back into history, I must recall that when the Labour Party was in office it faced this problem and recognised the need for large integrated works and what would happen if the small works were kept. What did right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do? In the words of the Leader of the Opposition recently in another context, Labour acted. Labour acted, but in this way. It kept the industry in suspense for many years about its future. It nationalised it. Finally it tried to starve the industry. Let me give some illustrations—
  Mr. James Callaghan: We did not put 4,000 men out of work.
  Mr. Boardman: None of us likes the fact that 4,000 men may be put out of work. But we want an industry which will provide secure employment for the future, albeit for a reduced number. If that policy had been pursued when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in government we might not be faced with the severe problems that we have today.
  In 1965 the United Kingdom had the same proportion of basic oxygen steelmaking plants as there were in Germany and the United States. By 1970 the United States and Germany's proportion was twice as great as ours. That is one measure of the decline which occurred during that period. In the four years prior to 1964, at 1972 prices, the United Kingdom steel industry invested an average of about £280 million per annum. In the period from 1964 to 1970, that investment had dropped to about £130 million per annum—under half. That was how Labour acted, and that was where many of the problems that we are now having to tackle arose.
  Mr. John Morris: How much of that investment was at Llanwern and at Ravenscraig in Scotland, because private industry failed miserably to put up the necessary capital?
  Mr. Boardman: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be able to give him the figures, I am sure. The total investment made during those periods was at a pitiful level compared with the periods before and since the present Government came to office.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: Surely it is logical that the capital cannot be spent until the British Steel Corporation has decided where to spend it. In other words, the capital expenditure would depend on the plans that were being made during that period. Is it to be spent first and afterwards decided where it should go?
  Mr. Boardman: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's point, but his right hon. Friends did not take it in the same way. Apparently any time-lags regarding decision-making whilst we are in office are alleged to be on the part of the Government. It is a matter of having a proper understanding of planning and strategy between the Government and the British Steel Corporation. That was what we set out to do, and for that reason we established the joint steering group to have a full exchange of views on proper planning, in the meantime going ahead with a high level of investment. We are now going ahead with a level of investment which, over the next 10 years, will average £300 million a year. This is a measure of the difference between the approach which has come during the time of the present Government in contrast to what happened before.
  I now turn to the rationale of the strategy that was adopted. Hon. Members who have particular interests will wish to know the motivation, the causes and the philosophy that was applied in coming to the decision arived at by the British Steel Corporation and which influenced the Government in endorsing that decision.
  A number of different considerations had to be weighed and balanced in deciding the strategy. A growing national output means a growing demand for steel, though not at the same rate. Many hon. Members know that steel intensity

  697
  declines with increasing national incomes. If the industries using steel are to grow successfully against world competition they must have steel at competitive prices and increasingly they must have steel of better quality and to more exacting standards. Steel users will be looking to the British steel industry to match these requirements. The industry must either be expanded and modernised to produce steel in the quantities required with competitive costs and quality standards or users will look to other countries, including producers in the rest of the European Community, and we shall be faced with growing imports and a declining steel industry.
  Secondly we have throughout been acutely conscious of employment considerations. Any conceivable strategy must mean a large reduction in the British Steel Corporation's employment. There is no other way. By the standards of its world competitors the corporation is severely handicapped with too many small and obsolete steel works. Many existing plants have no commercial future and there is no way in which they could be kept alive. Modernisation, however much we may regret it, means fewer jobs. But without it all the jobs in the industry would ultimately be at risk because it could not stand up to competition. Therefore, whilst modernisation means fewer jobs, it means more secure jobs.
  Thirdly the projected investment in steel, which at 1972 prices will average £300 million a year over the next decade, represents a massive call on national resources. It would not be in the national interest to put resources on this scale into the industry if the return was unlikely to match that expected if the resources were used in other ways.
  The British Steel Corporation has been set the objective of earning an average return of 8 per cent. on its net assets, after depreciation and before interest, over the next four years. At least as high a return will be expected subsequently. Moreover, under the rules of the European Coal and Steel Community, the corporation cannot expect Government subsidies to take care of trading losses.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: In view of what the hon.
  698
  Gentleman said about the European Communities, may I point out that the Government are taking powers in the Counter-Inflation Bill on matters relating to prices which take precedence over the European Communities Act? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, now that we have had a chance of studying the Bill, that though Ministers may choose to go along with what is done in the Common Market, there is no statutory obligation whatever for him to be guided by Community decisions in view of the provisions in the Counter-Inflation Bill?
  Mr. Boardman: What is made clear and has been stated clearly in this House is that the British Steel Corporation will be free on its pricing after the standstill.
  Mr. Benn: This is an important point. Clause 8 of the Counter-Inflation Bill gives the Minister power to make an order on any matter relating to prices, even though it involves the amendment of any Act passed up to that time, including the European Communities Act or orders made under it. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell the House candidly whether it is the judgment of Ministers that they retain the power to control BSC prices even though they may not choose to do so?
  Mr. Boardman: I have no intention of being drawn into a debate, no matter how attractive, on the Community. The right hon. Gentleman will see in the White Paper, which sets out the Government's intention, that phase 2 will not apply where it would be contrary to international arrangements that have been made.
  The return on the investment for the BSC was not decisive. Though social and employment questions are primarily for the Government, the corporation also paid full regard to them in its planning. I believe that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will acknowledge that the corporation has throughout shown a real sense of responsibility in dealing with problems of redundancy and so on during its history.
  Mr. Callaghan: I agree with what the Minister is saying, but may we have an answer to the question about the Government's policy relating to the British Steel Corporation's desire to enter into joint ventures in the areas concerned? Is there any likelihood that the Government will

  699
  prevent it from doing so or will hold it back? If so, that would be a monstrous act of policy.
  Mr. Boardman: I think the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the corporation has a massive task ahead in building up a successful and modern steel industry and that it should concentrate its resources of management and so on on this prime objective. Clearly any joint ventures which are put forward will be complementary to the activities of the corporation and would certainly assist in relieving problems in areas which the Government and I certainly would wish to look at with sympathy.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. That is a partial answer. But why must they be complementary to the existing activities of the corporation? Surely that is purely ideological. If they can help to supply some of the capital and technology, and others are willing to put in their share, why should the Government deny them the right to do so? I hope that the Minister will withdraw the last part of his answer.
  Mr. Boardman: I will certainly reaffirm that it is right, in the massive task facing the corporation, that its capital resources and management should be devoted to its prime objective. The Government accept that they have a real responsibility, about which my right hon. Friend will say more later, in dealing with particular problems. I do not close my mind, nor will my right hon. Friend, to joint venture projects, particularly if they have a complementary connection with the corporation's main-line activities.
  Mr. Callaghan: It is not ruled out?
  Mr. Boardman: I believe the effort should be concentrated. The cobbler should keep primarily to his last. It is put forward for that purpose.
  The Government also had to consider the implications for foreign trade. I am taking the House through the points which I believe it would wish to know leading to the decision that was taken. The British Steel Corporation is a major net exporter, and obviously the effect on the balance of trade is important. The decision on the BSC's total capacity rests on a complex analysis. The corporation
  700
  is not a monopoly supplier. It makes about 90 per cent. of crude steel but only 70 per cent. or less of finished steel products.
  There is a vigorous private sector of the industry. It is a sector which we wish to welcome and encourage. It has had to put up with many difficulties in the past and it must not be neglected in future. That sector and imported steel account for a share of the market which would grow if our steel products were not competitive. Imports would grow and take away the benefits which we believe should belong to our steel industry.
  The corportion is a major exporter, the effect that reorganisation will have upon its efficiency and its ability to compete abroad will be material in its future costings and prices, and in the exports that it achieves and the corporation's approach to these matters.
  The corporation was satisfied that the market prospects were good enough to justify a major investment, although there must be greater uncertainty when look-ink ahead 10 years or more. The corporation evaluated a variety of capacity options and different plant patterns within the total capacity range of 28 million to 36 million tons which was announced on 8th May. It used a computer model and various sophisticated techniques to reach a conclusion. It concluded that a high level of investment leading to capacity towards the top of the range was likely to yield the best return.
  However, there was concern about the inevitable uncertainty in the market prospect and the resulting risk. Therefore it rightly refused to be committed to achieving precise capacities in particular areas. Instead it recommended a flexible strategy whilst retaining the possibility of varying the times both of the closures and new developments in the light of market development.
  It has been suggested that the corporation or the Government should fix themselves on a given quantity of production and a given capacity at a given date. That is unrealistic. In the opinion of the corporation—this is an opinion which is endorsed by the Government—it is essential that there should be flexibility in the plan. That indeed is what has been built into the plan.
  Sir Robert Cary: Does the expenditure of £28 million include the establishment of the two mini-mills, one of which is to go to Scotland?
  Mr. Boardman: I am sorry if I misled my hon. Friend. The 28 million is the capacity of crude steel. That was the bottom end of the bracket. The bracket of 28 million to 36 million tons was fixed by the joint steering group. The corporation agreed and within that bracket it planned its strategy and came out with the strategy. That includes the Heritage works which we have been talking about and the mini-mills.
  Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that the corporation was quite happy with the joint steering group's flexible arrangement. Is the hon. Gentleman denying that his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said on the 18th March 1971 that the British Steel Corporation wanted 43 million tons by 1980?
  Mr. Boardman: I do not want to detain the House by going over that argument again. It has taken place before. The joint steering group, of which the corporation was a party, agreed upon a bracket of between 28 million and 36 million tons. It is clear from the statement which I made on 8th May that the British Steel Corporation veers towards the top end of that bracket. That has been and that is its opinion. It is within that bracket that it worked. There has been no pressure by the Government to bring that down from a higher figure.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.
  Mr. Boardman: The size of the investment and the size of the capacity must be assessed against the risk that must be run. If a large-scale modern steel plant runs below capacity there are heavy penalties. A premature commitment to a capacity in excess of the growth of profitable sales opportunities could result not only in unprofitable working and low return on the investment but also the risk of additional closures and loss of jobs. Consequently, to aim too high or to decide upon a fixed target of capacity to be achieved by a particular date irrespective of markets would be foolhardy.
  702
  In the face of such risks, if return on investment were the sole criterion there would be a case for a cautious course aiming at only a modest expansion of capacity. That would bring the best return in the event of market conditions being unfavourable. The Government had to weigh the other factors which I have mentioned and in particular to support the economic growth and the aim of providing the highest level of secure employment in the industry. A low investment course would offer less scope for modernisation and leave no room for having a new works of modern design. Neither would it obtain the lowest possible operating costs or provide as good a base for subsequent expansion as a higher course.
  A difficult balance had to be struck. On the one hand excess capacity could endanger employment. On the other hand a cautious approach would produce an industry less competitive in cost and quality and so also endanger employment in the long term. The decision that has been made in the strategy announced by the Government is, we believe, the correct balance. It is essential that a course be taken to give opportunity for modernisation and for seizing profitable trade opportunities, as recommended by the corporation. That was best for the nation, the industry and those employed in it, provided that the uncertainty about the future was recognised and the plans were kept flexible.
  Within the agreed strategy decisions will be taken in the light of developments over the decade, including market trends and the changing efficiency of individual works. The right timing will be important both for major developments and for closures. I stress once more that the timing both of closures and of starting new projects must be kept flexible. Decisions upon these matters will be primarily for the corporation. The pattern for the decision on total capacity has some effect on the numbers employed, but the pattern of the plants which will be most immediately affected are those largely dictated by technology.
  It is because of the implication of other places traditionally dependent on the industry, such as Shotton, and Ebbw Vale, that the Government considered most carefully the possibility of redeveloping steelmaking and aiming at the

  703
  same total capacity with less concentration. We were convinced that it would not be in the best interests of the industry or those employed in it. It would mean forgoing scale economies and the full advantages of large modern plant. Costs would be increased and the corporation would be less able to stand up to competition. Employment at large in the industry would be at risk. The Government judged it right to face and to tackle the problems caused by closures for the sake of building an industry capable of achieving long-term prosperity and so providing secure employment.
  Mr. Michael Foot Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale) rose——
  Mr. John M. Temple: My hon. Friend has so far been dealing with steel production. Can he say something about the capacity which he envisages for the rolling side and the finishing side? It is those aspects of the steel industry which are so important in Shotton and various other parts where steelmaking will be closed down.
  Mr. Boardman: Under the strategy finishing plants will be retained at a number of centres where steelmaking is to close, including Ebbw Vale, Shotton and Glengarnock. There is no reason why finishing work should not have a viable long-term future. There are not the same economies of scale in concentrated finishing works that apply in bulk steelmaking.
  Mr. Foot: In preparation for the rest of the debate, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer this question, which relates particularly to Ebbw Vale although it applies to other places. The hon. Gentleman has talked about the absolute need for flexibility. He has said that the Government have particularly examined proposals for Ebbw Vale. Will he make it clear that the Government are in no way bound by the proposals for the dates of closures that have been made at Ebbw Vale, Shotton and other places.
  Mr. Boardman: The decision to close Ebbw Vale, or at any rate to reduce it, was made a long time ago. The final announcement was made in November when the Chairman of the BSC went down to Ebbw Vale, before any decision had been made on the strategy or was
  704
  known. Therefore, it is quite independent of the strategy.
  Mr. Foot: What the Minister has said about Ebbw Vale is in flagrant contradiction of what was said by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he came to Ebbw Vale last week. He told us quite clearly that any proposals about Ebbw Vale were in exactly the same category as the other matters and that they would all be governed by and taken into account in the statement which would be made in the White Paper. I therefore ask the Minister to consult more clearly about this, when he will discover that he is in flagrant contradiction of what his Minister said.
  Mr. Boardman: If the hon. Gentleman will read what I have said, he will find that I said the decision to close the bulk steelmaking plant at Ebbw Vale was made in 1970, when the Labour Party was in power. The announcement about the job loss of 4,500 by the chairman of the corporation in Ebbw Vale in November was made before there had been any decision with regard to the strategy. I think the hon. Member will find that that is consistent with what has been said throughout.
  With a decision on the strategy, the British Steel Corporation now has a clear path before it. It can concentrate on making a success of building future prosperity. I recognise that of course it has to put an end to the uncertainty for not everyone in the industry and that, understandably, those in each works want to know precisely what the future holds for them.
  This was not always possible, and the White Paper will not be able to answer every question. I stress that this is a flexible strategy. We have set a broad strategy for investment over 10 years, but no one can predict with certainty how the market will develop. New assessments will have to be made as we go along and the timing of the development of total capacity will be reviewed as the strategy is updated and rolled forward. Because of this, decisions on some works are still some way off, and these are decisions for the corporation to make.
  The Government and the corporation are determined to do everything possible to mitigate the impact of job losses and plant closures on the men affected and

  705
  the communities in which they live. My right hon. Friend will be saying more about what has already been done in this direction when he winds up the debate. I would like, however, to answer the three points which the hon. Member for Chesterfield made about the social consequences. First, there is the announcement of the task forces by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who has been tireless in his efforts to see that the problems of Wales are dealt with in the most effective way possible. He made this announcement on 19th January when he was there, and further task forces will follow.
  The consultative group consisting of the General Secretary of the TUC, the Chairman of the BSC and myself is being formed to consider and discuss arrangements for providing new employment for redundant steelworkers. At regional level arrangements are being made to see that there is close consultation and the opportunity for the fullest discussions of the measures among those organisations, the Government, the trade unions and the corporation. In addition we will have the advantages of the facilities under the Industry Act.
  We are also negotiating under the ECSC reconversion and re-adaptation arrangements and we shall, of course, by continuing to pursue our policies to sustain a high rate of growth ensure that the efforts to provide jobs and place men in new work are made in the most favourable circumstances.
  So we have the modernisation of the nationalised steel industry, and now the path is set. It is a massive and bold undertaking. It is one which was not grasped by the Labour Party when it had the opportunity to do so. We have the level of investment to which I referred. Competitors on the Continent and in other parts of the world have been forging ahead, with the construction of big, modern steelworks, taking full advantage of modern technology, while the BSC still has a large number of small, obsolete works, where these advantages are not available. Modernisation is overdue and it will not be easy to catch up. Nevertheless the corporation has charted a course which gives it an oppor-
  706
  tunity of doing so and the Government have given it their full backing.
  The industry now has the possibility of taking and holding its rightful place among the world's steel industries, but there can be no guarantee of success. Great efforts will be needed by all concerned to seize the opportunities. The strategy is a challenge to those in the corporation who plan the immense programme of investment and carry it through. It will be a challenge to the plant and construction industries, which are given an unrivalled opportunity with the long-term programme of work in which they can demonstrate their capabilities. It will be a challenge to management and men in the individual works whose task it will be to achieve cost and quality standards which investment in modern plant will make possible. Finally, it will be a challenge to the Government themselves, on which falls the main responsibility for easing the process of modernisation by mitigating the consequence of closures and redundancies.
  Success in this undertaking is vital to the future of the industry. It is also vital to the future prosperity of the country. The Government are determined to play their part in ensuring its success.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Hank Anderson): Before calling on the next hon. Gentleman, I would like to draw the attention of the House both to the time and to the fact that a great many hon. Members hope to take part in the debate.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. Barry Jones: I think that, as the Minister for Industry listened to his speech, he became unconvinced by it. Looking at the Government Front Bench at this time, I am reminded of the splendid bronze in the park by Westminster's Victoria Tower, called "The Burghers of Calais"—their supplicatory poses, handing in the keys, as it were, of the future of many communities. I can only say—miserable burghers they.
  I make my contribution in the knowledge that the Government have put their seal of approval on a plan to eliminate 7,200 jobs from my constituency. They are a callous and soulless Government who unleash such a devastating blitzkrieg. By any standards, in economic

  707
  and social terms this is a sentence of death. It seems that the Government are conniving at an unquantified trail of social misery and destruction.
  The steel men of Shotton feel that they are pawns in other men's games. A supposed cost-benefit analysis is the basis, it seems, for the annihilation of a loyal and highly skilled work force making steel. I must ask whether the British Steel Corporation has its strategy right and whether possible alternatives for the Shotton works have been considered.
  To take the strategy, first, in the next few years obviously the corporation proposes to concentrate most of its production in a handful of massive plants, despite the fact that it has not yet a single plant in operation of the size envisaged. It seems that the model for reshaping British steel is to be found in Japan. There has been an astonishing procession of BSC leaders making pilgrimages to the Mecca of modern steelmaking. Perhaps Japan has an efficient steel industry. Of course we must improve. But it does not follow that Britain should slavishly copy everything that the Japanese steel masters have done.
  Our starting point is different; different in management, in labour relations and in pollution controls. I want to see us learn from the Japanese, but that which is relevant to our own industry in the 1980s. It is possible that our strategy is to be based on what was good for Japan 15 years ago. But the corporation has worked hard to compensate for the worn-out plant it inherited on vesting day, and there is much in its record for us to praise. But I suspect that Lord Melchett could be over-reaching himself. All his eggs are going into one basket, the basket of large scale, the format of the large blast furnace, LD steel making, and continuous casting.
  It is conceivable that the corporation's formula for tomorrow's commercial viability could be out-dated before the last of the corporation's proposals have been implemented. I hope, therefore, that Lord Melchett will not shackle the next generation of steel makers with an expensive but out-dated industry.
  So at this stage I find the corporation's strategy, at best, not proven, and, at its worst possible, wrong for the corporation and tragic for Britain.
  708
  We should remember that Rolls-Royce over-reached itself and had to be bailed out. Nor should we forget that an 8–10 million tonnes a year plant is in dead trouble if not run at near maximum capacity. A United Kingdom plant of 8–10 million tonnes, let us remember, is one quarter of our total production. But a similar Japanese plant is but one-tenth or one-twelfth of Japan's production total.
  Passing to the Shotton works, the Shot-ton management proposed a scheme costing E50 million or so. The corporation told the Government that in its view some £200 million is needed to be spent at Shotton. Was the scheme submitted by the Shotton management evaluated? If it was not, why? More recently, the Shotton Works Trade Union Action Committee prepared an alternative scheme, which has been submitted to Lord Melchett. This scheme makes full use of plant which the corporation proposes to scrap. It combines the use of the present facilities with a new melting shop which could in its entirety be built for £7 million to £8 million. For this modest expenditure the current 12 open-hearth furnaces could be replaced by three tandem furnaces. This process has been well tried and proven efficient and economic both in Poland and in Czechoslovakia, and, I understand, in North America, too.
  Thus it is possible that Shotton could be a well-balanced, self-contained unit capable of producing nearly 2 million tonnes of steel a year. It would, therefore, retain most of the 7,200 jobs now threatened by the Government's acceptance of the corporation's proposals.
  This is a real bargain. Can anyone show how we can provide 7,200 jobs for between £7 million and £8 million? I ask the Minister for Industry to direct the corporation to evaluate this scheme in a constructive, careful and positive manner. Will the Minister also undertake that his Department, one way or another, will evaluate this scheme?
  Lord Melchett implied recently that Shotton was a three-legged horse in the regional race for capital investment because it had no deep-water ore terminal. Was the Morpeth Dock scheme for Shot-ton fully evaluated by the corporation?

  709
  The House knows that enormous ore ships will not necessarily be the cost-savers of the future. Many countries which now export raw materials are insisting on a share of the processing. Oil is the classic example. On foreign ore-fields there are now schemes to combine natural gas with iron ore, to produce a partly refined, more valuable export product. It is conceivable that Britain will import sponge iron by the 1980s. Clearly, the more valuable the product the less significant the transport costs. Will the Minister for Industry ensure that the corporation has fully considered this likely trend?
  I am trying as best I can to make constructive proposals in the debate, but I should like to put two other questions to the Minister. Will he sanction a full, detailed disclosure of the costing of the alternative corporation schemes for Shot-ton to be made available to the management and workers at that works? Will he direct the corporation to make this information available to the consultants engaged by the Flintshire County Council, and direct that the corporation gives its utmost co-operation to those consultants, as so many thousands of jobs—indeed, the future of the whole community—hang in the balance? I hope that the Minister will make these facilities available to us.
  Wales suffers some 18,000 redundancies in this strategy. Yet we get only a beggarly 8 per cent. increase in productive capacity. The North Wales steelmaking industry appears to be scheduled for obliteration. I suppose that the Secretary of State's figleaf is his task force system. But I think that he is the Cabinet's bunny. We in North Wales believe that he has let us down badly. With this decision and Common Market entry, we may as well tow North Wales into mid-Atlantic and leave it there.
  If the Shotton rampart falls, all of North Wales will be hurt and, indeed, part of greater Merseyside. Gwynydd now has a standard rate of unemployment approximating 10 per cent. in some parts. I presume that Flintshire, come the disaster in steelmaking, will have first call on jobs available; and the Minister for Industry strikes us down, with the Minister for Industrial Develop-
  710
  ment supposedly to pick up the bits. I presume that Flintshire will have first call on these new jobs. So what is left for those in Gwynydd and North Wales? We are to be the sieve through which every job will pass. What is left for poor Gwynydd; that is, the three northwestern counties? It seems that what is left is just more depopulation.
  I should like to place on record the gratitude of steelworkers in my constituency for the regional help they have had from a variety of Members of Parliament, and I must not forget the Merseyside Members in that. I think that Shot-ton steelmen are right to put their priority on retaining steelmaking at Shotton, because if steelmaking goes, all in my constituency think that the finishing processes there, supposedly to employ 7,000 men, will surely be obliterated when the book value of the accountant passes on.
  We are scheduled to receive at the Shotton works in my constituency, by 1980, metal from Scotland and from South Wales. I cannot calculate the cost of bringing all that metal to my constituency. I only know that it would be tremendous, and that every year it would increase. The pressure from the corporation to the Government to eliminate the finishing processes would be bound to be enormous. That seems to be the economics of madness.
  So my constituents, the steelmen I represent and their families, will not be kidded by the assurances given so far. We know that our regional and social case is a strong one. If we lose 7,200 jobs we shall surely lose another 7,200 jobs, because for every person directly employed in the industry there is another in the area who will be employed indirectly. I do not see how any task force on earth can put right such a mess, not when it has to compete with others in the same country. The Minister for Industrial Development is not a Solomon, whatever else he may be, and I wish him well in his task.
  There are no other areas near my constituency for redeployment in steel. It is not my direct responsibility, but the steelworks at Brymbo employs 2,500 men and I estimate that 500 of my constituents work there. I should like to know what is to happen to Brymbo. We have not been told. Whatever else I have said about

  711
  the corporation's strategy, I should like to congratulate its brilliant director of information on the timing of the announcement of these redundancies. It has been beautiful!
  East Flint sits on the edge of Merseyside's massive unemployment rates. Who will want to employ a redundant 50-yearold steelworker whose only skill and craft is that of making steel, having left school at 14 or 15. How can that man—and there are several thousands like him at Shotton—hope ever again to have a job? If he does have a job offered to him, I dare say it will be to make plastic toys, or curtain rails, or to brush up. That is what the men who for so long have been employed in making steel will be reduced to, and I cannot see how they will swallow it. I do not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite have made any estimate of the enormous social consequences of what they have done, or are proposing to do. They are whistling in the wind, and they have not served us well.
  How are we to replace the corporation's 250 annual apprenticeships? Do the Government realise that my constituency has the fastest-growing population in all Wales, and probably in Britain? It has had a population explosion. Where are all these young people to go when they leave school if they are not capable of getting the extra qualifications on paper in academic terms? What is to happen to them? Are my people expected to go to Merseyside? There are no jobs there.
  I sought from the Prime Minister the guarantee of a job for every man made redundant at Shotton. In reply I received a letter in which the right hon. Gentleman quoted Article 26 of the Treaty of Rome and said that there were payments for removal expenses and payments for tiding people over the difficulties of moving. My people do not wish to leave their country, but that is the possibility that stems from the decision taken by the Government Front Bench. That is the decision taken by our Secretary of State for Wales. The right hon. Gentleman is our protector. We look to him for help. My constituents will make their assessment, but I suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can still come home to Wales.
  The future is bleak for our local chamber of trade. It has come to a pretty
  712
  pass when I have to make this point. Who will re-employ the shop girls, the caretakers, the canteen assistants, the kitchen hands and the corporation's gardeners? Who will give them employment, and how soon? The Government are, in effect, saying to my constituents "Work yourselves patiently out of a job, but remember there is no guarantee of another job when your present job ends and the profit that you are making so reliably is to be spent elsewhere to ensure that you are jobless anyway." If that is not taxing the patience of the steelmen at Shotton, I do not know what is. How are they to face that slow agony? What about the thoughts of their wives and children? There are as many as four wage-earners in one household in Shot-ton and other townships in that area. In effect, we are being asked to exchange today's prosperity for tomorrow's poverty.
  I must report to this honourable House that there is in my constituency a rising tide of bitterness and resentment at the inhumanity of this decision. We have a distinct sense of fair play, and we know that the Government are serving us rotten. I can speak for Shotton steel-men in this. I am one of them myself. I am the third generation of my family to have worked at Shotton. Indeed, many members of my family will lose their jobs because of this decision. It seems that on Deeside we have been too loyal, too efficient and too co-operative, and now we are offered a poisoned chalice—if the Secretary of State can spare the time to hear us—industrially anyway—of Japanese make, I suppose.
  The sad fact is that the next few months are vital. If the decision is not changed soon it may prove impossible to change it later whether or not there is a change of Government heart. My advice to the Government—and I say this on behalf of the 3,000 steelmen who have come here today—is to change their mind and change it quickly, because I do not think that they can expect us in Shotton and East Flint to exchange the substance for the shadow.
  6.27 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I cannot support the Opposition motion although I find myself in a measure of agreement with its concluding words.
  The target for the steel industry as a whole to which hon. Gentlemen on the

  713
  Opposition side have nailed their colours is, I am convinced—and I am even more convinced in the light of the debate so far—one which, were it to be attempted, would make our steel industry hopelessly uncompetitive in the markets of the world.
  Furthermore, given what are now clearly the fixed ideas of the corporation in these matters, I cannot believe that even were this unrealistically large target to be accepted there would be any reprieve for Shotton and the other works that are threatened with rundown. Indeed, were this larger target to be accepted we would find some gigantic new Japanese-style venture set up and in consequence there would be even more closures and rundowns than are likely to occur within the present realistic target which I am convinced the Government were right to accept.
  Having said that, I must say that I still believe that the decision not to provide Shotton with the new equipment that it needs in order to produce its own steel for finishing will turn out to be a catastrophic mistake and that the determination of the corporation to venture all on a few large new steelmaking complexes—for which it will necessarily have to recruit labour very rapidly from wherever it can—will turn out to be an unwise decision.
  I believe that the readiness to allow the team of workers, which over many decades has welded together into what one might call a happy family of workers, to be dispersed is worse than a mistake. It is a crime. To illustrate the quality of that team at Shotton, I would say that any hon. Members who have had the privilege today, as I had, of moving among the lobbyists, both within the House and outside, cannot but have been impressed by their moderation, their good sense and their determination.
  I believe that this decision, if it is persevered in, will turn out to be a catastrophic mistake. I still hope for a miracle and I think that the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones), in a very eloquent and sincere speech, did what he could, as he has done all along, to promote that kind of miracle. But we must be realistic about this, and if the miracle does happen there is still the
  714
  certainty of the loss of 3,500 jobs at Shotton, even if we get the investment that we are fighting and praying for. Therefore, whatever happens, it is the responsibility of those who have the interests of North Wales and the North West at heart to think in terms of bringing new jobs to the area and bringing them on a scale hitherto undreamed of.
  Flintshire cannot be allowed to become an area where rich commuters live in the surroundings of an industrial slum. This is the kind of socially explosive mixture which is so dangerous in the Third World. We do not want to introduce this kind of thing into the United Kingdom. We must have those jobs and I am satisfied that to the extent that it lies within their power—and the mistake that all of us make is to over-estimate the capacity of any Government to bring about the impossible—the Government are doing everything they can to bring in those jobs as soon as possible. If, as a result of all this, Flintshire should get what it has not yet had—that is, a genuine variety and choice of employment for its school leavers, a choice of well-paid, challenging jobs—that would be at least a measure of compensation for the very tragic times that the working people of Flintshire are at present undergoing. That is as it may be, but the point I want to make this afternoon is that we must have more time. As I have said. I believe that the Welsh Office is making heroic efforts to rise to the challenge of the hour, but it is wildly unrealistic to imagine for one moment that new jobs can be created on this vast scale on the same kind of time scale as is evidently envisaged for the rundown of steelmaking at Shotton, which I gather is scheduled to begin probably in 1975 and to be concluded by 1978. At the very least this whole operation must be set back by a minimum of three years, perhaps by some such device as the hon. Member for Flint, East suggested: a tandem scheme to enable the workers of Shotton to go on producing raw steel without the kind of massive investment which would really be necessary in order fully to modernise the works.
  I believe that if Shotton were given this kind of reprieve, if we could gain another three years and if we could have the very limited amount of investment

  715
  which would be necessary to enable the workers of Shotton to continue during those three years, to go on producing steel as they know how, they could once again astonish the whole steel world by their achievements, by showing the kind of spirit which they have shown throughout and which they have shown in the lobby which they have conducted here today.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. David Watkins: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), like my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones), made a very moving speech to the House about the devastating effects of the proposals for the Shotton steelworks. I am sure that both hon. Members will excuse me if I do not follow in detail their specific line of argument, because I want to turn, of course, to the proposals as they will affect the steelworkers and the economy of the area of Consett in my constituency. Although the effects of the proposals for the steel industry are not so immediately devastating at Consett, the fact remains that in the longer period they will be perhaps even more devastating than at Shotton, and in fact the proposals are casting long shadows over the future of Consett.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), in opening the debate, drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Secretary of State, when he made his very long-delayed statement to the House on 21st December, gave singularly little information about the specific effects in the various steel areas and constituencies. There was no mention, of course, of the effect in my constituency and it was only when I put a question to the Secretary of State that I elicited any information about what was proposed for the future of Consett. I quote what the Secretary of State said to me:
  "Consett will operate as a steelmaking concern certainly until late in this decade. It is impossible to make a decision beyond that. I am advised by the BSC that it is considering Consett as a possible supplementary source of billets together with a number of other candidates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1972; Vol. 848, c. 1589.]
  Of course, what the Minister did in effect was pass a sentence of slow death on one of the most modern, most efficient
  716
  and indeed most profitable steelworks in the country and, for that matter, in Europe. He also passed a sentence of slow death on a town and a locality which is almost wholly dependent upon the steel industry for its economy, its prosperity and its employment prospects.
  There are 6,500 people employed in iron and steel-making at Consett and that very fact injects something of the order of £30 million a year of spending power into the economy of the area. There is hardly a business or undertaking of any description in the town of Consett and in a quite considerable area around it which is not dependent to a greater or lesser degree on the effect of the steel industry in the area. Even if the half-promised billet production eventually materialised—and as I read the Secretary of State's remarks there is no more than a fifty-fifty chance that it will—it would mean that there would be thousands fewer jobs in the area and it would be a great blow to the economy of the whole area.
  I am bound to say that the progress that has been made to date in providing alternative employment in this area gives very little indication, if any, that the jobs in steelmaking in Consett can be replaced. I am not only talking of what has happened under successive Governments over a period of years; I want also to make specific reference to the proposals announced by the Government on 15th January, to which the Minister, when he opened this debate for the Government, referred in somewhat glowing terms. Within those plans two advance factories are proposed to be built in the town of Consett. One of them is described as a nursery unit of 10,000 sq. ft., the other a standard unit of 15,000 sq. ft.
  There is one advance factory 25,000 sq. ft. already in existence in the area. That stood empty for one year and it will not provide more than 100 jobs when it comes into full development. I quote as an example an existing advance factory equivalent to the two new ones together and indicating the number of jobs it will provide. There is another advance factory immediately adjacent to that I have referred to. That is 10,000 sq. ft. and it has stood empty for 18 months.
  The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway)The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Watkins: It is no use the Minister shaking his head, because I am speaking from knowledge.
  Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted my point. The purpose of advance factories is that a factory should be ready and available as an inducement for industrialists to come in. Inevitably there will be advance factories standing empty for some period. That is their purpose.
  Mr. Watkins: I am grateful to the Minister for so strongly reinforcing my point, which is the difficulty of providing alternative employment. My point is reinforced when the Minister admits that advance factories often stand empty for such long periods. The size of the factory which has stood empty is such that even when it is occupied it cannot provide other than a negligible number of jobs in the context of the scale of this problem. This is an area which has already suffered a massive rundown of the coal industry and from which over the last 15 years there has been massive migration. In spite of that, there remains a consistently high level of unemployment. The area cannot stand a comparable rundown in the steel industry.
  The problem is not so immediately pressing as that at, for instance, Shotton; but in the long term it is a problem which is perhaps even more serious than those and it requires attention now, not at two years' notice in about five years' time when we are confronted with an irretrievable position. A major reassessment of the position at Consett is required. There is a problem here requiring immediate attention. We face a rundown of about 6,000 or 7,000 jobs in an area totally dependent upon those jobs and upon the economy built around them. Now is the time for urgent action.
  6.43 p.m.
  Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I take the view that in a debate like this speakers with constituency interests have, and deserve to have, priority. I have not got a constituency interest, so I shall not keep the House long. Speaking in the presence of so many hon. Members on both sides who have deep personal feelings on these matters and who see the repercussions amongst their friends, and, as one hon.
  718
  Member said, their relations, of decisions about the future of the steel industry, I can only feel that abstract comments are not likely to carry much conviction with them.
  It is rather like the experience one had occasionally in the war when, having taken part in a rather disagreeable engagement, one received an intelligence report from an officer stationed well behind informing one that there was no enemy opposition to be expected. One had only to see the casualty figures to realise that that was a slight understatement. In this sense my sympathies are entirely with hon. Members who have a constituency case.
  I speak as the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which was engaged on the steel inquiry. I believe that I have a few modest contributions to make. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) surprised me greatly by the suggestion that the Committee's consideration had been delayed by the Government. This is so far from the facts that I must tell him that ever since I was made Chairman of that Select Committee in 1970 we have made an inquiry into the steel industry our first priority.
  The inquiry was delayed not in any way by the Government but at the perfectly intelligible wish of the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation. The hon. Gentleman referred to a straitjacket being applied to the chairman of the corporation by the Government. I have never been in contact with the chairman of a nationalised industry who seemed to have greater freedom from interference than the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation. I do not think that inside the Ministry there is an organisation capable of controlling the corporation's activities in the way that other industries are controlled. This is a question which might be inquired into at another time. The word "straitjacket" is wholly inapplicable in this connection.
  Mr. Varley: I was not referring to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation in the sense of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries putting him in a straitjacket. My comment was in reference to the joint steering group which was imposed on him many months ago against the will of the corporation.

  719
  Only two or three days ago a member of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries told me that he was very concerned that the Select Committee had not been reconstituted this Session until about two weeks before the Christmas Recess. He was under the impression that it could have been reconstituted immediately the House returned in October, thereby getting ahead with the report so that the House would have had the benefit of the report.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Gentleman rather over-rates the influence and importance of this Select Committee. I do not think that it is an important weapon in this battle. If the hon. Gentleman defines "straitjacket" differently from me, he must not blame me for putting a different interpretation upon his words.
  If I were in the steel industry I would look with great misgivings to Parliament and Government. In the words of Siegfried Sassoon, I think of the two soldiers going up the line. They passed the general. The general says, "Good morning, good morning" to them, rather sharply,
  "He is quite an old card,' said Harry to Jack
  "As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack
  "But he did them both in with his plan of attack."
  This is the history of the steel industry and of the plans of attack put before it from both sides of the House. At the conclusion of the war the industry was exhausted. It had rendered magnificent service. It gave every effort it could to the national cause. The very dispersion of the steel industry was an asset. That was a particular point whose value was more applicable to war than to peace.
  We know the history since the war. Earl Attlee's Government passed through the House of Commons a steel nationalisation Bill which was thrown out by the House of Lords on the new doctrinal point that it had not been included in the Labour Party's election manifesto. When the Labour Government were reelected in 1950, they thereupon passed another Bill, which got through both Houses, but they did nothing about implementing it when it became an Act, except by buying the shares. They let the companies continue independently. So it was
  720
  not surprising that when the Conservatives returned to office in 1951 denationalisation was very much on the cards, and we proceeded towards it rather gently.
  We almost completed the denationalisation of steel—so much so that in 1959 Mr. Harold Macmillan said in his election manifesto:
  "We are unalterably opposed to the extension of nationalisation."
  That was a slightly hedging remark. Most of his supporters thought he was going to complete denationalisation, but he merely said that he was unalterably opposed to any extension.
  Meanwhile, right hon. and hon. Members opposite had been vowing destruction of those unwise enough to buy denationalised steel shares, and their blood was made to run cold. It was indicated to them that they would be expropriated and would be lucky to escape with their lives. But came 1959. We did not complete denationalisation of steel. The exact opposite happened.
  In 1961 the steel industry, having been running flat out for a long time, met a check when there was a depression in steel. What happened? Richard Thomas and Baldwin remained in public ownership, and it had almost a private client in the Whitehead Iron and Steel Company, which had depended on it for its supplies when steel was short. When the situation changed Stewarts and Lloyds, which was denationalised, made a bid for Whitehead and we had the almost ridiculous position in which Richard Thomas and Baldwin, with the Exchequer behind it, bid in a contest with Stewarts and Lloyds for the ownership of Whitehead.
  This ridiculous position ended—that is to say, the shareholders of Whitehead were greatly and undeservedly enriched. All that happened was that Richard Thomas and Baldwin and Stewarts and Lloyds duly became part of the British Steel Corporation at great expense to the taxpayer. Therefore, the history of steel in relation to this House is not a happy one.
  Indeed, instead of being one of the commanding heights of the economy, which it was and as it was referred to by Aneurin Bevan, the steel industry has become almost a plateau It is not a commanding height any more because conditions have changed so much.

  721
  This is one of a number of debates we are having, and I do not think that there is really any agreement on strategy at all. Do we want to go back to the small active steel plants that we traditionally know, or are we going forward to the Taranto-type concept? Here, the Italian Government, for regional reasons, put a great steel plant at Taranto, in southern Italy. It has been not a success but a failure. It was designed to create employment, but southern Italians did not like working in it.
  The fallacy is that one can put a steelworks anywhere. The fact is that one has to put steelworks where there are steelworkers, and this is something which one does not get by theory, which is why I feel that the BSC, which is very ably run by able and intelligent people, knows, because it does not have the same regional orientations which people in politics are bound to have, that it cannot divorce the one from the other.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the £3,000 million has been spent in traditional steel areas where there is a tradition of steelmaking? Would he also accept that most of the money is going into development areas and intermediate areas?
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am delighted to accept that statement. But the figure includes only 50 per cent. of new money. The rest is savings from the earnings of the steel industry and from depreciation, so it is not such a vast present as was originally considered. But I am glad to think that the money is going to steel areas. One must also bear in mind that modern plants are much less labour-intensive than old plants. This is one of the facts of life. I do not want to bandy statistics about, because my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has done his job very well and I do not think that back-benchers do very well with statistics.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: They use them a lot.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: That is true, but they do not do much good with them.
  722
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has answered the argument about the number of unemployed to emerge. The chairman of BSC has said that redundancy, being phased over a number of years, and taking into account normal wastage, is not a major problem. These are the facts, and they are confirmed by my hon. Friend. But, of course, they do not in any way diminish the pain and human considerations behind the statistics.
  My concluding thought is that the Department really needs to be more deeply versed in steeel than it is and that the great efficiency of the management of the BSC needs to be tempered a little by the sort of human considerations we get on either side of this House.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: The hon. Member for Wallsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) referred to basing steel plant where steelworkers are. I thought that the Minister was quite unfair in his analysis of investment as between the period of the Labour Government and the current period. Indeed, the hon. Member for Walsall, South did much to disprove the Minister's case. That much of the Government amendment on the question of £3,000 million investment is, therefore, not correct.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) mentioned the question of the electric arcs, the mini-works and where they should be sited. We in Irlam have been enduring agony for 18 months on that issue. When I listened to the eloquent pleas of my hon. Friends the Members for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones), for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), and various other places, I felt for them because we have been through it all in Irlam. My hon. Friend concluded that Irlam is one of the places where the mini-works may go. How long are we to wait until we know this? We were the advance guard, as it were. We have been waiting to learn our fate for so long and the Minister did not even tell us at what stage we could expect to know where the electric arc, which is not to go to Scotland, will be going to.
  We are to have a 25,000 sq. ft. factory built in Irlam. I suppose we have to be

  723
  thankful for small mercies. The amendment talks in terms of welcoming
  "… the prompt action proposed by the Government to minimise the social consequences where modernisation results in closure of an existing steel plant."
  I cannot yet find any acceptance by the Government of the social consequences in Irlam—and we have waited a long time for it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Consett mentioned that there had been an advance factory empty for 18 months and the Minister told him that advance factories were built so that they could stand empty until someone wanted them. But if that is the position in special development areas how can we expect a 25,000 sq. ft. factory in Irlam, which is not even in a development area but purely an intermediate area, to be taken. Across the canal in Trafford Park, which was once the greatest industrial estate in the world, huge factories are lying empty. It is no consolation to us, although we hope against hope that someone will come along for the factory when it is built. It is not much consolation to be told that we have a factory if we cannot even get development area status in order to attract an employer to take it. I ask the Government therefore to agree to grant Irlam the status of a development area.
  I had intended to take up many of the Minister's points about the strategy but because of the time factor I shall not do so. Is there any limit to the number of mini-mills which the private sector can open while the British Steel Corporation is continuing to close steelmaking capacity? We must have an answer to that question tonight. I have mentioned on other occasions the fact that throughout the country these mini-mills are being opened in the private sector. I have spoken before about three or four mini-mills being opened by the private sector in areas which are not traditionally steelmaking areas. There is one in Kent at Sheerness. It is a £10 million venture which will produce 200,000 tons a year. Will anyone tell me the history of steelmaking in that part of Kent? It has no such history. There are no steelworkers there. It is infamous that we should be stopping production in steelmaking areas while that kind of thing is happening elsewhere.
  724
  A few weeks ago I wrote to the Minister about a new mini-mill being opened in Birkenhead. He replied in a letter and sent me a copy of the Press release. Hall Engineering (Holdings) Limited is to build the project and the mill is to cost £7,500,000. The handout says that it will be financed partly by the Government and partly from the company's own resources. The financing will include a £1 million Government loan repayable over five years and a grant from the Department of Trade and Industry. In normal circumstances I would welcome more jobs being created in areas such as Birkenhead. But steelworkers in Manchester and Irlam are being thrown out of work while Government money is being spent—I suppose under the Industry Acts in grants and loans. I must ask the Minister when that kind of thing will end.
  When I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East making his case I asked myself why there are closures in a wholesome atmosphere where steel has been produced profitably for years, as it has been in Irlam; yet it is possible to read this kind of thing in the handouts. The handout says:
  "A ready supply of local scrap will be available for the mini-mill which is expected to have an initial capacity of 150,000 tons of finished products a year with room for increased tonnage".
  These are the economics of Bedlam.
  I have raised on a previous occasion the use of Section 15 of the Iron and Steel Act 1967. That section gives the Minister power to stop such developments if they are inimical to the interests of the publicly owned sector. Subsection (2) says:
  "The Minister may from time to time by order require that, in such cases as may be defined in the order by reference to size, cost or other relevant factors, any person (other than the Corporation or a publicly-owned company) proposing to provide or procure the provision of any additional production facilities in Great Britain shall give particulars in writing of the proposal to the Minister and shall not proceed therewith without the consent in writing of the Minister."
  I take it that the Minister has given his consent in writing to each of these developments in the private sector.
  Subsection (3) says:
  "Before making an order under the last foregoing subsection, the Minister shall consult with the Corporation and also with such organisations as he thinks fit, being organisations

  725
  appearing to him to be representative of iron and steel producers,"
  I ask my hon. Friends to note this
  "of workers employed in the carrying on in Great Britain of iron and steel activities, of consumers of iron and steel products, of workers employed in the undertakings of such consumers, or any class of such producers, workers or consumers as aforesaid."
  In other words, if the Minister will apply Section 15 he can stop any development in the private sector which is inimical to the best interests of the BSC. He can consult the trade unions in the steel industry and the consumers of steel to gather their reactions to developments of this nature. How can the Government expect, while that kind of thing is being condoned and encouraged by Government money, that the steelworkers in Irlam and elsewhere can understand that it is right for them to be thrown on the industrial scrap heap? It is too much to accept. I want answers about the application of Section 15 and about the creation of more mini-mills, the production from which the BSC should be allowed to provide.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: We have heard the most extraordinary argument from the Opposition that the Government should use their powers under Section 15 of the 1967 Act to stifle private enterprise simply to placate the monopoly power which produces 90 per cent. of the steel in this country at a time when the private sector is making a contribution of one-third of the industry's £500 million turnover. It is a most extraordinary idea that the private sector, now recognised by statute, should be so discouraged, stultified and driven into the ground that it is not allowed to expand.
  The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) referred to the Hall Engineering development at Birkenhead. That company is acting in conjunction with Richard Johnson & Nephew which is, I understand, to take a 25 per cent. interest. The mini-mill will produce 150,000 tons a year and will be in operation by 1974. Its purpose is to provide the basic requirements of British Reinforced Concrete Engineering, which is a subsidiary of Hall Engineering. I see nothing wrong with it. It is vertical integration which would have the effect of
  726
  assisting a particular market here and making the United Kingdom more competitive.
  Further, F. H. Lloyd & Cooper Industries of Dudley, Worcestershire, which will be constructing a mini-mill, will be producing more than 75,000 tons of billet and slabs for its subsidiaries. In other words mini-mills will be developed in the United Kingdom in the private as well as the public sector. I do not believe that the British Steel Corporation should be excluded but its steel should be made available to private subsidiaries from bulk plants at competitive prices.
  I am rather surprised that Sheerness Steel, which is the one operating and producing steel at the rate of 180,000 tons per annum, has not been referred to. It is now running at approximately 85 per cent. of capacity. I must ask the Minister one question. As the private sector has a statutory right to carry on its business, should we not try to identify and guarantee its rôle. I hope that this will appear in the White Paper. We have had the report of Hirshfield, which has been critical of the corporation, in which it is said that the profit margins of some of the private sector companies have been attenuated by the BSC.
  I appreciate that the corporation has not accepted this but the Government have. Therefore the time is ripe when the private sector should have a defined area in which to operate under realistic and fair conditions just the same as the corporation. The corporation, being a monopoly power, will invariably have a substantial part of steel-making capacity and of the finished goods market and it should exercise its authority with justice and reality.
  I want to put forward another argument which is slightly in contradiction of what I have already said. I was impressed by the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) in favour of his constituents. Of course there are real problems in Shotton. I can understand that this site may, for basic steelmaking, be in the wrong situation. It is inland, with no port, and the ore has to be brought to a port and then shipped by rail.
  This is the great dilemma. We must remember that one of the reasons why the Government and the corporation are

  727
  making the change, and I support them, is that we have noted from Europe that there has been a move towards realising the potential of coastal sites. This will be the trend between 1972 and 1975. Coastal sites will be built up from a 27 million ton output to a 44 million ton output, an increase of 63 per cent. Inland sites will rise only 9 per cent. in production, from 109 million tons to 119 million tons. Hon. Members will be aware of projects at Fos, the expansion of Dunkirk in France and plant in Holland. We must now be able to compete most realistically.
  The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) talked about closures and about exports but he did not talk about inter-territorial trade. When talking about ultimate capacity we have to remember that prices must be right. If they are not and we are producing uneconomic steel, a lot of steel will flow in from Europe. Now that we are members of the Common Market we must face this reality. One of the points against Shot-ton is that it is not a coastal site. Port Talbot is being developed and a large sum of money is being allocated to Wales in a balanced programme. I know that there are political pressures which can be brought to bear in all constituencies to say that the entire package should be altered.
  If it is altered we will be in the position that little will be achieved. Many years ago it was a political decision which split the tinplate plant, half to Wales and half to Scotland. All of it should have gone to one place. It is now recognised that it was a great mistake. Possibly hon. Members will say that it should all have gone to Wales with the necessary amount of steel to feed it.
  If this package is broken down, if the Minister listens to the arguments of all concerned about not closing one plant because of redundancies, because another should be developed, we will end up with a situation in which we will be producing between 90 tons and 100 tons per man per year in competition with the Japanese, who, on average produce 220 tons per man per year while their best plants produce something like 350 tons. I believe that the Anchorage project will have a figure of 350 tons per man per year and it will be the showpiece of the United Kingdom.
  728
  We will be the bottom of the league unless we shape up to change. We will be below the United States, Japan and most of the European countries. It is a question of unemployment or technology. The Government have responsibilities on many fronts. We have to invest economically, and £3,000 has been invested. We have a responsibility for unemployment, and the Minister's first job should be to phase in the new proposals. I will fully support anyone who argues for a less rapid phasing programme. The Minister must next provide industries to go to an area of contraction. I am not in favour of an extension of nationalisation but, as the Minister has rightly said, if the industry had some connection with the steel industry this could be done. If it has no connection, suitable private investment can be drawn to the area, with proper incentives.
  The third limb is perhaps the most important. If we are to have new industries we must have advance factories and extensive retraining. A man of 52 might not be able to go to a new job quite as readily as a younger man, but he can be trained to do so.
  I come to a further point which has not been made tonight. The TLD furnaces, those which are to be found currently in Europe, produce the same quantity of steel as the open hearth furnace in one-twelfth the time and with one-fifth of the labour. It may be said that that will mean a lot of redundancies. This is the product of technology. How do we stand vis-à-vis Europe? If we consider basic oxygen it will be discovered that 103 million tons is produced in Europe by this method. That is 66 per cent. of the EEC total. In the United Kingdom the figure is as low as 44 per cent. If on the other hand we compare the open hearth, which we are trying to get rid of—and the corporation has done a reasonably good job here—the EEC figure was 24·6 million tons in 1971 as compared with 39 per cent. of our total.
  What it comes down to is that if we are to concern ourselves with 6,000 men in one area, we should do the maximum we can for them through training, redevelopment and so on. But if we are so to average the position throughout the country that we stultify an effective and efficient industry, the whole industry

  729
  will be wound down and tens of thousands of men will find that they have no jobs. No agreement which we enter into with the Japanese, the Germans or anyone else will keep out cheaper steel.
  I come now to pricing. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) came in on this point. Under Article 61 of the ECSC we are obliged to transfer authority over pricing' from the national Governments to the Commission as from the time of entry, 1st January 1973. I assume that we have already done so. I am supported in this when I look at the White Paper dealing with phase 2. Paragraph 17 states:
  "Prices for coal and steel are subject to our obligations as members of the European Coal and Steel Industry."
  That would mean that by the end of 60 days—that is, 29th April 1973—the corporation will be able to charge what it likes. The corporation, however, is a 100 per cent. owned subsidiary of the Government and I dare say that it will have to listen to Ministers. It will still be able to use its discretion and charge what it considers to be appropriate, bearing in mind that it has to return 8 per cent. on its net assets assessed over a term of years.
  While it is laid down in Article 61 that the Commission must have full authority over pricing we cannot escape the fact that the corporation is a wholly-owned Government subsidiary. The Government provide the capital. The corporation must have two ears open, one for the Commission and one for the Government. A little while ago it proposed to increase prices considerably—remember, we are 15 per cent. below European prices. It is now intended to advance the prices by between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent.
  This is partly because of the exercise of its discretion and partly because it has listened to the Minister. I do not think that prices will stop there.
  We are shortly going through to the basic points system. That will mean a complete change because basic prices will be established from specified points and then freight costs from those centres to customers' sites will have to be worked out. This will be a little more complicated than the present system in which
  730
  there are standard prices irrespective of the geographic location of customers. It may mean final prices rising over the 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. referred to. For some customers prices will be higher. This brings me to another figure. If there is difficulty in ascertaining prices, it would be useful if the industry had guidance in the form of a non-operational price list over a run-in period.
  May we have a few words from the Minister about scrap? The agreement which has been operating now for about 35 years is not to be terminated, as we all thought. Steel prices have risen by 45 per cent. but scrap prices have risen by only 7 per cent. The corporation is beginning to import scrap from the Soviet Union. Is it likely that the corporation and the Government will allow scrap to be moved freely inside the United Kingdom and the rest of the Common Market? When will it be possible for merchants to arrange their own prices in a free market? If the Minister is prepared to accommodate the small producers and the corporation so that it will be necessary to have a limitation on the free market for another term well beyond the six months, let him say so and tell us for how long.
  I turn now to energy. It is known that coking coal has been a problem for the industry. Will the Minister continue to allow the corporation and the private sector to import coking coal, because we have an insufficient quantity and the quality is not right? Prices here and in Europe are well out of line with world markets and we will only be increasing our own costs if the industry is directed on this point. British steel, whether State or private, must be competitive and we must look at our basic costs. Whether it be scrap, coking coal or new technology, all these things are essential in modern Britain. While I appreciate the significance of the remarks made by constituency members—and I would do exactly the same if I were in their shoes—we must look at "Britain Limited". It has to survive and to be able to compete in Europe. It has to be able to compete with the Japanese. Let there be an end to some of the trouble we have had, holding our hands behind our backs, which has prevented us from moving forward at this crucial time in our history.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. David Lambie: I want to follow the trend taken by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and speak up for British steel. I will not follow the line taken by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends by putting forward a case for my own area and my own steel mill. Unless the Government and the British Steel Corporation change their policy and set their targets higher, there is no hope for any of us. Insistence on the steel industry remaining in our areas and not caring a damn about other areas will not solve the problems.
  Scotland has seen a major rundown in the mining industry. The railway and the railway workshop industries have been almost eliminated. The shipbuilding industry has been rationalised and shipyards have been closed. Heavy and marine engineering have almost been eliminated. In the period before the last Labour Government each year 50,000 young people left in Scotland to emigrate to the richer areas in the south and overseas to Canada and the United States. During the period of the Labour Government that trend decreased, but it is now rising again. The sights of young people are set not on remaining in Scotland but on going to other areas. That is why I listened with dismay to the sorry statement of the Minister for Industry. If he is the man who is leading British steel into the 1980s there is little future for British steel.
  The BSC development plan for Scotland published in 1972 envisaged a net production of more than 11,000 people in the number employed in the steel industry. By 1980 the total BSC manpower remaining in Scotland will be in the neighbourhood of 14,000 or 15,000. Many of us believe that, if the policy contained in the Minister's statement of last December is implemented, by the early and middle 1980s there will be an end of steelmaking in Scotland. Ravenscraig will stand out like a sore thumb as the only inland site in Britain producing steel. If the Minister's case for closing down steelworks in other areas is that they are on inland sites, there can be no future for steelmaking in Scotland and we shall lose 27,500 jobs.
  In introducing his investment programme for the BSC in December the
  732
  Secretary of State spoke of giving some faith to the steelworkers and targets for the BSC. He said that the aim of Government policy was to win for the industry its share of the expanding steel markets and to ensure Britain's continuing place among the major steel producers of the world. By 1980 we shall be producing 33 million tons. Japan will be producing 120 million tons. How can the Tories tell us that we have to speak up for British steel when we look at those figures?
  Even the Labour Government's target in 1968 of 43 million tons was far in advance of anything that the Government are putting forward now. That target was too low. It should have been 50 million or 60 million tons to give Britain the opportunity of continuing to make steel.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: When did the Labour Government give a target of 43 million tons?
  Mr. Lambie: During the period of the Labour Government in 1968 the BSC set a target of 43 million tons. I am taking that as the target of the Labour Government at that time, just as I am taking the 33 million tons as the target of the Tory Government now.
  Only the Secretary of State could get away with this programme for disaster as a success story. He is the biggest PRO in the House. Last December he put forward a programme for expansion which entailed a 23 per cent. reduction over a five-year period as the greatest success story in the history of steelmaking. No wonder the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies) fled from the Department of Trade and Industry to the safety of Europe. He would not have had the courage to come to the House with this "success" story of a reduction in the annual production target of 23 per cent.
  The Government's programme is relegating Britain into the second league of world steel production. It relegates Britain from the position of being a major world producer of steel into a small producer in the European league. We have joined our team to the European steel producers, and we are thinking not of British steel but of European steel.
  We have watched the downfall of Britain's position as a world steel producer over the years. In 1951 the world steel league in order of annual production consisted of the United States, the

  733
  USSR, the United Kingdom, France and West Germany. Japan was twelfth. Japan was not even in the first division. She was in danger of being relegated from the second division. In 1961 a great change took place. The United States and the USSR were still the first and second in the league but West Germany was third, Japan was fourth and the United Kingdom was at the bottom. By 1971 the USSR was top, next came the United States and then Japan, West Germany and the United Kingdom. For the last 20 years the United Kingdom has been at the foot of the world steel league. Unless we make some change now we shall be relegated.
  Had Lord Melchett been running a football team he would have lost his job. If Tommy Docherty spends as much money during the next 12 months as he has spent during the last, he will be spending more on trying to save Manchester United from relegation than the BSC and the Government are prepared to spend in Manchester to keep the steel industry going.
  Mr. Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the workers at Scunthorpe have been on strike for a long time not through any fault of the BSC but because the two unions are using Scunthorpe as a battle ground? Does he think that that is the right method of competing with the Japanese? Does not he think that we should start all over again?
  Mr. Lambie: It is not a matter of blaming this or that small group of people. I want everyone to say that Britain has a future as a major world steel producer. Our main competitor is Japan, whose steel industry shows what should be the future for the British steel industry. Japan has left the inland sites and gone to the coastal sites. Steel producers in Holland and France are going towards coastal sites. If we are to continue steelmaking on a competitive basis we have to go to the coastal sites. In the Clyde estuary we have the best deep natural harbour in Western Europe, but it is lying empty. When I travelled to Marseilles-Fos I saw the tremendous development of the steel industry, the ore and oil terminals, the petrochemical works and the oil refineries. But when I returned to Scotland I saw a better
  734
  natural harbour lying undeveloped because of the activities of the Government and the pressure groups of environmentalists in Scotland who stop all development.
  The BSC should develop Hunterston. A major, new, integrated steel plant should be built there. If the BSC is not prepared to use Hunterston, I hope that the Government will not prevent private interests from coming in and developing the Hunterston area.
  When the Secretary of State for Scotland met the deputation from the STUC to discuss the Government's programme for investment in steel, it was found that £400 million had been allocated by the Government for steel development in Scotland over the next 10 years. When the Secretary of State was asked to say where the £400 million was going, he had plans for only £200 million of it.
  I put forward a claim for Glengarnock, which is losing its steelmaking processes by the closure of the open-hearth furnaces. One-third of those workers will be redundant in an area where 54 per cent. of the male population is employed in the steel industry. In the Garnock Valley, as in the Welsh valleys, if steel goes, mining will go and the whole valley will go.
  In the last five years the BSC has spent over £5 million modernising finishing processes. Glengarnock has the most modern rolling mills in Scotland. If the Government have not allocated this £200 million I put forward a claim for £20 million of it to allow the BSC to construct two electric are furnaces in Glengarnock to enable steelmaking to continue. Once steelmaking stops, at the next review when the book-keepers come round it will be common sense to say that the steel must be rolled where it is made. Unless Glengarnock continues to make steel, the next step will be the closure of the finishing processes as well.
  I can well understand why the Secretary of State for Scotland could not find the £200 million. He is troubled only by sit-ins and is not worried about steel mills and £200 million. I hope that the people who are responsible for the Government's steel policy in the Cabinet and who have more power than has the Secretary of State in the final Government decision—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The hon. Gentleman must not keep saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not know where the £400 million is going. My right hon. Friend, when asked to specify every detail of how every part of that sum was accounted for, properly said that if the Scottish TUC wanted that information it should go to the British Steel Corporation. That was a reasonable attitude to take.
  Mr. Lambie: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made that point, but I do not want to go to the corporation to find out where the money is going. I am here tonight asking the Minister who is to reply to tell us where the money is going. If the Under-Secretary of State for Development had been here during the speech of the Opposition spokesman on steel, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), he would have heard our detailed case on this point.
  Mr. Younger: I am sorry to intervene once again in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he must not misrepresent me. I was here during the speech made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and heard what he said on that point. That is why I am intervening.
  Mr. Lambie: If the hon. Gentleman heard what the Opposition spokesman said, he did not need to intervene because my hon. Friend answered the point. But if the Minister who is to reply to the debate does not know the answer, who the hell does? I hope we shall be given a reply on this point.
  If we want to solve the problem of British steel we must have faith in the industry. We must not be afraid of the future. If the Japanese 10 years ago had been led by the sort of men who are now responsible for these matters in Her Majesty's Government, the Japanese would not now be top of the world steel league. If those who control the British Steel Corporation have as much faith in the future of our steel industry as the Japanese had in their industry a decade ago and are as confident in the future of British steel, this will go a very long way to solve our problems. We should then be happy because it would mean that all our steelworkers would have jobs.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: I well understand the views which have been expressed by the two Flintshire Members who have taken part in this debate, namely the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). I can also understand and fully appreciate the views expressed by their constituents who have come to the House from Shotton today. I met many of those representatives as I came into the House, and, indeed, I went out of my way to talk to them.
  As somebody who has spoken in various steel debates, I realise that the men of Shotton take strong note of which hon. Members take an interest in the steel industry. Some months ago they sent a delegation to the House to lobby those hon. Members who they discovered from HANSARD were interested in the affairs and future of the steel industry. It is because I understand the views expressed by the Flintshire Members and the sincerity of their appeal on behalf of the men in the industry that I address myself briefly to the problems faced by the industry.
  I do not want to talk only about problems. Although I understand the views expressed about problems in the industry, I do not fully understand the Opposition's tone of approach to the question of modernisation. The Government are taking the opportunity to do something substantial for the steel industry before it is too late. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) that, compared with Japan, we have lagged behind and have dragged our feet in the important area of competition in steelmaking. The Government have not been afraid to produce a 10-year plan involving £3,000 million investment. They are providing a real light at the end of the tunnel to men who are dismayed that they may not share in enjoying that light.
  The Government aim to produce an efficient, capable, profitable and competitive industry. Coastal sites have been developed on the shores of the Mediterranean, and similar sites have been set up around the Japanese coast. The Japanese have made a colossal investment in their steel industry which makes our investment plans look small by comparison.

  737
  But we are at least thinking about modernising our steel industry and are offering it an opportunity to put itself on its feet and to keep 180,000 men in what, I hope, will be well-paid jobs with a great and secure future.
  I must take issue on one matter with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, to whose speeches I always listen. He said that if we take steel production from the valleys the valleys will die. But he cannot have it both ways by going on to say that he wants a coastal site at Hunterston. The future of the steel industry does not lie in the valleys of Wales, although I am very sorry that this situation has arisen—and I would be particularly concerned if, like certain hon. Members, I were representing the people affected.
  To modernise the industry and to redeploy the men—and "modernise" and "redeploy" are easy words for politicians and planners, but in practice are not so easy for those affected—will mean redundancies on a large scale. These redundancies will affect in all 50,000 men. The problem of redundancies on this scale is a much bigger problem than we faced in the rundown of the coal industry in the last 25 years, because there is now a different expectation among people, among Governments and, indeed, among employers in the public and private sectors.
  Parliament must speak for the people. We must not look only at statistics. What I want to do, as a humble back bencher concerned about economic change, is to speak while there is still time for the people involved to see that Parliament ensures that the Government do the right things by them. That is what a Parliament is all about. We hear more and more about the growing power of the Executive and faceless bureaucrats. Parliament still exists to defeat those pressures and to put a restraining hand on anybody who would use words loosely without taking into account the human factor.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West, said that a catastrophic mistake had been made at Shotton and that he was asking for a miracle. I long for the Government to make use of the instruments they have created to cope with this sort of problem. We went through a revolution on this side of the House some
  738
  months ago with the introduction of the Industry Bill. I did not stand on my head about that decision, and, indeed, I welcomed it. I realise that we need such a measure to help cope with the problems of economic change in our industrial and social life, because the two things are interwoven.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West said that we must have more time to cope with the problem of change. I agree with him and I ask Ministers concerned to recognise the plea that it will take time if we are to grasp the economic advantages and also solve the human problem. The two aims must go together.
  I remind the House of the words of the Opposition motion, which is not all that different from the Government amendment. It merely quantifies the matter in a different way. The Opposition ask specifically that
  "no closure shall be permitted until guaranteed new employment has been provided in the areas affected."
  The Government amendment talks about welcoming
  "… the prompt action proposed by the Government to minimise the social consequences where modernisation results in closure of an existing steel plant."
  It is the same situation, with a different emphasis.
  I wish I could believe that the Opposition's strong and clear statement could be realised totally. But even with the instrument of the Industry Act the Government would be misleading the public, especially the steelworkers concerned, if they said that they would guarantee other jobs for them when this closure took place. That is not the way that matters can be organised in our society. However, we have to try to make them work in that specific and exact way as far as possible.
  When we were debating the Industry Bill in Committee, I said repeatedly that it was not enough to produce the Act and say "There it is. The Act will take care of the situation." Much work has to be done to produce the jobs. The Government do not produce the jobs. They merely produce the conditions and the climate which attract industry to move into the area and to invest and so create new jobs for the men so displaced.
  I hope that the Government will recognise that they must use every spur in order to get industry to move into areas where

  739
  there are closures. In the past year I have been visiting Clydebank. I have been very depressed with what I have seen there and, above all, by what I have not seen. I have not seen the arrival of new industries to provide new jobs for the men displaced by an industry which has been dying for years. My right hon. and hon. Friends are to be congratulated on the infrastructure. I used to work alongside Clydebank. The infrastructure is marvellous. There is virtually a motorway down each side of the Clyde, and the Erskine Bridge connects them. The area is waiting for industry, but it has not come. The infrastructure is not enough in itself. We expect the Government to produce that little extra bit of Government activity, energy, task force—whatever one cares to call it—and we expect the Government to succeed. I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends success in this matter.
  Today I found myself unable to get into the House because of the vast number of steelworkers waiting outside. I met a number of colleagues trying to get in. They told me that it was impossible to get in and that we should have to come in through the mud in New Palace Yard. For once, the policeman at the door looked rather big. I said to him "I am going through. I am a Member of Parliament." I told the steelworkers that I wanted to speak in the debate, and they parted like the Red Sea. Their response to me was brief. They said "Do your best." That is what I am trying to do, and that is what I ask the Government to do—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not a great deal more to say. I may feel obliged to call the Red Sea back.
  Mr. Crouch: I am terrified that you might do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Earlier in the debate, one hon. Member said that the British Steel Corporation did not think that the number of redundancies involved was very large. It was also suggested that the number was not a major problem. However, it is not only the number of steelworkers made redundant but the number of men in associated industries made redundant which is important. If, for example, it is definite that the East Moors site in Cardiff is to
  740
  be closed, some 4,500 steel workers will be put out of work. However, the town clerk of Cardiff has said that the effect on associated industries, the service industries and the docks will bring the figure up to nearly 10,000. That is what we have to remember. That is the size of the problem. That is why I ask the Government to look forward and keep up their enthusiasm for modernising this vitally important industry but not to neglect the vital future of those who will be displaced from it.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I shall take only a few minutes to put Cardiff's case. Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), I can only hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon be made a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. So long as we have to have a Conservative Government, I should much prefer to see the hon. Gentleman there.
  Cardiff's case is one which I put on behalf of more than 4,000 steelworkers who have been told that they are to be made redundant. I speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) and for a much wider constituency. There is a united approach in Cardiff on this matter. The city council has made its representations known fully and it has been joined by the Confederation of British Industry, by the trades council and by the Members of Parliament. In fact I have never seen such unity of purpose. Therefore I hope that the Government will listen carefully to what I say as their mouthpiece. I believe that everything I say will be accepted fully by everyone there.
  The decision came as a great shock to us. We were expecting rationalisation. Privately we had discussed the prospect of having to find, say, 2,000 jobs. I have followed the developments as closely as possible. It was a tremendous shock to be faced with the decision that within five years—and it will be shorter than that—there will be the loss of 4,000 jobs, which is at least double what we had feared.
  We are to continue to have a re-rolling plant. We are grateful for that. Guest Keen and Nettlefolds will be there and the company intends to modernise its plant. We are fortunate also to have a

  741
  mini-mill. However, when I tell the House that the mini-mill will provide for no more than 500 jobs, hon. Members will appreciate that it does not compensate for the 4,600 which are to go.
  We do not accept the basic approach being adopted by the British Steel Corporation. The proposed output of billet steel of the mini-mill will supply only a proportion of the re-rolling requirements. Other billets will have to be shipped into South Wales from billet-making areas. They will be transported by the railways. In view of the transport costs that will be involved, when we have a works over the garden wall from the existing re-rolling plant it is very difficult for us to convince ourselves that the figures of the British Steel Corporation are correct.
  The corporation has offered to produce the figures to us. We intend to get the most expert advice on them and we shall examine them all rigorously. All I say at the moment is that the BSC has not proved its case for closing this works.
  The Minister said that there would be an 8 per cent. return on new capital investment on the net assets of the industry. We have more than that in the corporation's works at East Moors now. It is not a loss-making plant. It is still making a very substantial profit. We have to weigh these factors.
  If we have to face the fact, in the end we demand that the period of rundown be much longer than it is. With the best will in the world and with all of us working as hard as we can, it is impossible to find 4,000 additional jobs in Cardiff to replace the jobs which will be lost.
  If this works were loss-making, perhaps the accountants could say that it was overwhelmingly impossible to keep it. But it is making a profit. Neither I nor anyone else in Cardiff understand why we have to close a plant making a substantial profit within three years to satisfy some central plan which has been devised in London. We do not accept this.
  The Government do not seem fully to recognise the intense feeling which is aroused when these sort of facts are known, as they are getting known, to the men in those works. We in Cardiff take the view that these works must be kept open until at least 1980. We believe,
  742
  and will do our best to demonstrate, that they can be profit-making until at least that year. That gives us seven years. If the works can continue to be profit-making, if they have to be run down they should be run down side by side with the building-up of other industries and jobs.
  That brings me to my third point. The unemployment will obviously be male unemployment. Cardiff has a high rate of unemployment. The travel-to-work area has a total unemployment of 7,045 men, women and young people. In Cardiff alone the figure is 4,925. That total unemployment represents 4·3 per cent. I am sorry to give figures but I think it is worth giving just three or four. However, Cardiff is fortunate in that it has a number of service industries which provide work for our womenfolk. In consequence, female unemployment in Cardiff is lower than in almost any other area of Wales. Indeed, it is about 1·5 per cent. Male unemployment in Cardiff—that is what will be added to here is 5·9 per cent. It is only the fact that we have this very low incidence of female unemployment, for which we are extremely grateful, that brings our total down to 4·3 per cent. However, what Ministers will have to face is a figure of 5·9 per cent. today for male unemployment which will be added to by about 4,000 workers who will lose their jobs if this plant goes within three years.
  The average development area male unemployment in Wales today is 6·1 per cent. Cardiff is an intermediate area. There is not much difference between 5·9 per cent. and 6·1 per cent. when we come to measure it in this kind of figure. I suggest to the Secretary of State for Wales and to the Minister for Industrial Development that on any fair assessment Cardiff has an overwhelming case for development area status. In the 1960s Cardiff deliberately stood back. It would have been possible for us to have pressed our case harder, but the valleys were being run down, the pits were being closed and there was a formidable job to be done there. Therefore, Cardiff did not press overmuch for development area status.
  I ask my hon. Friends representing development areas in the valleys to compare Cardiff's position with their own.

  743
  There is no joy in equality of misery. However, in Swansea, which is a development area, male unemployment is 5·7 per cent. In Llanelly, which is a development area, male unemployment is 3 per cent. In Merthyr, which is a special development area or a development area-plus, male unemployment is 5·6 per cent. In Abertillery the figure for male unemployment is 5·6 per cent. In Cardiff it is 5·9 per cent.
  The Secretary of State for Wales has an overwhelming case now for going to his colleagues in the Cabinet and saying "You must give Cardiff development area status. Other areas in South Wales sharing the same problems have now gone ahead of Cardiff." I say rightly so. We were happy that that should be so. We thought it was all part of what community interest ought to be about. We were ready to stand back. But it is now fair and right that Cardiff should be given the opportunity of development area status.
  There is a substantial difference between individual projects being approved under the Industry Act and getting development area status. One has only to talk to industrialists to see this. If one approaches an American industrialist—some of us have been talking to these people—and says "Come to Cardiff. We can offer you a site. We will, if you agree to come, go to the Minister and see what we can get for you under the Industry Act", he will say "That is very good. See what you can do." But he does not make up his mind. There is a great difference between being able to do no more than that with an expectation of hope that one will get something and being able to say "Cardiff is in a development area so you will get as of right the following grants and loans." That is the difference between the two systems.
  We urge as strongly as we can, in the interests of thousands of men in Cardiff, that Cardiff should have development area status now. On the basis of the figures that I have given I believe we have as strong a case as we have had since the end of the war.
  I am glad that we are to have an advance factory of 50,000 sq. ft. I am not sure how many people it will employ—probably 200 to 250. But what is that? I do not spurn any of it. Indeed.
  744
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and I are very grateful. If we have the job of filling 50,000 sq. ft. with 200 to 250 men and then are told to find jobs for an extra 4,000 men in three years, what prospects have we got?
  Mr. George Thomas: We have 17 empty advance factories now.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I make this plea. We need further retraining facilities, development area status and a much longer rundown period if this plan is to go forward.
  The impact on the city of Cardiff will be formidable in terms even of rateable value. The steelworks in Cardiff represent one-third of the city's industrial rateable value. Imagine carving out one-third of the industrial rateable value at a stroke. That is the kind of situation with which we are faced.
  I do not think I have ever spoken with, I was going to say, a heavier heart as a Member for Cardiff during the 27 years I have been in this House. It is a day I hoped would never come. I am sure that all of us feel genuinely and deeply about this matter. We know the families, the men and women, who live in these streets behind the steelworks. It is our job to fight for them, and we will. We ask the Minister, and especially the Secretary of State for Wales, to get for us development area status and a seven-year rundown. We in Cardiff will do our part. We will do all we can to restore our own fortunes, but for heaven's sake do not tie our hands behind our backs. Give us the help we need to overcome this problem.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: I find it very difficult, in a debate where feelings run high and each hon. Member is so obviously concerned with very real problems, not to embark upon the same kind of argument.
  I represent an area which is the centre of the steelmaking industry of Scotland. We have already had enunciated the statement that by 1975 virtually all the open-hearth furnaces in Scotland—about 34—most of which are concentrated in North Lanarkshire, will be closed and that there will be a loss of at least 7,500 to 7,800 jobs.

  745
  Unemployment in North Lanarkshire is about 8·6 per cent. at present. We must think in terms of this area. Nevertheless, I supported nationalisation of the steel industry believing that the only way that it could be made efficient was through the type of change that we see being carried out now. There might be arguments about where these developments should take place, but, as I argued in my steel- making area, I felt that it was necessary for the industry to be nationalised if it was to be got off its knees. For years the industry had been going down.
  There is no point in opening up all the arguments why that was so. There was, one might say, a war on both sides in this connection and people were suffering from it. There was little investment and the industry went backwards. It was clear that if it was to be put in a position where it could be reasonably confident of meeting what it was facing, the steel industry had to be made efficient. I have always understood that, regrettably, efficiency involved the application of new techniques and a considerable reduction in the number of jobs available. If I may dare to refer to Marx and Marxism, the following definition is of value:
  "The value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour of average skill and intensity required for its reproduction."
  But when these techniques were improved it meant that the value dropped. That is good Marxism.
  I should have expected these arguments to have been advanced from this side of the House in the past and to be advanced now. Unfortunately, we sometimes suffer on this side of the House, as well as hon. Members opposite. I do not know who suffers more from dogma and doctrines that virtually blind us from seeing what is required and what is taking place around us. We cannot see such things because of the dogma that comes down in front of us like a set of blinkers.
  We must recognise now that the world has changed. No major country can operate on a free enterprise basis. Governments everywhere, including the great nations, are becoming more and more involved with industry. There will be no
  746
  returning from this situation. That involvement applies to the steel industry.
  I am associated with our party on steel and power, and when we met Lord Melchett on the first occasion he told us that merely to replace the steel industry at its present capacity would cost a good £3,000 million. We have a steel industry that suffers from many disabilities. The nation has a heavy vested interest, and if it is to be put into the position of a self-sufficient and competent industry we must face the onus that might fall upon us to defend what could happen. In North Lanarkshire and in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) there are heavy threats. But we must try to ensure that the steps which are being taken are reasonable.
  We have heard it strongly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) that our hopes in Scotland were high about the utilisation of what has been prescribed as the finest site in Europe—namely, Hunterston. But I am only referring to what has been said. I cannot pretend to be a judge of such matters. There were high hopes that there would be a great steel complex on that site which would be of great advantage to the United Kingdom as well as to Scotland in particular. I assume that the decision has been taken not to build a steel complex on that site.
  I might be described as betraying Scotland, but for my part we must face the position that it will not be built. I put forward that view well knowing that if the decision had been taken to build my area could have become a desert because the steelmaking in the area would have been shifted to the coast. I take it that the British Steel Corporation looked at a number of sites and concluded, on the basis of past commercial judgment, that Hunterston should not be developed in that way at that time. What might happen in future is, of course, another matter. Development might go elsewhere, and I am not quarrelling at this stage should that decision be taken. I must admit that had I been a Government spokesman I should have found it exceedingly difficult to go over the head of the British Steel Corporation and take the responsibility upon myself to say that I knew better.

  747
  I am assuming that the decision not to build at that site is pretty well settled. But I repudiate the point that has been repeatedly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire that if the development does not take place at Hunterston there will be an end to steelmaking and steel finishing in Scotland, with the exception of the Ravenscraig site.
  Mr. Lambie Mr. Lambie rose——
  Mr. Lawson: We will argue about it afterwards. When my hon. Friend makes that suggestion, he must remember that it is estimated that the lifetime of Ravenscraig is approximately 10 years. It would be absurd to spend £60 million upon something that will have a lifetime of that sort. That would be bad commercial judgment. Although Ravenscraig is in the heart of my constituency, if that is what is intended it is absurd.
  But it is not true that Ravenscraig will be the only inland site. There are great plans for Scunthorpe, which, I understand, is as far away from the sea as Ravenscraig. However, Ravenscraig is one of the biggest schemes in which the British Steel Corporation and private enterprise are involved. As it happens, private enterprise went ahead of the corporation. In Scotland we were dreaming about some of these things. Of course, in some respects we have to suffer from our history. In many ways Scotland suffers from the Scots. Some of the worst difficulties which Scotland has faced have been caused by some Scots. It is said that the best of them leave Scotland.
  In Scotland we have an excellent area with which to trade with Europe. As my hon. Friends will know, I have always been a supporter of entry into Europe. One of my justifications for that support is that I believe that the industrial belt from the Firth of Forth to the Firth of Clyde, which forms part of the coastline of the European Lake, the North Sea, is an excellent site. I disagree, when we are talking about the Ayrshire valleys that will become dead, that the future is so gloomy. Ayrshire is sited just where a sensible manufacturer would put his plant if he thought about exporting across the Atlantic or the shortest route from which to export into Europe across the
  748
  North Sea. The British Steel Corporation should see that possibility and should not allow its steel making capacity in that area to decline or, indeed, the steel finishing capacity. In fact, I have urged the Corporation to build up its capacity. I have not argued on the basis of 10 million tons; I have merely argued about a capacity of 4½ million tons.
  I hope that the promises that were made just before Christmas will be kept and will not become a forlorn hope. I hope that those promises will form part of a definite plan. We must build up capacity at Ravenscraig to over 3 million tons. It was an excellent thing that the corporation inherited a plant which was half developed and that with relatively little work it could get very much more out of it than what it put in.
  There is also a first-rate attachment to the Gartcost works, which we never hear about. That is a first-rate unit in the central Scottish industrial belt. But there is a great fear that the excellent rolling mills and finishing plant in Lanarkshire, Glengarnock and Dalziel, could have to receive steel from the south. It is easy to take a dog-in-the-manger line and say that we will not have any steel sent from the south, and a regular plan of that sort could mean that they went out. But if we could make the steel in the area to service those mills, Scotland and Britain as a whole would benefit.
  Hallside, Clydebridge and Clyde Iron works are all adjacent and all threatened. Hallside built up the electric are furnace with a capacity of 100 million tons, and with that kind of performance Scotland can begin to help Britain to realise the full potential of this area. This region, which is far away from the big industrial centres, could be a first-rate export area for Britain as a whole, given a sufficient diversity of the steel industry.
  There are three steel foundries in Scotland belonging to the British Steel Corporation and they are all threatened. One of them is Hallside, and that has notice of closure now. We might not be able to retain both the others, but I hope that we can keep one good steel foundry which is bigger than the existing ones. We need a steel foundry if we are to build up industry in the area apart from the steel-using industries.

  749
  We have an excellent special steel unit at Craigneuk which we call locally Clyde Alloy. It is so efficient that it can beat Sheffied at its own game——
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: You are biased.
  Mr. Lawson: Of course I am; I am never anything else on a subject like this. But the facts are there.
  When the Government are trying to encourage industry into an area, it is normally the very type of industry which will use the products of the Special Steel Group, the bright bars, for instance, which are necessary in lighter industries. It would be very bad national planning to try to encourage industry into Scotland—this is an accepted responsibility of this Government, as of others—while, at the same time stripipng the area of its capacity to make the steel which is so necessary for the type of industry.
  We are asking, very modestly, for the full realisation of the plan enunciated, plus the assurance that we shall keep at least one steel foundry. We should also retain a substantia part of the special steel industry. We suffer now because the Scottish industry, which used to be homogeneous and under single control, is broken up into four groups, which jeopardises the close and coherent operation of the industry.
  I am not pleading for a Scottish steel industry run by Scots. Sometimes I have confidence in them and sometimes I have not. I am asking for some plan by which we can effectively co-ordinate what is going on in the area, keeping in mind the needs of the steel-using industries in the area and thinking in terms of an industry producing not just for Scotland but for the South and for export as well. We are an important part of the United Kingdom, and I want this recognised. If it is, I will do my best to back the scheme.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, and while thanking the House for its co-operation with short speeches, may I remind hon. Members that I am anxious to get in four more speeches and that the Front Benches would like to start at 9.10 p.m.?
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I will not detain the House long, because this debate, not surprisingly, has been given over to hon. Members expressing concern about the social consequences of any reorganisation plan. It is of course the duty of the Government, in co-operation with the British Steel Corporation, to do what they can to ensure that those social consequences are met as far as possible. But it would be ungenerous for anyone to fail to recognise the magnitude of the reorganisation which is now planned.
  This is the biggest single reconstruction of our steel industry in history and will make it the most modern and competitive we have ever had, capable of taking on anything in Europe or the world. I want to devote my speech not to the Government's plans, because we will be able to go into them in more detail on publication of the White Paper, but once again to the problem of the social consequences.
  The British steel industry is made up of two component parts, the public sector and the private. It is not without importance that the private sector, the independent producers, can play an effective part in at least mitigating some of the consequences of closing certain areas under the corporation's control. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who has now left the Chamber and to whom I gave notice that I would raise this matter, mentioned a very important scheme at East Moors in his constituency.
  The British independent steel producers are at the moment suffering serious disadvantages because of the price arrangements being imposed upon them by the attitude of the BSC. It is an unusual situation as the BSC produces billets which it sells to the independent re-rollers. It also re-rolls its own billets. Therefore, by creating a differential between the price of the re-rolled product and the billet, it can create a situation which will squeeze the profit margin of the re-roller.
  A report was published by Lord Hirsh-field which recommended that this practice should, as nearly as possible, be curtailed. The Minister will remember that on 6th December 1972 he accepted that report, but said:

  751
  "In the circumstances of the present prices standstill, it would be inappropriate for me to direct the Corporation to give effect to Lord Hirshfield's recommendations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1972; Vol. 847, c. 452.]
  The question I want to pose to the Minister tonight is this. The standstill is with us and has some time still to run. Phase 2 of the Government's policy is yet to come. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance tonight that this pricing difficulty which is affecting the independent steel producers will be corrected, and that he will give that direction to the corporation in the near future, because it is of great significance for the profit margins of the independent producers? I shall show presently why it is also important in the global picture of social consequences.
  It was particularly worrying when, on the evening of the same day as my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry made the statement to which I have referred, the Lord Layton—who is, after all, a British Steel Corporation board member—stated
  "We certainly would not commit ourselves to any specific arrangements on these prices when we are just about to have the rules changed. We felt all along that it was unwise for an arbitrator such as Lord Hirshfield to be introduced on such an issue when the issue itself was going to be transfererd from the Government to the jurisdiction of the ECSC."
  The fact is that the ECSC is of great significance, but necessarily it must work slowly. I still believe that it is essential that the Government should give the direction which was promised when that report was accepted. I refer to this in the context of what the independent steel producers can do to mitigate the situation we have been described.
  In association with Guest Keen and Nettlefolds, I have been discusing this matter in some detail so far as it affects the East Moors steel complex. The pricing situation to which I have referred now affects GKN adversely to the tune of £1·6 million per annum at 1972 prices, and if GKN is to invest in the new hot rod mill and the mini-mill at the East Moors site, one costing about £18 million and the other about £12 million, and is to be faced with a continuing disadvantage in pricing such as I have spoken about, this will affect the company's judgment concerning that investment.
  752
  The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to development area status for that part of the country, and here again the figures are staggering. I am sorry to see that my right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is not present in the Chamber.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt)The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt) rose—
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Oh. The fact is that for GKN the difference in the figures which would be able to support this project is that if the area remains an intermediate area it will receive about £600,000, whereas if the area gets full development status the figure will be something over £6 million.
  The point here is quite simple for all to see. The two disadvantages of the non-acceptance of the Hirshfield recommendations and the fact that Cardiff does not get this status will mean that GKN may well naturally look elsewhere for its investment. This could ultimately mean serious problems not only for that area but also for other parts of Wales.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: If I may correct my hon. Friend on the question of non-acceptance of the Hirshfield recommendations, those recommendations were accepted by the Government and the British Steel Corporation, which said that it would take full account of them. My hon. Friend will know that the power of direction is no longer appropriate.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Yes. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment. Nevertheless this continuing disadvantage for this particular independent producer is serious. I am sorry to recognise now that there is very little that can be done, because it means that the company will have to suffer this disadvantage for the foreseeable future. The fact is that the BSC has said that in the absence of GKN's project it will do something itself. Nevertheless, having in front of me the corporation's Press hand-out which gave that information, I am not sure how satisfactory that information really is, because it is stated in the corporation's hand-out, under the heading "Steelmaking in the Cardiff Area", that
  "A new electric are steelmaking plant will be built in the Cardiff area in place of the obsolete East Moors Works of General Steel's Division, B.S.C. Discussions between the

  753
  Corporation and Guest Keen and Nettlefolds are continuing, on the basis that the new steel making capacity will be built and operated by GKN. However, if these plans do not come to fruition, the Corporation will itself build and operate the new plant."
  What it does not refer to is the proposed rod mill which GKN has said it will put in and the mini-mill plant operating with scrap, and it is that which could cause serious troubles in the area. Until the corporation is able to give the same promise as GKN, there will be a serious gap in the number of jobs available.
  We must recognise that the British independent steel producers have a vital rôle to play in the maintenance of our industry in these times of change. Unless we can get fair trading for the independent producer, the independent re-roller, and as much as we can for the others, many of these companies will find that they cannot get the support which I believe to be vital.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. R. B. Cant: We have been discussing one of our great industries which is in a process of agonising transition. I think that it would be expecting too much of human beings, certainly of politicians, to think that they could regard this as an academic exercise and not do a bit of special pleading for their own areas.
  I am interested personally in the economic geography and future of the steel industry, and as Secretary of the British-Japanese Parliamentary Group I have studied what these remarkable Japanese people have done. It is obvious that whatever solution we adopt for the steel industry in this country it must not fall too far short of standards of efficiency in both Japan and Europe, and we cannot move towards that greater efficiency without a great deal of heartache and suffering.
  The only thing that I would add to that little preface to my parochialism is a plea for time, and this has already been made by others. In a number of these declining areas or areas associated with declining industries, where time is given experience has proved that in some cases, but not all, a good deal can be done.
  754
  Naturally, I want to talk about the steelworks in Stoke-on-Trent. I know that the Potteries are better renowned for the excellent tableware that they produce and are perhaps even better known for the fact that they have coal mines and that on these old coal mines we have done a great deal of land reclamation, and so on, but we also have a steelworks. It may be the Cinderella of the steelworks in this country but, nevertheless, it employs 2,700 men, and it is at some risk.
  This country is ruled by a Government of alleged businessmen. I am just an economist. I am one who, by definition, knows a great deal more about money than the people who have it. But here we have a Government of businessmen who are thinking of putting at risk an enormously viable plant. I could combine parochialism with financial viability, rationalism and all the other criteria.
  I have been looking at a works report. It says:
  "We are now the most profitable Works in our Group … and we must surely be amongst the leaders in the Division."
  It goes on under various headings:
  "Output of cast blooms"
  I am not sure what those are—
  "… was the best ever attained … Mill. Output at 85,000 tonnes was the highest ever achieved over 12 working weeks … Finishing End … A shift record of 647 tonnes through the roller straightener was achieved."
  Some of these works descriptions are almost as bad as one finds in the Potteries, where the most famous is the "Bagger maker's bottom knocker".
  This plant is making profits that will enable it to repay within a period of two years the total capital investment that it is seeking for the installation of electric are furnaces, yet it is at risk. It may be that the steelmaking process will end in the next two years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) talked about the economics of Bedlam. All I can say is that it is strange economics indeed which can even contemplate the partial closure of these works at Stoke-on-Trent.
  The other argument that we use for the investment that we are seeking is that in no other instance is the investment that would be required for similar output so small. We must tread with caution here.

  755
  We cannot talk about other constituents' steelworks without expecting a little retribution in the debate. But in one case at any rate to produce the same result would require an investment of £40 million against £4½ million, and in another case an investment of £20 million. I do not want to pursue that because it is so obvious. I just want to make three brief comments, and I am sorry the Minister for Industry has left the Chamber because I wanted to make some rather critical remarks.
  To go back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend in respect of mini-steelworks, here one has a situation in which the Government are permitting almost monthly—we can forget about Sheerness and its maverick mini-plant—the building of mini-steelworks; some have been measured. But we can go further than that; we can take the Lloyd Cooper mini-steelworks. This is a very remarkable example, because this firm applied for an industrial development certificate to enable it to build this mini-steelworks, and the Minister of Industry turned it down. But in the letter he wrote to me—marked "Confidential" with two lines underneath, and dated 4th January, although every word of this letter was in the Financial Times of 6th December—he says he has refused an industrial development certificate to this private firm. I thought we had a minor triumph here, but as I read on he tells me that, unfortunately, this firm has decided to go ahead without an industrial development certificate.
  Is this permitted? Is a firm which applies for an industrial development certificate and is refused allowed to say "We do not care; we will just go ahead"? I think that is very remarkable.
  The next step is that the Minister has given a certificate for another mini-steelworks at Patent Shaft—there are some very peculiar names—in the West Midlands area. The irony of this situation is quite simply that the main supplier of pig iron for this particular works is the Shelton Steelworks. So if it is not very careful it is going to be hoist, to some extent, with its own petard. It is absolutely deplorable: we have 2,700 men wondering what their future is going to be, knowing that this depends on the
  756
  development of electric are furnaces, knowing that they must be fed by scrap and seeing these private firms pre-empting this scrap to such an extent that we have had to import 100,000 tons of scrap at a cost of £250,000 from the Soviet Union. I do not know whether this is economics or planning gone mad, but I think that an end should be put to it, and very quickly.
  The second point is this, and I would like clarification on it. Quite simply, hon. Members have been regretting that they are in intermediate areas wanting to be development areas. But we are not in an intermediate area. We have made a very powerful application, but we are not even an intermediate area. Yet the Minister of State, in a letter to one of the hon. Members, has said: "Do not worry. Even if the axe falls, the powerful package of measures now available under the Industry Act to help direct new employment to the areas affected will be available to you". This cannot be true. One cannot have the powerful package of measures available to an area which is not even an intermediate area, much less a development area. If this is so, I hope the Minister will tell me.
  Thirdly, and finally, I should like to say to the Minister that these men must know what their fate is going to be. We as Members were asked to come into this in the action committee almost two years ago. These men, as with many others in the industry no doubt, have been complimented, not only on the way in which they have conducted their case, but also on the restraining way which they have behaved. They deserve better than this managerial sword of Damocles that has been hanging over their heads for so long. They hoped that when the Secretary of State spoke in the House before Christmas the Government would at least tell them, before they went home for Christmas, what their fate was. Instead, it was the old formula: "I cannot say more, but you are a candidate."
  This is not good enough. Whole generations have spent their lives in this steel mill. It is one of the most profitable steel mills in the division. I hope that when the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation tells these 2,700 men early in March what their fate is to be he will have a positive answer for them.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I shall not fall into the trap of trying to make cheap political points. We are discussing the state of the British steel industry in 10 years' time. If we were to waste precious time in taking the political rise out of one another and blaming each other, we would let down the 250,000 workers in the industry.
  However, to make just one small political point, I have noticed a distinct change in the 4½ years since I have been a Member of the House. When the Labour Government were in power all of us on the Government side defended Lord Melchett right, left and centre, and he was attacked by Tory back-benchers. Now that the Government have changed, many of my colleagues spend a great deal of time attacking Lord Melchett because he is not coming up with the right answers for their area, and the Government and Tory back-benchers defend Lord Melchett and the logic of his argument.
  I shall divide my arguments into two sections. First I shall take a quick look at the proposed development plans. Secondly, but certainly not least, I shall consider the social consequences of the changes that are to be brought about.
  Under the first heading, in 1964–66 when I was campaigning before I came to the House in 1968, one of the great things advocated from this side was nationalisation of the industry. Some of the arguments then advanced—indeed, I put them forward myself—were that the old steel barons were playing about making parochial steel, that they could not see further than their works boundaries, that they never came together, that they could not come together on joint ventures and that they were so busy competing with each other in a small way that they were not equipping themselves to meet the great international competition for business. So the industry was nationalised.
  I have great sympathy with the redundant steelworkers, but it comes ill from those politicians who say, because their constituencies are affected, "If the huge investment proposed under this great plan, with all the coastal sites, does not happen to come to my midden, I condemn the whole scheme as shocking and
  758
  I shall not play ball". I wonder what the whole exercise is about. That is what steel debates in the House are deteriorating into. They are becoming debates not on a broad, logical policy for the industry which will safeguard it for the future, but on parish pump steelmaking.
  Another point worth making concerns the 40 million ingot tons by 1980 which has been referred to. I do not think that during the last three or four years anyone on either side of the House has defined what this means. Does it mean total capacity, good, bad and indifferent? Does it mean all modern capacity? Does it mean the total of the steel industry including the private sector? Or does it mean the huge coastal sites? Does it include the special steels division, in Sheffield, Rotherham and other places, which produces about 3½ million ingot tons? We bandy these words around without knowing exactly what we are talking about. I believe that the proposals which have been outlined, assuming that they come to fruition, mean that by 1980 we shall have a total capacity, including private steel and special steels, of between 39½ million and 41½ million ingot tons.
  Many of us on this side of the House have never realised that when we modernise and put in competitive steel plants there is a price to pay. What we 'have seen in the last few months—is indeed, the last couple of years—is that we jib at the price we have to pay. I do not mean the price in terms of human suffering, which I shall come to later, but the price of closing obsolete plants, plants located in wrong places, plants based on wrong technology and so forth.
  On certain specific comments with regard to the review I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) that we must never have the indignity of review bodies constantly looking at every nationalised industry. I am delighted that the whole plan of the BSC—its detailed plan and broad principle—has been completely vindicated. I think it is time for this House—both sides—having nationalised an industry and having appointed a chairman of the board, to show confidence in him. We should not be questioning him every time he wants to move one man or have great public debate when he is running a great

  759
  industry. If in the end he is not delivering the goods, let us get rid of him, but do not let us keep questioning him on every piece of tittle-tattle within the industry. Let us show confidence in the industry.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Griffiths: No. I have not much time.
  The question of money has been raised. I repeat what I said earlier, that every farthing is going to the traditional steel industry areas, so if there is not enough money to go round all the existing steel areas it is not because some brand new area is getting the money at their expense. From Port Talbot to Ravenscraig, to Sheffield, Rotherham, and the North-East coast, it is all going to traditional steel areas.
  One of the things I have learned about steel men—whether in Shotton, Sheffield, Scotland, on the North-East coast or anywhere else—is that they are a good breed of workers. Yet we hear hon. Members saying that Shotton workers, for example, are the best, or those on the North-East coast are the best. My experience—and probably I mix more than anyone else here with steelworkers all over the country—is that they all have a great dedication to their work.
  Mr. Ron Lewis Mr. Ron Lewis rose——
  Mr. Griffiths: I am not giving way. My hon. Friend has just come in and I have waited six hours to speak in the debate.
  Again, all the money is going to development areas and intermediate areas.
  The question of mini-mills has been mentioned a great deal. I think there is a great danger of certain areas building too much hope on mini-mills. I believe that there will be a scrap crisis in the country when the steel industry is working at top level, and in this respect I do not think that we can have too many mini-mills. There may be a case for a mini-mill in an area where scrap arises on a large scale and where the products can be readily and easily utilised, but I cannot see more than two or perhaps three mini-mills being developed other than for the production of special steels.
  760
  I wish now to deal with the social consequences of the changes which will come about. I do not believe that any steel man in this country feels that he has the right to spend all his working life in the steel industry. But I support any steel man from any part of the United Kingdom who says that he has the right to work. I believe that to be a problem. When the Government's plans are matured the number of true redundancies will be relatively small in proportion to the total numbers before us. But the job losses will be in these areas for ever and that is one of the reasons why it is important to bring in alternative industries. One particular area I know of will have a cloud over it for the next few years but there are 250 men there over the age of 65 who are still working. The steel industry is a hard, physically exacting industry, one which demands that its workers shall work shifts and rotas, week-ends and so on. It seems ludicrous that at this time steelworkers should have to work after the age of 65 in areas of escalating unemployment.
  The time is ripe for a policy of retirement at 60 years of age within the steel industry. It could be achieved by 1980 by providing that in 1975 all men aged 65 should retire, in 1976 all those aged 64 should retire, in 1977 those aged 63 should retire, and so on. The money that the BSC is paying out in compensation should be concentrated in a pension fund. If a man has gone into the industry at the age of 16 he deserves that kind of treatment.
  A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the problems of the next 10 years. There has been reference to 30,000 to 50,000 jobs disappearing over that period. But since nationalisation there has been a loss of well over 30,000 jobs from the industry and the bulk of them are in the Sheffield-Rotherham area. But at least the announcements relate to closures three, five or seven years hence. In the past, and my own Government were responsible for it, the maximum notice for a closure was 18 months. What plans and preparations can be made in those circumstances? Will the Government therefore accept responsibility for steelworkers who have been made redundant since nationalisation? The Government are concentrating on the problems of the future but forgetting the hardship of the past.

  761
  I find it disappointing that up to now no one has mentioned the huge investment that will take place at Redcar. Unemployment in that part of the country ranges from 6·7 per cent. to 8 per cent. We have become bitter and twisted about certain areas but there is no mention of areas like Redcar or that this kind of investment will be a wonderful thing and will ease the chronic unemployment of the past.
  The steel industry has a great challenge before it. We have gone into Europe. The important thing is that we are in. I do not believe this statement to be the complete answer. I should like to see a further review in 1975 on planning and investment in the early 1980s and later. We must become competitive and get rid of the dead wood—please do not misunderstand me; I am talking not about human dead wood but about obsolete plant. We must start to supply things in this country made with steel produced in this country rather than from escalating steel imports. We must start increasing our exports. If we act in a humane way and if the Government and the BSC accept their responsibilities to bring alternative work into those areas, with alternative jobs which redundant steel workers can see are coming, the British steel industry will have a great future.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: This debate has certainly taken on a new significance since the statement in the House on 21st December by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in which he announced the future investment programme for the steel industry. We know now that whole communities will be affected by redundancies and closures. It would be right to say that Wales, as in many other areas under this Government, is getting a very bad deal indeed. There are to be something like 18,000 redundancies in the Principality with catastrophic blows in Shotton, East Moors and Ebbw Vale. Other smaller works will also be affected.
  There is, for instance, the tube works in my constituency whose closure has already been announced. It is a tragedy because it is an ideally situated works. There are great possibilities for the future arising from developments in the Celtic
  762
  Sea. I want to be sure that our tubes will be used in these projects rather than Japanese tubes. This closure should be postponed for some years. If we look at the production figures we notice tha4. Scottish production will rise by no less than 50 per cent., production in the North-East will go up by 260 per cent., in Yorkshire by 40 per cent., whereas in Wales it will rise only by 8 per cent.
  There is a bit of an enigma about the investment programme. We are told that about £900 million is to be invested in the Welsh steel industry. It is difficult to find out where this money is going. About £400 million is to go to Port Talbot, £30 million to East Moors, £16 million to the Spencer Works and £45 million to Ebbw Vale. There is a big discrepancy, and I hope that the Minister can explain this in winding-up. We all know that there have to be changes in the industry. Steelworkers are not Luddites.
  We know, too, that these problems would have been much easier to solve if the original proposal of the British Steel Corporation for an annual target of 43 million tons had been allowed to proceed. I note from an announcement by the Press and information office of the corporation on 15th January that the corporation is to seek new industry for Ebbw Vale. Well it might. This is welcome news. We want the corporation to stay in Ebbw Vale. What is not so welcome is the appointment of Mr. Fred Cartwright to oversee this operation.
  Some of us on this side of the House opposed his appointment after steel was taken into public ownership. For some years he has been the voice of Wales in the heirarchy of the steel corporation. What has happened in the intervening years? The Uskmouth project has been pigeon-holed; Port Talbot is allowed to go ahead with its iron-ore terminal. Port Talbot was the original base for the privately-owned steel sector. There is now to be a vast expansion at Port Talbot, yet the Spencer Works is much more modern, one of the most modern in Europe.
  The Newport Tube Works is to close, yet capital is to be poured into a less efficient works in another part of the country. Then there is the fateful decision about Ebbw Vale. It is fair to

  763
  say that the steel industry in Monmouthshire is in its present state partly because of the ministrations of Mr. Cartwright. The cornerstone of my constituency is the Spencer Works. Lord Melchett referred to Shotton as a three-legged horse because it did not have its own iron-ore terminal. The same applies to the Spencer Works.
  I have always felt that it was not right that the Monmouthshire steel industry should be treated as a branch factory of Port Talbot or that Monmouthshire should bear the overheads of the ore terminal there. It appears that the corporation has given a lot of thought to these matters. I have before me an extract from the "secret" report of the corporation about this. It says:
  "It is here assumed that, if used as the location for the smaller Squares plant, Llanwern could still be fed with ore and coal through Port Talbot … rather than by building a new jetty at Uskmouth, at a cost of £32·5 million. … The new Uskmouth jetty would almost certainly be necessary for the larger Flats plant. … the figure for total BSC inward transport costs with Squares plant at Llanwern is based on the concept that the additional ore needed at Llanwern would be shipped in through Port Talbot and sent on by rail. If this proved impracticable, e.g. because of physical limitations on the South Wales rail network, or because of environmental objections to the additional bulk ore movements through urban areas, the Uskmouth jetty would have to be built to accommodate the smaller Squares plant as well as the larger Flats plant."
  Five years ago the Uskmouth project was estimated to cost £15 million. Where has this £32·5 million come from? There is inflation, but is the extra cost caused by bigger vessels being brought in than was originally envisaged? The BSC has told me from time to time that no rail or environmental problems are involved, but it appears from the extract which I have read to the House that that is not so.
  What about expansion at the Spencer works? Does it mean that we are to have only this smaller Squares plant and no Flats plant, and that there is to be little expansion? The workers at the plant have a right to know.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: The Opposition asked for this debate because they believed that it might, possibly, influence the White Paper upon the steel industry which the Government are to
  764
  produce. I understand that the Government felt that it would have been better to have had the debate after the White Paper, but we wanted a debate both before and after. The Government will appreciate from the debate that we have had that we thought it was specially necessary because a debate before the production of the White Paper would involve arguments from hon. Members representing constituencies in areas which would be the heaviest hit by the changes. That is why we have arranged it in this way. Those who have attended the debate will agree that it has been an extremely good debate in which varying points of view have been advanced from different areas, particularly those that are threatened.
  We do not believe that the argument about the future of the steel industry should be concerned solely with the areas that are threatened. That is made clear in our motion. We are calling for the maximum extension of the steel industry. We have not become contractionists. Ebbw Vale is threatened in one sense more severely than almost anywhere—I am not making any competitive claims—our whole community is threatened, but Ebbw Vale makes its claim as a supporter of expansionism in the steel industry and we have not become contractionists.
  Although I will seek to nut the case that the people of Ebbw Vale have the right to have put to the House on a matter threatening their whole future, I am not asking that there should not be a major modernisation of the steel industry. We have not changed our view. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) is under a misapprehension. We want to see a major modernisation of the industry. We believe that a major modernisation must to a great extent eventually follow the lines laid down by the BSC, but that does not mean that we think that the BSC is infallible. It does not mean that we have to accept its recommendations. It does not mean that any of us in the House are prepared to accept diktats from the BSC or the Government as to how we are to deal with these matters without having the widest possibility of examining what is proposed.
  I will not go into lengthy criticisms of the Government because my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley)

  765
  dealt with those at the beginning of the debate. Part of our criticism of the Government is of their delay in bringing forward this great investment programme. The fact that it has been delayed does not mean that the people who are most affected do not have the right to make investigations. The Government have taken three years to examine the investment programme of the BSC. It did not start with the Secretary of State or the Minister for Industry coming into office. Some of us have been dealing with this question ever since June 1970. As the Government have taken three years to examine these questions, they must recognise that the people in the areas most affected—Shotton, Ebbw Vale, Consett, East Moors and the rest—have the right to examine the proposals in detail. We will not take as long as the Government took to examine them, but we cannot be denied the right to investigate them in the greatest detail.
  In a debate such as this I am particularly conscious that I am speaking for the people of Ebbw Vale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that in some respects this was the saddest day he could remember since he became a Member of the House. If what the British Steel Corporation and the Government are doing is carried through, it will be the greatest tragedy which has affected Ebbw Vale and the surrounding area since the closure of the old steelworks at the beginning of the 1930s. We are debating a matter of consequence to the people who send me to this House, and, therefore, I have a right to speak on that aspect of the matter.
  What I say about Ebbw Vale applies also to many other areas. The problem in Shotton is not exactly the same as that in Ebbw Vale, but it is similar. Although there are similarities in East Moors, the situation is not exactly the same. If the Government and the steel corporation are serious in wanting to solve the question, with all the consequences for steelworkers and the surrounding community as a result of the closures embodied in the Government's programme, they will have to solve the problem in Ebbw Vale. Under these proposals we are scheduled to come first on the list. I repeat that when I speak about Ebbw Vale this evening I also speak
  766
  of matters and principles which apply to the other areas.
  I wish to make these remarks to the Minister with the utmost restraint, because I am concerned to protect the livelihood of the people in my constituency, and in this respect nothing else counts besides that overriding consideration. The Minister repeated to the House today the same statement about Ebbw Vale as on one occasion was made by the Secretary of State for Wales, and, indeed, as was previously made by another Minister in the Department who is not able to be here today.
  The Minister, when he made his announcement in December, gave the House and the country a completely misleading account of the situation in Ebbw Vale. I thought he had made that statement inadvertently; I did not think he would be so callous as to say it in that form if he had appreciated its effects. It was partly for that reason that I invited the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to Ebbw Vale to discover the real situation.
  He has now been to Ebbw Vale and knows the situation much better. I was all the more surprised when today the Minister for Industry seemed to repeat the formula which has been served up to Ministers—including, I am sorry to say, the Secretary of State for Wales, who should have known better. As a formula concerned with Ebbw Vale it is false.
  What the Government have said on three occasisons from the Treasury Bench—and this affects the livelihood of at least 4,500 people—is that the announcement about the end of steelmaking in Ebbw Vale was all made in March 1970, and apparently that is the end of the matter. But the statement in March 1970 was not a notification of the end of steelmaking at Ebbw Vale. Let us not be under any misapprehension about this, because we have taken up the matter directly with Lord Melchett. He confirmed to representatives of the works council in Ebbw Vale that the statement made in March 1970 was never regarded by the corporation as being a formal notification of the end of steelmaking. The first intimation which they regarded as anything like a firm statement, though still only a proposal, was what Lord Meichett said on 16th December last.

  767
  This is the essential point that the Government must understand and which so far they have not recognised in any statement. When the Minister considers it, I am sure that he will recognise its importance. In the statement made in March 1970 by Lord Melchett he said not merely "We envisage that in the future steel making may end." Certainly he said that. That is the statement which has been quoted on several occasions. But he also said "We envisage that we shall be able to sustain employment at Ebbw Vale steelworks at the figure of 8,000." What is even more important, he also said "We will invest some £9 million to develop your hot mill." That was the figure at that time. It would be much more today. If a hot mill is to be developed, that has implications for the heavy end of the works as well, and a representative of the British Steel Corporation came to Ebbw Vale a few months later and confirmed that. He said "That is a reasonable deduction. If we are to spend that amount of money to develop your hot mill and we give you a guarantee of 8,000 jobs, you are entitled to draw the inference that may be we shall have proposals for continuing to produce special steel at Ebbw Vale."
  For people trying to deal with a threat to their community in an intelligent manner, which is what we are trying to do in Ebbw Vale, it is very galling to be told time after time that this is what happened in March 1970 when, until we got the Minister to come to Ebbw Vale, we had not the slightest recognition of these facts.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: What I said today, and what the hon. Gentleman attempted to dispute, was that the decision to close down those parts involving the loss of 4,000 jobs was made before any decision was made on the strategy. It was independent of the strategy and related to the earlier policy.
  Mr. Foot: I will deal with that matter, too. If the hon. Gentleman wants to deal with these matters with any sensitivity he must take into account the fact that we do no regard what Lord Melchett said on 16th November as decisions. Nor does Lord Melchett. They are proposals. We are having a negotiation at present between the works council and the British Steel Corporation. That has been established on the basis that they should be
  768
  regarded as proposals. Lord Melchett has agreed with that proposition. It is not for the Government to talk about decisions.
  The hon. Gentleman should follow what the Secretary of State said in Ebbw Vale. We asked him this precise question because, naturally, we were concerned about whether the fact that a statement of proposals had been made in Ebbw Vale on 16th November meant that we were being treated differently from the others embraced in the statement made in December. Naturally, we were concerned about that. We asked him, and the Secretary of State said "No." He told me in Ebbw Vale "When the White Paper is issued in a few weeks it will embrace proposals dealing with Ebbw Vale in the same way as all the other works concerned—Shotton and the others." If the right hon. Gentleman now says that we are to be treated in some separate way, he will only inflame matters in Ebbw Vale.
  We are faced with a threat of major consequence to our community. If these proposals went through, the life of our community would be shattered. We have had to deal with that possibility in these intervening weeks. We have been concerned about the morale of people living in that town. We could have had a collapse, with people saying "Every undertaking that we were given by the BSC has been broken. If they are going to cut our works in half, contrary to their undertakings in 1970, why should we believe that the other half will survive?" Sometimes they say similar things in Shotton. We might say that in Ebbw Vale too.
  However, we wish to protect the situation. Therefore, we in Ebbw Vale made proposals for dealing with the situation and investigating the proposals that the corporation was making.
  We certainly do not accept the corporation's proposals as being the best, even in the interests of the steel industry. We are now examining the proposals with the assistance of independent experts, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East will be doing in East Moors and as will be done in Shotton. We shall investigate the corporation's proposals, taking into account the sociological costs and all the other factors involved. We

  769
  have a right to do this. We have a right to carry out those discussions not under duress—that is, not under a rigid timetable.
  The Minister talked of flexibility, and I asked him a question about it. I very much hope that the White Paper will show the utmost flexibility in the dates which are to be applied. That applies to Ebbw Vale as much as to any of the other places. That was what we urged upon the Secretary of State when he came to Ebbw Vale, and I think he showed considerable appreciation of it. If the dates for the closures scheduled at Ebbw Vale proposed by the corporation, and apparently approved by the Government, were carried out—that is, the ending of the blast furnace in 1975, further closures in 1976 and the hot mill in 1978—and if everything was done about preparing alternative industries, we could never make up for it. So those dates are intolerable—impossible.
  The Government as well as the corporation have responsibilities. I am not absolving the corporation. We will not allow the Government to hide behind the corporation or the corporation to hide behind the Government. Do the Government have to agree to those dates? That is what is to be in the White Paper apparently. I ask the Government to give us in the White Paper the undertakings for which we are asking—that is, that those dates for the proposed closures in Ebbw Vale be withdrawn so that the discussions with the corporation do not proceed under duress and so that we shall have an honest chance, supposing that the case is proved against us of maintenance of our integrated steelworks, of getting new industries to make up for the loss.
  If the Government insist on those dates we shall not believe anything they say on the subject. Therefore, I ask the Government to withdraw the dates. We suggested it to the Secretary of State when he came to Ebbw Vale. I think he listened very carefully and appreciated the arguments. If the Government were to say in their White Paper that the dates are flexible, that these definite dates which were laid down are withdrawn, so far as Ebbw Vale is concerned—of course, this applies to Shotton and East
  770
  Moors in much the same sense, although their dates are slightly different; they are not as abrupt as for us—I believe they would get a much better atmosphere into the situation. Indeed, I think we are asking for something which is entirely modest.
  Let us look at the corporation's arguments—there really is only one argument—for insisting on these dates. We have gone into these matters in great detail. This is a further matter we shall examine with the utmost care with the steel corporation. We have every right to do so, because, I repeat, our livelihood as a community is at stake. If any possibility in this matter were neglected it would be criminal on the part of those who represent people in Ebbw Vale and the surrounding area. We must go through everything.
  What is the steel corporation's argument for laying down these dates? The argument is that we shall have too much steel in 1975 and 1976, and maybe 1977, because of the calculations that have been made of what will be produced in Llanwern, Port Talbot, and so on. The argument is that we must arrange to make the cuts now and cut off some of these areas. If this argument applied to Shotton in the same way—of course, the same argument applies—Shotton would be closed earlier than is now proposed.
  I am not arguing in favour of that. I am saying that the argument that is used, which the steel corporation knows so well and has calculated so carefully, overlooks certain matters. First, what will be the steel production from Llanwern and Port Talbot to suppliers? Secondly, what will market conditions be in 1975 and 1976? How can the corporation be definite about those conditions now? Anyone who knows anything about the steel industry knows that they are impossibilities.
  It may very well prove to be that Llanwern and Port Talbot will not produce the amount of steel by that date. Further, many people in the steel industry have put that argument to the corporation over the past weeks and months. Some of us know what we are talking about on these matters. Even if the corporation's figures and calculations of the total steel production in 1975 and 1976 are correct, that is the whole of its argument for fixing these dates and

  771
  imposing them upon us. If they are correct—and these are matters on which huge errors can be made, as everybody knows in the industry—that is not an escape from the situation. If that is the amount that the corporation will produce, why does not the corporation say, in order to give more time to Ebbw Vale or Shotton, "We will take what steps we can to ensure that we sell the extra steel that we shall have during those years"? That is a perfectly possible commercial proposition to be argued. Indeed, there are people in the steel industry who argue these propositions.
  I am discussing a matter that concerns the livelihood of people. Not only that, if this intolerable timetable were forced upon us, not merely would we have our steel industry disrupted but any possibility of carrying through the changeover from one kind of industry to another would be utterly abandoned. Ebbw Vale is asking the British people to listen to the people who are putting the arguments. From the very moment when we were threatened with the disruption of our community we took steps to say to the corporation "We will argue this with you. We will take it up on every possible occasion. We will use every conceivable pressure to ensure that our community is given the right to live and breathe." That is what we are fighting for.
  I believe that our case is so just that the Government should come to our assistance. When the Secretary of State visited Ebbw Vale and listened to what the people had to say, I believe he understood. But whether he understands sufficiently well will only be known when the White Paper comes out.
  I hope that the Government will seriously consider these matters. I hope they will consider not only the case I have sought to put but the case put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, and the case put so movingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones), who spoke on behalf of the Shotton workers who came to London today. No one who listened to the arguments could doubt not merely our claims on the grounds of human compassion but our claims about how major industrial changes should be carried through in a modern society.
  772
  We are determined in Ebbw Vale, whoever helps us or does not help us, to carry through the change if we must have it. However, we want to keep our steelworks and we demand the right to put our case for it. We cannot be certain that we shall win, but we shall do our best. If we lose on that argument we shall not be defeated. We have a second argument: namely, that the corporation and the Government should stand by the undertakings which they gave us in 1970, which they so far appear to give every sign of breaking. But over and beyond that even, we will not submit to dictation from London or anywhere else saying that our communities are to be destroyed. Therefore, we are going to take every other step and get assistance from every quarter to ensure that we postpone these dates of closures to allow us to put through these measures in their proper way.
  I return to the general subject, on which I would be glad to speak at greater length. I said at the beginning that, although many of us are bound to speak so strongly on these matters, because we are threatened with so much, nonetheless we on this side are not putting some petty parochial view. We are speaking for people who have contributed much more than most others to the steel industry, who know much more about it than most others, and who are insisting that they want to play their part in the expansion of this great industry.
  I therefore hope that the Minister will apply his mind to the questions and arguments that we have put and to the real problems we face, and will not try to ride off on any suggestion that we on this side are not in favour of a mammoth investment in the steel industry, to make it the great industry that we believe it should be as a central part of the British economy. We believe that, but we also believe that the great and famous steelmaking areas of this country have a great part to play in that as well.
  9.37 p.m.
  The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I have listened with great respect to the speech which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has made on behalf of his constituents, and I think that the whole House will have done so. The

  773
  hon. Member has talked about those of his constituents who face the threat of very serious disruption as a result of the strategy of the British Steel Corporation. In all the speeches today dealing with constituency problems, hon. Members have put forward powerful and often emotional cases for their particular areas.
  But the motion goes a good deal further. It argues that there is something fundamentally wrong with the BSC's proposals and that a new principle should be adopted by the Government. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale had nothing to say about that and very little to say about whether the strategy as a whole was right, whether it was good for the nation as a whole—[Interruption].
  The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), who has just arrived and has listened to none of the debate, suggests that what is contained in the motion and what was said by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) is that the Government are leaning on the BSC in order to prevent it from expanding as fast as it would like. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said exactly the opposite. He said in the middle of his speech—if he had come in earlier, the hon. Member for Feltham would have heard it—that it was the BSC that was saying it would not be able to sell enough steel in the mid-1970s to retain steelmaking capacity in Ebbw Vale.
  I want to deal mainly with the social consequences of this strategy and with the Government's plans for meeting them. We are determined to ensure that we bring new jobs into those areas. In most of the regions—in fact in all of them—there has been a substantial reduction in unemployment over these months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But this is a debate about an enormous investment programme of £3,000 million over 10 years. The hon. Member is quite right to say that there are fundamental questions that the whole House wants to ask. It is surely right to look at some of the broader consequences for employment.
  It is true that already, since nationalisation, about 27,000 jobs have been lost in steel and that the BSC had already announced measures which would reduce employment by a further 20,000. It is true that the corporation's strategy in-
  774
  volves the loss of a further net 30,000 jobs. May this massive investment and this particular strategy be the only way of safeguarding the remaining 180,000 jobs in steel? That is a question to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) gave an affirmative answer. He is one of the few hon. Members who have taken part in the debate who have looked at that broader question.
  There can be very little doubt about the huge job modernisation that the corporation faces. We all know that in the latter part of the 1960s we fell behind a number of other countries. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry gave some striking comparisons between us and some Continental countries. We all recognise that the British Steel Corporation has a very substantial task ahead of it if it is to ensure that we have a steel industry able to compete in the world and to provide steel in the quantities and at the price necessary for British industry, because there are large parts of British industry, for example, the supplying industries for North Sea oil and the British motor-car industry, whose competitiveness is enormously affected by the state of the British steel industry, and the number of jobs in those industries is also affected.
  The scale of the task in front of the corporation is fairly well indicated by the fact that it aims over the strategy period to double the overall labour productivity. That is what it believes to be necessary in order to sustain the sales on which it is basing its strategy. One figure that was striking to me, and probably to the House, is that the corporation estimates that in the new Teesside complex the overall labour productivity will be 800 tons a year, which compares with 200 tons a year in the corporation's present best works. That is an indication of the improvement which the corporation believes to be necessary to be able to compete and to be able to meet the targets it has set. So it is right, in a debate such as this, that the House should be concerned with the general strategy as a whole.
  At the heart of that strategy is the use of rich foreign ores transported in large bulk carriers, the installation of large modern blast furnaces and large-scale steel plants employing the basic

  775
  oxygen process. It is based, too, on the concentration of steelmaking at large integrated iron and steelworks which have ready access to deep water and preferably a capacity of 6 million tons or more.
  In judging whether all this is right and necessary—this is the fundamental question; if the strategy were wrong, it would not be necessary to close so many of the steelmaking plants in existing locations—it is surely worth noting that it is a path which is being followed in the majority of other steelmaking countries, not only in Japan but in France and Italy. At Fos and Dunkirk in France there will be integrated plants of this kind producing 7 million or 8 million tons by the end of this decade, and in Japan the plants will be much larger.
  Before arguing that the corporation ought to settle for a different strategy, it is only right to consider whether, if it were to do so and to ignore these advantages of size, it would in the long term be putting at risk the jobs of the majority in the British steel industry.
  It is right to recognise that this investment of £3,000 million will have very important consequences for a number of supplying industries. The hon. Member for Chesterfield asked about the figure of 75,000 jobs which was used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That figure comes from the corporation. It can only be an approximation and it is not possible at present to say which regions will benefit and in what proportion from the investment. The heavy engineering in the North-East clearly will be a major beneficiary, as will the heavy electrical industry and the computer industry. That £3,000 million will have a substantial effect on employment in the Midlands, in the Northern Region and in Scotland.
  Mr. Churchill: My right hon. Friend did not mention that the North-East Region has 6,000 more unemployed than any other region of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. In those circumstances, will he give high priority to the siting of further industries, and in particular a mini-steel mill in Lancashire?
  Mr. Chataway: The supplying industries in the North-West, and particularly
  776
  electrical engineering centred around my hon. Friend's constituency, will benefit from that investment.
  Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman referred to sustaining jobs in the computer industry. ICL is in my constituency. Will he guarantee that no American company will be allowed to take over ICL and do away with employment? As I have constituents who will be made redundant by the closure of Irlam, we cannot accept further unemployment.
  Mr. Chataway: I have made it clear on many occasions, and again yesterday to the Select Committee, that there is no question of an American company taking over ICL.
  A good deal has been said in this debate about Wales and one recognises that some of the serious social consequences of the strategy are centred there, but there should be no doubt about the scale of the investment in Wales. Some hon. Members have talked as though my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, on looking at this plan, should feel that Wales was not benefiting, but the fact is that one-third of the investment—£900 million—goes to Wales. As the Chairman of the Development Corporation for Wales said the other day, that represents a 15 per cent. annual addition for 10 years to the total budget of Wales. That will have an enormous effect.
  Mr. Barry Jones Mr. Barry Jones rose——
  Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions and I should be grateful if he would allow me to reply to them.
  The Government and the corporation are determined to do everything possible to mitigate the impact of the job losses in the areas that are affected. It is tempting to avoid the short-term difficulties in the way I have described but I believe—and I think this view will be shared by both sides of the House—that if we were to do that it might put in jeopardy many thousand more jobs. But there is an obligation upon us and upon the corporation to do everything in our power to bring forward jobs in those areas that will be particularly affected.
  Mr. Roy Hughes Mr. Roy Hughes rose—
  Mr. Chataway: I cannot give way.
  Since my right hon. Friend's statement on 21st December there have been three developments of some importance. I have announced the largest ever advance factory programme, and that takes account of a number of forthcoming steel closures. Many of these factories will be in steelmaking areas. It is encouraging that the number of factories let or sold in all parts of the country has greatly increased this year, and there is therefore every reason to believe that we shall be able to continue letting or selling these advance factories in most areas.
  I think that many hon. Members from Scotland will have been particularly heartened. Yesterday we had a statement by the Chairman of the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation which made it clear that it had had the greatest level of activity for 25 years and that as a result of letting and sales this year he expects 10,000 jobs in the next three years, which he describes as a phenomenal rise.
  Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made an announcement on 19th January about the setting up of task forces. During this debate a number of hon. Members have asked for further details. These task forces have already been decided upon for Ebbw Vale, Shotton and Cardiff and they are getting down to work immediately. Task forces have also been set up in other areas. They have the job of studying the problems and the resources of the area in detail and in consultation with all the interests which are able to make a contribution. They will be concerned with roads, the clearance of derelict land and a range of measures necessary for bringing in new industry. A Minister will oversee the progress of each of these task forces.
  Thirdly, a consultative group consisting of the General Secretary of the TUC, Mr. Vic Feather, the Chairman of the BSC and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is being formed to consider and discuss arrangements for providing the new employment which is required for redundant steelworkers. At the regional level arrangements are being made to ensure that there is very close consultation and opportunity for the fullest pos-
  778
  sible discussion of the necessary measures with the trade unions and the BSC.
  In addition to these special measures, we intend to make full use of our wide-ranging powers under the Industry Act.
  That includes, of course, regional development grants and regional selective assistance to attract employment. On top of that, when the circumstances of a particular locality justify it, assistance will be given on especially generous terms, We therefore have here a powerful and flexible instrument which we are prepared to use forcefully in getting the right kind of employment at the right time.
  Mr. John Morris: Eyewash. Chicken-feed.
  Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Eyewash" and "Chicken-feed". If he will stop shouting I will tell him that what we are talking about in Wales is 17,500 jobs over the next decade. He will recognise that during the 1960s—a decade in the latter part of which at least there was miserably slow progress; 120,000 jobs were provided for by new industrial development certificates—the rate of rundown in coal was far faster than anything we are discussing here. I hope he will recognise that this is undoubtedly the most determined effort that a Government have made to meet these problems.
  Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman has not commented on the length of rundown and the time we shall have to provide the jobs that are necessary. Can he undertake that in addition to what he has already said, the Cabinet will give serious consideration to the granting of development areas status, as was done in the case of the coal industry rundown, to areas such as Cardiff, East Moors, Irlam and other similar areas which are affected by a level of unemployment which is as high as it is in the present development areas?
  Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman put that point forcefully in the debate.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that no action has been taken by the Chair to bar the Liberals from being here? For

  779
  the whole of the evening they have not been present.
  Mr. Chataway: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I shall not be able to cover a number of the points that have been raised. However, on the question of development area status, obviously the task forces will be concerned with looking into the boundaries and assessing the strength of the case. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are great disadvantages in short-term changes to these boundaries. We reviewed them only last April.
  Mr. Callaghan Mr. Callaghan rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down!
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Chataway: I must get on because I have a great deal to say. The right hon. Gentleman made a typically constituency speech, but he has on previous occasions in his constituency talked of the Labour Government's £150 million two-stage development of the East Moors works [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman did that in the Welsh Grand Committee debate in March, 1971.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is not any longer saying that, I am glad to hear it. That was an example of something of which we have seen a little in this debate, of hon. Members who argue that if only there had been a Labour Government this modernisation could have been carried through painlessly. It is recognised by most hon. Members on both sides that if we are to have a competitive steel industry there are bound to be redundancies and we must face this problem. It is the determination of the corporation and of ourselves by these measures and a variety of others which will be detailed in the White Paper to ensure that we get the jobs in in time.
  The motion, which has not been much discussed, argues two things—first, that even the ambitious target set by the corporation is not enough and that, although in 1965 the then Labour Government committed themselves to 4 million tons expansion and they achieved only 1 million tons of that and we are now committing ourselves to an expansion of up to 8 million tons by the late 1970s and an expansion that could be up to 11 million tons by the 1980s, even that should be more.
  Hon. Members opposite should recognise the implausibility of that argument given their own experience and that to aim at any unrealistic targets which are not in the result met could jeopardise substantially more jobs. No case has been made today against the corporation's estimates and the policy of a flexible targeting system of this kind.
  Secondly, and perhaps more remarkably, the motion argues that
  "no closure shall be permitted until guaranteed new employment has been provided in the areas affected."
  This is an entirely new principle. I have argued, and I believe it will be widely accepted, that we are doing more than any previous Government to get those jobs in. With the 404,000 redundancies in the nationalised industries during the Labour Government's term of office, did they say to Lord Robens "You may not close any pit until alternative jobs have already been provided"? Of course they did not.
  I therefore believe that the House will reject the motion and support the amendment; recognising the wisdom of the strategy and its value to the British economy as a whole.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 250.

  Division No. 37.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Bell, Ronald

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Benyon, W.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Astor, John

  Biffen, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Awdry, Daniel

  Blaker, Peter

  Buck, Antony

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Body, Richard

  Burden, F. A.

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

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

  Batsford, Brian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Carlisle, Mark

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hornby, Richard

  Percival, Ian

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Channon, Paul

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Churchill, W. S.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  James, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cooke, Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Coombs, Derek

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Raison, Timothy

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jessel, Toby

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cordle, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Redmond, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jopling, Michael

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Crouch, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dean, Paul

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kirk, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Dixon, Piers

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Knox, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Lambton, Lord

  Scott, Nicholas

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lamont, Norman

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lane, David

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

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shersby, Michael

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sinclair, Sir George

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

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Emery, Peter

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

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & Lmington)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Soref, Harold

  Fell, Anthony

  Loveridge, John

  Speed, Keith

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Luce, R. N.

  Spence, John

  Fidler, Michael

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sproat, Iain

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stainton, Keith

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Foster, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stokes, John

  Fowler, Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fox, Marcus

  Maddan, Marlin

  Sutcliffe, John

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

  Madel, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Maginnis, John E.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

  Gardner, Edward

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maude, Angus

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Temple, John M.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Tilney, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Green, Alan

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

  Trew, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Michell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Molyneaux, James

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gurden, Harold

  Money, Ernle

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Waddington, David

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Monro, Hector

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Walters, Dennis

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  More, Jasper

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Morrison, Charles

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mudd, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Hay, John

  Murton, Oscar

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Neave, Airey

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hicks, Robert

  Nott, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Younger, Hn. George

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

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Hordern, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil

  782

  783

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Albu, Austen

  Garrett, W. E.

  Meacher, Michael

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mendelson, John

  Allen, Scholefield

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Millan, Bruce

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Ashley, Jack

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Milne, Edward

  Ashton, Joe

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

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

  Atkinson, Norman

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Barnes, Michael

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Hamling, William

  Moyle, Roland

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Beaney, Alan

  Hardy, Peter

  Murray, Ronald King

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Harper, Joseph

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  O'Malley, Brian

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oram, Bert

  Booth, Albert

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Horam, John

  Orme, Stanley

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Padley, Walter

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Paget, R. T.

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hunter, Adam

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cant, R. B.

  Janner, Greville

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Prescott, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  John, Brynmor

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham,S.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwyl Caernarvon)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

  Kelley, Richard

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

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Kerr, Russell

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roper, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lamond, James

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lawson, George

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Deakins, Eric

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Leonard, Dick

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Sillars, James

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Skinner, Dennis

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Loughlin, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dunn, James A

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Eadie, Alex

  McBride, Neil

  Strang, Gavin

  Edelman, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McGuire, Michael

  Swain, Thomas

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackenzie, Gregor

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

  English, Michael

  Mackie, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Evans, Fred

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Ewing, Harry

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)

  Tinn, James

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Torney, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Foot, Michael

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ford, Ben

  Marks, Kenneth

  Varley, Eric G.

  Forrester, John

  Marsden, F.

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Marshall. Dr. Edmund

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Wallace, George

  784

  785

  Wntkins, David

  Whitlock, William

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Weitzman, David

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Woof, Robert

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mr. Michael Cocks and

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Wilson, Rt. Kn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mr. John Golding

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 250.

  Division No. 38.]

  AYES

  10.13 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

  Jopling, Michael

  Astor, John

  Emery, Peter

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fell, Anthony

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fidler, Michael

  Kimball, Marcus

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Batstord, Brian

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Bell, Ronald

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kirk, Peter

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Benyon, W.

  Foster, Sir John

  Knox, David

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fowler, Norman

  Lambton, Lord

  Biffen, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Lamont, Norman

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Lane, David

  Blaker, Peter

  Fry Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Body, Richard

  Gardner, Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

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

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Loveridge, John

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Luce, R. N.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Goodhart, Philip

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Goodhew, Victor

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gorst, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gower, Raymond

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

  McMaster, Stanley

  Buck, Antony

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Green, Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Grylls, Michael

  Maddan, Martin

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

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Madel, David

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gurden, Harold

  Maginnis, John E.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Marten, Neil

  Channon, Paul

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mather, Carol

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Maude, Angus

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Churchill, W. S.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Mawby Ray

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hay, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Cooke, Robert

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Coombs, Derek

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mills, Stratten (Belfast, N.)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Cordle, John

  Hicks, Robert

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

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Higglns, Terence L.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hiley, Joseph

  Moate, Roger

  Costain, A. P.

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

  Molyneaux, James

  Crouch, David

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Money, Ernie

  Crowder, F. P.

  Holland, Philip

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hordern, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hornby, Richard

  Montgomery, Fergus

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  More, Jasper

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

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Dean, Paul

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Howell. Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Morrison, Charles

  Dixon, Piers

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Mudd, David

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Murton, Oscar

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Drayson, G. B.

  James, David

  Neave, Alrey

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jennings, J C. (Burton)

  Nott, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Scott-Hopkins, James

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

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Tilney, John

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Shersby, Michael

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Trew, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Peyton, Bt. Hn. John

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

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Soref, Harold

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Speed, Keith

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Pounder, Rafton

  Spence, John

  Waddington, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Sproat, Iain

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stainton, Keith

  Walters, Dennis

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

  Stanbrook. Ivor

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Raison, Timothy

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wilkinson, John

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Stokes, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Redmond, Robert

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Rost, Peter

  Temple, John M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Scott, Nicholas

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Horam, John

  Albu, Austen

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Deakins, Eric

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Allen, Scholefield

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ashley, Jack

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hunter, Adam

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Barnes, Michael

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Janner, Greville

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Beaney, Alan

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Eadie, Alex

  John, Brynmor

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edeiman, Maurice

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

  Bishop, E. S.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ellis, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  English, Michael

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Booth, Albert

  Evans, Fred

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Ewing, Harry

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Foot, Michael

  Kelley, Richard

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Ford, Ben

  Kerr, Russell

  Buchan, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Kinnock, Neil

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lambie, David

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lamborn, Harry

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lamond, James

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Latham, Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lawson, George

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Leonard, Dick

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hamling, William

  Loughlin, Charles

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Kannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hardy, Peter

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Harper, Joseph

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McBride, Neil

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hattersley, Roy

  McElhone, Frank

  Davidson, Arthur

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  McGuire, Michael

  Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mackie, John

  788

  789

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Strang, Gavin

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Pendry, Tom

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Swain, Thomas

  Marks, Kenneth

  Prescott, John

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

  Marsden, F.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertiilery)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Probert, Arthur

  Tinn, James

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Reed, D. (Se gefield)

  Torney, Tom

  Meacher, Michael

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mendelson, John

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Richard, Ivor

  Varley, Eric G.

  Millan, Bruce

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

  Milne, Edward

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

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

  Wallace, George

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Watkins, David

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Roper, John

  Weitzman, David

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Moyle, Roland

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Sandelson, Neville

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Oakes, Gordon

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  O'Malley, Brian

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Oram, Bert

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Orme, Stanley

  Sillars, James

  Wilson, Rt. Hn Harold (Huyton)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silverman, Julius

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Padley, Walter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woof, Robert

  Paget, R. T.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Palmer, Arthur

  Spriggs, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mr. Michael Cocks and

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Mr John Golding.

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Resolved,
  That this House regrets the low rate of steel investment during the Labour administration; welcomes the plans announced by Her Majesty's Government for the British Steel Corporation to invest £3,000 million in modernisation, thus safeguarding the future of 180,000
  790
  jobs and enabling the industry to compete prominently in world markets and to contribute to the competitiveness and growth of the rest of British industry; and further welcomes the prompt action proposed by the Government to minimise the social consequences where modernisation results in closure of an existing steel plant.

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

  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The subject which I have the privilege to raise tonight—namely, accidents caused by toxic substances—is not one which was chosen by accident, and, indeed, I am sure that a number of hon. Members will be delighted that it has been selected for tonight's Adjournment debate.
  I am dealing with accidents in the home and on the roads, and accidents to people must be our first concern, but there are also accidents to animals, plant life, and, indeed, even to buildings and their contents. Gone are the days when a bottle of aspirins or a bottle of disinfectant were the only hazards at home. Also gone are the days of contaminated water and contaminated food, with the possibilities of typhoid and tuberculosis. In their place we have the hazards of paraquat and things of that kind and detergents dressed up in all kinds of attractive forms.
  The roads are a different matter. Roads have become the battleground where conventional weapons are being replaced by juggernaut lorries and tankers with their cargoes of death or potential death on routes quite unable to cope with them, even the motorways. We all remember the recent tragic case of the unsuspecting woman dissolved by concentrated sulphuric acid—unsuspecting because there was no reason for her to know of the hazard.
  It is established beyond doubt that a dangerous problem exists, although there has been some exaggeration of it. One now hears about every case, just as during the Mountbatten inquiry into prisons we used to hear about every single escape, however small. These accidents are very much in the public mind, and the media of communication have rightly given coverage to this problem.
  There is concern about this topic in the public mind and in this House. I
  792
  pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), who has been most active on this subject; he has had a great deal of trouble in terms of the unlabelled merchandise which has come into his constituency. There are other hon. Members concerned about these matters, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is sponsoring a Bill dealing with transport by road. I know that I cannot ask for legislation this evening, and am not doing so, but I expect the Minister to say that he is able to make regulations, and I hope that his powers are adequate. Will the Minister tell us about that?
  I hope that the Minister is happy about co-ordination of Government action in this sphere. If he thinks it is satisfactory I hope he will tell us how it is done and what progress is being made. What future plans are there? Those future plans should not be precipitate plans, nor procrastinatory. I use that long, ridiculous and cumbersome phrase because it seems to sum up all the processes which exist in public life and take a long time. I know that there are many interests to be consulted and that there are many hon. Members who watch the interests of industry, and quite rightly. Some things may not be the responsibility of my hon. Friend, but Ministers have a collective responsibility, and I assume that it was from choice that the Home Office chose to answer the debate. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will forcibly represent to his colleagues in other Ministries the points which are not his immediate departmental concern and which he regards as important.
  I wish now to deal briefly with accidents in the home where children are at risk, although it would appear that education has safeguarded the position of those who are in nursery education or education at a later stage. But there are cases where parental care is all-important, and some parents are not as careful as others. We have sad cases of children eating pills which look so much like sweets. Both of my own children have got hold of fairly innocent medicaments at one time or another. They have taken them to pieces to see inside those lovely red and yellow capsules. Children take a delight in playing with small objects.

  793
  There are many medicaments which look like parts of toys and small coloured plastic objects. I hope that the Minister will represent to the toy manufacturers that they should look into that. Many toys involve putting little objects into slots. It is great fun for children to find a box of pills to put into slots, perhaps chewing a few at the same time.
  Then there are detergents, some of which have even been labelled "containing real lemons". There was the case of a right reverend bishop who was given a glass of lemonade by his clergy which laid him out on the floor, not because it was alcoholic—the bishop could stand that—but because it was a detergent with a delicious lemon colour, though not a lemon flavour. The Minister in the other place seemed to imply that this was not too catastrophic and that the bishop need not have worried too much about it because it did not happen very often. However, he took the matter seriously but thought that the bishop was a little over-concerned.
  We must keep a sense of proportion but there are a great number of people now who run the risk of being poisoned by an overdose of some new life-saving drug or a new super cleansing substance, or fall victim to a wonder weed killer. Ten people die this way every week according to figures issued in July 1972 by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which have never been challenged. Also in the home and partly outside it is the increasingly popular science of do-it-yourself. All kinds of processes which were once confined to the factory are used and are now performed in the home workshop. There are products which are used in commercial undertakings with great precautions but are used by untrained persons elsewhere at the risk of a serious accident.
  But, having survived the home, let us proceed out on to the roads. Careful control is exercised over dangerous substances carried by rail and air. But what of the roads? Are the powers adequate? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East has introduced a Bill which has some bearing on the subject, and I hope it will progress. On the roads we must know our enemy. Objects carried by road transport should be labeled; tan-
  794
  kers should be labelled, too. We assume that the vehicle being used is suitable for the purpose. But perhaps my hon. Friend will say something about that, too, because I believe there are regulations afoot for dealing with the construction of vehicles. [Interruption.] I am dealing with roads; I will not stray on to the high seas.
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: Regulations are laid down by the Chemical Industries Association, which advises people, especially haulage contractors, on this matter.
  Mr. Cooke: If the hon. Gentleman had contained himself a little longer—I do not wish to sound cross—he would have found that I was coming to that point. I was going to pay tribute to his friends on that subject.
  I shall not stray on to the high seas. That point has been reasonably and adequately covered in debate. I am trying to cover matters which have not been covered. In any event, this is a subject with which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are fully acquainted, and I should not wish to bore you by straying on to it.
  What is the size of the problem on the roads? I understand that 3 million tons of sulphuric acid travel across Britain each year, most of it by road, and it can go practically anywhere. We have police escorts with flashing lights for large loads, not of sulphuric acid but of houses, transformers or industrial equipment of one kind or another. That is not so now with dangerous substances.
  Mr. Ernle Money: Does my hon. Friend agree that one worrying matter is that many loads of potentially dangerous chemicals will be brought in from the Common Market which will not be covered by insurance?
  Mr. Cooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that he has a particular problem and has been most active in defending the interests of his constituents in Ipswich. Of course, his interests go far wider. I think that he is interested in preservation of the national life and limb.
  We live in an odd world—a sort of Monty Python world. An eccentric lady in the city of Bath was proceeded against by the city council because she wanted to paint her front door yellow in the

  795
  Royal Crescent or the Circus—one of the finest parts of the city. However, there is nothing to prevent a lot of drivers with their explosive tankers collecting there to admire the view and take their lunch on the grass while their tankers are fuming and possibly potentially explosive. I think perhaps my hon. Friend owes us a few remarks about that.
  I pass from the grand dwellings of Bath to the humbler houses and homes of my constituents in commercial Bristol. Many of them cannot see the daylight out of their windows because of commercial vehicles parked outside, the drivers of which no doubt enjoy the salubrious transport café down the road—and long may that continue. Not only can my constituents not see the daylight but their very lives are in danger day and night, and particularly at night in certain districts where lorry drivers have their lodging houses and leave their vehicles unattended. Lorries can be stolen for various purposes—sometimes just for a lark—and terrible things can happen. Death lurks within them.
  What I have said so far relates to public roads. But private property is not immune. I recall recently a vast affair, which turned out to contain nothing more than liquid concrete, driving down the avenue to a famous historic house in Dorset—not my own—carrying away the eighteenth-century wrought iron gates, smashing up the overthrow, and arriving at the front door. The company replaced everything beautifully, but this could have been an explosive tanker carelessly driven and the private owner would seem to have little redress.
  Lorries and tankers have a habit of smashing things up and driving on. All my gate posts, solid stone and 3 ft. thick, which face on to the A.35 have been knocked down at one time or another. I caught one man who was responsible for knocking down some of my young trees only because one was still hanging on his lorry and I happened to see it as I came from the railway station. This is a personal experience, but such experience is widespread.
  Chemical spillages do serious damage to the countryside, polluting rivers and so on. But in The Times this morning it was reported that a lorry collided with a
  796
  load of oranges. The lorry contained chemicals. The oranges fell on the ground. Children picked up the oranges, which were poisoned, and ate them. Why were the oranges not picked up? Are any instructions given to drivers?
  Then there is the problem of spontaneous reaction between chemical loads of one kind and another. When chemicals are put into a tanker and there is a residue, what is done about it? Is milk or anything else for domestic consumpton ever carried in a tanker which has been used for carrying chemicals? It might happen that two lorries come into violent contact, producing the most catastrophic explosion, even if the two substances by themselves are perfectly innocent. I have said enough to show my hon. Friend that things could happen which require attention.
  Dangers exist which are not recognised by statute. Perhaps the new regulations which I believe my hon. Friend has in mind will be able to deal with them. There are also dangers which are not immediately obvious. There was the case of a fire brigade which cooled down a building—it could so easily have been a lorry—by pouring hundreds of gallons of water through a hole in the roof. But the building contained sodium metal. The result was that the roof was blown 200 ft in the air. That could easily happen with a lorry if there is no clear indication of what a lorry or tanker contains.
  The idea of transport emergency cards being placed in each vehicle so that one knows what to do in the event of an accident might be an excellent one. I should like to pay tribute to the chemical industry because it is leading the way in these matters. However, not everyone will fall into line. I hope that my hon. Friend will help the responsible elements in industry and elsewhere with their good work. I hope that I can accept as true the widespread reports in the top newspapers that the Home Office will produce regulations this year covering five categories of substance—namely, inflammable, corrosive, organic, peroxides, and gases. I hope that my hon. Friend will think long about this matter and ensure that everything possible is included.
  Against the tales of woe which I have been reciting, there are many firms which

  797
  are most conscientious. There are dedicated and skilled drivers who are devoted to the safety of their load and the safety of the public, and they safely reach their destination. But the public need to be reassured that the Government are deploying their forces and have the forces to deploy.
  I am pleased to have this opportunity to get the Home Office to reassure the House that the Government are taking the matter seriously. I am sure they are. But are they happy about what they will be able to do? Hon Members will not rest until they have secured a far greater protection for their people from the new hazards of the technological age.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: It is high time that the Government introduced a clear colour code to be used on corrosive household items so that every item is marked clearly with a distinctive colour. It is all very well saying that the majority of containers are marked clearly in red letters, etc. But young children, the teeny-weenies, cannot read the word "poison" or understand what a skull and cross bones might signify. I urge the Under-Secretary of State to give serious consideration to that matter.
  I know well enough the argument that corrosive substances should be put where teeny-weenies cannot get hold of them. But a mother with a couple of youngsters might be in the middle of washing and about to put some bleach in the washing machine when there is a ring on the door bell. She may drop the bleach, and when she returns the tragedy has occurred.
  Finally, I pay tribute to the chemical industry for the efforts it has made to make safer the carrying on the roads, chiefly in tankers, of corrosive loads. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for initiating this debate.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) and other hon. Members for what they have said. The Government and the
  798
  public are greatly concerned about all these problems, and we want to get on as quickly as we can with additional safeguards for the public. I say that straight away before giving as detailed a progress report as I can in the time available on the points that have been raised.
  My hon. Friend asked whether the Department was satisfied. We are never satisfied, though we believe that much has been done and that on the whole we are moving in the right direction. I join my hon. Friend and the hon. Member opposite in the tribute they have paid to the responsible elements in industry. I know what help we are already getting from the chemical industry in particular, and we look forward to more. The point has been well made that this is to some extent a new problem. For most of the century we have had powers to make regulations to protect the public by controlling the keeping and movement of certain dangerous substances, but modern technology has brought the problem into the stark outlines in which we see it at the moment. My hon. Friend put it vividly. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) is understandably concerned about the problem. That was why in 1965 the Standing Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances was formed to advise the Home Secretary about the storage and conveyance by road of dangerous substances.
  I will talk first about movement and say a few words at the end about the position in the home. The committee has been working on a programme of extending the existing controls, many of which were in existence already when the committee was formed, to the new fields as the need arises. That is the method by which we are still proceeding. The committee drew up an order of priorities according to the degree of risk of the substances concerned. We now propose that regulations which govern the conveyance by road of inflammable liquids and corrosive substances should be followed next by regulations applying to organic peroxides, dissolved, liquified and compressed gases, and toxic substances; and in that order. That is the basic programme. We think that these are the major hazards. Later on we want to go on to a number of other things

  799
  such as substances that give off inflammable gases when they come into contact with water, substances that are spontaneously combustible, inflammable solids, and oxidising substances. That is the general programme ahead of us.
  My hon. Friend asked whether we are satisfied with our powers. We are—reasonably so. So far, we have been able to act under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928, which, although it was originally concerned with petroleum, it has been possible to extend to other substances in the regulations that we have made under it. That has not held up the introduction of controls so far.
  What we have done covering inflammable liquids and corrosives is laid down in these basic safety requirements and we have also controlled the labelling of vehicles and packages. Later this year we shall impose similar controls over organic peroxides and—this will be the biggest step forward—we shall extend the existing regulations to cover the construction and operation of vehicles. That will include the point on parking that my hon. Friend mentioned. Other regulations for other sorts of dangerous substance will follow after that.
  We all wish we could get on even quicker. My hon. Friend will understand that it is a complicated matter. There are more than 1,000 dangerous substances, and the regulations in themselves apply to several hundred. We are very anxious not merely to get the job of identification properly done, which is not simple, but to consult thoroughly all the bodies concerned. Whatever we say in the House, the effectiveness of regulations like these lies very much in the acceptability of the controls to the people who have to apply and enforce them.
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: And the will.
  Mr. Lane: Yes, the will to enforce them, too. I accept that. We have no reason to think that local authorities in particular are slow to do their job in this, so it must be a co-operative effort between the Government, the local authorities and the various interests involved.
  I mention in passing the tragic accident recently on the M6. We look at every serious accident to see what lessons we can learn from it. On that particular
  800
  accident, which was so much in the news, we have recently had a report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives, and before we bring in the regulations about construction and operation which I have mentioned we shall consider very fully whether we can makes those regulations even more effective by taking account of the M6 experience.
  I would confirm another point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West—the question of coordination between ourselves and other Departments involved. It is not a simple situation. The Department of the Environment has its own responsibilities about road transport. The Home Office equally has its responsibilities governing the safety of special vehicles, and how they are built and operated, under the broad direction of the Department of the Environment regulations. I think that these Departments work adequately together. We are represented on the same committees. We had a meeting only recently with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries about the lessons of the M6 accident. We shall continue working together in producing the new regulations.
  I would also remind my hon. Friend that the present arrangements are to be reviewed anyway as part of our consideration of what has been suggested by Lord Robens' Committee on Safety and Health at Work, because that proposed that we should have across-the-board control of dangerous substances. When we put our proposals arising out of Robens to the House soon, I hope that hon. Members will feel that we are on the right lines in the changes we are proposing.
  That is all I can say about movement on the roads, except to assure my hon. Friend that we are very much aware of the public concern and want to do everything we can to allay it. But it is not simply a matter of making regulations. There is the question of public awareness of the warnings, signs on vehicles, and so on.
  That leads me to speak about the related problem, mentioned first by my hon. Friend, of risks to health and safety in the home. Here again, it is a matter of awareness. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert

  801
  C. Brown) talked about coloured labelling. That is one idea which has often been mooted. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West talked of poisoning. I have a frightening list of the ordinary household substances which have been taken by children. It is a very alarming problem. There have been suggestions that every harmful household substance should have to have a warning label of some kind. This has already been done under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 in the case of particularly harmful products.
  The position about pesticides is fairly well covered; there is the Pesticide Safety Precaution Scheme. But the problem is that most of the products we use from day to day can have harmful effects if taken in excessive quantities. If we put warnings on all of them, very soon people would take no notice of those warnings. It is a matter of judgment and degree. But I assure hon. Members that we are very anxious to get the right balance between under-warning and over-warning on particular home products, and I hope that we shall succeed.
  Ending on a note of sheer common sense, the only real safeguard is that household substances that could cause harm ought to be kept in a safe place out of the reach of children. That cannot be said too often. We are trying to have more and more publicity because we want to encourage parents to take these obvious elementary precautions. Publicity is of the greatest importance, not only because of accidents in the home
  802
  but because of accidents on the road, and I couple with that the whole problem of human error and human care.
  We cannot think that just by making regulations we have solved the problem. We have to go on watching driving standards and seeing again—this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—what more can be done over routing, driving regulations and possibly speed limits. This field is very much open to review, and we are looking over it all to see what more can be done on the environment side.
  I conclude by again thanking my hon. Friend for raising this matter. We shall do all that we can in the Government to keep the regulations up to date and effective. We shall rely equally on better awareness by the public and better care by drivers. We shall consider the points that have been made in the debate and to which I have not had time to reply. I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friends in the other Department to what has been said that is their responsibility rather than ours. We are determined to press ahead as urgently as we can with further action that will minimise the risk of accidents and provide the maximum possible protection for the public.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Army Riding Instructors
  Army Riding Instructors
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Military Aircraft (Low-level Flights)
  Military Aircraft (Low-level Flights)
  Irish Republican Army
  Irish Republican Army
  South-East Asia
  South-East Asia
  Nuclear Submarine Bases (Employees)
  Nuclear Submarine Bases (Employees)
  Cardigan Bay (Weapons Testing)
  Cardigan Bay (Weapons Testing)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Remanded Prisoners
  Remanded Prisoners
  Mr. Ram Sharda
  Mr. Ram Sharda
  Psychopathic Offenders
  Psychopathic Offenders
  Life Imprisonment
  Life Imprisonment
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Dependants)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Dependants)
  Metropolitan Police Bomb Squad
  Metropolitan Police Bomb Squad
  Aliens Office
  Aliens Office
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
  Maintenance Orders
  Maintenance Orders
ENVIRONMENT
  Government Property (Sales)
  Government Property (Sales)
  Student Co-operative Dwellings Limited.
  Student Co-operative Dwellings Limited.
  M1 (Intersection Lighting)
  M1 (Intersection Lighting)
  Bedford (Road Accidents)
  Bedford (Road Accidents)
  Road Junctions (Parking Restrictions)
  Road Junctions (Parking Restrictions)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  M6 (Accident)
  M6 (Accident)
  Property Revaluation
  Property Revaluation
  Counter-inflation Proposals
  Counter-inflation Proposals
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Weekly Incomes
  Weekly Incomes
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Small Savings
  Small Savings
  PRESIDENT NIXON
  PRESIDENT NIXON
  UNITED NATIONS
  UNITED NATIONS
  COUNTER-INFLATION PROPOSALS
  COUNTER-INFLATION PROPOSALS
  GOVERNMENT LAND TRANSACTIONS
  GOVERNMENT LAND TRANSACTIONS
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  DR. MANSHOLT
  DR. MANSHOLT
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foodstuffs (Imports)
  Foodstuffs (Imports)
  Meat
  Meat
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Swine Vesicular Disease
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Student Co-operative Dwellings Limited
  Student Co-operative Dwellings Limited
  Comprehensive Education (Barnsley)
  Comprehensive Education (Barnsley)
EMPLOYMENT
  Prices
  Prices
  Ayrshire
  Ayrshire
  Rochdale
  Rochdale
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Unemployment (Duration)
  Unemployment (Duration)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Illegal Drinking Clubs
  Illegal Drinking Clubs
  Housing
  Housing
  Shopkeepers and Businessmen (Financial Aid)
  Shopkeepers and Businessmen (Financial Aid)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Uganda (British Citizens)
  Uganda (British Citizens)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Grants in Aid
  Grants in Aid
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  European Parliament (Verbatim Reports)
  European Parliament (Verbatim Reports)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Illegal Telephone Calls
  Illegal Telephone Calls
SCOTLAND
  Rents
  Rents
  Housing
  Housing
  Methylated Spirit (Sale)
  Methylated Spirit (Sale)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Arran
  Arran
  Designated Schools (Ayrshire)
  Designated Schools (Ayrshire)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Girvan Bypass
  Girvan Bypass
  Cumnock Bypass
  Cumnock Bypass
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Spina Bifida and Anencephaly
  Spina Bifida and Anencephaly
  Medical Care (Standards)
  Medical Care (Standards)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  College of Air Training, Hamble
  College of Air Training, Hamble
  Motor Car Production (Home Market)
  Motor Car Production (Home Market)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Steel Scrap
  Steel Scrap
  Carcases (Export)
  Carcases (Export)
  Wool Textiles (EEC Agreements)
  Wool Textiles (EEC Agreements)
WALES
  Housing
  Housing
  Heads of the Valley—Raglan Road
  Heads of the Valley—Raglan Road
  Brecon Bypass
  Brecon Bypass

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION'S AIRCRAFT
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many aircraft the British Steel Corporation has, and of what types.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I am advised that the British Steel Corporation owns four aircraft—two Cessna 421s and two Hawker Siddeley 125s.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that if we consider the loss as shown in the yearly published accounts of the British Steel Corporation (I understand that the last accounts showed a loss of roughly £100 million) surely an area where some economy might be made is in aircraft? May I further ask the Minister whether, as there are extensive British air services covering the world and as the British taxpayer has from time to time had to make good the deficits of some of those air services, it is necessary for the British Steel Corporation to have four aircraft? I can understand their having one aircraft, but is it necessary for them to have four?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I appeal to the Leader of the House, if he is here, to ask that when Questions are put they should not be made an occasion of highly contentious debating?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the Leader of the House is here. I must say that I have
248
noticed from time to time that Questions are made the subject of rather contentious debating. But, on the whole, I entirely agree with the Leader of the Opposition. My noble friend was over-egging the pudding a little.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I say to my noble friend that the question of whether the British Steel Corporation should have its own aircraft is a matter which it has to judge for itself in relation to the functions that it has to perform, in order to see that it can perform those functions most efficiently and economically. If it thinks it is desirable for those purposes to have aircraft, there is no reason why it should not have them.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that to consider aircraft in industry to-day as a luxury is quite out of date?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. I am told that something like 64 companies in this country either own or operate aircraft for themselves.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how this number of aircraft compares with the number owned by Imperial Chemical Industries, or Shell?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have some figures here. This number is in line with what other companies have in relation to their capital, their function and the distribution of their plants.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that to some of us, at any rate, it is encouraging that the British Steel Corporation are as far-sighted as this? Surely if they are going to be progressive they have to use aircraft in the modern way of trading.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I quite agree, my Lords. I am glad that two out of the four aircraft they own are British.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, as the noble Viscount is using the question of the cost of the aircraft in his argument, can he follow that successfully without talking about the prices of steel, which are controlled by the Government?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that was something of a diversion, if I may say so, on the part of my noble friend. I should not like to follow that.

INSULATION OF NEW HOUSES
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: 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 have yet issued recommendations to local authorities for higher levels of house insulation; and, if not, when they intend to do so.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Government's review of thermal insulation standards for new dwellings is now almost complete. Before the issue of advice to local authorities is considered it will be desirable to consult the local authority associations, and this will be the next step.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which is certainly encouraging. May I ask him whether he appreciates that there is urgency in this matter? Does he realise that if you increase the rent of a house to cover the extra capital value of the insulation, nevertheless there will be a saving in the heating bills which will probably make the overall cost less? Does the noble Lord agree that that is so? If so, on that ground alone it is important that a circular should be put out as soon as possible.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, yes; I can assure the noble Viscount that we do not underrate the importance of this matter. We shall certainly proceed as soon as it is practicable to do so. I can also assure the noble Viscount that we are well aware that any possible increase in costs that might be incurred would be more than offset by lower heating costs.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the amount of heat used in this country per unit of space heated is two and a half times as great as in Scandinavia?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information.

MALTA: PAYMENTS FOR MILITARY FACILITIES
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 what conclusions have been reached on the application of the Government of Malta for an increase in payment for the British base in view of the devaluation of the pound.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, under Article 7 of the Military Facilities Agreement, under which Britain uses defence facilities in Malta, the Government undertook to make payments totalling £14 million sterling in a full year. The British Government have informed the Maltese Government that they are not prepared to alter the payments.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply may I ask this further question? Irrespective of other issues and the exchanges of diplomacy, would it not be fair of this country to make up to Malta what she has lost as a result of the floating of the pound? Have not six NATO countries agreed to advance their contributions? In view of the fact that only £35,000 is at stake, would it not be desirable to get a good feeling upon this issue?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I understand that the Maltese Government have been informed that certain countries would be prepared to make special payments, but I am bound to tell the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that that is of course wholly outside the agreement made between this Government and Malta for the £14 million. Obviously the agreement was in pounds sterling, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it would be impossible for the Government to underwrite the effects of any future changes of parity over any agreement they may make.
LORD BROCKWAY: But, my Lords, is it not the case that there was an exchange of letters putting the different

251
points of view on this matter between the Maltese Government and the British Government before the Agreement was signed, but that, despite that exchange, the agreement made no reference to this subject? And may I ask the noble Earl why there is this secrecy? Is it not a fact that six NATO countries—Italy, the Netherlands, West Germany, Canada, the United States of America, and one I have forgotten—have all agreed to meet the difference between the new rate of sterling and the old rate of sterling? Why should we quarrel over this comparatively small sum?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is perfectly true that some countries have agreed that, as a result of the floating of the pound, they have spent less than they had anticipated spending and they have been prepared, as I understand it, to make up this difference. But I am bound to make the point that this is a totally separate issue from the agreement itself. So far as this country is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is perfectly right: Mr. Mintoff asked for what he called a guarantee against devaluation. He was told that we should not be prepared to agree with this. We informed him in writing before the agreement was made, and he signed the agreement on March 26 fully knowing what the British position was.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not about time to recognise that, although one knows the difficulties that confront the Maltese Government, or Mr. Mintoff himself, financial aid by the United Kingdom to Malta is now just an act of paternalism and has nothing whatever to do with strategy? It has just become a barracks, a very limited barracks, with no strategic value whatever; and that is the opinion of all the accredited military chiefs.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, NATO is concerned with the continuing presence of Britain in Malta. We have our obligations towards NATO and for this reason we are carrying out those obligations.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, while everyone in this House appreciates our indebtedness to Malta who won the
252
George Cross for what she did in the War, and realises the importance of Malta to the NATO defence programme, there is a limit to what Britain can pay, and that limit is reached in the treaty which the Government have signed?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for those remarks, which of course are most welcome. Malta and Britain always have had good ties, and we wish those to continue. I would only re-emphasise that we are carrying out strictly our obligations under the agreement which we believe to be fair and just.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in the possible, but unlikely, event of the up-valuation of sterling presumably the Government would not then reduce their payment to Malta, so Malta cannot have it both ways?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is perfectly correct, and Mr. Mintoff did not ask for that when he asked for the other undertakings.

POSTAL SERVICES AT CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR
3.18 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that over the nine day period—December 24, 1972, to January 1, 1973, both dates inclusive—postal services in some rural areas were no more than four collections and four deliveries and whether they will give an assurance that in future the Post Office will treat either Christmas or New Year's Day as a special holiday, but not both.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I understand that the situation to which my noble friend refers arose from the fact that in parts of Northern England New Year's Day has increasingly come to be regarded as an additional holiday, and in those areas the Post Office has adjusted its services accordingly by withdrawing deliveries and collections from some boxes on that day. I am informed that the Post Office advised local authorities

253
of these arrangements and published them in advance. It is for the Post Office to determine what services are necessary to meet local needs, but I have no doubt that it will take full note of my noble friend's Question.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that that is a very disappointing reply? Without wishing to be charged with starting another contentious debate, may I ask him whether he is aware that this limited service is disappointing for the private individual, and for business purposes it is just not good enough and could be very harmful? A spillover of Scottish holidays into the North of England and of English holidays into the South of Scotland is no reason for the Post Office to show this inefficiency and lack of consideration.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am not optimistic enough ever to hope that any of my answers will satisfy my noble friend; but I would remind him that in this instance it has become a local custom in certain parts of the North to take New Year's Day as well as Boxing Day as a holiday, and that the Post Office was just following the local custom in those areas and did not start the custom.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I ask whether there are not clear signs that this practice is spreading to the South?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this is, of course, a matter for the Post Office. I know of no such plans, but I can assure your Lordships that if there were to be any such plans in the future the Post Office Users' National Council would be informed well in advance.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this failure on the part of the Post Office brought to many of us not only a welcome respite from getting too many letters at that time of year but also an ever more welcome excuse for not answering, the ones we did get?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that this habit is also spreading in from the East, from the Common Market?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why some letters
254
posted about the period in question have not yet been delivered?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, there are a number of reasons for this, and in many cases where letters are not delivered on time it is the fault of the writer and not of the Post Office.
LORD HOY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Post Office ought to be congratulated on facing the circumstances in the North of England, where people always have New Year's Day as a holiday? And could we not get out of all this difficulty by this country's coming into line with all the other countries in Europe and having a national holiday on New Year's Day as well as at Christmas?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, that would certainly help the Post Office out of this particular difficulty, but I do not think it would be an answer satisfactory to my noble friend.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, were Her Majesty's Government consulted before the Post Office decided simply to remove pillar boxes?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that is a little wide of the original Question.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is there not something to be said for everybody having a holiday of twelve days, covering Christmas and the New Year?

IMMIGRATION
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on immigration at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to insurance companies and the carrying on of insurance business, and to validate certain group life policies.

255
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 92.
After Clause 9 insert the following new clause:
Joint Consultation Procedures
".It shall be the duty of each Area Health Authority to endeavour by taking all such steps as are in the circumstances reasonably practicable to promote the establishment and maintenance whether by negotiation or otherwise of such joint consultation procedures as will enable discussion and negotiation from time to time to take place between persons in a managerial position in any hospital or other establishment in the area of the Authority provided for or formng part of the national health service and workers employed in or for the purposes of any such hospital or other establishment, on or with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of workers so employed."
The noble Lord said: I think almost everyone will agree that ultimately the success of the reorganised National Health Service will depend on the good will and co-operation of all those engaged in that Service, and the more the workers feel that their views will be welcomed and given serious consideration the brighter will be the prospects of securing that good will and that essential cooperation. It will encourage the workers to feel that they are not merely cogs in a wheel but partners in a tremendously valuable enterprise.
The section of the White Paper dealing with the staff of the Service, at page 36, said something that I feel is worth bearing in mind in considering this Amendment. I should like to quote briefly from paragraph 145:
"Any large undertaking naturally depends for its success on the loyal and efficient support of its staff and the manner in which they identify themselves with its objectives. This is as true of the National Health Service as of any other organisation."
Then paragraph 146 says:
"The service therefore needs particularly discerning and skilled personnel management at all levels from the centre outwards.…Good staff management demands good manpower information and work is being done on this both in the Department and elsewhere. The managers of the reorganised N.H.S. at all levels will be encouraged to give closer attention to this subject and will have better resources to handle it than their predecessors have had."
We are living at a time when, probably as never before, men and women want to be consulted, and ought to be consulted, about the environment in which they work. The contribution they are able to make to the efficient operation of the establishment in which they are employed can be enhanced to the degree that the importance of their work is seen to be appreciated. Their interest in that work can be increased by the extent to which they are conscious of consideration for them as persons—as individuals. People are entitled to terms and conditions of employment which show regard to the importance of their work and respect for their dignity as human beings. These are the people with whom I am concerned in this Amendment. It is all too easy for management to think that it knows best. The management that knows best is the one that recognises the dignity of the individual worker and the need to keep him aware that his importance, his everyday working experience, his entitlement to consideration are a matter of concern.
There are many matters which fall to be dealt with at national level and I am grateful for the indications that have been given that there will be written into the Bill provision for appropriate consultation with representative staff bodies. I am sure this will give considerable satisfaction and will help in the development of the Service. But such consultations cannot deal with the many differing local circumstances of each hospital or

257
establishment. Some of them will be quite unique, and in any case one anticipates that different establishments will develop in different ways. This means that at local establishment levels there will be problems—challenges; how to get the best response from those engaged as workers in the Service. It is to meet this situation that my noble friends and I have tabled this Amendment.
At local level we seek to bring those engaged in a managerial position in a hospital or other establishment in the area of an A.H.A., together with those workers employed therein, to discuss and negotiate on or with regard to their terms and conditions of employment. So the Amendment lays on each Area Health Authority the duty of securing, so far as is reasonably practicable, joint consultation procedures to this end. I believe the principle underlying the Amendment to be a sound one, and I believe its application would be most helpful. At no point does it seek to denigrate anyone's role but rather to bring dignity into relationships as between management and workers. It is far better to have a known and acknowledged channel of communication through which calm and constructive discussion can take place rather than the frustrations that are too often the alternative. I believe the Bill will be better for having a reference to joint consultative procedures written into it. I beg to move.
LORD GRENFELL: I should perhaps explain the procedure followed at present in the group of hospitals of which I am the chairman. We have a joint consultative committee which consists of the group secretary, or his representative when he is absent, the hospital secretary and two or three members of the hospital management committee. That joint body is called together when required, and from the staff point of view the members nominate or elect shop stewards, as they called, to represent the staff. Discussions take place on all manner of subjects affecting the staff.
I mentioned that two or three members of the hospital management committee were represented on the joint consultative committee. I do not know what will happen when the hospital management
258
committees disappear: who will take the place of their members on such joint committees. I believe that it is of value to keep these committees within the hospital set-up because there is much to be said for having a small group of people able to discuss these problems without having to go to a larger group, at which the problem under discussion may become enlarged and a difficult situation arise. I await the Minister's reply because I am not certain that I fully understand the Amendment, though I am in favour of it. I emphasise, however, that I am particularly in favour of small rather than large Area Health Authorities.
3.32 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): I wish to make it clear at the outset that the Secretary of State wholeheartedly supports the practice of joint consultation with staff at all levels and looks forward to its improvement and further development in the reorganised Health Service. I really mean it when I say on behalf of my right honourable friend that I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, quoted from paragraphs 145 and 146 of the White Paper, because I assure him that in trying to achieve the objectives outlined in those passages there is nothing between the two sides of the House. Where I am afraid I must part company with the noble Lord is my inability to agree that it would be appropriate to legislate to bring about a development of this kind. The noble Lord rightly referred to the wish to-day of people to be consulted, perhaps in a way never evinced previously. From the point of view of the Government, is this not pre-eminently a development to be fostered, in discussion between management and staff within the normal collective bargaining arrangements which exist? The existing Whitley Councils were set up by voluntary agreement between management and staff. Their main constitution provides for securing the greatest possible measure of co-operation between management and staff and for providing machinery for considering terms and conditions of service.
The White Paper proposed that negotiation of terms and conditions of service

259
should continue to be conducted centrally. We expect the existing arrangements for collective bargaining to continue into the new Service, with such necessary changes as the two sides may agree to make. I understand that an amended agreement on joint consultation is currently under discussion in the General Whitley Council. The Government think that arrangements for local joint consultation and for any decentralisation of negotiations on terms and conditions of service—if, in the end, that is what is agreed—can best be determined by agreement in the national negotiating machinery.
I think I am right in saying that the General Whitley Council has an agreement, which is about 20 years old, saying that there shall be consultative machinery locally. I think I am also right in saying that joint consultative machinery locally has not perhaps always worked quite so well as it has done in my noble friend Lord Grenfell's group of hospitals. The noble Lord asked whether the consultative machinery would be as local as it had been before, and I would answer that question with two points. First, this is something which is being worked out in the General Whitley Council. This means that my right honourable friend's Department is a party to these talks; and I should like to draw the words of my noble friend to the attention of my right honourable friend. Secondly, an Amendment of this sort could be interpreted as being an interference with what is going on in the Whitley Council at the moment. In moving the Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, pointed out that a willingness to discuss staff was the hallmark of good management and that there were obviously local differences between situations in different localities of the country. I understand that discussions are in progress between the management and staff sides of the General Whitley Council, and I think we should await the outcome of those. However, we can be optimistic because I am able to say this afternoon that I understand that there is already agreement in principle between the two sides about local joint consultation.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I
260
suggest that he has raised obstacles that do not amount to very much. Noble Lords will have appreciated the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I want to make it clear that my Amendment is intended to deal with the situation at local level in just the way the noble Lord mentioned, and I thought that his remarks gave powerful support to the principle underlying the Amendment. I gathered from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about the consultations that are going on that it is anticipated they will produce a satisfactory result so that in his view we should await the outcome of them. I remind the Minister, however, that we are dealing with this Bill at this time.
Furthermore, I cannot see anything particularly controversial about my proposal. Certainly the noble Lord gave no indication that in his view there is anything undesirable in what the Amendment seeks to do in bringing about these joint consultative procedures at local level. I am aware that the White Paper states that pay and conditions of service are matters to be dealt with at national level. I thought I made it clear in my remarks that I believed that to be the right procedure. However, I endeavoured to draw attention to the fact that at the various local levels differences will be inevitable and that some establishments will be unique.
In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, considers that this is not a field in which we should legislate, I draw attention to the moderate approach of the Amendment, which says:
"It shall be the duty of each Area Health Authority to endeavour by taking all such steps as are in the circumstances reasonably practicable…"
I should have thought that that was a sensible and helpful way to approach the matter. I cannot see that that is compulsive legislation, as it were, which is going to create impossible difficulties. To have this provisison included in the Bill would help eventually to make it a better Act. Management can sometimes run away with the notion that it knows best and that it does not need to consult. Management can sometimes feel that it is much too busy to be concerned with the views or the experience of the humblest members of its staffs. In the long term, acceptance of the principle of this Amendment

261
and the writing of it into the Bill would help to secure a more effective National Health Service.
While I accept the idea behind what the Minister said, he has given no indication that he or his right honourable friend will give further thought to the matter. I should be happy if the Minister would give an undertaking that there will be another look at this matter and that if his right honourable friend is persuaded that the principle is right and sound, and that it would be of advantage to have it written into the Bill, the Government themselves will come back with an Amendment at a later stage. I feel that the Minister ought to give the Committee rather more assurance than has been given up to the present time that further and deeper consideration will be given to the point.
LORD BELSTEAD: There are two quick points in reply. The noble Lord said that I did not criticise the Amendment on any specific grounds. I submit to the Committee that perhaps it is a contradiction in terms to lay a duty for joint consultations on only one side. I simply put that to your Lordships. It strikes me as being a contradiction. I am a little surprised that the Amendment refers to "joint consultative procedures" and then goes on to talk about the very thing that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said he is not talking about, namely, negotiations on terms and conditions of employment. That is a very real stumbling block when we are talking about a situation where the General Whitley Council has this matter under review. The noble Lord has asked me whether we will take this Amendment away and have a look at it. I am only too ready to accede to the request made by the noble Lord if he would be so good as to bear in mind the two specific things I have just said and also the point, which I might repeat before I sit down, that the people concerned, the management and the staff sides of the General Whitley Council, have this matter currently under discussion. I know that a measure of agreement has already been reached, and what we ought to do is to await the outcome. But certainly I will take it away, and this does mean, as the noble Lord knows, that I shall get in touch with him before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said. On the one or two points that he raised, may I say that I doubt whether I shall ever produce an Amendment that is not faulty in some respect. The important thing here is the principle, and I believe I have made it quite clear that the Amendment is intended to deal with conditions of employment that do not lend themselves to being dealt with at national level. I can only hope that the outcome of the discussions to which he has referred will be made known before the Bill become an Act, but that would seem to me to be all the more reason for ensuring that there is something in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 93:
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 (hereafter in this section called "patients") and to decide in respect of each patient on whom it is proposed to conduct such an experiment whether or not to sanction the experiment.
(3) No medical experiment shall be conducted on any patient unless the experiment has been sanctioned in respect of that patient by the Ethical Committee of the institution and the patient has consented thereto.
(4) 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: This Amendment in the name of myself and that of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has to deal with medical experiments and ethical committees in institutions under the National Health Service. The mention of the phrase, "medical experiments" is apt immediately to call up horrific visions of Doctor Hyde or Frankenstein, and thereafter equally furious reactions on the part

263
of those who are involved in the Health Service, who rightly resent any aspersions being made in this field. Obviously, it is not my intention to raise this matter in that way, because it is clear that two major threads are running through the whole of our debate on this Bill: one is that of the very high standard of our Health Service and the immensely high standards of the people who have to work within it; and the other one is to do with the safeguards which the patient, the customer, ought to have, not necessarily because in experience he or she needs them but because people who are ill, who are subject to worries and problems and who are at a low ebb should have every reassurance and safeguard that they can possibly be given.
This question of what experiments should be allowed—and "experiments" covers a very wide range, including a great many occasions when experiments are perfectly justified and perfectly harmless—is in fact, in the great majority of hospitals in the National Health Service, subject already to the decisions of an ethical committee. This is the practice, and it is an extremely good practice; but the fact that it is a practice does not mean that a reply to this Amendment is that such committees are not needed. Such committees have been set up voluntarily by hospitals and by medical personnel because it was obvious that an institution of this kind was a safeguard, not only to the patients but also to the doctors, and was needed. The main object of this Amendment is to say that where such a practice has been adopted by the medical profession and by hospitals, it is surely justified and a good thing that it should be put into legislation of this kind at this moment, so that there should be regularity of practice throughout the National Health Service and so that the customer, the patient, should know exactly where he stands and how his interests are safeguarded. That is the main object of this Amendment.
The only other point which arises under it is the requirement that one quarter of the members of every ethical committee should be lay people. I do not know whether the drafting of this subsection (4) is the best that could be achieved. It was the best that my advisers could devise and I shall be quite happy to
264
accept any corrections to it. But the idea is that one-quarter of every Ethical Committee should be lay people. That is not the practice at the moment, and this is the only real innovation in this Amendment. I hope it will be granted that in any situation like this there is a case for having representation of those people who are not professionally involved in the situation. If they are all professionally involved—and, rightly, an ethical committee comprises people who work in a hospital—possibly there will not be the kind of complete trust and reassurance which would be given if there were some kind of outside representation. There is in fact no question which comes up before an ethical committee for decision which intelligent and educated laymen cannot perfectly well understand. It seems to me that this is a mild but reassuring Amendment to write into the Bill. It is closely connected in some ways with the other Amendment I put forward about privacy. Both are Amendments devised to reinforce present practice and embody it in the law, rather than to make major changes. The noble Lord was, I am happy to say, able to meet me quite a way on my last Amendment, and I hope he will be able to meet me on this. I beg to move.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and myself. I must first declare an interest, as I am president of a voluntary body called AEGIS which seeks to give aid to the elderly in Government institutions. I have little to add to the very strong case that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has put up. I think it is necessary to increase the formal protection given to patients. I do not deny the need to experiment if progress in medical research is to be maintained, but I would submit that in all cases this should be with the permission of the patients or someone acting for them. In the case of some patients, particularly children and the elderly and the infirm, the protection of an independent committee of this kind to sanction experiments is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made clear that this would be quite a different sort of committee from the ones that operate in some hospitals. This would be an important added safeguard.

265
There was a demand made in the other place for an inquiry into certain allegations of medical experiments. This demand was turned down at the end of 1971; the Government spokesman said that there was absolutely no evidence for that. I do not know whether these allegations can be substantiated. I very much hope they cannot be. All I know is that the doctor making them, who seems to be a responsible person, wrote a letter to the Press shortly after the Government had taken this attitude in the other place, citing the evidence he had given in a book he had written and published entitled Human Guineapigs. This alleged that there had been about 80 objectionable experiments carried out in British hospitals, involving over 2,000 patients. He alleged that in some cases the patients used were delirious, psychotic or comatose, and included many aged over 70, some dying from malignant diseases. He asserts that none of them could possibly have given legally valid consent. Whether or not this can be substantiated I do not know, but certainly the situation is deeply disturbing. In order to avoid this kind of situation arising, we need the additional safeguards which are proposed in this Amendment, and I hope it will commend itself to your Lordships.
3.51 p.m.
LORD PLATT: It is quite clear from the terms in which this Amendment has been introduced that those who are proposing it are fully aware of the necessity for medical experiment. Every operation has been performed for a first time. But the difficulties are really these: the usual difficulty of drawing any kind of line you can define, and, above all, the difficulty of defining what is an experiment. To take the simplest example, if I am taking a blood sample and having it examined for the patient's benefit, and I decide at the same time to study certain aspects of it which may give me further information on the physiology of some body functions, that is in a way an experiment. But, of course, it does no possible harm to anybody. If I decide to use a new remedy for, shall we say, high blood pressure, which has been tried out by the pharmaceutical firms with their usual care in animal experiments and has been tried out on human volunteers, do I have to alarm the patient by telling him that this is a new remedy?
266
It may only mean a slight modification in what we have been doing for years. Or do I have to come before the Ethical Committee? Probably not. But supposing I am a scientifically minded doctor, and instead of just trying it out on individual patients I say: "Now, in my hospital, or in my department, I am going to take patients at random; some of them will have the new drug and others will have the old; then we shall really know the answer whether one is better than the other and will be able to make a decision". That, unquestionably, is an experiment, but it seems to me much more rational behaviour than just giving the remedy to some people to see whether they like it or not. I do not think I am exaggerating the difficulties of defining what an experiment is.
Then we come to experiments which have nothing to do with treatment at all but have to do with investigation; and scientific investigation has, of course, reached a stage, unquestionably, when some of it can be a little dangerous. The question is how much is experimental and how much can be legitimately said to be for the benefit of the patient, because it may find out something more about his illness which can be dealt with perhaps by surgery or some other means. So that is another form of experiment. I think that what is in the minds of the proposers of this Amendment—and I share their misgivings about some of the things that have happened—is the kind of experiment which is particularly complicated and requires a lot of co-operation on the part of the patient, has possible dangers, and is not really devised so much for the benefit of the individual patient but rather for the benefit of medical knowledge as a whole, so that perhaps some future patients might benefit from better understanding of the disease. There I think we sometimes come on to very controversial ground. I know that experiments have been done in hospitals which I would not have done, but which have turned out to be completely justified by experience, which have now made certain operations safe which in former years, not so very long ago, would have been extremely dangerous.
I have so far really touched only on the great difficulties. The subject has been considered at great length on many occasions by the Medical Research Council

267
cil and by the Royal Colleges, and both the Colleges and the M.R.C. have drawn up codes of practice and guidelines. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, in most hospitals where there are active investigating departments there is now an ethical committee. I should not myself raise any objection to there being written into this Bill some recommendation that there should be an ethical committee, whose business it would be to meet from time to time and consider any major investigation which was brought to their notice. I very much doubt whether you can go further than that.
As to lay people being on such a committee, I should certainly have no objection. Whether that should be laid down or not I do not know. It would be possible, I imagine, to suggest that normally such a committee should have laymen upon it. No doubt the noble Lord who will reply will tell us what are the views of his Department on this subject, and whether instead of being done by legislation this might be done by further directives being sent out from the Department on the whole question of ethical committees and human experiment.
LORD ABERDARE: In order that the House may resume to hear the Statement that my noble friend the Leader of the House is going to make, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

IMMIGRATION POLICY: RULES REVISION
4.0 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I should now like to repeat a Statement on immigration policy that is being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Control over the rate of Commonwealth immigration was first introduced in 1962 and has since been strengthened by successive Governments because it has been generally recognised that there is a limit to the
268
rate at which any nation can absorb new immigrants without endangering good community relations. The Government is convinced that at a time when our housing and educational resources and the social services generally are under severe strain this policy must not only be continued but further strengthened.
"Britain has a responsibility towards those residents of Commonwealth countries who, following independence, retained their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and therefore their right to United Kingdom passports. With this in mind, it is all the more important to reduce the immigration of citizens of other countries—both Commonwealth and non-Cornmonwealth—to the inescapable minimum.
"The instrument for controlling the immigration of both Commonwealth and foreign nationals is now the 1971 Immigration Act which came into full operation on January 1. The Government wishes to make clear, in particular to employers in this country, that work permits under the 1971 Act will be issued very sparingly indeed and that this stringency will apply to Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries alike.
"Following the recent debates in the House and in another place, I am today publishing revised Immigration Rules—one set for E.E.C. and other non-Commonwealth nationals and a second separate set for all Commonwealth citizens. These amended rules reflect the Government's determination to ensure strict control of immigration: but so far as is consistent with this, I have attempted to meet the clearly expressed wish to give the freest possible access to Commonwealth citizens with close family ties with this country. There are four points to which I want briefly to draw attention:
"First, Commonwealth citizens with a grandparent born here will not have to obtain a work permit or be subject once here to any form of supervision; but will be granted entry clearance which will enable them to come to work and settle here for as long as they like. Since they will not be patrials with an unrestricted right of abode as

269
defined in the Act they will, of course, remain liable to deportation as well as requiring the initial entry clearance to which I have referred.
"Secondly—and because of what I have just said—Commonwealth citizens who marry women resident here or with a right to reside here will themselves be admitted for settlement provided they have a grandparent born here.
"Thirdly, the maximum period of stay of young Commonwealth citizens coming here for a working holiday will be extended from three to five years and the new rule emphasises that the period for which they are initially admitted will normally be 12 months.
"Fourthly—and more generally—I am making a number of changes relating to visitors, dependants, family deportation and appeal arrangements, which take as much account as possible of the views expressed in the recent debates. One example is that for all visitors the minimum initial period will ordinarily be six months and a longer period is readily to be granted.
"The arrangements I have just outlined apply to substantial numbers of people in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, but in practice those wishing to come here for permanent settlement from these countries are likely to be few. I intend in any case to keep the working of these rules under the closest possible scrutiny and to make timely changes if these prove desirable.
"I turn now to the question of United Kingdom passport holders. When Asians resident in Uganda were summarily expelled last year, the Government immediately accepted its obligations to our passport holders who had nowhere else to go and the people of this country responded with characteristic generosity to the plight of the refugees. But the mass expulsion from Uganda and the necessity to cope with it has regrettably created a new situation. The Government considers that to have a similar burden thrust on us again would impose unacceptable strains and stresses in our society and not least would endanger our ability to cary out our duty to those immigrants already resident here.
"The Government therefore thinks it right at this time, when we have just swiftly and honourably accepted the Ugandan Asian refugees and when there is no threat to United Kingdom passport holders elsewhere, to make it clear that while we shall continue to accept our responsibility to United Kingdom passport holders by admitting them in a controlled and orderly manner through the special voucher scheme, this is as much as it is reasonable and realistic for us to do if good community relations are to be maintained in Britain.
"I make this statement now so that the Governments and individual people concerned may be aware of the exact nature of Her Majesty's Government's policy in this matter.
"Our first responsibility as a Government is for the well-being of all the people in this country. No one should be in any doubt about our determination to discharge that duty through effective control over entry from overseas; through orderly arrangements for those whom we admit; and through the pursuit of positive policies to maintain and improve good community relations."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for having repeated the Statement to us. It is a fairly long and detailed Statement, and presumably we shall have a further opportunity to debate it when the rules are formally laid before us. We on this side of the House, entirely agree that it is necessary to control immigration into this country, although I must say, recalling how much we have owed during our long history to immigrants from various sources, that it seems to me that the phrase used in the Statement, "inescapable minimum", might have been expressed a little more generously.
May I turn to the four particular points stressed in the Statement? It is of course remarkable that although Parliament quite deliberately excluded grandparents from the substantive Act, they are now to be brought in under the rules. One can see the reasons why

271
the Government thought that this would be their best way out of the dilemma in which they were placed. It is true that the person dependent upon his grandparents for his right of entry here remains liable to deportation and therefore must be of good behaviour unless, under the second point, he chooses to marry a woman here, when the right of deportation, as I understand it, lapses, and he can behave as he pleases. I think that we should have been happier had the right of the Commonwealth citizen who marries a resident here with a right to reside here been absolute, without the necessity to produce a grandparent.
On the third point, the question of the working holiday for young Commonwealth citizens, we are entirely in favour of extending hospitality to young Commonwealth citizens but it would be helpful if we could be told a little more as to just what is expected of them in this five years. As I understand it, they are allowed to take employment which is incidental to a holiday. Five years is a fairly long holiday.
As to the other points of detail, we shall wish to study them when we have had an opportunity of looking a little more closely at these extremely detailed rules. I must express my own sense of disappointment that the disparity between the provisions for the families of E.E.C. citizens and those from the Commonwealth has not been in any way altered: citizens from the E.E.C., who can come here, as we all know, without let or hindrance, can also bring their families on a very much more generous scale than will be possible for a Commonwealth citizen. I must admit that I had rather hoped that in their revision of the rules the Government might have altered those conditions in favour of Commonwealth citizens.
Finally, the very important passage at the end of the Statement concerning United Kingdom passport holders is one with which I think we have general sympathy. I am sure it is wise for the Government to make it clear that we regard the mass expulsion from Uganda as being a most deplorable act, one that we trust will never occur in any other part of the Commonwealth. We are therefore giving clear warning that we
272
wish to maintain, as the Statement says,
"in a controlled and orderly manner through the special voucher scheme"
the arrangements for United Kingdom passport holders. In saying that, one must recognise that situations can arise when it is difficult to conduct affairs in a controlled and orderly manner; but we certainly all hope that the warning, quite rightly given in this Statement, will be observed by those whom it concerns. At this point I do not think I can usefully make any further comments or put any further questions on the rules. We have four documents containing them which we shall have to study in detail.
4.11 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I should like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. It is a lengthy Statement which will have to be studied carefully, as will the rules to which it refers. However, I have one or two questions. I understood the noble Earl to say that work permits under the 1971 Act will be issued very sparingly indeed, and that this stringency will apply to Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries alike. May I ask whether the expression "non-Commonwealth countries" covers citizens of member countries of the E.E.C.? This terminology may be important. There is to be one set of rules for E.E.C. and other non-Commonwealth nationals, and I hope we may read from that that people from the Commonwealth will not be at a disadvantage as compared with those from the E.E.C. It is not quite clear from my reading of the Statement.
Secondly, I welcome the small step towards removing the discrimination between men and women which we discussed on the Immigration Bill. As I understand it, Commonwealth citizens who marry women resident here, or with a right to reside here, will have a right of entry, subject of course to the proviso which was referred to. But, following that, I hope that relief will be granted to that other category, that other problem, of the split families, who are not mentioned in the Statement. At this stage, I merely say that I hope that in that case humanitarian considerations will soon prevail. On the subject of work permits, the noble Earl will remember that we had a great deal of discussion on the

273
Immigration Bill as to whether it is right that those who came here with a work permit should be tied to one particular employer. Will that position be altered by these new rules, and will it apply to those coming for a working holiday? It would be unfortunate if someone coming for a working holiday of up to five years were to be tied to a particular employer.
I do not think one can deal by question and answer with matters of really great principle. The special voucher scheme will, I hope, be discussed more fully in debate. I merely note what the noble Earl has said. I am anxious to see the links between this country and the Commonwealth maintained, but I am not happy about the grandfather test. It could so easily mean that there would be one rule for, say, Australians and Canadians, and another for West Indians, and that is coming very near to a colour test. But, subject to that proviso, I welcome what the noble Earl has said.
4.14 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for the reception which they have given to the Statement which I have repeated. I should like, first—and I hope I shall not be thought to be dealing summarily with their comments—to say that I very much hope that in an area as complicated as this, and with the emotional overtones that it has, we can avoid too much detail at this stage. In one way or another, I should be happy through the usual channels to ensure, when we have all had time to digest both the Statement and the two sets of rules now before Parliament, that either on the discussion of those rules or on a separate occasion, or both, as the case may be, we can explore this subject further. I think that on this particular issue that would be the wisest course. With that said, and with that assurance of the possibility of further exploration of this whole area, may I turn to some of the points which have been made to me?
I think that the question of the grandparents is something which we could explore further when we look at the rules. But what I can say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is that this is something which applies both to the old and to the new Commonwealth, although numerically, of course, it would be disingenuous
274
to say other than that quantity-wise this rule is likely to apply much more to the old Commonwealth. So far as the conditions of working holidays are concerned, which point was put to me by the noble Baroness and was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, be it five years or be it three years the conditions for both cases will remain unchanged. I am not absolutely clear here, I must say, on the question of the single employer, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will allow us to look at that point further when we debate the rules.
As regards disparate treatment for E.E.C. and Commonwealth dependants, all I should like to say is that we have made changes here favourable to the Commonwealth so far as the treatment of dependent grandparents is concerned. On the very important question of United Kingdom passport holders, I can only echo what the noble Baroness has said. We have discussed this matter on many occasions in the past and I hope that I have made my position, and the Government's position, clear: that we consider the expulsions from Uganda totally deplorable and that it is a situation which I very much hope we shall not see repeated. I think it has been right for the Government—and I am glad to see that the noble Baroness appears to concur here—to make our general position clear at this stage, in a period of calm. I should like to take this opportunity of assuring your Lordships that there is no sign whatsoever at present of a possibility of a recurrence of the situation that we have had to face, which I think was faced honourably. On that I would not wish to be drawn any further at the present time. The question of split families is also one which we might explore further. All I should like to say is that I recognise that there are very deep humanitarian interests involved here, which we have very much in mind.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate that this matter must be discussed in a debate, especially by those of us who have not been able to read the Statement, though we have listened very carefully to what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said. But may I ask him three questions? The first is in relation to grandparents. If I remember rightly, a proposal about them was turned down by Parliament when

275
the matter was previously discussed. Is this not really a case where there will be racial discrimination? Is not the number of those who are non-white and whose grandparents were born in this country insignificant compared with the number of those who are white? My second question is in relation to husbands who wish to join their wives here. My mind was alerted with hope as the noble Earl began his announcement on this matter, but when he went on to say that husbands would be permitted here only if their grandparents had been born in this country, then I recognised that this acceptance of principle would mean very little indeed in practice. My Lords, out of the 300 husbands who are now isolated in Europe and are unable to joint their wives here—and I say this with some knowledge—I doubt whether there will be five who will have had their grandparents born in this territory. It means that this inhuman treatment by way of splitting families will continue. It also means that we are adopting a 19th century view regarding husbands and wives, in which the wife is regarded as the possession of the husband.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? I understood that this was a Statement and that the noble Lord was putting questions following it. I also understand that we are going to have a debate on the Statement in due course. Although I have great sympathy with many of the points which the noble Lord has put, surely it is not right that Ministers should be subject to lengthy remarks after they have made an official Statement, and that the proper procedure is to ask questions.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am very sorry. First, I had understood, as a matter of fact, that Back-Benchers were allowed to make remarks on a Statement just as Front-Benchers are, but if that is not true—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, perhaps I should intervene as a matter of order has been raised. I must say that I very much sympathise with the general tenor of what my noble friend has said. It is true that we have somewhat relaxed our rules, and it is not strictly obligatory upon a Back-Bencher to couch his supplementary
276
remarks on a Statement in the form of a question. But I think it is accepted that any remarks that are made following a Statement of this kind, especially in the particular circumstances, should be as brief as possible.
LORD BROCKWAY: I accept that, my Lords, and I try to maintain the courtesies of this House. It is because of that that I was trying to put my points in the form of questions. My last question is this: before the debate on these proposals occurs, will Her Majesty's Government consider the proposal which I have made for months, that there should be a conference between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Kenya, Tanzania, India and South-East Asia, where there are large numbers of non-whites with British passports? It would be impossible, I agree, to receive them en masse; but is it not desirable that before any emergency occurs there should be a conference with those Governments to try to reach an agreement?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I should like to put one question. I tried to follow the Statement he made but I was a little confused, or perhaps I misunderstood his reply in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on one specific point; namely, whether Commonwealth citizens—that is, citizens from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on—will be at a disadvantage as compared with citizens from the E.E.C. It seemed to me that the reply by the noble Earl the Leader of the House was not altogether explicit. Perhaps he would clarify it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think it would be right and proper, especially in view of the feeling of the House on this matter, to be fairly brief in my replies. So far as concerns what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said about grandparents, this is again a matter, like the question of the links between husbands and wives, which I believe we should better explore, in whatever depth we wish, when we come to discuss the rules. But what I should tell your Lordships is that what the Government have now embodied in the rules, which are before Parliament at the present time, was in response to a very strongly expressed view in the country as a whole and in Parliament. It is a recog-

277
nition that something should be done where there are close family ties between those who happen to be in a Commonwealth country and others here. The attitude which was taken on another issue was in another context; and I myself believe that this is something which should be looked at both on its merits and bearing in mind the expressions of public opinion which have been made on this, which have been very strong. Again, I would assure the noble Lord that this is a rule which, if it is accepted, will apply to the new Commonwealth as it applies to the old Commonwealth.
So far as the question of a conference is concerned, I was glad to hear the noble Lord preface his remarks here by saying that this is a point of view which he has put before your Lordships on more than one occasion. I remember a great many occasions. I rather doubt whether a formal conference is the right approach here, but what I would say to the noble Lord is that there has been close consultation on these issues with a large number of Commonwealth countries, and we propose to continue such consultation. But the noble Lord's point is taken.
So far as the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is concerned, I know that he was asking it from the point of view of greater elucidation and from an attitude of perfect neutrality so far as the Common Market is concerned. On the particular point he made, the fact is that in certain respects under these rules citizens of the Commonwealth will be getting better treatment and in certain respects not so good treatment as citizens of the European Economic Community. Here again, this is perhaps a matter which we can go into later, but broadly speaking that is the position.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House two questions of fact? When does he foresee that we shall have the opportunity to debate the rules which are to come? That is the first question. The second concerns the particular problem
278
of the split families—and I am speaking now of the people who have been thrown out of Uganda and where the head of the family is in one of the centres in Europe and the family is here. As the noble Earl may know, various representations have been made to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary by many of us who are interested in this subject, and we were given an assurance that the representations that we made would be given full consideration. Can the noble Earl tell us whether the Home Secretary has yet made any decision upon that particular problem?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I say that this is a matter which very deeply concerns us? We are fully aware that the Government are to have consultations with the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees in the near future, and therefore perhaps one ought not to expect any definitive reply this afternoon; but I would ask the noble Earl to be in no doubt whatever that this is a matter on which there is very strong feeling indeed.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, perhaps I may take the second point first. I think I have already recognised that we appreciate there is very strong feeling on a very difficult issue here. It is an issue which has a very clear humanitarian side, and it is also one of great practical difficulty and one which has considerable international implications. I can assure the noble Baroness that there have already been consultations with the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees. To give a direct reply to the direct question of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, the Home Secretary has not yet made a decision on this particular point. So far as concerns when your Lordships will debate this question, the rules lie for 40 days. This is, of course, a matter for the usual channels, but I think it is the intention, as I understand it, that we should debate these rules towards the end of next month; but I shall keep the noble Lord informed about this.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 93.
LORD BROCK: I wish to speak against this Amendment, which seeks legislation to make the formation of ethical committees a statutory obligation. I am all in sympathy with the formation of ethical committees. Most hospitals already have one; in fact, the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health has recently informed the Joint Consultants' Committee and the Royal College of Physicians that all teaching hospital authorities and more than three-quarters of the other hospitals where clinical research is undertaken either have experienced ethical committees or use another committee to discharge this function.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, also mentioned the recommendations put forward by the Royal Colleges and the Medical Research Council that such committees be generally used. Already these committees serve a very useful purpose, if used correctly, and all relevant matters must be referred to them. Nevertheless, the provisison of these ethical committees is not a suitable subject for legislation. We should leave things as they are and trust to the good sense and responsibility of the doctors and of the ethical committees which they have already formed: we should not try to dragoon them. It is just not necessary to make this a statutory obligation. If any direction or guidance is thought necessary, it can be done by some simpler means, as the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Platt, has already suggested.
LORD VIVIAN: The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in speaking to Amendment No. 93, which stands jointly in his name, mentioned the book, Human Guinea Pigs, by Maurice Pappworth, who is known to me. There was a great deal which was true in this book with regard to experimental operations which have been carried out in hospitals in the past. This book was not a popular one with the medical profession, and I submit that any allegation such as Mr. Pappworth made in this book could be controlled if this Amendment were accepted by my noble friend the Minister. I know that the noble
280
Lord, Lord Brock, and also the noble Lord, Lord Platt, will not agree with me on this point; nevertheless I stand firm on it. So, before the Minister replies, I would ask him to look very favourably on this Amendment. I can see very great advantage to the patient if the Amendment is accepted, and I need not remind the Committee that it is the benefit of the patient with which, in this Bill, we should be primarily concerned.
4.34 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that I had gone some way at least to satisfy him on his previous Amendment about privacy. But I must apologise to him for having addressed my letter of reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and not to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, with the result that it took longer to reach him than I had intended. So far as this new clause is concerned, there is no doubt that the general underlying intention behind it is acceptable to us. It conforms with our views and with those of the profession. But I must say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brock, has just said: that a matter of this sort, where the details are constantly changing, is one that is not best dealt with by legislation. I am sure there is general agreement on the basic need to protect the patient and also, I should have thought, agreement on the need to protect clinical freedom and the advance of medical knowledge. These are not irreconcilable; but any law, any precise definition would be soon outdated. What I think is needed is an understood procedure and a constant adaptation to changing circumstances. This is what we are seeking to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, referred to the Medical Research Council's statement in its annual report for 1963 on responsibility in investigations on human subjects. It draws a distinction, in the same way as did the noble Lord himself, between patient care procedure, which is governed by the normal rules of professional conduct, and the procedure intended to advance knowledge. It emphasised the heavy moral onus on the profession, severally and collectively, not to abuse the trust of the patients. It laid down circumstances in which the fully valid consent of the patient must be

281
obtained, and recommended that other experienced colleagues should be consulted where appropriate. It also stated that a detailed code of rules was impossible to draft. This advice was passed to all hospital authorities in September, 1964.
Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, also said, the Royal College of Physicians (of which at the time Sir Max Rosen-helm, later Lord Rosenheim, was Chairman) published its reply in July, 1967. It agreed with the previous report of the Medical Research Council but went on to recommend that even the most experienced should seek advice when difficult ethical problems arose. But a hospital authority or medical school—which, incidentally, is not covered by the noble Lord's Amendment—is responsible for ensuring that clinical investigations are ethically and skilfully conducted. All projects should be approved by a group of doctors, including those experienced in clinical investigation. Clinical investigation in normal medical institutions should be similarly controlled by a group including at least one doctor; and tests on healthy volunteers such as medical students should similarly be supervised. This report we sent to the hospital authorities in 1968 and asked them to put it into effect. At the same time, the Chief Medical Officer wrote personally to all consultants.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brock, rightly said, last year we conducted a follow-up exercise, and this showed that all hospital authorities where clinical research is undertaken had ethical committees, about one-fifth of which included lay members. But they were still finding difficulties of interpretation. My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in another place has undertaken that the possibilities of further guidance will be considered, and at the moment this possibility is under discussion between the Department, the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Physicians. There are some pretty difficult matters of interpretation and wording in the noble Lord's clause which I will not detail to him now, because I am sure he would not wish me to do so; but they emphasise the real difficulties of putting this sort of matter into legislation.
I should like to make just one comment on the book referred to by the noble
282
Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and by my noble friend Lord Vivian. I understand that the cases cited in this book were collected over a long period and from a number of countries other than the United Kingdom. Although in the past unethical experiments may have been carried out, I am sure that under present arrangements the opportunity for further similar unethical procedures is negligible. There is much more awareness now of these ethical problems, and I think that the guidance that has already been given, and any further guidance that may emerge as a result of our present consultations, should make this danger absolutely minimal. I hope that, with these assurances, the noble Lord will feel that we are in full agreement with what he is trying to achieve, but we think it would be better to leave it to the guidance which will result from the conversations we are having with the profession. May I add that these conversations will, of course, include the question of lay representation on the committee, a subject on which he laid great stress.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his reply. I am grateful for the news that there is to be consideration of further guidance and that the conversations will include the question of lay representation. I am particularly heartened by that because I felt that lay representation might be neglected. I am very sensible of the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, about the difficulty of drafting these rules and of dealing with what is an experiment and possibly going through a cumbrous process for even the most minor departure in treatment. I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for not underlining that with further possible examples of how my Amendment was deficient. Nevertheless, I am not entirely satisfied with the reply that we have had.
I would reject the arguments, if we may so call them, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brock. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, explained in detail why he felt that these proposals could not be embodied in legislation. All that the noble Lord, Lord Brock, said was just a statement that it was not a fit subject for legislation and that it was better to leave things as they are and to leave it to the good sense of the medical profession. I

283
entirely agree about the good sense of the medical profession; I believe in it just as I believe in the good sense of many other professions. But I think that at times there is a necessity to write safeguards into legislation. If we come back to this matter at another stage, as possibly we shall, I shall invite the noble Lord, Lord Brock, to spell out in rather more detail the reasons for his statement, rather than that he should state that these proposals are not a fit subject for legislation.
As I look at the Amendment I am tempted to come back to it at another stage, having removed subsection (2) (which is the one laying down that the ethical committee must consider all experiments) because of the difficulty of defining experiments—the point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Platt—and also subsection (3). I must say that I am one who is a strong fighter for the patient. I believe in telling the patient as much as possible. I see no reason why a patient should not be told about every bit of his treatment and his agreement obtained for the treatment. I see that subsections (2) and (3) may well be defective, but I do not see why we cannot say in legislation that we should have ethical committees in every institution, seeing that we have so many of them already and that, by general consent, they do a very good job of work. In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment—and in this I hope I have the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—I must say that I may bring it back at another stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Co-operation between Health Authorities and local authorities]:
4.43 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 11, line 23, after ("another") insert ("and with adjacent Health Authorities in Scotland")
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the Amendment standing in my name, and, if the Committee agrees, I think it would be simpler and would save a little time if with this Amendment we considered Amendment 97A, which is really consequential. I think it appropriate
284
that this Amendment should be debated so soon after the Ministerial statement. The last words of the Leader of the House were, "good community relations", and it is in that spirit that I have put down this Amendment. I should like to see us, when considering this Bill, fill a gap in the provisions for co-operation which badly needs filling. I am not going to repeat the general arguments referred to in the debates two days ago. I described them in some detail during the discussions on the Scottish Bill, when similar Amendments were raised on, I think, grounds which were more nationalist than in the interests of health or the merits of the Amendments. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will treat these Amendments on their true merits.
When we were considering the Bill two days ago the noble Lord spoke of existing liaison across the Border. As I have rather special opportunities to check the extent of such liaison I attempted to do so in the intervening 48 hours. The best information I can gather is that while there is some liaison on the hospital front there is almost none on the social services front, which is very important. If the noble Lord has information different from mine I hope that he will let the Committee have the details. In any event, I think it disturbing that we do not have provision for co-operation extended across the Border; the more so thanks to an Amendment to this Bill recently passed in your Lordships' House when treatment and appliances in the field of family planning were made more easy to obtain in England than they are at present in Scotland, under the terms of the Act.
Up to quite recently there was a stream of folk moving northwards to Scotland—not just from England but from Germany, Holland and other countries on the Continent—because they believed that it was easier to get married there. Now we shall see this process reversed. We shall see a stream of folk coming South—and Carlisle will be the place to which they will come in the main—in order to avoid some of the consequences of marriage. Surely I have given sufficient grounds for showing that the extension of the provisions for co-operation is relevant, and I hope that in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, even if he does not like

285
these words (drafting an Amendment is not easy for a Back-Bencher when consequential Amendments are involved) will agree that there is a real point here. If he does not like these words perhaps he will come back on Report with better ones.
LORD ABERDARE: I have listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Inglewood and I remember listening to him when we were debating the Scottish Bill and he was speaking on the same point. Indeed we are most anxious to foster good community relations over the Border, but I have no evidence that there are not good relations at the moment. The sort of co-operation we expect between neighbouring health authorities is a matter of sensible administration. If there were a difficulty it would be possible under the Bill for the Secretaries of State, in the last resort, to use their powers of direction, but I do not think there is any reason to suppose that this would be necessary.
The co-operation that exists across the Border at present seems to us to be perfectly satisfactory, without statutory provision, and nothing in the Bill upsets the present arrangements. Certainly the reshaping of administrative boundaries need not interfere with local clinical relationships. As things are, people from Cumberland and Northumberland receive inpatient treatment in Scottish hospitals, and, similarly, patients from the Scottish side of the Border go to hospitals in Carlisle and Newcastle. There is also a coordinating committee covering the relevant area of the Newcastle hospital region and Dumfries. The senior administrative medical officers of the Western Regional Hospital Board in Scotland and of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board in England attend the meetings of this committee, and community nursing staff also attend general practitioner patients on both sides of the Border. I am sure that this kind of liaison will continue after 1974.
We think that these matters are best left to local arrangements between the Health Authorities in the Border area. There does not appear to us to be any good reason to impose a particular obligation on Health Authorities in the Borders which does not in fact arise with Health Authorities in the rest of England
286
and Wales. Moreover the effect of the noble Lord's first Amendment, No. 93A, would be that while both sets of English authorities would have a duty to cooperate with the adjacent Scottish Health Authorities, there would be no reciprocal obligation, because there was not written into the Scottish Bill the clause that the noble Lord wanted to put there.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Is the noble Lord suggesting that two blacks make a white?
LORD ABERDARE: No, I am just suggesting that it is a little unfair for one to be black and the other to be white. I realise as well as the noble Lord does how difficult it is to word these Amendments, but his Amendment would certainly require English health and local authorities to co-operate with Health Authorities but not with local authorities in Scotland. But that, as the noble Lord says, could quite easily be rectified. Basically we are content with the present arrangements. Area Health Authorities in the rest of England and Area Health Authorities in the rest of Scotland are left under the Bill to co-operate naturally among themselves, and I should have thought this was a reasonable thing to expect them to carry on with without the necessity of writing a clause into the Bill.
On the noble Lord's Amendment No. 97A, on which I think he was talking also, I am not quite clear what he has in mind. The effect of the Amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to consult with Scottish local authorities about the setting up of joint consultative committees between the Health Authorities and local authorities in Northumberland and Cumberland. I do not think this is really what the noble Lord meant. I think he was perhaps meaning that there should be some form of joint consultative committee as between adjacent areas in England and Scotland. Again, whereas it would be quite possible to do this, we see the functions of these joint consultative committees as drawing together the health and social services and the other local authority services and ensuring co-operation among themselves; and they are not intended to be links between the two Health Authorities or the two social service authorities. There are difficulties here, and it would be

287
better to leave it to the good sense of Area Health Authorities and local authorities to co-operate across the Border, as we have no reason to believe that they are not doing so at present and will not do so in the future.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I do not want to take up a lot of time now or to press the Amendment to a Division, not least as the reply my noble friend has given me was a good deal more sympathetic, I thought, than the reply which the Scottish Minister gave me on the previous Bill. The noble Lord's last sentences, I thought, if they are read by those concerned, will give them a lead that I hope they will follow and will help to achieve what I should like to see done. Therefore, although I do not admit that the position is entirely satisfactory, and while there may be other opportunities of drawing the attention of Ministers to this particular field, I would on this occasion beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS SEROTA: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment (I think I am just in time), I wonder whether I may say a word or two, because where the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has given the Committee quite an encouraging picture of the co-operation which he believes exists, I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would go on about it in the way that he does if things were really as rosy as we are being led to believe. What I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is that he might possibly through discussion find a way of making his words known to the authorities concerned, and with which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is so concerned, because it seems—and I was recently in that beautiful part of the country in which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, resides—that there are certain problems on the ground and that a bit of tactful encouragement now might improve the situation and the services for the consumers and the patients. I can think of no-one who could do it better than the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, if he were to put his mind to it.
LORD ABERDARE: With that graceful finish, I could hardly not accept what
288
the noble Baroness has suggested, and I will certainly do that. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said: that, although he admitted that the health services were fairly well integrated as regards the Border, perhaps the social services and the local authorities were not quite so co-operative. I will certainly take further heed of this.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whether he will bear in mind also that there have been threats that the East-West railway line is going to be cut and therefore the only communication will be North and South?
LORD ABERDARE: That is rather outside my Department, and I am afraid I do not know the answer.
LORD INGLEWOOD: After the kindly and welcome support from the Front Bench opposite, I can only say that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was right. I am told that they are less good. I can only confirm that I would not repeat these arguments unless I thought there was ground for improvement. But in the light of the reception that my Amendment has had to-day, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.57 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("(ee) provide for the employment of such officers as may be required by a joint consultative committee or sub-committee appointed by such committee, and for the remuneration, and the terms and conditions of service, of such officers;").
The noble Lord said: Clause 10 requires Health Authorities and local authorities to co-operate with one another in order to secure and advance the health and welfare of the people. To this end, there shall be joint consultative committees who shall advise the Area Health Authorities, and in the case of non-metropolitan counties the local authority for each county and for each district in the area, oil the performance of their duties and on the planning and operation of services of common concern to those authorities. Under subsection (4) the Secretary of State appears to have wide

289
powers by order to provide for any matter in relation to the joint consultative committees, including a requirement for authorities represented to make reports to him on the work of the committees or any sub-committee. However, there is no specific reference to the power of the joint consultative committees or subcommittees to employ and remunerate staff and to establish their terms and conditions of service. The Amendment seeks to remedy this defect. It would be extremely helpful to know what the Government have in mind in regard to this matter. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: In considering the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I think it is important to have in mind the purpose behind the joint consultative committees. This is, as set out in Clause 10, to get the co-operation between the new Health Authorities and the local authorities on the many matters which will be of mutual concern to establish the best possible service for the patient or consumer of the particular services. In order to make these committees effective, it is intended that both the Health Authorities and the local authorities will second members of their staff to do the necessary work. This will in effect mean that there will be close co-operation between the staff both of the Health Authorities and of the local authorities. They will both be serving the same committee and will give the staff co-operation at the same time as one hopes one will get the member co-operating in order to get the kind of service that we want over this whole range of matters of common concern. It is for this reason that we feel this Amendment is unnecessary, because the staff will be there. We very much hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the care she has taken in replying. I am minded at the present moment to withdraw the Amendment, to study very closely what she has said and, if I may, reserve the right to come back at a later stage on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Supply of goods and services by local authorities]:
5.2 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 14, line 19, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: I should be grateful if your Lordships would allow me, in speaking to Clause 12, also to speak to my Amendment to Clause 18. I am concerned about the position of the medical social worker. I would point out that the term "medical social worker" is really a misnomer. These people began as almoners in 1895 and they became medical social workers some time in the 'fifties. They are not really social workers in the sense that they should come under the departments of social services of the local authorities, because they are more properly part of the medical group of people who treat patients in hospital. They are highly qualified and highly skilled people. A number of them have a university degree, and they rather fear that if they are taken over by the social services their very skilled work might become rather impersonal welfare work of a simple general type, so that they will not be able to exercise their proper skill. There are not a great number of these people—in 1969 they numbered about 1,000, of whom the bulk worked in hospitals.
The Seebohm Report says that all social workers should be brought together under one heading without regard to the specialised experience that some people may have had. I think it will be very difficult now for these social service departments to take on the further work entailed if they absorb the work done by the medical social workers and also the psychiatric social workers. I have not yet referred to the latter, but they are in the same category as the medical social workers. Therefore, I would suggest to the noble Lord that the medical social workers should continue to be employed by the Health Service and not by the social services departments. It would entail a certain adjustment to their salaries because at the present time they are not paid as much as the local authority social workers, nor do they have the same kind of promotion possibilities—what I believe is now called the career structure.
Referring to Clause 18, it says that no person shall be transferred from one department to another without their consent. People have suggested that that may solve the question of the medical social worker. It does not really solve it, because it does not meet possible problems about transfers for the future. It would help those whom it is proposed to transfer away at present, but it would mean that the whole field of medical social work would be taken over by the local authorities. That is what I should very much like to prevent. There is a good deal of support from other members of my profession on this line, and therefore I beg to move.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I do not have as much knowledge of the medical social workers as I have of the psychiatric ones, but the psychiatric social workers are definitely part of the team in the hospital. I think it would be the greatest mistake in the world if they were to become part of the social services as opposed to part of the Hospital Service, because they would not really be performing the job for which they have been trained; it would mean breaking up an extremely good team in the psychiatric hospital. I should therefore like to support my noble friend Lord Amulree on this Amendment.
LORD PLATT: I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, very strongly indeed. As the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, has spoken for the psychiatric social workers, so I can speak for the medical social workers in hospital. They are part of the hospital team; they do not belong to somebody else. They are trained to do medical work with patients. When I was head of a unit, the medical social worker used to come into the weekly discussion with us when we discussed cases of particular interest or importance on the wards, and she would put in her comments on the social circumstances of the patient and also on the way in which we could follow up certain patients and what we could do for them. She educated us as to the possibilities of help for ex-hospital patients and so on. These people are an absolutely essential part of the medical team. Not only am I most surprised to find that they are being, as it were,
292
pushed out to some other section of the Health Service—I thought that the whole point, or certainly a major point, was to bring all the medical services together; and these people are absolutely an essential part of the medical service—but I am even more alarmed to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that they do not even get paid as much as these other workers.
BARONESS SEROTA: The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will recall that on Second Reading I asked the Government whether they had come to a decision on this matter. Noble Lords who have spoken, as I have listened to them, seem to have assumed that the decision has already been made. I am aware of some of the difficulties facing the Government in this matter, and of some of the more complex problems involved; but my only concern is that this period of uncertainty, which has inevitably created great anxiety among members of the profession, should come to an end as soon as possible. So I should like to-day to ask the noble Lord whether, when he replies, he can tell the House what is the intention of We Government.
5.10 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has raised this point; it must be right for us to speak about it during the Committee stage. I am fully aware of the feeling that exists among a large number of hospital social workers and some of their colleagues in the hospital service on this point. The noble Lord said that something in the region of a thousand people were involved. I think I have received a letter from very nearly every one over the past few days. I am well aware of their anxieties and of the case that they have made. I must say straight away that the position is still under review and no decision has yet been made. We are anxious to hear all the views on it and to make sure that we are in a proper position to come to a decision; but I take the point that the noble Baroness has made that an early decision, rather than a later one, might relieve some anxiety.
The reason why Clause 18 is drafted as it is is that it is based on the recommendations of the Working Party on Collaboration. The Working Party took full heed of all the arguments that were

293
advanced against the transfer of hospital social workers to the social services, and particularly took note of the strong feelings of the hospital social workers themselves. Nevertheless, the basic proposition on which their recommendations are founded are that health skills should be deployed from a National Health base and social work skills from a local authority base. Consequently they recommended that hospital social workers should be transferred to local authority employment; although it is right to say that the clinicians on the sub-committee which initially considered this issue agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and dissented from the recommendation.
In making the recommendation the Working Party noted that an important factor which had been ignored in the case presented by the hospital social workers is that social work support is at present very unevenly spread in the hospital service, and that for many hospitals the need is not to safeguard existing standards but to provide a service. They also pointed out that the separation of this comparatively small group of social workers, at a time when divisions between various groups of social workers are breaking down, would in the long-run place the hospital social workers at a disadvantage. Finally, the Working Party concluded that the client's needs are likely to be predominantly outside the hospital, with the hospital experience forming an interlude only; and that the organisational structure best suited to meet this situation would be one in which the hospital social worker is a member of the same team as social workers employed in the community services, with access to those services as a partner in the team. I put that on record as being the reason why the Working Party came down the way that they did, and that is the reason why Clause 18 is drafted as it is. I would reiterate that we have not yet made a decision, and I would also point out that the provisions in Clause 18(4) are permissive; they do not provide for transfer on the day appointed for other Health Service staff, but for transfers to be on such day or days as may be determined by or under the order.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently received comments on the many recommendations made by the Working Party from a large
294
number of interested organisations in both the health service and the local authority fields, and he will be considering those in the very near future with a view to reaching decisions on the various recommendations, including the matter of hospital social workers. On Tuesday last he received a deputation from a group of hospital social workers in order to hear personally the views of those who are opposed to the proposed transfer; and final consideration of this question has also been awaiting the outcome of that meeting. I am afraid that that is all I can say to the noble Lord at the present moment. I can only assure him that we are fully seized of the importance of this matter.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The Minister has indicated that the matter is under review. The fact that he has agreed to make an early decision is to the good, and everybody wants that. Can he give an indication that that decision will be made before the Bill leaves this House? It would be reassuring if we knew that we were going to have an opportunity of considering what the Government may decide.
LORD ABERDARE: I should not like to make a commitment of that sort just at the moment. I hope that we shall be able to speak about it in the course of the Bill. I will take heed of what the noble Lord says; but I do not think he would expect me to commit my right honourable friend off the cuff at this particular stage.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I wonder whether the Government have given consideration to another possibility in this matter. In a totally different field they have emphasised the importance of what they call the consumer/contractor relationship. Listening to the arguments they put forward I thought that what is concerned here is that on the one hand one has the bodies that supply the actual service, which at present is under the hospitals. The other body, which can be regarded as the local authority, is responsible for representing the needs of the patients, the consumers outside. Is it possible that one can have a service which is entirely administered by the hospital but the demand for which comes from the local authority—perhaps even with a grant from the local authority? This is

295
the idea that one can preserve the closeness of relationship with a hospital which, one feels after listening to the arguments that have been put forward, seem to be valuable and important, with at the same time the expansion to which the noble Lord referred, where the need is great, which could come from the local authority.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his constructive suggestions. We are considering a number of various possibilities of this sort between the two different authorities.
LORD AMULREE: I am pleased to know that no decision has yet been taken, and I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that a decision will be come to before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. Before I withdraw my Amendment I would point out that two of the medical members on the Working Party did not agree with the recommendations. I trust that, in common with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, who has explained the position of medical social workers very well, that will bear a good deal of weight with those who have to make this decision. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: Before leave is put to the Committee, may I raise a question on procedure? Do we have to agree with a clause which many of us—even the majority—do not agree, with no assurance that before the Bill is passed by your Lordships' House this matter will be settled?
LORD ABERDARE: This clause, Clause 12, has a meaning independent of the arguments about the transfer of hospital social workers. It puts a duty on local authorities which will operate, whether or not there is a transfer of this particular hospital social worker class. I hope the noble Lord will allow the clause to stand in the Bill, although he may have other views on the hospital social worker.
LORD CHAMPION: There seems to be some misunderstanding, does there not? If the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, withdraws his Amendment, it will be for the noble Lord, the Deputy Chairman of Committees, to put the clause to the
296
House. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, or anyone else, can then come in and discuss the clause at that stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Voluntary organisations and other bodies]:
5.20 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 14, line 30, leave out from beginning of line to ("arrange") in line 31 and insert—
("If the Secretary of State, after consultation with the staff representative body, is satisfied—

(a) that for the purpose of providing a service under the Health Service Acts sufficient officers employed under those Acts are not and cannot be made available; and

(b) that the arrangement will not prejudice the continued employment or the terms or conditions of service of any such officers;

he may")
The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will appreciate that we on these Benches are doing everything we can to expedite the Business, while ensuring that due consideration is being given to matters we think of importance. Clause 13 enables the Secretary of State to arrange with voluntary organisations and other bodies to assist in providing any service under the Health Service Act. The Amendment would require the Secretary of State, before exercising his powers, to satisfy himself that Health Service employees were not, and could not be, made available to perform the services in question. He would also have to be satisfied that the exercise of his powers would not prejudice the continued employment, or the terms and conditions of employment, of any such officers. Before reaching a decision in the matter, he would be required to consult with the staff representative body.
I have moved the Amendment with brevity, but there is a very good deal of anxiety in regard to this matter and, despite my brevity, it nevertheless is quite a serious matter so far as those in the Service are concerned. If we could be given some assurance that in point of fact the procedure suggested by the Amendment is acceptable to the Government in principle, then the purpose of

297
moving the Amendment will have largely been served. But how I may be able to dispose of the Amendment presently will depend upon the reply of the Minister.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I want to say a word on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. I do not think he has quite understood what a voluntary worker does. Voluntary workers have never replaced employees of the Health Service or the social services. They are volunteers and their voluntary service complements and supplements that of the professional—never replaces it. If the Amendment of the noble Lord were accepted it would entail every voluntary worker who worked for the National Health Service obtaining a signed certificate from, I think, the Secretary of State, and I believe also from Mr. Victor Feather, or whoever was the head of the Trades Union Congress. I cannot see that that is going to be a workable arangement. Perhaps the noble Lord has not understood what a voluntary worker is. The voluntary worker never takes the place of the trained and proper employee of the Health Service, but only assists and complements the work of the Health Service.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: May I come into the discussion because I raised—I was going to say "this hare" on the Second Reading, when I reported that the Confederation of Health Service Employees were making quite a number of objections to the use of volunteers. I understand that a particular person who made those objections has had time to think about the whole matter and realises now that some of the objections were perhaps rather stupid, and were probably spoken about in a hurry. I would also ask whether, if this Amendment is agreed to, it would prevent volunteers from going in to help either in the community or in a hospital in the event of some sudden disaster. There is not time then to consult: there must be some system agreed beforehand. That is the whole point of volunteers, or of certain types of volunteers anyhow—that they go in in a crisis, and go in quickly.
The next point I would make is that they go in with the knowledge and experience of what it is they are going to do. In disasters it is no good, for instance, having people who have never been into
298
the hospital before, because they would not be of the slightest use. In order to be of use they have to be allowed to go either to work in the community or to work in hospitals so as to gain experience. This particular C.H.S.E. member who was objecting to volunteers may perhaps have had his toes trodden on by some volunteer, who perhaps had much good will but no experience and just rushed in and helped without any preparation or training and without knowing what one would have to do. That might make trained personnel unhappy and unsure of their jobs. That is why I should like to ask again that thought is given to the use of volunteers, and to the point that they should be prepared and trained, so that these problems are avoided.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I wonder whether I might point out that the words appearing at the side of Clause 13 in the Bill are "Voluntary organisations and other bodies". Clause 13 begins with the words:
"The Secretary of State may, where he considers it appropriate, arrange with any person or body (including a voluntary organisation)…".
If there is confusion, I think it is not of my making.
5.26 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: In answering the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I would begin by saying that the last thing anyone would wish would be to cause any kind of fear or upset among hospital staff on these arrangements. It is the intention of the Government that the arrangements proposed in this Bill should be a continuation of present practice. I am very grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, for what they have said on this matter, because the present practice is that volunteers should be additional to paid staff and not a substitute for them. We feel that any kind of centralised machinery, such as that which might be proposed in this Amendment, would be much too insensitive to the kind of needs and emergencies which could well arise in hospitals where voluntary help would be necessary, and might in fact stop voluntary help in situations in which hospitals would be glad to have it. We see in fact that volunteers complement paid staff, and they are employed in response to

299
local needs—the kind of situations which often cannot be met by professionally trained staff because there simply are not sufficient professionally trained staff to go round.
In answer to the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I understand that at present Regional Hospital Boards and local health authorities have contractual arrangements for some of the services to be provided by voluntary organisations and others who may include individuals such as the sole proprietor of an establishment providing appropriate care and treatment. This clause covers exactly that kind of arrangement. I hope therefore that this answers his point and that he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and also to the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, for the interest they have taken in the Amendment. I think it was quite important to raise this matter, and it was important that we should have the statement which we have just heard from the noble Baroness, for which I thank her. She has defined the different roles of the professional worker and the voluntary worker and has made it clear that, so far as the latter is concerned, the volunteer is only, and never will be used otherwise than as, complementary to the professional worker. It is good that we should have had that statement from the Minister, and that it is on the Record. In the light of what she has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
5.32 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 100A:
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: The object of this Amendment is to place
300
fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of a particular Secretary of State the duty of attending to research. The reason I tabled this Amendment is that it seems to me—and I shall seek to call the attention of the Committee to the relevant sections—that at the moment there is no provision in any Act of Parliament which says, with regard to any Minister, "You, and you yourself, are personally responsible for making sure that research is adequately catered for". If I may digress for a moment to seek to make good that point. I think the relevant legislation starts with Section 2 of the Public Health Act 1919, which placed a duty, but in qualified terms, on the then Minister of Health to initiate and direct research.
That section survives, and it was repeated, but again qualified, in Section 16 of the major Act, the National Health Service Act 1946. That section is entirely permissive in form. I think it will not be taking up the time of the Committee unprofitably if I direct the attention of your Lordships to the terms of Section 16. That section provides that the Minister (as he then was, but now the Secretary of State)
"may conduct, or assist by grants or otherwise any person to conduct research into any matters relating to the causation, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness or mental defectiveness."
That is far from imposing a precise and specific duty upon the Minister to take it upon himself to exercise a general supervision in the promotion of research. I submit that that language is short of what is required in this extraordinarily important department of human affairs. In the terms of the present Bill that Section 16 is slightly extended, though not altered in principle, and a part of it is cancelled by one of the Schedules to this Bill. But in principle if one asks oneself whether one can find in our legislative code any precise provision such as I have sought to formulate in the new clause the submission I make is that one cannot: the nearest one gets to it is the tentative language in Section 2 of the 1919 Act. But that falls far short of what is required.
The immediate reason for my raising this question is the following. A very distinguished doctor of my acquaintance, who holds an appointment in a famous medical school, intimated to me some

301
considerable time ago that he would like the opportunity of putting before some member of the relevant Department certain of what he described as "grass root" problems in the matter of research which had occurred to him in the course of his clinical work. I wrote to the Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph, and asked whether he would be so kind as to arrange a meeting of that sort. I received a very charming letter in reply, in which he told me that it was the responsiblity of his colleague, the right honourable lady, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher. I have no complaint as to the terms of the letter; it could not have been more charming or more agreeable in tone. Then in due course I received a letter, also extremely kind and courteous, from Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, who told me that Mrs. Thatcher had received my letter and he had been asked to reply to it. He said that this was not a matter for him; it was a matter for the University Grants Committee, and that as the University Grants Committee had already had its allocation of funds for the years 1972 to 1977 he thought I would probably agree that no useful purpose would be served by my discussing the matter with him. So we were passed comfortably and courteously from hand to hand, only to be politely but firmly "dumped" in the end.
That is the present position as I see it under the existing legislation. I am sure that those letters are, technically, absolutely accurate, and that is why it occurs to me to make the proposal to your Lordships that we should try to end that position by substituting for the imprecise language of the existing 1919 and 1946 Acts something much more positive and comprehensive in terms. After all, by this Bill we are overhauling the whole structure of the medical health service in this country. I may have missed something, but I hope I have not. I have examined the terms of the present Bill to see whether I can find in it anything that deals with research, in the sense that I have sought to argue it should be dealt with. Clause 2(2) states in general terms the duties which are incumbent upon the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security. There is no reference to research in any precise terms in that subsection, and succeeding clauses in the Bill impose upon the Secretary
302
of State other duties, which are formulated in those later clauses. I think the Ministers will agree with me that I should be right in saying that again if one goes through them one finds nowhere any language which says in precise terms, "You, the Secretary of State, are responsible for research".
In Clause 43(4) one finds a power in the Secretary of State to make available to medical schools, for the purposes of research, premises and resources. That again is far from what I am respectfully contemplating in the language which I am asking your Lordships to consider. If, therefore, we do not seek to supplement in some way what in my submission is an omission from the Bill, this Bill will in due course become an Act and, in my submission, research will not be properly catered for.
I have of course studied closely the Rothschild Report and the most valuable and far-reaching debate upon it which took place in your Lordships' House in February of last year. For the purpose of my argument I do not think it is in the least necessary for me to trench on the matters discussed in the speeches which noble Lords delivered in the course of that debate relating to what was the proper distinction between primary and applied research, whether the consumer-contractor principle was appropriate, whether the Haldane principle should be strictly adhered to in order to preserve the independence of research work and so on. I do not feel that any of those matters arise because I am simply seeking to ask your Lordships to say that the Secretary of State should be, as it were, the backstop to whom matters relating to research could be referred and who would be under a responsibility in regard to them if that responsibility did not lie elsewhere.
I would have thought that it was a basic principle of our Constitution, which over the centuries and decades had served us extremely well, that a Minister should be responsible to Parliament, and through Parliament to the public of this country, in relation to every important department of our activities. One is tempted towards a truism in stating that research in the medical sphere is one of the most important. The sort of point that the distinguished doctor to whom I have referred put to me was important in this context.

303
He said, "Now and again—unfortunately, not very often—you get an individual doctor who has an idea. This applies not only to doctors holding appointments in medical schools but to doctors in teaching hospitals and doctors generally. This idea leads him to think that if it were pursued it might possibly put humanity on the track of a really important discovery in the field of medical health."
A doctor in that position can put the matter to the academic board in his own hospital, where he may get it accepted. If it is turned down—and it stands to reason that only a limited number of ideas can be accepted—he can apply for an allocation of public finance from the Medical Research Council or a similar body, or he can try to get what I believe in the medical profession is called "soft money" from one of the many private foundations which make money available for research. Having mentioned the Medical Research Council, I wish to emphasise emphatically that I do not seek to attribute the least adverse criticism to it. I know little about it, though all I have read about it has been in glowing terms in praise of it. I say that particularly in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory.
The ordinary doctor may get an allocation from a private body—some "soft money "—but it is almost certain in the nature of things that the allocation will be for a limited period; for perhaps one or two years. In those circumstances, if he wishes to pursue his idea and really thinks that he is on to something important, he must engage, on his own responsibility, research assistants, and in doing so he can offer only a limited appointment. He is bound to say to people who may have family responsibilities, "I cannot guarantee you employment beyond the end of the year because the grant may not be renewed. Will you accept the job on that basis?" He must, in effect, set himself up as an employment agency and offer employment on terms which it is difficult to expect people to accept.
I am conscious that a number of hospital appointments are on a short-term temporary basis, but the technical assistant in that position vis-à-vis an ordinary doctor surely gives rise to a serious problem. What, in any case, is the result? The result is that there is the strongest disincentive in the way of the individual
304
doctor who really may believe in an idea from pursuing it with any insistence. He may drop it, probably being discouraged or feeling that he cannot take on the responsibility of employing on his own account research assistants whose aid would be invaluable in exploring the idea. I do not know how many valuable new discoveries in research may have been lost in this way. I do not know what was the exact history of Sir Alexander Fleming's discovery, though I believe that his position was a little like that. He showed great courage and persistence in pursuing the train of invention on which he had alighted, with the result that millions of lives all over the world have been saved.
If one goes back to the earlier debate it is not as if there is nothing to argue about—as if everything in the field of research works perfectly and without criticism. As I leafed over the pages, including the speeches in that debate as they were recorded in Hansard, I noted that many noble Lords who speak with enormous authority in this field pointed to the fact that there were matters which they would like to see dealt with. There is, so far as I know, no Minister, no Secretary of State, who can, as it were, be put under the hammer if they are not dealt with. I do not think I need delay your Lordships by citing them, but the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, expressed views, as did the noble Lord, Lord Platt, the noble Lord, Lord Brock, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Both said they would have liked this or that to have been done in research. But to whom is one to turn? The Medical Research Council and the other Councils have limited but precise objectives which they discharge admirably. Nevertheless, one needs somebody who is under a precise responsibility to take up the kind of points those noble Lords raised in that debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, who I see in his place, said that so far as he was concerned the Department of Health and Social Security carried out research but that he personally would have liked to see very much more of it done on their part. I think that that was the tenor of his argument. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would have liked a fourth Medical Research Council to co-ordinate the work of the M.R.C. and the work of the D.H.S.S. Other noble Lords raised

305
similar points. I do not say that they are points that I would put forward. I do not know that I am qualified to do so. Nevertheless, they are put forward by noble Lords of great authority and there should be somebody responsible for seeing that they are investigated, along with the kind of point put to me by the doctor whose opinion I have quoted.
That is the objective of this Amendment. I emphasise that it is not tabled in any sense of hostility or even criticism. I seek to point to what seems to me, unless there is something I have missed, to be a hiatus in the present form of the Bill and perhaps your Lordships will think it not unuseful to call attention to the specific problem of research which is not, as it were, separately dealt with in the Bill as a compound entity of its own and one of enormous and transcendent importance. For this reason we have chosen the language of the Amendment carefully. The duty it imposes on the Secretary of State is
"… to take all reasonable steps to promote and organise research in all fields of medical science … and … to make available all such finance and other resources as he considers reasonably necessary for that purpose."
Those words have a cogency about them which in my submission is necessary because they would affect the quantum of the Secretary of State's Vote; he would have to provide for the discharge of that duty in formulating the Vote which he puts before Parliament. It is for these reasons that I and my noble friends who are associated with me have put down this Amendment in the form of a new clause. I beg to move.
LORD PLATT: It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has made out a good case for his Amendment that a duty might be put on the Secretary of State. I feel that it is perhaps a political decision rather than a medical one and I do not know that I feel really qualified to take strong sides one way or the other. What I look forward to is to hearing the Minister's reply and to hearing him tell us, I hope, that the recent appointment to the Department of a Chief Scientist (who happens to be somebody I know extremely well who used to work on my unit and is, therefore, of course highly qualified for the work) is going to make a big difference
306
to the situation and that his presence there may facilitate research of the kind to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, quite rightly draws our attention.
5.51 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has explained clearly the statutory position and I certainly shall not repeat what the noble and learned Lord can describe much more expertly than I can, except just to add that I think these powers are appropriately extended by Schedule 4, paragraph 14, to this Bill to provide also for research
"… into such other matters connected with any service provided under the National Health Service Acts 1946 to 1972 as the Secretary of State considers appropriate."
In distinction from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I would submit to the Committee—and I must say, with distinguished doctors among your Lordships, I really can do no more than submit to the Committee—that the present statutory framework of the Acts of 1919, and, of course, the main Act of 1946, have proved adequate for the needs of the National Health Service and, with the minor amendment which I have just mentioned, will, the Government believe, be appropriate for the reorganised Service.
The noble and learned Lord has criticised the co-ordination of medical research. It strikes me, however, as the Amendment itself demonstrates, that improvement of the present machinery for research is perhaps a little easier said than done. Noble Lords can correct me in a moment if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the present machinery is this. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is responsible for the total expenditure and, incidentally, the composition of the Medical Research Council, and for the block allocation of recurrent grants which are allocated in turn to the universities by the U.G.C., and in their turn the universities can divide their allocations at their discretion between teaching and research. In addition, as the noble and learned Lord mentioned, the Department of Health and Social Security can commission or carry out research themselves, the voluntary organisions can conduct research and, of course, industry can also conduct research.

307
We have listened to the noble and learned Lord saying that the object of the Amendment is to lay a duty specifically on the Secretary of State for Social Services to "see to"—that was the expression which the noble Lord used—research. The noble Lord will, I hope, forgive me if I say that I am not entirely clear what relationship is intended between this Amendment and the duties of the Secretary of State under the two Acts quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, nor am I clear what would be the relationship between this Amendment and the work of the Medical Research Council—or, for that matter, the work of the universities. The noble Lord told us the tale of events which in the end led his correspondent—who is a distinguished and devoted doctor, who was not wanting anything for himself but was wanting it for the unit in which he worked—nowhere. I regret that this occurred, and I regret the length of time which it took the noble Lord himself to receive negative replies, but I think I am right in saying that it was the case of a post-graduate medical school and there was a clear link here. This was not a passage with no ending at all. This post-graduate medical school had a link, not with the Departments with whom the noble and learned Lord kindly got into touch but with the university to which the post-graduate medical school is attached.
The other problem I find with this Amendment is that I do not see that it would draw together all the agencies for research which I have tried to enumerate. Nor, I am bound to say, would it affect the criteria on which the Government decide to support research, for I think I am right in saying that under National Health Service legislation the Secretary of State for Social Services could reasonably be expected to support—as he does now—only that research which offers reasonable prospects of valid scientific and competent contribution towards the overall aims of the Health Service. The noble Lord was so good as to refer to the recent White Paper, Framework for Government Research and Development (Cmnd. 5046). What I should like to put to the Committee is that the Government have introduced proposals for some pretty radical changes which have at least some bearing on this Amendment.
308
May I just mention two things? The first is the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, the setting up of which was announced on September 6, last year and which will advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the Research Council system. It will advise her on the allocation of her science budget and promote a close liaison between the Research Councils. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said that he thought there was really little in the White Paper that had a bearing on this Amendment. I would not be so impertinent as to disagree flatly with the noble and learned Lord, and I must not mislead the House on this particular point of the A.B.R.C., for the A.B.R.C. certainly do not advise Departments on the research which they will commission. I admit that; it advises my right honourable friend on the allocation of her science budget. There is no question, however, that the departmental members of the A.B.R.C. will know what their own Departments are doing, so that when the Board come to advise my right honourable friend on the allocation of her science budget they will be aware of the research which is going on between Departments and Research Councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, referred to the second point which I wish to submit to the Committee; namely, the Chief Scientist. In paragraphs 20 to 22 of the White Paper it is said that the Department of Health and Social Security is to have a Chief Scientist, and the Department is certainly fortunate in the man chosen. He has been brought up by a very distinguished teacher. He is to have a small team of scientists whose main task will be:
"to help identify areas for which research is required to ensure that research requirements are stated clearly and to review the balance of the Department's research and development programme. In addition they will act as a link between the Department and the scientific community so as to develop discussions and partnership between the two."
The White Paper refers particularly to the long tradition of liaison between the D.H.S.S. and the Medical Research Council and affirms that these links should and will be developed; and new arrangements made in the White Paper for financing research will provide the opportunity for the Department and the M.R.C.

309
to work more closely together. I can say to the Committee this evening that plans are already well advanced for the establishment of joint machinery for handling a substantial part of the funds available for medical research and for cross-representation in the policy planning structures of the two bodies. In talking about co-ordination I would submit that it is this last point, the new plans for closer liaison between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Medical Research Council, which is most relevant to the objectives of the noble Lord's Amendment. Although I have not met the absolute objectives which the noble Lord is putting forward, I would express the hope that the plans and the other information I have now submitted to the Committee may at least go some way towards satisfying noble Lords who are interested in this Amendment.
6.0 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but I hope he will not mind me saying that it really does not quite satisfy me. What I seek to do is to write this obligation into the Bill. The result of that would be that if there is ground for complaint of the sort that Lord Platt mentioned in the course of his speech, or Lord Brock or Lord Avebury, the Secretary of State, when the time for questions come in the other place, may find that he has to answer half a dozen questions about it. It will be put to him that he has a specific, precise responsibility to take all reasonable steps; that all reasonable steps have not been taken. He will be asked why not, and what is he going to do about it. That is my objective in seeking to write this new clause into the Bill. It is to place a constitutional responsibility on the Minister which forces him, when he comes down to the House of Commons and discharges his responsibility to honourable Members there, to submit to their questioning. That is the purpose of questioning in the other House and this.
I emphasise that Mrs. Thatcher, Sir Keith Joseph and Mr. Norman St. JohnStevas are Ministers I hold in the highest regard—may I say affection?—and I certainly do not seek to criticise in any hostile sense. But I seek to impose upon whichever Minister occupies the position of head of the Department of Health and Social Security a liability to be questioned
310
in the other House, or in this House through Ministers opposite, as to what he has done in order to discharge this precise responsibility, which at the moment is not put upon him, I submit, by any Act of Parliament.
The noble Lord quoted the provision of Schedule 4. I had that very much in mind; I read it carefully. I did not want to trouble the Committee by reading it out. In my respectful submission, it does not in the least qualify the wholly permissive tone of Section 16 of the National Health Act 1946—"the Minister may". What I seek to impose upon him is a precise and absolute duty to take reasonable steps to promote and organise medical research in all fields of medical knowledge. I am perfectly prepared to accept—and I am sure that the Minister is absolutely right—that the new steps that have been taken are extremely valuable and will be most productive of good, and I am sure that the Chief Scientist will be a most valuable officer to whom we and the public will be grateful over the years—he and his successors. But that falls short of what I am asking the Committee to do, which is to insert a precise statutory obligation into the Bill so that whoever occupies the position of head of the Department of Health and Social Security will be liable to questioning in the other place if there is ground for thinking that he may have fallen down upon that precise responsibility. That is my submission, and I must not speak again.
VISCOUNT AMORY: May I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, a question? I was following with very great interest what he said. His aim is very clear to us all and one we should all wholly agree with. But it seems to me that the specific terms he proposes in his Amendment clash head on with the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. This worries me a little. I wonder whether he could ease my doubts, because I may have got it wrong. Her responsibilities are specific and clear under the general scheme for the running of research.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I had that point in mind, and my answer to it is as follows. What I seek to impose by way of duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is to take all reasonable

311
steps to promote and organise research. It would be perfectly reasonable in those circumstances, as I submit to the Committee, if he finds that a precise responsibility, perhaps in the field of education per se, is imposed upon another Minister. to say, "Well, it is not reasonable for me to trench upon that work". Equally, if he finds that the Medical Research Council is doing extremely valuable work, it obviously would not be reasonable to expect him to seek to re-do and duplicate the work the Medical Research Council is doing. The whole point of my argument is this, and this is the answer to the noble Viscount. As it transpired in the course of the debate on the Rothschild Report, there are a number of things which, in the opinion of noble Lords who speak with great responsibility, still need to be done and which fall outside these other responsibilities. I submit to the Committee that in regard to those matters it would be reasonable to expect the Secretary of State, who is, as it were, the back-stop on whom the ultimate responsibility lies, to say, "This is not properly catered for; it is therefore precisely within the sphere of residual responsibility which is imposed upon me; I will attend to it and do it myself". That is briefly the answer.
LORD BELSTEAD: May I say a word in attempting to reply to the points put out by the noble Lord. I hesitate to cross swords with the noble Lord on constitutional matters, because I have a feeling the noble Lord knows a great deal more about them than I do. As I understand it, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has a responsibility for the science budget, and if questions are asked in another place it is up to my honourable friend to reply for the Government. As I also understand it—and here I am even more hesitant—there is a general duty in the 1919 Act laid upon the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, and this was built upon in a permissive way, as the noble Lord says, by the Act of 1946 and now by Schedule 4, paragraph 14. None the less the Secretary of State has a general duty, as I understand it, under the 1919 Act, and he may well be called on, because of his general duty, to reply to questions on those matters in another place. What I must admit I am
312
not quite sure about—I admit my complete ignorance on this—is whether, after the proposals in the White Paper have been put into effect, we shall find different Secretaries of State and Ministers replying for their particular Departments if we are talking about research relating to their Departments. But that does not alter the general thesis I am putting to the Committee: that there is a Government responsibility.
May I say that the Government feel that there are difficulties in the drafting of this Amendment—not defects, but certain difficulties. Some of the words may refer to really too wide a field (to use one of the words in the Amendment) and could cause great trouble if the Amendment were accepted as it is. Would the noble Lord allow us to look at it. What I should like the noble Lord to bear in mind, if he is prepared to let us take it away and look at it, is that we are genuinely worried about the point which has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Amory: the possible clash of responsibility between Government and research which is not the business of the Government at all. The noble Lord had his answer to that, and on reconsideration we may find the noble Lord is absolutely right. But I must put this marker up at this stage. It really does worry us, and at the moment I am strongly advised that there can be no question of accepting the Amendment. If, with that strong caveat, the noble Lord would allow me to take it away for us to look at, I should be grateful. May I leave it at that?
LORD STOW HILL: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. He says that he would like to give it further thought. Not only am I personally very grateful to him for that statement but, if I have the assent of those who put their names to the Amendment, I shall be very glad, with the leave of the Committee, to withdraw it. That being so, I will not seek to answer the points which the noble Lord put to me, or I should be troubling the House with lucubrations of a troublesome legal sort. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I would ask your Lordships leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Preservation of certain Boards of Governors]:
6.11 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 100B:
Page 17, line 15, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 100B and if I may, with the leave of the Committee, I will speak also to Nos. 106B and 123D. These three Amendments are all related to the same purpose, which is to make clear that the boards of governors of the 12 specialised postgraduate teaching hospitals in London which are listed in Schedule 2, and which, by Clause 15, the Secretary of State is empowered by order to preserve, are, if preserved, excluded from the provisions of Clauses 24 and 29 which deal with the transfer of trust property from abolished authorities. Since the boards of governors of these postgraduate teaching hospitals will, if they are preserved, continue in being after the appointed day and will remain responsible for the hospitals directly to the Secretary of State, it is intended that they will also continue to control their trust property just as they do at present. The Amendments involve no change of policy but make this intention clearer.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Provisions supplementary to Section 18]:
6.13 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 101A:
Page 23, line 37, at end insert ("and transferring").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 101A, and I should like at the same time to speak to No. 101B, which is to leave out "by virtue of the preceding section" at line 38 on page 23 and insert "in pursuance of the provisions of this Act". Clause 18 deals with transfers of employment to new authorities and social service authorities. It provides for orders to be made to regularise and to regulate the transfers.
314
Clause 19 provides safeguards for the position of those transferred compulsorily on the appointed day. There will be others who have opted for transfer before the appointed day: applied for and secured posts in advance of the date of compulsory transfer. They will wish to have the same rights as those transferred on the appointed day and to retain, if they so wish, their former conditions of service.
May I detail a point by way of example? As I understand it, the newly revised National Health Service scheme for superannuation requires an extra three-quarters per cent. from officers—that is to say, 6¾ per cent. of salary, as compared with 6 per cent. in the new local government scheme. I believe that there are other differences relating to the reckoning of widows' pensions, among other matters. Clause 18—to which Clause 19 is supplementary—is couched in permissive wording, and does not appear to ensure beyond all doubt that orders will be made for all transferees. The purpose of the Amendments is to meet these points. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I am glad that the noble Lord has brought up this point of superannuation, which obviously is of great importance to staff, and is a matter that we fully recognise as being rightly of great importance to them, to their superannuation arrangements, and their pension prospects. However, these are not matters that will be dealt with under Clause 19. We have under consideration at the present moment the question of what options in respect of superannuation should be available to officers transferring to the new authorities, and we intend in due course to consult with staff interests, and then to make regulations to provide for this under Section 10 of the Superannuation Act 1972.
I shall perhaps go a little further than the noble Lord's clarification, because I am not sure that he referred to this, but so far as the protection of other terms and conditions of applicants for new posts is concerned it is surely generally accepted that those who freely apply for posts must be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of service attached to them. If those terms and conditions are not to their liking, they need not apply for, or accept, such posts. This would apply, of course, to staff who obtain

315
top posts with the shadow new authorities before April 1, 1974. In fact, they would know what posts they were applying for, and they would know the terms and conditions that apply to them. So far as the superannuation point is concerned, I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that there will be consultation with staff interests, and that the regulations will be made under the Superannuation Act, 1972.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for what he has said. I hinted when I was speaking that I was going beyond the question of superannuation; I said that I was detailing that as an example of one of the worries, if I may put it that way, of those who feel themselves affected by this position. I welcome the assurance that there will be consultations with regard to superannuation. As to what the noble Lord has said about those who may be applying for "top posts", as he put it, I am sure that what he has said will be studied with the greatest interest. Until I have studied what the noble Lord has said with regard to the top posts, I do not know whether it will be necessary to come back to this matter at Report stage. My feeling at the moment is that what the noble Lord has said sets out the position clearly, and everybody should know where he is. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.20 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 23, line 40, leave out from ("body") to ("the") in line 2 on page 24.
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 102. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 103, which is to leave out lines 7 to 22 on page 24. It might save time if, when I have spoken to those two Amendments, I touch on Nos. 104, 105 and 106. Clause 19 provides for the making by the Secretary of State of orders for the protection of the interests of staff transferred to employment by the new authorities and the social service authorities. Though the wording of the clause is not identical, its general arrangement
316
corresponds to that of Section 255 of the Local Government Act 1972, which in its turn follows precedents established under the Local Government Act 1958 and the London Government Act 1963. The general purpose of Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 is to ensure that after transfer an officer shall be absolutely indemnified as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment, so that, irrespective of the nature of his employment after transfer, he shall be no worse off than he was immediately before the appointed day. As it reads, the clause falls far short of this standard, particularly with regard to the preservation of remuneration without diminution, though it is virtually certain that provision will be made for the payment of compensation to those made redundant or whose remuneration is reduced.
I am advised that, as drafted, the clause would work as follows. First, after transfer there is an initial stage where the officer continues to enjoy the scale of remuneration and, taken as a whole, the other terms and conditions of his employment which he enjoyed immediately before transfer. Put simply, the purpose of the Amendments is to preserve this initial stage. Secondly, stage one may be brought to an end by the service of a written notice specifying new terms and conditions of employment, subject to some reservation; and I shall touch on that in a moment. Of course, stage one might, in theory, continue indefinitely, in which case the officer would have nothing to complain about, but it is anticipated that in practice the majority of those transferred must expect to have their terms and conditions of employment varied. Thirdly, even after service of the written notice the officer might still find himself no worse off. This would be the case if the notice required him to be engaged in duties reasonably comparable to the duties in which he was engaged before transfer. In such a case, both the scale of remuneration and the other terms and conditions taken as a whole, would be preserved on a not less favourable basis.
Fourthly, if the notice did not require the person to be so engaged, he could find himself worse off. The scale of his remuneration could be varied downwards, though not his other terms and conditions taken as a whole. Fifthly, the

317
Amendments would delete all reference to comparability of duties and would preserve the scale of remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment on a personal basis, as I indicated earlier.
In support of this argument, I would refer to the "no detriment" arrangements negotiated by trade unions when reorganisation takes place on a departmental, as distinct from a national, basis, and to the arrangements made for the preservation on a personal basis of pension rights under obsolete schemes when new schemes are introduced. This is happening under the new local government pension schemes.
Very briefly, so far as Amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 106 are concerned, Clause 19 is supplementary to Clause 18, subsection (3) of which is concerned with the transfer of certain staff employed wholly or mainly on certain functions under the Public Health Acts and so on; that is to say, staff employed by public health authorities. These Amendments provide for questions about whether a person was employed wholly or mainly, and, if so, in what capacity, to be referred to an independent tribunal; that is to say, to the Industrial Arbitration Board. I beg to move.
6.25 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and I are rehearsing again debates that we had on the Local Government Bill, both on Committee stage and on Report stage.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think I warned the noble Lord earlier that I hoped the Government would go a little further on this Bill than they went on the Local Government Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: I am sorry, but we take the view that we should stick to the same policy as we had on the Local Government Bill. Therefore I expect that this is one of those matters where, with the best will in the world, I shall not be able to satisfy the noble Lord, in so far as he wants to go one step further, as he did on the Local Government Bill. For that reason I shall not rehearse all the provisions that are made for transfer and for salary and conditions, because the noble Lord has been through them and, so far as I could follow, has very accurately explained the position, but I should just like to say—although I think he made some of
318
these points—that the vast majority of staff will continue to perform the same job at the same rate of pay and without any down-grading. But where they are unavoidably affected by the changes in organisation, employing authorities will realise that it is crucial that staff should be placed in posts where their abilities can best be used, both for the benefit of the Service and for the job satisfaction of the individuals concerned. If this line is followed, there should be relatively few cases in which the question of salary protection will arise.
Secondly, salary protection is not the only form of safeguard available. Provision will be made, as in the case of other statutory reorganisations, for compensation for those who lose their employment or whose salary is reduced as a result of reorganisation. It is not necessary to make the provision in this Bill, because the power already exists in Section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972, and it is intended to use that power. There has already been extensive consultation with interested bodies in the National Health Service about the compensation terms. The principle that lies behind the proposals in the Bill is that a man should be paid the rate for the job which he is doing and that if his transfer to a new job involves a loss of earnings he should be compensated accordingly. The fact is that the two reorganisations—under the Local Government Act and under the present National Health Service Reorganisation Bill—are closely related and, in our view, there would be no grounds for having a different scale of statutory protection to apply as between staff affected by local government and by National Health Service reorganisation. So I am afraid that I must stand fast on the position I took up earlier on the Local Government Act.
The noble Lord also spoke to his Amendments Nos. 104 and 105. These would have the effect of limiting at this early stage the possible means of determining cases, where there was room for doubt as to whether a person was or was not employed in a particular capacity, or wholly or mainly for particular purposes. It is difficult to judge at this stage how many instances of difficulty may arise, but the Secretaries of State will wish to look to the Staff Commissions to consider how questions of this kind should be

319
determined; and, indeed, the consideration of such questions is one of the matters which the Secretary of State had particularly in mind in deciding to set up the Staff Commissions. We hope that many difficulties can be resolved informally. It might be possible, for example, to have an arrangement which was acceptable to staff interests whereby the simpler cases were brought before a single referee. Or it is possible that a formal procedure within the arrangements for determining trade disputes could be used. We should not wish to exclude any particular method, but we think it would be right to look to the Staff Commissions for advice on the methods of handling these particular issues.
The noble Lord also spoke, I think, to his Amendment No. 106. The effect of this, again, would be to remove one of the most important reasons for setting up the Staff Commissions. One of the most important functions of the Commissions is seen by us as resolving individual problems, including the consideration of representations or appeals from staff about the circumstances of transfer as it affects them. Specific provision is made in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, in Section 36, for representations to be made to the Staff Commission by any person who objects to his transfer under the Act, and we think it reasonable that similar provision should be made for England and Wales in the present Bill. I know that I have not satisfied the noble Lord on his first Amendment, but I hope that I have gone some way to satisfy him on the others.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the care he has taken in replying, and for the fullness of his reply. May I say that in fact I tried to avoid some of the arguments that I used when the Local Government Bill was before your Lordships' House? I think it is inevitable that this question will arise whenever transfers of the kind that we are now discussing occur, and I am certain that those who are engaged in the services so affected when reorganisation takes place on the scale and in the kind of way that reorganisation of the National Health Service is taking place, and reorganisation of local government took
320
place, will not be satisfied until the principle of no detriment is accepted. That applies regardless of whatever Government are in power. The position in which these people find themselves is not of their creation, not of their desire; and it is felt that, since they entered a career—and many of the people concerned have given long years of service—the security and prospects they had ought not to be disturbed, not merely with consequent anxiety but with consequent damage to their own individual positions.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 104 and 105, I noticed that the noble Lord said it was difficult to judge how many people would be affected. What he has had to say will be studied with very great care, and I thank him for it. I will discuss the matter with people in touch with those who are so affected, to see whether they are satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said. With regard to Amendment No. 106, I realised the point with regard to the Staff Commission. I should have liked to speak at length about it, but your Lordships have many other issues to discuss this evening and we have already had a lone sitting. I shall content myself at this stage with saying just this: that the Staff Commissions are not everybody's darling. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Transfer of trust property from abolished authorities]:
6.34 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 27, line 26, at beginning insert—
("(1) Subject to the following subsection").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission I should like, in moving Amendment No. 106A, to speak also to Nos. 106C and 106D. The purpose of all three is the same. The provisions in Clause 29 to appoint Special Trustees to hold and administer the trust property formerly held by boards of governors and university hospital management committees recognise the special claims of teaching hospital interests in the management of endowments. As drafted, Clause 29(1) obliges the Secretary of State

321
to appoint Special Trustees for all the hospitals which are at present under the control of boards of governors and university hospital management committees. We have no wish, however, that these arrangements should be imposed on any such board or committee who do not wish for them and who prefer that the trust property now vested in them should on the appointed day be transferred to the appropriate Area Health Authorities (Teaching). One or two of these hospital authorities have already expressed such a preference, and the Amendments now proposed will enable this preference to be met. I beg to move Amendment No. 106A.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: Amendment No. 106B is consequential on Amendment No. 100B. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 27, after ("below") insert ("(excluding a preserved Board)").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: Amendment No. 106C is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 50, at end insert—
("(2) If after the passing of this Act and before 31st October 1973 a University Hospital Management Committee or Board of Governors requests the Secretary of State in writing to secure that property held immediately before the appointed day by the Committee or Board is not transferred to and vested in Special Trustees by virtue of the preceding subsection, he may by an order made before the appointed day provide that the property shall be treated for the purposes of that subsection as if it were held immediately before that day by a Hospital Management Committee which is not a University Hospital Management Committee.").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Special Trustees for a university or teaching hospital]:
LORD ABERDARE: This Amendment, No. 106D, is consequential on Amendment No. 106C. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 5, after ("Governors") insert ("(excluding any body on whose request an
322
order was made in pursuance of section 24(2) of this Act and any preserved Board)")—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Appointment and tenure of office]:
6.39 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 31, line 7, after ("a") insert ("separate")
The noble Baroness said: This is the first Amendment to Part III of the Bill, a very important sector of the Bill, dealing as it does with the Health Service Commissioners for England and for Wales. The object of this Amendment is once more to stress the fact that the administration of the Health Service in Wales is different from that in England, that the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales are separate from those of the Secretary of State in England, and that there are certain (I think) significant variations in the pattern of the administration in Wales which in our view mean that it would be extremely desirable to have a separate person, and a recognisably separate person, as the Health Service Commissioner in the Principality. As your Lordships no doubt know, at the present time one gentleman has a multiple personality. He is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for the United Kingdom; and he is also Health Service Commissioner for England, Scotland and for Wales. This may be intended—and we hope it is—only as a temporary measure, but the assurance we should like to have from the Government (and if we cannot have a categorical assurance then I would seek to press this Amendment) is that as soon as possible we shall have appointed a separate person to be responsible for the Health Service Commissioner's functions in Wales.
If I may remind the Committee, in Wales we shall have no Regional Health Authority. The functions carried out in England by the Regional Health Authority will in Wales be divided—I am not sure on what lines, but some indications have been given—between the Area

323
Health Authorities and the Welsh Office, the Secretary of State. This, I assume, means that whereas in England the Health Service Commissioner could be asked to investigate any complaint there might be against the Regional Health Authority, in Wales it would have to be in some circumstances the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; because I assume that the work of the Welsh Office would come under the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and not under the Health Service Commissioner although it was dealing with the Health Service.
I should also like to know from the Minister the position of the Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation, which is not a relevant body under the Act and, therefore, apparently is not subject to the Health Service Commissioner although it will be performing in Wales functions which in England are performed by the Regional Health Authority and which in England would be subject to investigation, if necessary, by the Health Service Commissioner. Of the position in Wales I am not quite clear. Would they, in Wales, be subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration?—which means that any complaint would have to go through a Member of Parliament. That makes a difference, in that respect among others, from similar complaints in England. There are differences between the two forms of administration, therefore; and it appears to me that there must be differences in the scope and functions of the two Health Service Commissioners. I am not presuming to speak for Scotland, but in Wales the position is different and I certainly feel strongly that for these reasons, if for no others, we should have a separate Health Service Commissioner.
I think there are also further reasons, more of a (one might say) quasi-political nature, in the sense that, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, must be aware—although I must say he did not seem to be so on an earlier Amendment which he rejected—there are very strong feelings in Wales that if we have a Secretary of State of our own with the functions allotted to him, that should be carried through in other forms of administration. In any case, the object of an Ombudsman is to be a reassurance to the public that their interests are being fully safe
324
guarded and that they have a channel through which they may go if they are dissatisfied with the workings of Government—or, in this case, with the workings of the Health Service administration. The psychological relationship has some significance and importance in this situation.
From my knowledge of Wales—after all, I live there and was a Minister in the Welsh Office for a number of years—my firm conviction is that the Welsh people will not be satisfied unless they feel that they have a separate Health Service Commissioner who will be in charge of their affairs in so far as this procedure is concerned. I am aware that there may be arguments in favour of a combined administration in the sense that one wants to maintain similar standards in England and in Wales, and presumably in Scotland; but it appears to me that this can be perfectly well done at an administrative level without interfering with the sense of personal relationship with the Health Service Commissioner in Wales and for Wales. I do not believe that there would be any serious difficulty of a difference of standards in the performance of the duties of the Health Service Commissioner if proper administrative arrangements were made for consultation or perhaps from time to time for seconding staff from one area to another. All I am saying is that the differences in the administration are very genuine and significant, and in some respects I think of such significance that we are entitled on that ground alone to press for a separate Commissioner.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Watkins is prevented from being here to-day because he, with his very great knowledge of administration in Wales, would most strongly have supported this Amendment. I know that, because we had lengthy discussions about it. I know that he can speak with a most intimate knowledge of administration in Wales from experience extending over very many years in Parliament and in local government. We feel very strongly indeed that this is a case in which we wish to have categorical assurances from the Minister that the present position is a temporary one and that as soon as may be we shall have our own Health Service Commissioner appointed. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: As the noble Baroness said when she opened her few remarks, we are now coming to a Part of the Bill which is extremely important and which provides for the Health Services Commissioners for England and for Wales. Before we come to discuss this particular Amendment and before discussing some of the other Amendments on the Order Paper, I should like by way of introduction to make one point which I hope will be helpful and will perhaps save me from wearying the Committee by frequently repeated points of general application to all these Amendments.
I hope that the Committee will bear in mind that Parliament has already provided machinery for the independent investigation of complaints against Central Government through the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and against the N.H.S. in Scotland through the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland. This fact has important consequences when we are deciding what to do in the case of this particular Bill. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is highly desirable that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioners for England, Wales and Scotland should apply the same standards of justice, and have substantially the same powers of investigation, in discharging their duties. The Commissioners will, of course, be dealing with different public bodies, but they are all public bodies, and it is the relationship of those bodies with their clients, if I may put it like that, which is and will be the subject of investigation. It was with these considerations in mind that the Government proposed that initially at least, the posts of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner in England, Wales and Scotland should be held by the same person, Sir Alan Marre. We shall have, therefore, a situation in which the same person will be holding the four Commisioner posts, performing basically the same function in respect of the services concerned, and applying the same standards and methods to his investigations. Plainly it is important that he should be given powers to discharge his duties as Health Service Commissioner in England and in Wales as nearly as possible identical to those he already has
326
as Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner in Scotland. We cannot therefore consider this Part of the Bill on its own; it must be related to existing enactments. I hope that, with this in mind, the Committee will understand the Government's attachment to general principles which have already been established in existing legislation.
The Amendment which the noble Baroness has moved has as its immediate purpose to require that the Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall always be a separate person from the Commissioner for England or for Scotland. I should be the first to agree with the noble Baroness that there are many differences in conditions in Wales and that under the Bill there will be a different form of administration in Wales. But against that we have to balance the overwhelming importance of ensuring that the duties of the various offices of Health Service Commissioner are all discharged in the best, most effective and consistent way. Surely there must be the greatest possible consistency between the judgments which will be applied and the way in which discretion is exercised in England, in Wales and in Scotland. In these matters where injustice or hardship due to maladministration or failure of the service is in question it would be very undersirable that the issue should in any way be affected, or even be thought to be affected, by which part of Great Britain the person complaining lived in.
We have given this matter the most careful consideration and we are satisfied that the best way to ensure a good start is, in the first instance, to appoint Sir Alan Marre to the offices of Health Service Commissioner for England, Wales and Scotland, in addition to his present office. He has invaluable experience to bring to these new offices, and in our opinion he will be able to ensure that undesirable differences in practice do not emerge. I must, I think, call in aid for this decision the advice of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commission for Administration which strongly supported this proposal that initially one man should hold all these posts.
I must say that I thought that the noble Baroness, in saying, as an example of

327
the difference in Wales, that the complainant would have to go to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration whereas complaints against the Area Health Authority would go to the Health Service Commissioner, was arguing slightly against her own case. If there were this dichotomy it would surely be better that one man was the ultimate person in both cases, whether the complaint was against the Civil Service or the Health Service administration. The noble Baroness made the point that all services direct to patients will be carried out by the Area Health Authority and not by the Welsh Office, so I would hope that in this case the absence of the Regional Health Authority would not make any difference. The majority of patients with complaints would be directing them against the Area Health Authority and they would be heard by the Health Service Commissioner. If the complaint was against the Welsh Office it would be heard by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I suggest to the noble Baroness that there is an advantage in having the same person.
Regarding her point about the Welsh Health and Technical Service Organisation, this is a special health authority and is a relevant body, and therefore complaints could be made in the normal way. Having said that, may I say I am sure that Sir Alan Marre would be the first to keep closely in mind the question whether at any time it would be in the general interest for him to ask to be relieved of one or more of his proposed new offices so that a separate Health Service Commissioner might be appointed. In any case, under Clause 37(4), Parliament will be receiving annual reports of the performance of each office, and this will give Parliament an opportunity to keep this matter under review. I hope that that will help to persuade the noble Baroness that she need not press this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I am afraid that it does not persuade me because we have not had the sort of assurance that I had been hoping for. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, kept using the word "initially". Had he said initially, and then added that after we have got the scheme running, gained a bit of experience and
328
set some standard, and reviewed procedures, and so on and so forth, we should certainly move on to having a separate Health Service Commissioner for Wales, one would not have questioned it because one would see sense in that. But from what the noble Lord has said it is to be left to Sir Alan Marre to decide whether we in Wales should have a separate Health Service Commissioner. Frankly, I do not think it is good enough. I do not believe that it is necessary to have one man for all these separate functions. On that basis, we should have only one judge in the Kingdom, in the interests of consistency, whereas plainly our system of justice has to be devolved. Admittedly from time to time there are certain anomalies in judgments which are given, but the various judges take cognisance of the decisions of their brethren and try to keep in line.
I repeat, I do not believe for a moment that what I propose is impossible. As I say, I think the Government's method is quite out of keeping with what the public is hoping for from the Health Service Commissioner. The concept of the Ombudsman which the Government have is different from that in the Scandinavian countries from which the word was taken, and I think the idea was taken, and where he is much more the patient's friend and adviser than an inquisitor who has to be kept aloof from everybody. I recognise that we cannot go into the full philosophy of the case, but I repeat that I do not think that someone who appears to be as remote as Sir Alan Marre (or whoever may be appointed) is bound to be, if he is carrying on this quadrupartite function, will bring real confidence to the people in the Principality.
My noble friend Lord Watkins and myself have had some quite strong representations about this point. Having myself been a Minister in the Welsh Office in charge of health affairs I do not feel that for anything longer than a relatively short initial period, to get the machine working, we should be satisfied without having our own Health Service Commissioner. In those circumstances, and as we have not had the kind of assurance that I had hoped for from the noble Lord, I cannot withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: Before the noble Baroness makes her final decision, I wish

329
to make two points. First, what she is saying means that there would be two separate people in Wales. There would be the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, at present Sir Alan Marre; and under her Amendment there would be another person who would be the Health Service Commissioner. I put it to her that in the initial phase this could lead to serious differences between the way in which complaints were handled and decisions taken between the two. I do not think that it would be at all desirable; and neither did the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commission for Administration.
The other point I would make is that I think the noble Baroness was very wrong to say that I said that Sir Alan Marre would be left to make this deci-
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Administrative provision]:
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 32, line 34, at end insert ("but so that in Wales there shall be sufficient Welsh-speak
sion. Of course he could advise, but the point I made was that there would be an annual report to Parliament from each Health Commissioner, and this would give Parliament an opportunity to make its views known in the future.
BARONESS WHITE: With respect to the noble Lord, I think that when he reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that he did indicate that the initiative might well be with Sir Alan Marre. I think that the words he used could bear no other interpretation.
7.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 107) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20: Not-Contents, 58.
ing staff to deal with complaints made in the Welsh language").

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Serota, B.

Beswick, L.

Hale, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Stocks, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Garnsworthy, L.

St. Davids, V.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elles, B.

Milverton, L.

Abinger, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monck, V.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Newall, L.

Berkeley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Northchurch, B.

Bethell, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brock, L.

Hayter, L.

Onslow, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hemingford, L.

Platt, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ironside, L.

Rochdale, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Aldwyn, E.

Conesford, L.

Jessel, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strange, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Terrington, L.

Croft, L.

Limerick, E.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Lothian, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

de Clifford, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wolverton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 108 simply to get on the Record an assurance—which this time I feel I must have from the Minister, whether he wants to put it in the Bill or not—that if we are going to have Sir Alan Marre, at least he will have some Welsh-speaking staff to help him. Again, this is a sensitive matter in Wales, and even more so as the last Amendment

331
was not carried and we have no assurance about having our own separate Health Service Commissioner. At least we can be certain that he is aided by, as the Amendment proposes, sufficient Welsh-speaking staff to deal with any complaints that may be made in the Welsh language. I trust that on this at least we shall have an assurance. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I gladly give the noble Baroness that assurance. We fully accept the underlying premise that the people of Wales are entitled to expect that the Health Service Commissioner for Wales will have available a proper and sufficient capacity to enable him to deal with complaints made in the Welsh language. We have made clear our policy of supporting the Welsh language. It is not, strictly speaking, necessary to include anything to this effect in the Bill, since it would obviously be part of the ordinary duty of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales to ensure, as a matter of good administration, that complaints made in the Welsh language could be dealt with. I know that Sir Alan Marre fully recognises this aspect of his new responsibilities. I should like to be helpful to the noble Baroness if I can, if she will accept from me that I could not possibly agree that it would necessarily be appropriate to refer to the Welsh language in all enactments affecting Wales. At the same time, I recognise, as she does, that this is a very sensitive matter in a very sensitive area, and in these particular circumstances there could be virtue in the general sense of the Amendment which she has proposed.
I think I must say that technically her Amendment does not quite do. It refers to "staff to deal with complaints", whereas strictly the staff are there to assist the Commissioner to deal with complaints. If I might have words with the noble Baroness later and could suggest to her a rather more correct phraseology, she might feel able to put down an Amendment at Report stage which I should be able to accept, with the proviso that I should not necessarily wish to look upon it as a precedent for all future legislation.
BARONESS WHITE: Having had that rather more satisfactory assurance on this
332
occasion, yes, of course, I quite understand that the wording of the Amendment could be improved. I should be most happy to take advice on it. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Matters subject to investigation]:
7.11 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 34, line 7, at end insert—
("Provided that a Commissioner may conduct an investigation notwithstanding that the person aggrieved has or had such a right, if satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect him to resort or have resorted to it.").
The noble Lord said: I am speaking to this Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brock, and myself. I should like, if I may, to take Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 together, because the one is dependent on the other. Before developing any argument, may I point out that the full stop printed in the second line of the Amendment should obviously be a comma. Your Lordships will notice that it is followed by a small letter.
Following that preliminary, may I say that I look on this Amendment as rather a technical one? I should also like to call the attention of your Lordships to Clause 34(4) which says, if I may make a sort of précis of it, that the Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation into matters in respect of which an aggrieved person has a right of appeal before a tribunal or a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law. I should like your Lordships to note that in the first place it is "a right" and in the second place it is "a remedy". There follows a proviso that a Commissioner may conduct an investigation if he thinks it is reasonable that the person has not resorted to this right or remedy.
What we are suggesting is that that proviso should come in after paragraph (a); in other words, the Commissioner should be enabled to investigate a case where a person has the right of appeal before a tribunal, but should not be allowed to conduct an investigation

333
where the person or patient has a remedy by means of proceedings in any court of law. The reason for this is that the case would presumably be sub judice and without the change here proposed there would be some other person—namely, the Commissioner—investigating a case which was in fact before a court of law. The words in the Amendment represent precisely the same proviso as that given at the end of subsection (4), with the exception that it says "a right" instead of "a right or remedy"—because we are putting it in after paragraph (a) which deals only with a right of appeal, so the question of a remedy by means of proceedings in a court of law does not come into it. Why one is a right and the other a remedy is beyond the understanding of any ordinary person like myself; but that is the way it is written. Therefore that is the way in which it must be altered if, by chance, the Committee agree to accept this Amendment.
May I just reiterate—because it is a rather technical and difficult Amendment—that what we are aiming at is to ensure that a Commissioner should by all means be able to investigate a complaint if he felt that the person, though he might have had the right of appeal to a tribunal, was reasonable in not resorting to that right. But we do not think that the Commissioner should be allowed to investigate a case that was already in the hands of the law. I hope that I have made this fairly clear. I am really only asking for clarification, in order to ascertain the view of the Minister.
LORD ABERDARE: The two Amendments to which the noble Lord has just spoken both seek to achieve the objective which he has explained most clearly. They would remove the Health Service Commissioner's discretion to investigate actions which could be taken to court—not necessarily those which were already in court, because he would certainly not investigate those. Of course it is not intended that the Health Service Commissioner should investigate complaints which would normally and appropriately be taken to court; for example, those in which the person complaining alleges that he has suffered considerable pecuniary loss as a result of some action by a health authority. However, a very wide range of actions might in principle form
334
the occasion for litigation, and though in practice it is only the more serious case in which the patient takes action against a hospital or doctor, because of the expense involved and the uncertainty of the result, quite trivial matters could form the basis of legal action if the patient were so minded—for example, alleged inconvenience or delay. It is very difficult to draw a line between those actions in respect of which an aggrieved person may have the remedy of proceedings in a court of law and those in respect of which he has not, and if the Health Service Commissioners are to play their part effectively we feel that they must have discretion to decide which cases may be taken to law and which cases they can reasonably investigate themselves. There is a similar provision in Section 5(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, which in practice has worked very well. I would therefore suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that this gives the Commissioner the necessary freedom to make decisions himself where there are these very marginal cases.
LORD PLATT: If my noble friend agrees, with that explanation given by the Minister, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.20 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 34, line 18, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 22.
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible for the Health Service Commissioner to take cognisance of actions taken in connection with the general medical service, the general dental service, the general ophthalmic service and the general pharmaceutical service which, under the Bill as it stands in this clause and in Schedule 3, are removed altogether from his jurisdiction. We feel that if we are to have a Health Service Commissioner who is to be effective he ought not to be absolutely precluded from taking notice of investigations in this sector.
We are quite well aware that in the present situation, which we assume would be continued under the reorganised Health Service, there is a well established

335
procedure for dealing with complaints in this area; there are service committees at which the complainant can bring forward his case. If he is not satisfied, he has then a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. But although in many instances this procedure works perfectly satisfactorily, there are, nevertheless, some difficulties. A particular difficulty which worries many of us is that if the initial complaint is not dealt with to the satisfaction of the patient and he has to go on appeal to the Secretary of State, he is then liable for costs if he loses his appeal. These costs can be quite considerable because, naturally enough, the doctor, dentist, or other professional person concerned, is likely to be represented by counsel, and it may be a very expensive matter indeed.
I have received a number of representations from people connected with these matters who say that while they have no doubt that the appeal, if it is asked for, will be well conducted, the element of cost in it is a considerable deterrent to people who may have perfectly legitimate grounds for not being satisfied with the investigation carried out by the service committee. The service committee meets in private, and although I have no doubt that in most cases the correct procedures are followed, there is evidence in some instances that they are not; the clerk does not advise the complainant adequately of his or her rights. I know of some instances where the rules of procedure have not been adhered to and, as a result, the complainant may well feel that he has a grievance. It seems to us that while hitherto the procedure of appealing to the Secretary of State was the only one open, now, when we are having a new arrangement for dealing with these matters, there should be a possibility, at any rate, of the Health Service Commissioner being asked to investigate. It is a great pity that we do not have the report of the Davies Committee, and a great pity that the terms of reference of the Davies Committee are confined to the Hospital Service and do not have within their terms of reference the way in which complaints are dealt with in this particular sector of the Health Service. We should have welcomed their advice on this. However, it is not forthcoming; it cannot be on this
336
particular sector. Indeed, it will not be forthcoming in time for this Bill, which I find extremely regrettable.
There is a strong argument that this particular sector of the Health Service, which is extremely important to the ordinary person, should not be entirely outside the scope of the Ombudsman. It is a very difficult matter for someone to carry through an appeal to the Secretary of State, knowing that the costs might be awarded against him. It means that somebody would have to be both of considerable means and persistence to do so, and there may well be a number of instances—and I am advised that there are certainly some—where the procedure carried out at what we might call the court of first instance has not been necessarily very satisfactory, and where we feel that there should be an appeal to the Health Service Commissioner which would not involve the person concerned in the kind of expense that would otherwise fall upon him.
If a person is seeking damages, compensation or anything of that kind, that is quite another matter. If he wants to get some monetary compensation for whatever his grievance may be, then a court of law, or an appeal to the Minister with costs awarded if the case goes against him, seems fair enough. But if all he is seeking is a remedy which may not be entirely in his own interests, but more for other people in order that the same thing may not happen again, then I do not think that the present situation is satisfactory. It is for exactly this kind of reason that we have always supposed that the Health Service Commissioner has been established. Therefore, to leave outside his cognisance altogether the whole of the family practitioner services seems to be restricting him in a way which I do not think the public ever imagined was to be the case, and which I feel very strongly ought to be examined very carefully indeed before we leave this Part of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD BROCK: The difficulty about this Amendment is that it has been indicated that the doctors will not have imposed upon them the additional mechanism of an action before the Ombudsman. As has been said, it is already in the 1946 Act that the patient can get a remedy if he is aggrieved by an adminis-

337
trative or clerical failure. There is a disciplinary mechanism by which he can complain to the service committee and, on appeal, to a tribunal. This Amendment means that he will now be threatened by the Health Service Commissioner as well, and this is unacceptable.
7.28 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: The position is, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, understands it to be, and as the noble Lord, Lord Brock, has also said, that there is already a well-established statutory procedure, which will continue substantially unaltered after the Bill is passed, for investigating complaints against these practitioners under the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations. These Regulations, as the noble Baroness has said, include the right of appeal to the Secretary of State. There is one point on the cost of appeal which has been mentioned. The Regulations provide for executive councils to contribute to the cost of appeals incurred by complaints, and also the Secretary of State may direct executive councils to make such contributions. These Regulations apply whether or not the appeal is successful. There is some way here in which some contribution could be made to unduly high costs.
It is an important principle of the Bill that the Health Service Commissions' functions should not overlap those of statutory tribunals or the courts, and for this reason they would normally be precluded from investigating complaints which could properly be taken to a statutory tribunal or court. Similar provisions are to be found in Section 5 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, and Section 45 of the Scottish Act.
Secondly, it would be inconsistent with the status of general practitioners, as independent contractors, for their actions to be subject to investigation by the Health Service Commissioners. As the noble Lord, Lord Brock, has told us, the members of the professions concerned feel very strongly on this point. After all, they have contracts: they have contracts with executive councils, and in future they will have contracts with family practitioner committees. Under these contracts they are obliged to undertake certain duties, and failure to fulfil these obligations renders them liable to investigation under the Serevice Committees
338
and Tribunal Regulations. These practitioners are not direct agents; they are not employees of health authorities, and certainly any extention of the Health Service Commission's powers to them would be strongly resented by the professions, whose members, as I have said, have their clear contract, and this would be going beyond that clear contract.
I am advised legally that, strictly speaking, the words in the Bill are not necessary; that the specific exclusion of these practitioners in the Bill is not necessary since as independent contractors they are not part of a service provided by a relevant body, nor do they take action by or on behalf of a relevant body. The words which the noble Baroness's Amendment seeks to remove were included in the clause because the medical profession had on several occasions expressed anxiety about the position of general practitioners and it was thought desirable to make the position clear beyond any shadow of doubt. So not only is the noble Baroness's Amendment not fully effective in the way she would want it to be, but there are very strong reasons why we should not go any further than the Bill does in the powers of the Health Service Commissioner. In these circumstances I hope that noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: May I say just one sentence on this Amendment? With great respect I felt a deep sense of regret that the noble Lord should have referred to the Health Commissioner in terms of being a threat to the medical profession. I feel that this should never be the case. I rather regret also that the Minister spoke so completely to what we know to be the medical brief on this subject, and I very much hope he does not share the view that the Health Commissioner is a threat. After all, the general practitioners and the dentists are the people who deal with 90 per cent. of all illnesses that occur, and these are the people for whom the Health Commissioner should be a help, and not regarded as a threat. One hopes very much that the Minister and his Ministry do not share that particular view.
7.33 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I would emphasise what my noble friend has said. I thought it was most regrettable that the noble

339
Lord, Lord Brock, should use the terms which he did, because that is an attitude of mind which I think the public frankly resents. He said that any such procedure as was indicated in our Amendment should not be "imposed" upon the medical profession; that they should not be "threatened" by the Health Service Commissioner. But, after all, the medical profession is there to serve patients; it is not there as an end in itself. It is this attitude of the medical profession, that it is an end in itself and is not there to serve patients—an attitude which I am sure is not shared by the vast majority of the medical profession but it was often indicated by their official spokesmen—that leads to the distrust of the medical profession by the public.
The feeling that one comes across not infrequently (as we may discuss on further Amendments to this clause of the Bill), is that, as they put it, the doctors all gang up together, they defend one another, and if anything should go wrong, well, the patient will be lucky if he is able to obtain adequate redress. I know this may seem very unfair to people who are, as I say, for the most part extremely dedicated people—dedicated to the profession and to the well-being of their patients—but it is unfortunate that the language so often used by the official spokesmen of the medical profession would lead one to think otherwise. It was precisely an instance of this—the choice of words by the noble Lord, Lord Brock, of "imposing" something intended to safeguard patients and "threatening" with the Health Service Commissioner, who is to be a help to all of us in maintaining and improving standards in the Health Service—which makes one very sad. Something which upset me when I listened to some of the discussions that went on in the earlier days when my right honourable friend Mr. Crossman was having consultations on the proposed reorganisation of the Health Service was this defensive attitude of some representatives of the medical profession.
I appreciate the points put by the Minister, but I would ask him to recognise that the people we have consulted are those who have had considerable
340
experience in studying the way in which the existing procedure works. Although he is quite right in saying that the Secretary of State on this question of the costs of appeal may direct that costs should be met, there is this tremendous element of uncertainty. One does not know where one stands, and if one does not have substantial private means it is a very great risk to have to take. It is for this reason, that we are not satisfied that justice is invariably done and seen to be done, that we put down this Amendment. It is not a perfect system at the present time and it would be quite wrong for us to pretend that in all cases it was carried through satisfactorily at the service committee, which is the court of first instance. Because of the financial risks involved, people who may have a very good case have to let it go by default as they feel that they cannot take the risk of the expense. They do not know whether or not the Secretary of State will direct that their costs should be met or that the executive committee, as the case may be, should contribute to the costs. I do not feel that this is an issue on which one would wish to vote; therefore I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But I do so having, I hope, indicated that we are by no means happy with the present situation and that we should have regarded an extension of the powers of the Health Service Commissioner in this respect as very desirable. It is something which would have been warmly welcomed by the public.
From what the Minister has said, the legal position is that the doctors are individual contractors and are not part of a relevant body, which means that presumably anything a doctor does in any respect in the Health Service is not going to be covered by the Health Service Commissioner; for this would not be just matters of clinical judgment but the entire activities, presumably, of medical men, dentists and the like. In other words, the Health Service Commissioner is going to be, as some of us rather feared at the time when his appointment was announced, far less effective a safeguard than I think the general public was led to believe when the announcement was made. He is going to be circumscribed in so many directions that his actual effective power, I am afraid, is going to be a great deal less, disappointingly less,

341
compared with what most people when they heard this idea would have supposed. But in all the circumstances it seems to me I have no option but to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BROCK: I regret that such a sinister interpretation has been put upon the words I used. I should like to say that the object was to avoid the Health Commissioner having any influence on the clinical judgment of the doctor and therefore adversely affecting the way the patient reacts to this. The possibility of a doctor having to look over his shoulder should not be allowed to distract him from making a difficult clinical decision. That is really the essence of the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.40 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: Amendment No. 112 is purely a probing Amendment because we wish to know whether the Government have any particular intention to exclude actions described in paragraphs (3) and (4) or whether this is put in simply as a safeguard. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, leave out subsection (6)—(Baroness White.)
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like to follow that up briefly, because this is one of the most important Parts of the Bill. Clauses 31 to 35 enable patients who feel that they have a grievance to air their complaints against the National Health Service. What I find difficult to understand is this. Many of us will have received the Circular, Employment Medical Advisory Service Act 1972, and a small guide to this Act has, quite rightly, been sent to thousands of people by the Government in their enthusiasm for the new Employment Medical Advisory Service. It says that it is a new service established by the Department of Employment on February 1, 1973, under the Employment Medical Advisory Service Act 1972, to study and to give advice about all medical problems related to people's work. We have not yet got an industrial health service but we are moving that way.
It is well known to the well-informed Minister answering on behalf of the Government that this can overlap and be established in local government, and it can also be established in various
342
nationalised industries. I hope that the Minister of Employment will have some possibility of complaint there, and I can think of nationalised industries and the National Health Service and local hospitals that can have complaints. If there is careless use of radioactive isotopes by qualified people, nurses and others, who are remiss in the disposal of those radioactive isotopes and throw them away down sinks and other parts of the sewage system, those of us who worked years ago on radioactive waste substances know that quite a number of problems can arise in connection with the effluent which could be the subject of a complaint by the national authority against hospital servants or doctors or nurses. I believe action could be taken under the Employment Medical Advisory Service Act; under this Bill it seems that it could not. Clause 35 is loaded with negatives. It is abstruse; quite frankly it is not crystal clear.
I do not want to press this point because I do not know what my noble friends on the Front Bench intend to do, and I do not want to do any filibustering, but I think this matter is worthy of deeper thought now because of the establishment of what I honestly consider to be quite an excellent thing—the Employment Medical Advisory Service Act which applies in industrial and other activities, nationalised industries and local authorities. I think that view was worthy of being voiced and I hope it will not have wasted your Lordships' time.
LORD ABERDARE: We always like to hear the noble Lord's voice in this Chamber. Of course, the primary reason for the existence of the Health Service Commissioners is to safeguard members of the public against failures in service or maladministration in the new National Health Service. Therefore it does not cover the Employment Medical Advisory Service. However, the noble Lord has certainly raised an interesting point and I will look at it in more detail to see whether there is some help I could give him on the question of the Employment Medical Advisory Service.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD ABERDARE: So far as Amendment No. 112 is concerned, I thought it might well be a probing Amendment, but

343
perhaps I can try briefly to explain the position. There are five types of action listed in Schedule 3 which the Health Service Commissioners may not investigate: first, those arising from clinical judgments (which meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brock); secondly, actions by executive councils, which after 1974 will be known as family practitioners committees under the Service Committee and Tribunal Regulations which we were discussing on a previous Amendment; thirdly, National Health Service staff and personnel matters, such as appointments, pay, discipline and so on; fourthly, contractual or commercial transactions other than those relating to the provision of services under contract and, fifthly, actions which have been, or are, the subject of an inquiry set up by the Secretary of State under Section 70 of the 1946 Act. There are only two of these five categories where the ban on investigation may be removed from the Schedule by Order in Council. Those are the third and fourth categories that I mentioned, namely, the personnel matters and the contractual and commercial transactions. To change any of the others would require an amendment by another Act of Parliament. This is a similar provision to that in the Scottish Act.
The distinction is there simply to reflect the relative importance of these exclusions in the context of the Bill. It is fundamental to our proposals that Health Service Commissioners should not be able to investigate complaints about clinical judgment, actions of statutory tribunals or those which are subject to other statutory processes. To change these provisions would require a further Act of Parliament; but the same considerations do not apply to personnel or contractual matters, and the scope of the remit of the Health Service Commissioners could be widened to include these without altering the basic character of the proposals. Therefore these are left to be altered, if it should appear to be desirable at a later date, by Order in Council. I hope that makes the matter clear to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS WHITE: I am greatly obliged to the Minister and I think it is useful to have this on the Record, because
344
we were not quite certain what the Government had in mind. Having had that helpful explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Provisions relating to complaints]:
BARONESS LLEWELYN DAVIES OF HASTOE BARONESS LLEWELYN DAVIES OF HASTOE moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 34, line 35, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friends. There cannot be any doubt that the country in general and, I believe, the Committee have a very real wish that the Health Commissioner's function should be both effective and realistic. We are all aware of the great necessity for keeping merely frivolous or cantankerous or even neurotic complaints away so that his time and his resources should not be wasted. We know that the principle has been established that people and organised bodies can present complaints on behalf of the patient to the Health Commissioner. In moving this Amendment our whole concern is to make quite sure that the functioning of the Health Commissioner's office is to investigate responsible complaints. Therefore it seems extremely unreasonable to deprive such responsible bodies as the local authorities and the nationalised industries—or even parts of the nationalised industries—of the right to present cases which are known to them and about which they are informed, to the Health Commissioner himself.
I noted in the White Paper that the local authorities were precluded from doing this in the interim period, which seemed more reasonable; but I really cannot see a reason why the local authorities should be deprived in this way. After all, three or four members of any local authority can take up a case on behalf of a patient; therefore why should not the authority itself, with all its experts, with its knowledge and with its skilled advisers, which could present the case in such a way as probably to save the time of the Commissioner? When one comes to the nationalised industries one has only to think of, for example, the steel and mining industries to know

345
that they are not only highly dangerous occupations but particularly liable to cause occupational disease, about which they have very great experience. We remember the long fight of the miners to establish pneumoconiosis and similar complaints as occupational diseases.
It is possible to foresee a situation in which an individual miner, perhaps not very articulate in presenting his case, could put his case to the Commissioner and not get very far. In the meantime, the National Coal Board or some area board might have sent three or four patients and found for them adequate ground for complaint. Why cannot they present a reasoned case to the Health Commissioner like any other industry or employer? The nationalised industries form a very large part of the industry of this country. They cover an enormous section of the working population and there will be many small parts of their industries which will find themselves in exactly the same position as the big national boards.
It is possible to envisage a situation in which a factory run by a private industry will appeal on behalf of its employees to the Health Commissioner whereas a similar factory which happens to be in a nationalised industry will not be able to do so, with the result that its employees will be at great disadvantage. This does not seem to be reasonable, and noble Lords will, I am sure, require a clear explanation from the Minister before they can be satisfied about so major an exclusion from the whole concept of the work of the Health Commissioner. I should have thought that it is exactly these experienced, responsible bodies which will be able to save time and be in a position to present these cases well and which are precisely the kind of people who ought to be allowed to present such cases. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, said in moving the Amendment, and she certainly put her case very persuasively. I had taken the effect of her Amendment to be that it would permit a local authority, nationalised industry or other public authority covered by Clause 35(1)(a) to make a complaint to the Health Service Commissioner on its own behalf. I think
346
this would be undesirable because the exclusion of these authorities from the bodies which can make complaints prevents a public authority from lodging a complaint with the Health Service Commissioner against the action of a Health Authority. As the Health Service Commissioner's function is basically to protect individual patients, it is not appropriate that he should be asked to arbitrate in disputes between public authorities.
However, as the noble Baroness moved her Amendment I rather understood that this was not in fact what she had in mind—that she was talking about the cases of individual complainants and was saying that other people could not put complaints on their behalf. As I understand it, a patient's friend or any other individual can put a complaint on his or her behalf to the Health Service Commissioner. I should have thought that the Bill was perfectly reasonable and that where a public authority like a local authority was concerned and had complaints against a Health Service Authority, it had perfectly good means at its own disposal to lodge them.
As I have been slightly unprepared for what it seems the noble Baroness has in mind, I would be grateful if she would allow me to look at the matter again, after which perhaps I might write to her or otherwise get in touch with her on the subject, because I think she was touching on the point of trying to help an individual complainant, that help coming from a public authority.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: That was my point.
LORD ABERDARE: I should like time to go into that point and I will write to the noble Baroness about it.
LORD BROCK: I feel a little less concerned about the criticisms that were levelled at me somewhat earlier. If I interpreted the opening remarks of my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe correctly, she seemed to accept that the attentions of the Health Service Commissioner might be at peril as a result of frivolous and irresponsible complaints.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and in a way I feel rather hopeful in that he seemed to be more

347
approving of what I actually meant than of what he thought I meant. It is clear from the opening words of Clause 35 that:
"A complaint … may be made by any individual, or by any body of persons whether incorporated or not, not being … a local authority or … nationalised industry …"
This must mean that a private industry is a body of persons which can present complaints whereas nationalised industries or local authorities cannot present complaints. The position is by no means clear. I am not sure that I would wish to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment simply on the Minister's assurance that he will write to me on the subject. We may require to return to this matter on Report. I think my meaning is clear, while the Bill is certainly not as clear as it should be.
LORD STOW HILL: May I say a word in support of the case presented by my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. If one asks about what one can complain, one has to look at Clause 34(3) where one sees that one can complain only about certain limited categories of happening—namely, those set out in subsection (3)(a):
"an alleged failure in a service provided by a relevant body …"
As my noble friend pointed out, a public limited company can assert that there has been a failure of a service provided by a relevant body. Alternatively, it may wish to assert a happening such as is described in paragraph (c). There is nothing to stop it from doing that. Indeed, Clause 35 allows it to do so. Imperial Chemical Industries, being a body of persons, can point to such a breakdown of a service. From my reading of these two clauses there is nothing to stop I.C.I. from making a complaint. If that reading of these clauses is correct, may I, following what my noble friend said, ask why in principle there should be any distinction between I.C.I. wishing to raise such a matter and a local authority or nationalised industry wishing to raise such a matter? If British Petroleum, in which the British Government have 51 per cent. of the shares, wishes to make such a complaint, it can do so. What in principle is the logical distinction between a local authority or nationalised industry on the one hand, and B.P. or I.C.I. wishing to raise precisely the same point on the other?
348
I venture to intervene because anxiety has been expressed from my Front Bench, and I wish to support what has been said about the possible limitation of the powers which are being vested in the Commissioner. One should not go further than the logic of the situation requires. No doubt the Commissioner can be expected to exercise his jurisdicton with prudence and caution and not in an oppressive way. If he is to be a person whose intervention is to support the individual and improve the Health Service, then in my submission there should be no distinction between the various types of body I have mentioned.
8.0 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: We are getting into rather difficult waters. I am not quite clear about this myself at the moment, I must confess, because as I say I had assumed that the Amendment of the noble Baroness referred to something rather different, which was a body excluded from making complaints being allowed to make complaints on its own behalf whereas she has been directing our attention to a body making complaints on behalf of an individual. The Health Service Commissioner is there to look into individual complaints. If I may I should like to look at it again and write to her—but of course if I cannot satisfy her perhaps we can return to it at Report stage.
There is one other point I could make perhaps to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill; that is, that whoever makes a complaint has to be able to demonstrate that he has suffered injustice or hardship as a result of the failure of a National Health Service service. I am not quite sure—for example, he mentioned I.C.I. could demonstrate that.
LORD STOW HILL: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but if one looks at the lines which follow line 40 on page 33 I do not really think that it has that effect. You can make a complaint if you can show that somebody has been injured because of a breakdown of service.
LORD ABERDARE: If somebody has been injured, yes, the individual has a right of complaint. What I am wishing to go into a little further is whether I.C.I. may put in a complaint on behalf of that individual. This is what I should like

349
to be allowed a little time to go into in order to try to reassure the House.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am grateful for the Minister's reply, and the Committee is grateful that he has said that he will have a look at it. This illustrates what I have been driving at about this new service under the Employment Medical Advisory Service Act which becomes operative on February 1, 1973. It is the Service concerned with factory work—in fact with any sort of work. It co-operates with Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate. How does it contribute to the health of the people who work? By studying medical problems, employers, unions and workers; by working with Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate; by working with general practitioners; by working with the young, with rehabilitation units and young people starting work. Young people often start work in dangerous occupations. In this modern society there are new substances in plastic and some of them can actually be used in local authorities—in a bookbinding department, or even in the Library Service, where there are detergents and other things that can create all kinds of dermatological problems.
Some protection is needed and I want to make sure that a well-informed local health officer, seeing this happening to a young man coming into the service of the local authority, seeing him suffering from a dermatological complaint because of some neglect, ought to be able at least to guide that man as to the way he should apply to the Commissioner and not leave him adrift. Therefore, I believe it is worth while looking at this in greater depth and I am grateful that the Minister has said that he will do so.
LORD STOW HILL: I had not finished answering the question put to me. I.C.I. have twenty employees who have perhaps become ill owing to some industrial process; they seek medical attention at a local hospital; they do not get it; they suffer injustice or hardship; I.C I. make a complaint on behalf of those twenty people and they say that those twenty people have suffered injustice or hardship by reason of a failure of a service provided by a relevant body. I.C.I., as I read those words, are perfectly entitled to do that. If I.C.I. are perfectly
350
entitled to do it, why should that not apply in similar circumstances to a local authority or nationalised industry?
LORD ABERDARE: I hate arguing on legal affairs with the noble and learned Lord, but I should like to refer him—as we are referring to bits and pieces of this Bill—to Clause 35 subsection (2). That says:
"Where the person by whom a complaint might have been made under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act has died or is for any reason unable to act for himself, the complaint may be made by his personal representative or by a member of his family or other individual suitable to represent him; but except as aforesaid and as provided by subsection (5) of this section a complaint shall not be entertained under this Part of this Act unless made by the person aggrieved himself."
That leads me to think that the person who has suffered the injury or has the complaint must himself, in normal circumstances, make the complaint; but if he is unable to act for himself he can call upon his personal representative or a member of his family or other individual suitable to represent him, and I suggest to the noble and learned Lord—with my modest legal knowledge—that that would exclude I.C.I. But I repeat that I should like to go into this further if I may be allowed a little time.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: In view of the very helpful attitude of the noble Lord, I shall withdraw the Amendment, but I hope that in so doing the Committee will in the end discover what a body of persons who can represent people really means.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY): The question is that Clause 35 stand part of the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: Before we pass this clause I should like to ask the Minister about Clause 35(1)(b). We did not put down an Amendment on this, but supposing for the sake of argument that the community health councils were to obtain their money wholly or mainly by money provided by Parliament, would this preclude their taking any part in the complaint procedure? We do not yet know what the Davies Committee is going to recommend. One understands from certain sources that they are very much

351
concerned about the possible role of the community health councils as part of what might be called the "external" complaints procedure as opposed to the hierarchical complaints procedure within the Hospital Service. If it should be that the community health councils might be brought in in some way, and that they might also be paid wholly or mainly by money provided by Parliament, are we quite sure what we are doing? I should like to have some clarification of this point because it seems to me that we might be in danger here.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Is the noble Baroness speaking on Amendment No. 114?
BARONESS WHITE: No; I am speaking on "Clause 35 stand part".
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I am sorry; that is my fault entirely. I asked that Clause 35 stand part before I put Amendment No. 114.
LORD ABERDARE: I am delighted to have a little time to find out the answer.
BARONESS WHITE: I should have been quicker off the mark, but I knew that this was the point I had to raise on Clause 35 stand part.
8.9 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 35, line 19, after ("and") insert ("unless in the opinion of the Commissioner there are circumstances present which render it desirable that he should investigate the complaint").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, and perhaps we might discuss with it No. 114A. which is a narrower version of the same thought. Amendment No. 114A is in our view a very important Amendment, and this is the one I wish to emphasise. Nevertheless, we are not happy that under Clause 35(4) the Commissioner may not investigate a complaint unless it has been brought to the notice of the relevant body in question and that body has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to investigate and reply to the complaint. In all the other subsections of these clauses concerning the activities of the Health Service Commissioner there is a proviso that if, in his judgment, there is good
352
reason for doing something which otherwise he would not be supposed to do he may use his discretion. For example, he may take a complaint which is out of time, or may himself take a complaint which could have gone to a tribunal but which he believes for good reason was not taken to a tribunal. In this subsection (4) there is no such let-out; he is not permitted any discretion of any kind. He has to allow the complaint to go through all its processes and has no opportunity in any circumstances, as we understand it, to say, "I believe that in this particular instance I myself ought to investigate forthwith."
In the great majority of cases, of course, we agree that the normal processes of investigation and so on should be carried out. What we are thinking of is the exceptional case—which is sometimes the very serious case. The Commissioner may for example have reason to suppose that in a certain hospital conditions are unsatisfactory, and he may have apprehensions that if there is not an early investigation what is politely called "erosion" of evidence will take place. This is not unknown. Therefore, we feel that the Commissioner, as our first Amendment suggests, ought to have an ultimate discretion as to whether or not he goes right in as soon as he receives a complaint. One could surely rely upon the Commissioner to use that discretion wisely and one could be satisfied that the occasions on which he would feel it necessary to do so would be very few and far between. As I say, normally one would expect the first investigation to be carried out, and sometimes even the second investigation, within the normal procedures which are laid down and which are now being studied in detail by the Davies committee.
That is the general case for a discretion to be afforded to the Commissioner. Our second Amendment, No. 114A, we feel is of particular importance. It should be open to members of staff who so desire to go to the Commissioner direct, and in such circumstances that if the Commissioner so wishes he can investigate forthwith. I say this for this reason. There are certain circumstances in which it is only the staff who know when things are going seriously wrong. I am referring to the long-stay hospitals, especially the geriatric hospitals and those for the

353
mentally handicapped. We have all, I am sure, been shocked by the revelations of the inquiries made in the last few years. In the Welsh Office we took over our responsibilities within a week of the Ely Report, which I think horrified everyone. When the announcement was made, about a year ago now, of the appointment of the Health Service Commissioner this very matter was raised in the House by my noble friend Lady Serota. She referred to the victimisation of staff which had actually occurred—this is not just hypothetical: staff who knew that things were going seriously wrong but could not get redress by reporting matters to their superiors, who were in some instances condoning what was happening. If this type of case is not to be allowed to go straight to the Commissioner, and if he is not to be allowed to investigate directly, there will be a very strong disincentive to members of staff who may be victimised. In the Ely case it even went to the point of dismissal, though there was subsequent reinstatement. Therefore we think it is very wrong not to allow a discretion to the Commissioner.
We feel that it ought to be a general discretion, and if the Government will accept our first Amendment that will satisfy us entirely. But we are under very particular pressure to make certain that not only should staff employed by or under contract (because this could apply to doctors or nurses, or people on the administrative side of the hospital) be allowed to go directly to the Commissioner but he should investigate at once if he considered it desirable. I do not believe there is any other way in which we can ensure that gross maladministration may not sometimes taken place, particularly, as I say, in the long-stay hospitals, where the patients themselves, from the nature of things, are not normally in a position to take the necessary action. And it would be entirely fortuitous if one of them happened to have a highly intelligent and persistent relative who might have suspicions that things were going wrong. It is really only an internal knowledge that can bring to light any possible scandals in these hospitals, and the big inquiries we have had at several institutions in the last few years seem to me entirely to prove this case. Therefore, we felt we were under very strong
354
obligation to put down these Amendments in order to provide in this particular subsection the kind of discretion to use his own judgment which is afforded to the Commissioner in the other activities which he can undertake under the Bill. I beg to move.
8.17 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lady White. I think it is highly undesirable that hospital boards should act as judges and juries in their own case. There will also be great difficulties for staff members if they make complaints to their own employers. Many of these staff members are shy, nervous people; I think it would be a great ordeal for them. They would be confronted by a high-powered tribunal. Sometimes they would have to undergo cross-examination by skilled lawyers retained by the hospital board without the benefit themselves of any legal representation—because they will not be entitled to this. But, most important of all, there will be fears of vicitimisation. My noble friend Lady White mentioned this. She spoke particularly about the Ely Hospital, at Cardiff, and other inquiries. Many of these inquiries resulted from a book published by AEGIS, of which I have the honour to be President, called Sans Everything, and since then a great many improvements have come about. I think we owe a great debt to Mr. Richard Crossman and my noble friend Lady Serota for their great courage in publishing that report by Sir Geoffrey Howe. We also owe a great debt to Sir Geoffrey Howe for the way he went through this hospital like a dose of salts and his report is absolutely horrifying. As my noble friend said, there were cases in Sir Geoffrey's Report which show that the complainant was victimised, and indeed was dismissed.
Another report, which my noble friend did not mention, was that of the Farleigh Hospital Committee of Inquiry in 1971. I should like to quote two paragraphs from that report, as an example of what we have in mind. Here they say:
"Mrs. Saunders told us that following the interview with the Deputy Secretary the chief nursing officer offered to reinstate her at Farleigh if she would withdraw the allegations that she was making. We believe this statement. Mrs. Saunders was not prepared to withdraw her allegations and wrote to the

355
chief nursing officer saying that she had been wrongfully dismissed. She was not reinstated."
Then they go on:
"Although a domestic system for investigating complaints already exists within the Health Service, we do not believe that it is adequate. The history of complaints made at Farleigh and the manner in which they were handled demonstrate to our mind the need for an independent authority to which unsatisfied complaints by, or against, staff can be taken. This authority should be armed with the widest possible powers."
The system which the Government are proposing under this Bill may have some advantage as a form of window-dressing, but it does not seem to me to have any validity at all unless members of hospital staffs are able to complain direct to the Commissioner and not simply to those people who employ them. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I support the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness from the Benches opposite. I have read all the reports on these various hospitals, and it seemed that in each one the junior nursing staff were being almost bribed to withdraw evidence. I know from my own experience that it is naturally very difficult to get junior staff to make complaints against their seniors. I know of a slightly different case, but it has a certain bearing on this matter. I was on a hospital management committee, and one of the members of the committee visited a geriatric hospital. On going round, this member found that the senior nursing staff were not there, and he, or she—I cannot remember what sex the person was—got some very bad complaints about what was going on in the hospital. Those complaints were made by the junior nursing officers about their seniors. The member of the hospital management committee came back and reported, and the hospital management committee set up an inquiry by three members of the committee to look into the question. They made their report, and it was given to us on the hospital management committee.
One of the three people who were sent from our management committee on this inquiry was a retired civil servant, and by chance he met an ex-colleague of his who was then in the Health Ministry.
356
Unfortunately he talked to this ex-colleague, who went straight to the Minister, or whoever it was; and down from the Ministry, as it then was, came a complaint to the Regional Board, and then from the Regional Board to the hospital management committee. The report of our inquiry was absolutely slammed down, and the Ministry instructed the Regional Board to have an inquiry. I, having been on the hospital management committee, naturally could not be a member of the inquiry. I protested and said that I knew that these things had been happening.
When the Regional Board inquiry went down, they never saw any of the junior people. They were told that everything was all right, and they made a report to the Minister saying that this hospital was perfectly all right, there was nothing to complain about, and that none of these things had happened, although I knew myself that they had happened. If that can happen to a hospital management committee, how much more difficult is it going to be for a junior person employed in the hospital to make a complaint against his seniors? Of course it will not go further. I think it will be terrible if these juniors have not the possibility of going direct to the Ombudsman or the Health Commissioner. Most people are frightened about complaining about their seniors, and it takes quite a lot of guts to do it. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider this proposal and perhaps be able to help us support the view put forward by the noble Baroness opposite.
8.25 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I will certainly consider what has been said on this Amendment. I must say that when I first saw it I had some feeling that there was something in it which we might have been able to consider very carefully, but having looked into it I find that there are some real difficulties. In the first place—and I think that the noble Baroness accepts this—in principle it is desirable that complaints should be made to the managing authority. After all, this is an important part of their management responsibilities, and they can, and do, very often clear up to everyone's satisfaction the vast majority of complaints that reach them. I think that in practice there are some serious difficulties. The

357
noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken emphasised the difficulties of avoiding victimisation. Certainly we are as well aware of these difficulties as those of your Lordships who have spoken this evening. However, I do not think it is altogether fair to quote what has happened in the past, be it at Ely or at Farleigh, because the very fact that it has happened has meant that considerable changes have taken place.
Tribute has been paid to various people, and I would accept that the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Crossman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, acted with admirable speed and set up the Hospital Advisory Service, which is one action that has been taken to prevent the recurrence of this sort of affair. Indeed, there are certain things that will occur as a result of this Bill which should help to avoid any form of victimisation in the future. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there is the Davies Committee, which is particularly concerned with this matter. I know that it is one of the subjects in which they have taken a great interest. Then there will be the community health councils: they will be in and out of the hospital, and able to talk to staff. The sort of situation that has occurred in the past, where people have known of difficulties that the staff knew about but the staff were too frightened to say anything, will not apply to the community health councils. They will be able to bring it immediately to the attention of the district management team or the Area Health Authority.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord has mentioned the Davies Committee, but the Davies Committee will not report until after the Bill is through.
LORD ABERDARE: I am merely mentioning that there are these further safeguards in the future. The very existence of the Health Service Commissioner will not only strengthen the hand of the complainant, because he will be there as the appeal of last resort, but also surely deter anybody senior to this junior member of the staff from attempting to victimise, as he will know that there will lie an appeal to the Commissioner in the last resort.
I see practical difficulties in allowing a direct appeal to the Commissioner. If one takes the first Amendment to be concerned
358
with patients as well as staff, how is he to decide whether the complaints that are put to him direct are ones where victimisation is likely? If one were merely to tell patients that they could write to the Health Service Commissioner if they fear victimisation, it would certainly be resented by hospital staff. Any general invitation to patients to approach the Health Service Commissioner with complaints would probably lead to a flood of letters which he could not deal with. I think there is a real danger that if he got these letters, whether from patients or staff, he would have to make inquiries himself at the hospital to ensure that this was a genuine case where there was a danger of victimisation.
I should have thought that in the vast majority of cases he would have to say to the person complaining, "I think you should put your complaint in the first place to the management body, as that is the normal procedure". That would not only cause the complainant great disappointment but also cause resentment, and the complainant would certainly feel that he had been badly treated by the Health Service Commissioner. I think there are real dangers that the office of the Health Service Commissioner might receive a lot of complaints direct, might have to refer a great many of them back to the management committee; and this would reflect badly on the office and prestige of the Health Service Commissioner.
With regard to the staff, the same general propositions apply, I think, and the difficulties are equally great. How does the Health Service Commissioner decide whether he should investigate a complaint that is made directly to him? How is he to know whether an allegation that there is such a risk is or is not justified unless he undertakes an investigation to find out? Or is he simply to take at face value any allegation that victimisation may occur? We fear that the effect of accepting Amendment No. 114A would be that the Health Service Commissioner would have to inquire into all cases which alleged the risk of victimisation, at least to see whether the allegation was justified. Secondly, many complaints which would otherwise never have found their way to the Health Service Commissioner at all, because they were too trivial, would be sent to him; and although the

359
Amendment refers to complaints from members of staff it would plainly be very difficult for him to refuse to forward complaints from patients if he was asked to do so.
Thirdly, there would be the curious situation that complaints made by patients and their relatives or friends, including those alleging victimisation, would have to go through the usual channels, while those made by staff—perhaps about the same matters—could be dealt with by the Health Service Commissioner. Those are the practical difficulties of the noble Baroness's Amendments, and I am bound to say that I find them too difficult to get over to induce me to advise your Lordships to accept these Amendments.
LORD HAYTER: I cannot help saying at this juncture that I am not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister, and I say that on two grounds. The first is that we must bear in mind that the staff of a hospital, particularly the nursing staff, are in a most peculiar position. They are probably the most vulnerable in the whole of the country. They are part of a profession, and if victimisation were to take place their career, and the training that had gone before, would be absolutely finished. Secondly, we have got ourselves into this position—not by my choice, nor by that of many others here—of completely abolishing these district management committees and we are left with a district management team. So how can you expect the staff of a hospital to go with its complaint to the district management team, knowing that that team are bound to support their own superior staff? What other alternatives have they? The Minister says that they have the community health council, but if that council is to investigate it must do precisely the same work as the Commissioner, without the expertise which he must bring to his position. So I am all in favour of the second Amendment—the first Amendment is slightly more doubtful—and, so far as the staff are concerned, I shall vote for it if it is pressed.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Would it be fair to say that the incidents at Farleigh and at Ely would not have happened if the staff had been in a position to appeal to an Ombudsman at the time? If that
360
is so, then surely the other administrative and practical difficulties should be overridden. After all, the nursing staff is not completely made up of barrack-room lawyers and complainers. They are highly responsible and intelligent people. If the Ely and Farleigh cases could have been prevented by a complaint to the Ombudsman, that would seem to me to be an overriding reason for supporting the noble Baroness's Amendment.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I should like to say one more word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, said. I know nursing staff in different types of hospitals all over the country, and they are most loyal people. They never want to complain unless something is really wrong. I am absolutely certain of that. I am convinced that that was the position at Ely and at Farleigh, as it was in the case I described to your Lordships, which happened a long time ago and never reached a public inquiry. Both male and female nurses are very loyal and they would complain only as a last resort when they were absolutely in despair about what was happening. So I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in what they have said.
8.36 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: I confess that I am bitterly disappointed at the answer which the Minister has given us this evening, and I could not help feeling, as he came towards the end of his remarks, that he too felt that some of the arguments he was advancing, particularly against Amendment No. 114A, were a little thin. Of course we agree that, wherever possible, complaints by patients, by relatives and by staff should be dealt with as quickly as possible, and as closely as possible to the source. I was chairman of a hospital for nine years, and the moment that a complaint came in the surgeon superintendent or another member of the management committee and I immediately offered to see whoever was making the complaint. That was clearly the best way of dealing with that kind of situation.
I should like to underline the point which my noble friend Lady White made so effectively. In the acute hospitals, where patients are there for a short time and have relatives to speak for them if

361
they are ill, and where nursing staff live out in the community, although they work in the hospital, there is a much more fluid situation than exists in some of our long-stay hospitals. Situations cannot build up in the same ways and over such long periods of time. Mention has been made to-night of the inquiries into conditions at Ely Hospital and at Farleigh Hospital, but in the case of Whittingham Hospital—the most recent of the reports under Section 70 inquiries—the nursing staff had found themselves in difficulties in raising issues on behalf of patients, and in connection with nurses' training, since 1965. It was not until the summer of 1969, when Dr. Masters wrote direct to the Secretary of State, that something eventually began to happen. These are long periods of time, either for staff to be disaffected or victimised, or for patients to be suffering as a result of ill-treatment or neglect.
It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that the Department and the Government are aware of the possibilities of victimisation. Nor is it right to say that it is not fair to quote the past, because we know and must accept that it could be happening now. Nor would I say that it is sufficient to suggest that we wait for the Report of the Davis Committee—
LORD ABERDARE: I did not suggest that.
BARONESS SEROTA: Perhaps I am being unfair to the noble Lord. Let me say that we are all waiting anxiously for the report of the Davis Committee. But it would be wrong to suggest that these are matters with which community health councils can deal, pecause they are not the kind of situations which we have in mind, particularly in respect of Amendment No. 114A. The practical difficulties which the noble Lord listed about allowing direct access to the Commissioner were quite reasonable; but, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, if you believe in the principle then it is possible to overcome the practical difficulties.
The main burden of the noble Lord's case was that it would or could—I think could, rather than would—result in a flood of letters to the Health Commissioner. He would receive too many complaints direct, and how would he know which to take at their face value and how he should set about his inquiries?
362
I have the greatest faith in the abilities and the qualities of Sir Alan Marre, the Health Commissioner, and presumably the Government would not have appointed him to this post if they did not have similar faith and confidence in his abilities in this field. I am prepared to put my faith in him. I certainly do not see him as the ultimate deterrent. The reason why this would be a protection for staff, even if in the event he decided that the matter should be investigated locally first, is that once it was known that the member of staff had been to the Health Commissioner and that the Commissioner had recommended that the complaint should first he investigated locally, I believe that that member of staff would be protected. The mere circumstance that the Health Commissioner knew that a complaint had been made would be a safeguard to staff and, I believe, would do a great deal to reassure members of staff—who, after all, very rarely want to bring complaints of this kind.
Members of Health Service staff are not rushing to make complaints. Indeed, I think they have to be very certain that the patients in their care are not receiving the care and treatment that they should be receiving before they go to the lengths to which some of these members of staff have had to go. As I think my noble friend Lady White said, except in the case of Whittingham, where the complaint came direct to the Secretary of State, the staff were dismissed; and even in the case of Whittingham Dr. Masters and his colleague were asked to go. He wrote to the Secretary of State the day after he was asked to leave the hospital, and I am glad to this day that he had the courage to do so; but it was not an easy thing for him to do.
I beg the Minister to think again. I cannot understand why the Government are being so rigid on this matter. I fully understand—and I said so myself at the time when the noble Lord made his Statement about the Health Service Commissioner to the House—that at one time the proposals that are before us now would, I think, have been accepted by us all. But I cannot forget the last three years, and I do not think any Member of this Committee should forget the last three years. I think it is completely fair to quote the three Reports because, as I said before, this could be happening now and it could

363
happen again. In those circumstances, I am begging the Government to listen and to consider whether particularly Amendment No. 144A is not one they should accept in the light of all that has happened. I believe that the Health Commissioner is more than competent to cope with the situation, and I think the staff of the health professions would be given confidence if they knew that the Health Commissioner knew that they were concerned about situations in their hospitals to the point that they felt they had to appeal for his help. I hope the Government will listen, will think and will be prepared to accept these Amendments.
LORD ABERDARE: The Committee has made its views on these Amendments very clear. I am perfectly willing to look at them. I canot advise the Committee to accept them now, but if I may be allowed to take them back and consider them further I will certainly do so. In reply to what the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has just said, and in reply to my noble friend Lord Onslow, I should like to say that it is of course very difficult to say what would have happened in these cases if there had been a Health Service Commissioner in the past. But I believe, if I may repeat what I said before—and I am particularly thinking of Whittingham, which has been very much in my mind; it occurred, as the noble Baroness knows, very shortly after I got my present post—that if there had been a community health council at Whittingham they would have known what the junior staff were thinking at the hospital because they would have been in and out of the hospital the whole time. That is the idea of the community health councils.
BARONESS SEROTA: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to say that I do not believe the community health council could have known that there was such a severe misappropriation of patients' pocket money, which, after all, was the point on which the inquiry was initiated, in the absence of any other kind of evidence which could easily be substantiated.
LORD ABERDARE: There were other complaints, as the noble Baroness knows, of which I was thinking. I did not have the complaint about pocket money so
364
much in mind, but there were other complaints which certainly the community health council would have known about. There were also complaints which were investigated by the hospital management committee, if my memory serves me aright, which, under the present arrangements, could have led eventually to an appeal to the Health Service Commissioner. I am merely suggesting that there are certain provisions in the Bill which will help towards making less likely victimisation of the sort which has happened in the past. But I fully appreciate the anxieties which have been expressed to-day, and I shall certainly take these Amendments back and have another look at them if the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw them at the moment.
BARONESS WHITE: This has put us in a very difficult position. I should be willing to withdraw No. 144 at this stage because I recognise that it opens the door rather wide, and the last thing we want is for the Health Service Commissioner to be overwhelmed with complaints. We entirely agree that that would be most undesirable. As I said at the outset, in the normal course of things such complaints should be investigated and sieved at a much earlier stage, and not go to him. I am wondering what confidence we can really put in the Minister coming forward on Report stage with anything that would meet us on Amendment No. 144A. Had he spoken with real conviction himself and said that he really felt that something needed to be done but that this was perhaps not quite the way to do it, I would feel much happier. But I am really dubious, in view of the arguments he has put forward with apparent conviction, whether we have any real hope of getting anything better than this.
LORD ABERDARE: It is always open to the noble Baroness, if I do not satisfy her, to put down her Amendment again on Report stage.
BARONESS WHITE: That, of course, we shall certainly do. It is difficult, when a Minister says that he will take something away, to press it, as I frankly should like to press it but provided that he and everyone else in your Lordships' Committee recognises that this is, for some of us, a real sticking point, then it may perhaps be the wiser thing to withdraw

365
the Amendment to-night and allow the Minister to have further consultations.
There is one aspect which has not been mentioned to-night. Primarily, we have had emphasis laid, and very rightly, on patient care and that kind of thing, but there are other areas in which things call go wrong in large establishments. On the catering side, the supply side and so on there can be dishonesty. We need think only of the recent Naval catering case, where misappropriation had gone on for so long. This is another set of circumstances in which, unless one can be sure that the complaint goes quickly to someone in authority who is completely independent and has nothing to fear from an investigation, what I said at the beginning is true; that is, that what is politely called "erosion of evidence" may very well take place. From this aspect, which has not been stressed, I think it is also necessary that the Commissioner should have discretion. That is all we are asking for. After all, we are all experienced in these things. Anybody who has been a Member of Parliament, for instance, usually develops a very good sense of whether a complaint that comes to him is likely to be one which is really serious or not. One gets a certain expertise in this; and those people whose job it will be to deal with this, the staff of the Commissioner, will I am sure get that kind of instinct. Also, there have been institutions from which various complaints have been coming up which lead one to suspect that there may be much more to it than, perhaps, one or two individual instances of maladministration. We have had such a strong expression of opinion on this Amendment that while I am prepared to withdraw it, I think we should test the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 114A.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There has been a great deal of sympathy for the noble Baroness which was nobly put on this side of the House. I think the Minister has gone very far. Is it not better to have the point of view listened to when something else is introduced at the Report stage than to have a dog fight about it and get no bone at all?
BARONESS WHITE: Again one is put in a difficult situation, because we have made it clear what we think about this. We are not at all convinced that the
366
Minister is going to bring forward anything that we should regard as satisfactory. Having given notice, so to speak, of the stand we propose to take—I see the Government Chief Whip is here and he can bring up his cohorts—it puts us in a difficult position.
LORD ABERDARE: I cannot go further. I have suggested every sort of opportunity to the noble Baroness. I am prepared to meet her, to consult with her, to discuss with her, to see whether we can come to an arrangement. If I fail, she has the opportunity at Report stage or even at Third Reading to put down an Amendment identical to this one. I cannot make a better offer.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I intervene at this point? Perhaps I might have some assistance from the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I am not putting this forward on behalf of my noble friends but as something they themselves might like to consider. It is whether the Minister feels that he could give some firm undertaking on Monday as to what his views of the matter would be. He shakes his head. If he had been in a position to do that, I should have suggested that we adjourn at this particular stage of the Committee, go back to it as first business on Monday and then perhaps come to a decision. But clearly the Minister cannot do that. Therefore, I think I must leave it to my noble friends Lady Serota and Lady White to decide what they do on an issue which I know is causing them very grave anxiety.
EARL JELLICOE: Since the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, invoked me perhaps I may intervene here. I cannot speak on the merits of this; it would be wrong for me to do so. My noble friend Lord Aberdare is better able than I to do so. I have only come in very late in this particular discussion. I have heard what my noble friend said and also what my noble friend Lord Onslow said. I feel that my noble friend Lord Aberdare has made a very straight offer to the noble Baroness opposite. He said that he will take this back. He went further and said that he would be willing to consult with the noble Baronesses, Lady White, and her colleagues, to see whether they cannot decide something satisfactory to everybody concerned. That

367
certainly was a very fair offer made in the way that we should act in a Bill of this sort. If noble Lords opposite wish to take this to a Division, let it go to a Division. But I should have thought it far better to deal with this matter by accepting the straightforward offer made by my noble friend.
LORD PLATT: Do I understand from the noble Earl the Leader of the House that he is himself not entitled to give an opinion on this and that if it is put to the vote he will abstain?
EARL JELLICOE: That is very fair comment. I do not think for one second the noble Lord would expect me to do anything of the sort. I hope that it will not go to a Division. If at the Report stage it is put forward again, I will listen to the debate and decide what I shall do.
BARONESS WHITE: In that case, I shall have the pleasure of being in the same Lobby as the noble Earl; for he could not resist the weight of argument on this particular matter. I am very reluctant about withdrawing this Amendment particularly because I know how deeply my noble friend Lady Serota feels about it. I think that this is possibly one of the points of the Bill that she feels more strongly about than anything else. On the other hand, the Minister has made his offer. One of the troubles is that when one has a benevolently-minded Minister, he is likely to say that he will look at things again. We hope that this time this offer really has substance and is not just benevolence. In all the circumstances, but with reluctance. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 39 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Matters not subject to investigation by Health Service Conimissioners]:
8.56 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 55, line 44, after ("judgment") insert ("(except in the case of an error in clinical judgment which, in the opinion of the Commissioner in question, there is reason to suppose may have been due to serious or prolonged neglect)").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 115 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill and myself, because I think we ought not to pass this Bill without having at least a discussion about what I fully recognise is a peculiarly sensitive and difficult point. But that it is sensitive and difficult is no reason why we should not have as clear a look at it as possible. I am well aware of the feeling among professional people in the Health Service, and one can understand it. They take the responsibility for their own clinical judgment and they must not be under any kind of apprehension that if they should make an error of judgment (and anybody, even the most conscientious person, can do this) this would in some way be brought against them; that somebody is looking over their shoulder perhaps at a very critical moment in the health, or even the life, of their patient.
One is fully appreciative, (therefore, of the very strong resistance that exists to any questioning of clinical judgment. In certain circumstances there is a remedy in the courts: one can take action against someone. The rather frivolous example given is that of the case in which somebody amputates the wrong leg. That remedy is open; but it is infrequently taken. It is extremely difficult to take, for two reasons. One we have referred to before: that it is very costly and the outcome is uncertain. That is a strong deterrent. But there is another strong deterrent: the extreme difficulty of obtaining any kind of evidence on which to base a case. It is because of this extreme difficulty that we feel we should look at the situation. It is not true that in no instances are medical matters examined in the public administration. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is entitled to examine matters into which clinical judgment has entered in hospitals which come under the Home Office. There he is assisted by a medical assessor and relies on him for the medical aspect of the situation which has to be investigated.
In other countries where the medical profession, I am sure, is equally jealous of its own education and standards— in Sweden, for example, where they have an ombudsman—it is fully recognised that he may investigate matters in which clinical judgment is involved, but always with the

369
assistance of the appropriate medical assessor who, plainly, must be at least of equal competence to that of the person who is complained against. So we are not entirely without a precedent. I believe it true to say that within the medical profession there is a growing feeling that some kind of examination by one's peers is justified where there is reason to believe that there may have been, in the words of our Amendment, "serious or prolonged neglect". We are trying by this form of words to indicate that we are not concerned with the sort of judgment where it may be a question of a finely balanced diagnosis, a difficult matter in which one has to use one's best endeavours to prescribe the appropriate treatment, though one may be wrong. We fully understand that. As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said, it may be that a new drug is being tried, or an operation is being performed for the first time using some new technique. With the best will in the world things may easily go wrong, and in those circumstances no one would suggest that there should be any problem.
One knows, too, that there are patients who have imaginings of all kinds; who may suppose that they have some complaint. Or some hysterical relative may suppose that there is a ground for complaint when in fact there is none. But we do know that there are circumstances in the Hospital Service and in general practice where there is what we call "serious or prolonged neglect". Many of us may know among our own range of acquaintances or from our own experience of examples of cases where, if a doctor had really been doing what he ought to have been doing, things would have gone differently. That could apply in both branches of the Service, as I say. But to obtain any kind of remedy is at the present time exceedingly difficult. As I said on an earlier Amendment, I am not now speaking of those who want to get some kind of monetary compensation. The way is open for them. If they want to get compensation, their proper remedy is to go to the courts. I am thinking of people in respect of whom there has been neglect, serious or prolonged, and where, when this is apparent, people may feel that, not only for themselves but also for the benefit of other people, they ought to try to take
370
some sort of action. And so we put down this Amendment.
There are two distinguished medical men in your Lordships' Committee. I do not know what they think of the Amendment. I do not know whether they would feel inclined to comment on it. My noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill and I felt it right to put it down because it is not unknown that in certain circumstances —in a Home Office hospital, for example, because such hospitals are not part of the Health Service—a Parliamentary Commissioner can investigate situations in which there is an element of clinical judgment involved, always provided that he has adequate professional advice. Other countries are able to deal with such situations apparently without upsetting the medical profession. This is not a matter which we would press, but we feel that we cannot pass a Bill of this kind, under which we are setting up a new procedure for investigating possible deficiencies or defects in the Service, without taking a look at this matter and not turning aside from this very difficult field of grave neglect—not just an error of judgment but very grave neglect—by the professional persons involved.
LORD PLATT: Until I heard the noble Baroness explain the full meaning of this Amendment I was not prepared to give an opinion, and I do not know that I am now. It seems to me that the noble Baroness made out a very good case. The only thing is: is serious or prolonged neglect a matter of clinical judgment at all? I do not know. But that is my first question, whether this is really a matter of clinical judgment. Then, of course, there is the question that there is a remedy in law, though I accept that sometimes that is very difficult and may be very expensive. Before I finally make up my mind I should like to hear the observations of the noble Lord who will reply for the Government, but it seems to me that this is a case in which we may be able to support an Amendment of this kind.
9.6 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but obviously this is a matter of the greatest importance and I should like to add something, though not, I hope, repeating a word of what has been said by my

371
noble friend Lady White. The problem is that we have a situation in which, when it is looked at from the outside, the strong probability seems to arise that something—if I may use a generic term —has gone badly wrong; that the system has broken down, or something has happened which ought not to have happened if the affairs of the particular institution had been properly conducted. May I cite a case in which I was professionally concerned as counsel? In order to spare possible pain I will not say where it occurred, but I will say when it occurred. It was about half a century ago, when I was first called to the Bar.
An injured man was brought into a casualty department. The doctor in charge examined that person but could find nothing wrong with him, and therefore refused to admit him to a ward. An hour later the man died. He was brought in with a history of having been run over by a Foden steam lorry. That was a matter of clinical judgment. I dare say that his life could not have been saved, but he was not admitted to a ward. The doctor could find nothing wrong with him, although he was brought in with that history, which one would have thought should indicate to anybody that he must have something very badly wrong with him, as he had. I put that before the Committee as a case in which the Committee might think it would be wrong, in this system that we are building up of the Commissioner's jurisdiction, to enact that in that particular case, because the doctor performed an act of clinical judgment, there should be an absolute full-stop; that there should be no possibility of the Commissioner's investigating the case to see, for example, whether there were grounds for thinking that the doctor appointed was wholly inadequate to the task in terms of experience, training or something of that sort, or whether there was some other matter which needed bringing to light and which could result in such an error, if it was an error, of clinical judgment.
It may be—I just do not know—that it is impossible to tell in a case like that when you palpate (I think that is the phrase) a patient how far he has been injured and whether or not something is desperately wrong with him which requires urgent treatment, but the point
372
I am putting is that in that sort of case an outsider, the Commissioner or anybody else, looking at it might well think to himself: "True this is a matter of clinical judgment. The doctor did his best and came to a wrong conclusion. But it ought not to have happened if that casualty ward had been properly equipped, properly conducted, with a doctor of proper experience and so on in charge of the ward." Perhaps he was overtired, overworked and without proper assistance, and that that contributed to the error of judgment in question, if there was an error of judgment. It is simply that sort of case that we would submit to the Committee ought not to be met with a full-stop because there was a matter of clinical judgment which could be pointed to which would put an end to the jurisdiction to inquire.
LORD PLATT: Before the noble and learned Lord finishes, may I say that surely that is just the kind of case in which an appeal to the law is the right appeal. What can a Health Commissioner do about a patient who has been run over by a steamroller, or something of that kind, and who is dead? The law can surely provide his relations with some kind of compensation. I should not have thought that that was a good example of serious or prolonged neglect. It is a serious error of clinical judgment, certainly, but that is surely what the law provides for.
LORD STOW HILL: I did not make myself clear. The man was alive. He was brought in, and he was alive. Then he died. He was put upon a bed and examined, and nothing could be found wrong with him. He was allowed to lie on the bed alive, and he died an hour later. That is the situation. I am not a doctor, and I do not understand these things. but the point is that there is a case in which one might well think that an error of judgment of that sort could not have been made in a properly conducted casualty ward; that there must have been some outside, supervening neglect to man the ward properly; that the doctor must have been overworked, overtired, inexperienced or anything else. In a case like that the Commissioner should not be precluded from at least putting those questions to himself. But, as I read Schedule 3 at the moment, all

373
that has to be pointed to is the fact that the doctor made an error of clinical judgment; and then the curtain is brought down. There can be no further inquiry; the Commissioner's jurisdiction is wholly excluded.
That is the sort of situation—I give it purely as an example, and it may not be a good example—in which I submit that the Commissioner should be entitled to ask himself: "May there have been some outside neglect which could have led to this error of clinical judgment and which should be investigated?" He should not be wholly excluded because the matter of tragedy (which it was) was contributed to by an error of clinical judgment. There is an error of clinical judgment and as the Schedule reads, that is the end of it. What we are submitting to the Committee is that it should not be the end of it in all cases. In most cases certainly, because otherwise the whole system gets clogged up and doctors simply will not be able to function, but not in all cases. The cases in which it should not be the end should be cases in which the Commissioner, looking at them, thinks to himself: "Perhaps here there was some serious neglect or some prolonged neglect." Those are the views that I seek to put before your Lordships.
9.14 p.m.
LORD BROCK: This is a very difficult and sensitive area of discussion and it is clearly surrounded by legal difficulties. Perhaps it is extremely unwise of me, particularly at this late hour of the night, to make any pseudo-legal comment on it, but I cannot see that the example which has been given is one that should be referred to the Health Service Commissioner. It seems to me that it should go back to common law. If the Health Commissioner considers it first, it could prejudice the ultimate decision. The patient or his relatives or dependants surely have a remedy at law here.
The thing which worries me about this Amendment is that there is confusion between an error of clinical judgment—which is a single matter—and something which is characterised by plurality: serious or prolonged neglect, which surely presupposes a whole series of errors; in fact they may not be errors, but they imply neglect or misdemeanor, or something of that sort. I do not see that you
374
can link a single error of clinical judgment with a series of prolonged incidents of neglect. For the same reason that I mentioned earlier, I should have thought that if there were a series of instances of neglect which could be alleged and proved there is a remedy at law.
BARONESS WHITE: Perhaps I might just put to the noble Lord, whose great experience in these matters we deeply respect, of course, that it is not so easy to go to law, for the reasons I have given: the first is money, and the second is that no doctor will bear witness against another doctor if he can help it. I must stress this. I find this a very serious difficulty when attempting to help constituents. I had a constituent, for example, who went into a local hospital for an operation of a relatively minor nature. The surgeon concerned was guilty, I would have said, of serious neglect—though not of a series of instances of neglect—because he severed a nerve, which has meant that her face is now partially paralysed. She goes to a private consultant who tells her this and says that it is a dastardly thing and that no surgeon should have been so careless. But he is not prepared to go to court and be a witness. What is she to do? This is the sort of thing that a number of us have experienced, and it worries us. This is why we put down this Amendment. I would quite agree that it could be more felicitously drafted, but that could be taken care of. However, we do feel that this is something that worries the public. They feel helpless. Very often it is not that a person wants to be vindictive, or that he or she necessarily seeks compensation. But people feel that in a public service like this these things should not be allowed to go on without attention being drawn to them. Unless one goes to court, very often attention is not drawn to them. If one goes to a solicitor for advice, he may say, "certainly in equity you have a good case but in law you are not going to be able to stand up in court because you cannot produce adequate witnesses." This is a very real problem. If we could feel there was some other way of meeting the situation or some alternative or improved wording in the Bill, we should not be wedded to this particular Amendment; but we feel that it is something which ought to be considered.
LORD BROCK: I must express my resentment at the statement that doctors will not give evidence against other doctors. This is absolutely wrong. There are many doctors who are sufficiently aware of the desirability of giving evidence without fear or favour. I agree that there are many doctors who might be loath to give evidence against another doctor; but to say that doctors will never give evidence against another doctor is far too sweeping, and anyone who has had the experience of appearing before the courts will have had experience of evidence having been given by one doctor against another.
LORD ABERDARE: I think that what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Brock, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, illustrates the difficulty here. Doctors are very sensitive about their clinical freedom. They have always enjoyed a clinical freedom and I think most of us consider that there are very great benefits to the patient arising from the fact that doctors do have this clinical freedom. They would be inhibited and might find their lives made rather difficult if they were liable to investigation on matters of clinical judgment. This is certainly what underlies the provisions in the Bill.
We have taken it as a principle of the Bill that the Health Service Commissioner should not investigate complaints about actions resulting from clinical judgments. The Health Service Commissioner is there to investigate failures of service, or failures to provide a service, or maladministration. I should have thought that in those cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, where an accident and emergency department was not being properly run, or certain facilities were not being provided, on that administrative basis on appeal to the Health Service Commissioner could perfectly well be made. Where it comes to the clinical freedom of the doctor concerned, we should be treading on dangerous ground to alter the situation that obtains at the moment. The remedy lies at law, if anywhere.
The trouble is that the Amendment would lead to investigations which would affect and involve the Health Service Commissioner in questioning and discussing matters of clinical judgment. As
376
soon as the question of whether an error had or had not been made was considered, this would involve clinical judgment. It might also be a matter of clinical judgment whether, for example, a doctor's decision not to re-examine a patient was a reasonable one, or was to be regarded as serious or prolonged neglect of the patient. It is because the Amendment conflicts, as the noble Baroness realises perfectly well, with what we believe to be a sensible and good principle that I cannot advise the Committee to accept it.
Even if it were considered desirable for the Health Service Commissioners to investigate matters of clinical judgment in certain circumstances, they would be precluded from doing so in the majority of cases under the provision in the Bill which prevents investigation of actions in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law. One would expect this to extend to most cases in which patients claimed to have suffered severely as a result of an error in clinical judgment caused by negligence. My real worry about the Amendment is that it raises, as the noble Baroness told us, the whole question of clinical judgment of doctors. We should be very careful not to disturb a right that is highly valued by them, and which to my mind is to the advantage of the patient.
BARONESS WHITE: As I indicated at the beginning of our discussions, this is not one of the Amendments that we wish to press. We were absolutely right to bring it up, and I hope that the problems which underlie this Amendment may be further discussed in another place. At this late hour, and in view of all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: I think we have gone about as far as we ought to go this evening, and I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

FISHING VESSELS (ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT) (GRANTS) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1972
9.24 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this scheme simply extends for another year the facilities by which grants are made payable on fishing vessels. I hope that it will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1972, be approved. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SEAT BELTS IN HIRE CARS
  SEAT BELTS IN HIRE CARS
  TOWER OF LONDON ADMISSION CHARGES
  TOWER OF LONDON ADMISSION CHARGES
  BLUE ASBESTOS IMPORTS
  BLUE ASBESTOS IMPORTS
  LAW REFORM
  LAW REFORM