Sitting of 23 May 1973

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

    River Don (Pollution)
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from local interests on pollution in the River Don.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend has had representations from the Don District Salmon Fishery Board and the Aberdeen and District Angling Association.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very widespread concern at the deteriorating condition of the River Don? Is he satisfied that the river purification boards have sufficient evidence to compel private industries which pollute the river to clean up their discharges? If the industries concerned are unable to meet the financial costs involved, will funds be made available to assist in cleaning up the Don? Can the hon. Gentleman say that this will be unaffected by the statement about cuts in public expenditure?
    Mr. Younger: I am well aware of the difficulties on the River Don. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) has drawn them to my attention on numerous occasions. Representatives of the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee visited Aberdeen on 10th and 11th May and discussed the position with various interests including the fishery board and the angling association. I await their report, and any recommendations
    438
    for further remedial measures that it may contain will have urgent consideration.

    Oil Industry Developments
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number and nature of sites considered by his Department as suitable bases for oil-related developments.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Sites will be required for many kinds of development. Possible refinery sites in Scotland have been studied. Recently my Department issued a discussion paper about sites for building oil production platforms. Sites for other purposes are kept under review.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he consider the wider dissemination of the information that he has produced in the discussion paper, especially the possibility of making it available to hon. Members, who have experienced considerable difficulty in getting it? Secondly, will he undertake to give an assurance that no one in his Department is associated financially with companies which may have an interest in developing these sites or in any other oil-related developments?
    Mr. Campbell: On the first matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, this is a continuous process of trying to assist local authorities and, where helpful, with consultative documents because of new techniques and new methods continually being introduced as well as the new exploration and discoveries as exploration proceeds north and west. The hon. Gentleman's second point raises a much wider question which I could not possibly answer now, though I recognise his concern.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Will my right hon. Friend clarify to the people of Scotland the reasons why the heavy construction work, especially that involved in building oil rigs, consequential upon the North Sea oil industry cannot be done more easily in those parts of Scotland where there is a tradition of heavy engineering and where there is still labour available?
    Mr. Campbell: This is one of the matters that we wish to see fitted together. I was glad to enable planning permission

    439
    to be given at Ardyne Point, which is an area near enough to Glasgow and the high unemployment zones. The consultative document on platform production to which the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) referred brings out the particular conditions and requirements which are needed and considers without any kind of commitment the parts of the coast where these operations can be carried out.
    Mr. Ross: Apart from responding to inquiries of individual local authorities, surely it is becoming more and more obvious that we require a much more comprehensive planning approach to this problem. Do important matters of this kind come under the recent remit to Lord Polwarth?
    Mr. Campbell: Yes. Naturally, because it is related to the oil industry, this is one of the matters with which he will be concerned and on which he will be co-ordinating. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, as this new industry develops more and more techniques, more and more requirements appear. It is the business of the Government to assist in every way. This is what we are doing.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Did my right hon. Friend notice the statement in The Times last Saturday by Ian Peters, the executive director of Onshore Investments, the parent company of Nordport, that it now controls the staggering total of 40,000 acres in the Shetland Isles and the implied threat that it would not sell this land at an excessive profit unless it was left with no alternative by the Shetland County Council? Will he keep an eye on the situation and ensure that no financial group, however well connected, will be able to undermine the strongly supported plans of the Shetland County Council?
    Mr. Campbell: I am aware of reports of this kind in the Press. A Private Bill, promoted by the Shetland County Council, which is at present before Parliament, is concerned with these and other matters.
    Mr. Maclennan: What does the Secretary of State mean by saying that Lord Polwarth will co-ordinate planning? Does he mean that the noble Lord will
    440
    be sitting in judgment on planning inquiries and giving his personal decision, or is it still with the Secretary of State? Is this a double banking of planning? What does it amount to? When the Dunnet Bay inquiry comes before him, who will finally judge on it?
    Mr. Campbell: I said that my noble Friend would be co-ordinating on the whole question of platform construction. The planning responsibilities, laid down by the Scottish Planning Acts, clearly fall upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that it is necessary to help and assist with advice before planning applications are put in. It is not possible to state categorically that any particular project will go to a certain site until it has been through the planning procedures, and there is a great deal of help, advice and information which can be given before that.

    Blind Persons(Parking Facilities)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the practice of affording discs for free parking for disabled persons to blind persons who are also disabled; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to extend the disabled persons' badge scheme to blind persons. The working of the scheme is, however, being reviewed, and the possibility of extending it to blind persons will be one of the matters to be considered.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will the Under-Secretary take into consideration the fact that blind persons—I am talking of people who are completely blind—who are self-employed require to carry the tools of their work from house to house, place to place and town to town, that they are in need of constant supervision and attention and have to be escorted into and out of cars and buildings? Surely in any caring society the least we can do for people who suffer such a tragic loss of faculty is to make available to them the same parking facilities as are available to other disabled persons.
    Mr. Younger: I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's great concern to do all we

    441
    can to help blind people, but when they travel in cars they are obviously, by the very nature of things, accompanied by other persons. If a blind person has a disability which would enable him to have such a badge if he were not blind, he can be considered for exemption in the normal way. A blind person in a car will always be accompanied. That is the reason for the distinction.

    Edinburgh Opera House
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the Edinburgh Opera House.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Edinburgh Corporation is still considering the proposals for Government assistance for the Castle Terrace theatre development which were put to it in my Department's letter of 26th January.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the project affected by the Chancellor's statement on Monday?
    Mr. Campbell: No, Sir.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: If the Government are to consider spending millions of pounds on a new opera house in Edinburgh, may I ask them to bear in mind the equal importance of spending a lesser but appropriate sum to upgrade Hampden Park to make it a suitable site for the holding of international football matches? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that far more people watch football than go to the opera?
    Mr. Campbell: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern with Hampden Park, but this is a quite separate question.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: If the Edinburgh Opera House is not affected by the cuts in local authority expenditure announced on Monday, may I ask what other cultural, recreational or public buildings will be affected in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: This project has not yet been approved. The Government have put forward proposals stating how much they would be prepared to give by way of a grant, but the project itself has not yet been approved by Edinburgh Corporation.

    Faroese Fisheries
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will
    442
    now make a further statement following negotiations with Danish and Faroese officials in Edinburgh on Thursday 26th April.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The United Kingdom has agreed, along with the other main nations fishing in the Faroes area, to take part in discussions on an international catch limitation agreement. These will probably take place in the second half of June, and my right hon. Friend has invited representatives of the British trawling industry to attend as advisers.
    Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he reassure the House that it is the Government's intention to retain the full catching powers of the British fleet off the Faroes? In addition, will such implements as the creep cutter anti-warp cutting device be available to Scottish trawlers operating off the Faroes should it become necessary?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that that situation will not arise. I must make it clear that both the Danes and the Faroese have attempted to approach this matter in a sensible and constructive manner. From our point of view it is only the principle of an international catch limitation scheme that is desirable. That is all we have agreed at present. In our view, the object is to prevent any substantial increase in total fishing effort off the Faroes.
    Mr. McNamara: May I ask whether the Government's relationship with the Danes and Faroese has been brought to the attention of the Icelandic Government, because it would seem to afford a happy omen in the dispute?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I think that lessons can be drawn. We must approach these matters on a multilateral basis and get agreement on that basis. I am glad to tell the House that this matter is being approached sensibly, and I hope that lessons will be drawn elsewhere.

    Abortions
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abortions and live births, respectively, were recorded in Scotland in 1972; and what were the comparable figures in 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The number of abortions notified was 5,254 in 1970 and 7,600 in 1972. The number of live births was 87,335 in 1970 and 78,550 in 1972.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the operation of the Abortion Act in Scotland, and has he any plans to review it?
    Mr. Monro: The Lane Committee is reviewing it. There is no abuse of the Abortion Act in Scotland at present.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister examine the special edition of last week's Daily Record on the working of the Abortion Act in the city of Glasgow and take that into account in any decision he may take?
    Mr. Monro: I have studied that report very carefully indeed.
    Mr. Small: Will the hon. Gentleman distinguish how many abortions took place in the private sector in private clinics compared with the National Health Service?
    Mr. Monro: The figure is rather less than 1·5 per cent. in private clinics. It is a very small total indeed in Scotland.

    Hospitals (Peel and Huntlyburn)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement about the general improvement of facilities at Peel Hospital and the state of construction at Huntlyburn.
    Mr. Monro: The board of management for the Scottish Borders Hospitals is formulating revised proposals for improvements at Peel Hospital and these will be considered by the regional hospital board. A start to the first phase of the new hospital at Huntlyburn is expected in about three years' time.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Under-Secretary undertake that, in the event of any continuing disagreement between the board of management for the Borders Hospitals and the regional hospital board, he will use the good offices of his Department to get a firm statement as soon as possible on how public money will be spent
    444
    both at Peel Hospital and at the Huntlyburn site?
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The need for improvement at Peel Hospital is not in dispute. The issue is the extent, cost and timing of the improvements consistent with the life of the hospital. The next stage is a meeting of the regional hospital board early next month at which I hope these differences of opinion can be resolved.

    Rent Rebates
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the implementation of Section 111 of the Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act.
    Mr. Younger: This was done last summer.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been brought to my notice that different local authorities are putting different interpretations on this scheme? Is it the case that the Minister has concurred that people filling in rent rebate scheme forms do not need to say where their investment or deposit accounts are, but have only to report the interest they receive, and that it is on the basis of that interest that a decision is made whether to grant a rent rebate? Will the Minister make sure that local authorities are conforming to the regulations which he is reported to have given to them? If he has not done so, will he say why not?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is interest that is received from any investment that is taken into account in assessments for rent rebate, and not any capital sum. I have had no complaints that local authorities are not correctly interpreting the advice and instructions given to them about dealing with rent rebate forms, but I shall be glad to look into any matters which the hon. Member may care to raise with me.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: As regards the operation of this and other sections of the Act, may I ask whether, as no statutory return is made of the number of people in receipt of allowances, particularly in the private sector, the Minister will consider an inquiry to monitor how

    445
    the scheme is progressing so that we can assess the real effects of the Act?
    Mr. Younger: It is desirable that we should have as much information as possible about the number of people receiving rebates and allowances of various kinds. It is early days yet to think of making a full inquiry into the matter, but if there is difficulty in getting information about this from local authorities I shall be prepared to look into the question of how we can get better information for the benefit of Opposition Members.

    Private Building (Planning Decision Reversals)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many planning appeals in the last two years he has granted which reversed the decision of a local authority not to agree to the zoning of land for private speculative building; and how many acres were involved.
    Mr. Younger: Nine, involving 166 acres.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, in the teeth of opposition from my local authority, his right hon. Friend granted planning permission in respect of an area which that authority had zoned as green belt. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when his right hon. Friend decides to override the wishes of a local authority in this day and age, when housing costs are so high, he is not only giving planning permission to private developers to build but, at today's costs, also giving them a licence to print money?
    Mr. Younger: All such applications which come before my right hon. Friend are considered on the same basis one with another. They are considered in the light of the circular sent to local authorities in 1967 giving guidance on the way in which they should approach this kind of problem. I do not think this is an excessive total. A total of 166 acres has been allowed as a result of appeals, but no fewer than 1,500 acres are required to be zoned each year for private house developments. The most important thing is to get as much private development going as possible to meet the vast demand by people who wish to buy their own homes.
    Mr. Ross: How does this compare with the number of decisions reversed in the preceding two years?
    Mr. Younger: I could not answer that question without notice, but I do not think that 166 acres out of the usual annual zoning of 1,500 acres is a very large amount.

    Collieries (Planning Applications)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for planning permission he has received for the sinking of new collieries in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: None.
    Mr. Hunter: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is too much indifference about the future size of the coal mining industry in Scotland? Does he not also think that the Secretary of State should take a greater interest in this matter, particularly when it is known that new sinkings have been considered in other parts of the United Kingdom? Did the hon. Gentleman see a report that the Minister of State had warned Scottish people to avoid an oil neurosis? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be better for Scotland if more people were affected by a pro-coal neurosis, instead of an anti-coal hysteria as displayed by one of my colleagues a few days ago?
    Mr. Younger: I should not like to comment on that last point, except to say that I do not think anyone would ever accuse me of suffering from anti-coal hysteria. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that, to enable a comprehensive, sensible energy policy to be followed, these questions have to be looked at in the context of our energy policy as a whole. That is why the principal responsibility for matters of this kind lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I keep a close watch on the effects on the Scottish economy of all sorts of developments, but the question of a fuel policy as such is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the declining

    447
    labour force in the mining industry in Scotland, and will he undertake to hold an inquiry into the effects of miners having to move from job to job and pit to pit? It is a disgrace that men who want to maintain as comprehensive a labour force as possible are asked to behave like gipsies.
    Mr. Younger: When a considerable number of people are likely to lose their jobs because of pit closures, we try to offer alternative employment in other industries, but many of the men wish to continue in the trade which they have learned from their youth onwards. That is why some of them feel that they want to move to other coalfields, and all we can do is to make it as comfortable and as easy as possible for them to do so.
    Mr. Sillars: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if there were a comprehensive energy policy, it would be advantageous to coal? Will he say when there will be such a comprehensive energy policy?
    Mr. Younger: That is what one might call a leading question. The point I was making was that it was not my responsibility to comment on the balance between different fuels or on the question of a comprehensive fuel policy. Those are matters for my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Can the hon. Gentleman now answer the question which I asked him some time ago and tell me the amount of money that is being allocated under Section 9 of the Coal Industry Act to prevent further pit closures in the Scottish coalfields? Would it not be more prudent to prevent further pit closures, and also to consider the possibility of new sinkings?
    Mr. Younger: A lot has been done by successive Governments to try to ease these problems when they arise, but matters of this sort should be referred to the Department of Trade and Industry, which is the Department responsible for energy generally.

    Crofting Townships (Road Grants)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the criteria of eligibility for grant assistance under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897 of roads leading to crafting
    448
    townships, taking into account the trend towards individual crofters working more than one crofting unit.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is viewing the criteria in the light of current circumstances, but I cannot yet say whether any change will be justified.
    Mr. Maclennan: That is a welcome reply from the Minister. Can he say whether the review will be affected by Monday's announcement of public expenditure cuts? Can he also say whether, in the review, he will look at the question of the building of a bridge over the River Oykel, which has been frustrated by the vested interests of landlords because of their alleged fishing interests? This proposal has been put forward by the local authority in the area as suitable for a grant under the Act in the light of the fact that the Army OPMAC bridging scheme cannot go ahead as agreed because of the opposition of the landlord.
    Mr. Younger: I should not, without notice and without a chance to look into the details, like to agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the position relating to the Oykel bridge. We are reviewing the working of the Act in the light of current priorities. When we have done that we shall be able to tell whether any change is needed and whether any change would be affected by the expenditure announcement made earlier this week.
    Mr. Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be disastrous socially if there were cuts in the programme for Highland roads because of the Government's announcement? Will the hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the report issued by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and to the recent transport paper, particularly that part of it dealing with roads? May I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us, at some time, an indication of the Government's reaction to that paper and say whether the Government accept the general principles set out in the portion of it dealing with roads?
    Mr. Younger: I have read the paper with great interest but my Department and I have not had time to study it completely. I agree that it is very important. More road works are going on in the Highlands now than probably

    449
    ever before. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed—if he did, I am sure that he was as glad as I was—that my right hon. Friend was able to say that all road developments associated with North Sea oil would be exempted from the cuts announced on Monday. That is important from the point of view of Scotland and the Highlands.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates the concern that is felt in these areas. It would be disastrous to make cuts of this kind in a programme affecting people already there and working in the traditional way while at the same time things are to flow freely for oil. The Government should be very careful about what they do and say.
    Mr. Younger: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. To get the record straight, may I make it clear that I have announced no cuts at all in this programme.

    Meat Production
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the beef and veal, mutton and lamb, pork, and bacon and ham marketed in Great Britain is produced in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The available figures relate to total supplies on the United Kingdom market, excluding canned imports. Scottish production amounts to about one-seventh of beef and veal, one-tenth of mutton and lamb and one-twentieth of total pigmeat.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Do not these figures show what an important part Scotland has to play in feeding the United Kingdom and saving imports? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it is right to save capital grants which could help to increase production in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smth: I agree that the figures show the tremendous part that Scottish agriculture can play in serving the needs of the British housewife. We have given considerable encouragement through our announcements at the price reviews over the last three years, and the evidence is that Scottish farmers are prepared to respond to the incentives given to them. I appreciate the point about capital grants, but one of the main sources of capital for farming is from income, as it has always been, and the effect of
    450
    greatly improved income over the last few years has, I hope, helped investment in the industry.
    Mr. Strang: Has the Minister read the statement yesterday by the President of the Scottish NFU? Surely he must accept that production grants are an important source of income, particularly for hill farmers. How can he justify the decision to cut them in view of the Government's alleged policy of expansion of agriculture in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the whole picture, at the greatly improved price incentives which farmers have received as a result of our policies. Therefore, one must balance what they obtain in prices against production grants. But I confirm that there is no doubt in principle that production grants play an important part, as they played a big part in our negotiations over Europe.

    North Sea Oil
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider taking into public ownership those areas of land which are likely to be the most suitable for substantial developments associated with North Sea oil.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Local authorities and other public bodies have power to buy land in advance of development in appropriate cases. I will consider any such proposals on their merits.
    Mr. Strang: If the Secretary of State accepts that certain key areas of land should be developed in association with North Sea oil, surely he can best ensure and control those developments by owning the land himself. Does he not realise that, if he allows those areas to be held by private individuals or companies, they will hold to ransom Scottish firms and other firms in the way that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) indicated in connection with Shetland? Can he give us the elementary assurance, which should not be necessary, that no Scottish Minister will have any financial interest in any of the enterprises developing on these sites?
    Mr. Campbell: On the first point, I regard this as a combination, a partnership, of the local authorities and private industry. Where the Government have

    451
    been able to play a part—as, for example, at Peterhead, where the Government are the harbour authority—we have acted quickly to help with oil development. But it needs private industry as well as local authorities and the Government to do the best for this emerging oil industry. As for financial interests, this matter has been taken up by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and he will get a reply in due course.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is often as much criticism of the Secretary of State or the Government as a whole owning land and either developing or not developing as there is of private companies or local authorities?
    Mr. Campbell: I recognise what my hon. Friend has to say.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this country is in a seller's market in this matter and that we need not fall over ourselves to try to ensure that every bit of country in Scotland is developed for this purpose? Would he recognise that we cannot always trust local authorities to see that the proper thing is done? Would he remember that, when we are talking of environmental questions, we have much more in mind than mere scenic beauty, important though that may be? Would he ensure, for example, that, before dredging of some of the sea flats is permitted, proper hydrological studies are undertaken to ensure that irreparable damage is not done to our coasts?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has raised one of the important aspects of the development of this new industry —the effect on the environment. This is one reason why a new council is being set up on which there will be persons who have knowledge and experience of environmental matters. In certain circumstances, it can be as important to Scottish interests to protect the coastline or to protect the sea bed from dredging of the kind that he has mentioned as to have a development in that place.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman attach considerable urgency to the question raised in the last
    452
    part of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)—namely, the vested interest in oil and its development of Lord Polwarth and his family? It is important that this matter should be cleared up with the greatest urgency. It is not enough to say that we should wait for the Prime Minister's statement. We should have a statement on this matter before the recess.
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will realise that this is not a matter with which I can deal in a supplementary question at this stage.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about the progress of the sale of local authority houses to sitting tenants.
    Mr. Younger: I have been informed of the completion of the sale of 917 houses to sitting tenants by 63 local authorities.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures are welcome but that they represent very slow progress? Will he take more urgent action to encourage local authorities to offer houses for sale to their sitting tenants and so help the spread of property ownership, which all of us on this side believe in? Does he agree that this is the only way in which many young couples in Scotland will be able to own their own houses?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is scope for considerable expansion of council house sales. I should add to my original answer that, in the new towns, 2,025 houses have been sold since 1970. The Scottish Special Housing Association has now started sales and I understand that it has sold about 250. I agree that the vast demand particularly on the part of young couples in Scotland to own their own homes could be greatly assisted if local authorities helped in this way by allowing them to buy the homes in which they at present live.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that, because of the number of people who are homeless and on the housing lists, many local authorities cannot afford to sell council houses? Is

    453
    he further aware that many young couples who want to buy their own homes cannot manage the down payment and certainly cannot get a mortgage? If he will come clean on this and tell the House where they can get a mortgage and down payment, he will be answering the question.
    Mr. Younger: If one wants a mortgage, one can go to the building societies. They are giving out mortgages right now to people who want them, and I hope that they have the hon. Gentleman's encouragement in doing so. As for the waiting lists, it makes no difference to a waiting list if a family which is at present living in a house and is likely to carry on living in it on a rented basis decides to buy it and is given permission to do so and continues to live in it. It makes no difference to the waiting list because the council receives money from that house which it can use to build a house for a homeless family.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What is my hon. Friend's attitude towards local authorities seeking to dispose by sale of vacant council houses in respect of which I believe the matter is in his discretion?
    Mr. Younger: Any applications of that sort would be considered on their merits, taking into account the availability of houses in the area and the size of waiting lists. There are circumstances in which this can be a very helpful thing for all concerned.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How can the Minister be so naive as to say that the sale of a house to a sitting tenant makes no difference to the waiting list? Is he not aware that if, instead of this obsession with selling council houses, he were to act to control and keep down the prices of private property, sitting tenants could buy outside the council house market, thereby releasing houses for people on the waiting list?
    Mr. Younger: But the great difficulty for young people starting to buy their first home is to get a home they can afford to buy at the low price they can afford to pay. One of the ways of achieving this is to allow them to buy the council house in which they live. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: either he is in favour of
    454
    encouraging young couples to own their own homes or he is not. I should like him to come clean on this and make his view clear.
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to introduce measures to give council tenants a statutory right to buy their homes after living in them for a certain time, subject to a right of appeal by local authorities on the grounds of specified local housing problems.
    Mr. Younger: I share my hon. Friend's wish to see more council tenants being given the opportunity of buying their houses, and I hope that local authorities will come increasingly to realise that this is in their own interest as well as that of their tenants, but I am not persuaded at present that any new statutory rights should be created.
    Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend keep this matter very much under review? Does he not agree that it is a disgraceful fact that Aberdeen, Glasgow and Dundee have not sold one council house to their tenants, and that the Scottish sales figure that he has just given—917—compares shamefully with the English figure of over 16,000 houses? Does he not agree that the dogmatic Labour-controlled authorities are frustrating the natural and right feeling of many families in Scotland which want to own their own houses?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very regrettable that some of these local authorities are refusing to do this. All I can say is that they will have to answer to their electors, including those young couples who live in the areas concerned and who want to buy their their own house but are refused the right to do so by the action of their councils.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Has not the answer to this matter been given, certainly in Aberdeen and Glasgow, by the massive defeat of the Government's supporters in the municipal elections? People of Scotland do not want council houses to be sold. Will the Minister say how young couples starting off life can find their way on to the waiting list to qualify for buying their first home?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman knows the rules for getting on to the waiting lists of various local authorities as well as I do. The hon. Gentleman's views about the people of Scotland are strangely at variance—[Interruption.] I am not sure about the strange noise coming across to my right ear. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is no use saying that people in Scotland do not wish to buy their council houses when literally thousands are applying to do so.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Have the Government closed their minds to statutory powers in this matter?
    Mr. Younger: No, I have not closed my mind to any of the alternatives, but at present it would not be right to introduce new statutory powers.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: While this might have been the subject of speeches at the recent Tory Party conference at Perth—I suppose that it was one of the few subjects raised—will the Minister at least consult some of us who know something about council schemes and the social problems which might arise from any indiscriminate instructions to local authoties that they must sell council houses?
    Mr. Younger: The question of social problems has to be looked at very carefully at all times, but I am not aware of any social problems having arisen in any of the places where these houses have been sold so far.

    Rents
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the maximum income of a man with a wife and two children who was paying a nil rent under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972, up to 28th April 1973.
    Mr. Younger: This depends on the level of standard rent.
    Mr. McElhone: While expecting that type of answer, may I apologise, first, for a rather long supplementary question—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that that statement is a hostage to fortune.
    Mr. McElhone: I have made my apologies first, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who made such a song and dance about my absence from the last Scottish Question Time, which was unavoidable—
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Disgraceful.
    Mr. McElhone: —stated in the Press that a large number of Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament rushed down to the House to hear the answer to one of my Questions? Will the Minister assure the House that Scottish Conservative Members are here at other Question Times?
    Is it not absolutely scurrilous, to use the term of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton), for the hon. Member for Cathcart to suggest —[Interruption.]—may I have silence, please?—in a weekly column that I table the last Question to give a pat on the back to the Government? Is not this utterly reprehensible on the part of the hon. Member for Cathcart?
    May I also put the pertinent question to the Minister? Out of a random survey of 100 cases from the computer in the Glasgow housing management rebate centre it was pointed out to me that 78 per cent. of the rebate cases were mainly widows, the disabled and the unemployed, and that of the other 22 per cent. many were widows or wage-stop cases. Does not that destroy the Government's arguments in regard to rebates?
    May I—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—finally, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that that is enough.
    Mr. McElhone: May I, Mr. Speaker—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: I have heard it said that there is no time for a peroration in a supplementary question.
    Mr. Younger: May I apologise for an excessively short answer? The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) was so anxious to bring out, which I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be anxious to bring out, was that the nil rent provisions are

    457
    producing a very valuable help to many families with low incomes and a large number of children. I understand that there are, for instance, in Glasgow, following the raising of the needs allowance, something in excess of 3,300 families which are likely to pay a nil rent in the future, and that is in addition to all those on supplementary benefit, who still get their rent covered for them.
    I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the rent rebate scheme is a very valuable help to many families on small incomes.
    Mr. Taylor: Does not the Minister agree—
    Mr. McElhone: Too long.
    Mr. Taylor: —that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) has made more than the usual idiot of himself and owes my hon. Friend a personal and public apology for the fact that he said a few days before an important municipal election in Glasgow that hardly any families in Scotland—
    Mr. McElhone: It is still true.
    Mr. Taylor: —would pay a nil rent, when the Minister gave an answer the day after the election that thousands would pay a nil rent and has again confirmed today that many families in Glasgow pay a nil rent? Does not my hon. Friend feel that he and the people of Glasgow are owed a public apology from the hon. Member for Gorbals?
    Mr. Younger: Thousands of families in Scotland will be paying a nil rent as a result of this rent rebate scheme. I know that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) has a very strong interest in these matters, but he has never managed to understand the rent rebate scheme or its benefits to the people of Scotland. I hope that he will now get down to it and understand it.
    Mr. McElhone: May I suggest to the Minister that he is utterly wrong when he replies to the question of rebates? I can give him figures—I shall do so after Question Time—which prove that he is wrong.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman wished to raise a point of order.
    Mr. McElhone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry for the confusion, but it is terribly important to the people whom I represent and to the constituents of other hon. Members.
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should admit that he was wrong.
    Mr. McElhone: In view of the very poor answers from the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member. That ends that.

    Prisoners (Education Courses)
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum of money spent on special courses for those detained in Scottish prisons over the last year.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Expenditure on correspondence courses in the year ended 31st March 1973 amounted to £2,605. Expenditure on other kinds of educational courses could not be ascertained without disproportionate cost to public funds.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In view of certain controversy in the prison service about the value of some of these courses, and in order to clarify the matter, will my hon. Friend say who is responsible for recommending prisoners for special courses and who is responsible for ensuring that these courses are of direct and real benefit and value to the prisoners?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The House should realise that it is provided in prison rules—I am sure that this is generally supported in the House—that prisoners who wish in their leisure time to improve their education should be given reasonable facilities for so doing. That is right.
    These courses are supervised by the assistant governor, who is in charge of training, and the International Correspondence College gives periodic reports on those who are undertaking the courses.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does not the Minister accept that that is a pitifully small amount of money to be spending on such courses? Does it not reflect the very

    459
    small number of people benefiting from them?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We must put this matter into the proper perspective. I am talking about correspondence courses. The initiative in a correspondence course is for the prisoner himself to volunteer to undertake it. What is much more important in education is vocational training, practical courses and evening classes, and these, and the many other ways, I should like to see extended even further.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Ronald King Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an early statement on legal aid in the lower courts following publication of the recent White Paper on the JP courts in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Legal aid will be extended to criminal proceedings in all courts of summary jurisdiction, as financial resources permit.
    Mr. Murray: I hope that there will be an early opportunity to debate this important White Paper, but in the meantime will the Under-Secretary bear in mind the urgency of the matter? The need for legal aid in these courts has been put many times by hon. Members on both sides and there is little point in reorganising these essentially local courts unless we can ensure that justice is available to all regardless of means.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I have indicated, we accept in principle the introduction of this but there is another factor as well as the one of financial resources limitations. We are about to embark on reorganisation of lay summary justice in Scotland following local government reorganisation and that will obviously be the occasion on which to consider these wider matters. We shall consult the Law Society and others involved in the subject.
    Mr. Gourlay: If the policies of the White Paper are put into effect, there will be no requirement for the clerks of the new JP courts to have any legal qualifications, thus depriving the lay magistrates of necessary legal advice in court. Will the Under-Secretary seek to alter
    460
    this unsatisfactory arrangement before the Bill is brought before the House?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: All we have pro duced so far is the White Paper, and I promise to make sure that the point mentioned by the hon. Member is taken into account.
    Mr. Ross: When will we be discussing the White Paper? Such a discussion is desirable before the subject of a Bill is even approached.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. If he wishes, there can be an opportunity later this summer for a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Atlantic Community
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will be taking in response to the proposals from the United States of America for an Atlantic Community.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I know of no new proposal in precisely these terms but we have welcomed the recognition by the United States of the need for continued trust and co-operation between Europe and the United States. We are discussing with our Community partners how to organise the constructive dialogue between the United States and Europe on which the summit agreed.
    Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals put forward in Dr. Kissinger's recent speech represent an historic opportunity to strengthen transatlantic links and particularly to acquire nil tariffs on industrial trade? Will he take steps to correct the unfortunate impression, which has been strengthened by reports of the Paris meeting of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the British Government are lukewarm about these American proposals?
    Mr. Royle: I shall be delighted to do so. I welcome the recent confirmation of United States support for the European Community and its further growth, and I

    461
    welcome too the confirmation that the United States Government will maintain their security commitments to the allies.
    Mr. Lipton: In this kind of sensitive negotiation the reputation of the British Government as a reliable ally is not improved when one of our Service Ministers finds himself in personal difficulties which have all kinds of unfortunate repercussions.
    Mr. Biffen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the object of Her Majesty's Government's policy to work for the liberalisation of both the common external industrial tariff and the common agricultural policy in the context of the forthcoming GATT negotiations?
    Mr. Royle: That is, of course, one more important aspect of the arrangements which were indicated by the United States of America. It is a mistake to ascribe too much uniformity to the problems set out in that statement or to hope to solve them in a single negotiation. Established institutions are already working on most of the issues but the time scales of those institutions all differ. The IMF and GATT work on different time scales.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Housing (Sunderland)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he has refused to allow the public works department of the Sunderland Corporation to build more houses for sale; and, insofar as this may result in an increase in the prices of the new houses, if he will reconsider his decision.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): My hon. Friend does not consider building for sale to be an appropriate task for a direct labour organisation whose purpose in the housing field is to assist the local authority where appropriate in the discharge of its basic function of providing, maintaining and improving dwellings to rent.
    Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that the decision appears particularly stupid to us in Sunderland? The public works department has been building houses very successfully and very cheaply
    462
    for private sale, and to stop it from doing so will mean delay in the provision of houses because this building work is unattractive to private enterprise. It will mean also that my constituents will have to pay several thousand pounds more for a new house.
    Mr. Eyre: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a scheme at Washington Street, Sunderland, was approved last year. That preceded our decision to encourage local authorities to build for sale in appropriate circumstances. Local authorities have a great deal to do in providing, maintaining and improving dwellings to rent.
    Mr. Freeson: Is it not a fact that the Government have been under pressure from the building industry and that is the reason for the instruction which has been issued to local authorities, which will mean that the Government will not allow the local authorities to build for sale with their own direct labour force? Does not this follow strong representations from the private enterprise element in the industry? Are not the Government giving way to narrow ideological pressures?
    Mr. Eyre: The Labour Party should remember that it was the previous Labour administration which restricted building for sale by local authorities. By contrast we are actively encouraging local authorities to build for sale to meet local needs for lower-priced housing which are not being met by private developers and to make use of the permitted discounts. The permitted discounts are helpful to low-income purchasers and they represent a reduction in the unrestricted market value.
    Mr. Loughlin: Will the Minister accept that the main problem is the provision of houses for people who can afford to buy them at the right price? If the public authorities, through their direct building departments, can produce these houses at prices people can afford, it is intolerable that the Government should refuse them the privilege of doing so.
    Mr. Eyre: The direct labour organisations are subject to considerable demands to carry out their basic functions of providing, maintaining and improving dwellings to rent. A considerable proportion of all houses built for sale by local authorities should be built to

    463
    NHBRC standards, in respect of which private builders are highly experienced.
    Mr. Crosland: Surely the Minister agrees that the housing situation, to put it mildly, needs critical study. Does he not welcome any additional possible source of house building facility that is on offer—and this one is on offer in certain parts of the country? In any case, do not the Government believe in any sort of competition?
    Mr. Eyre: There can be considerable competition for the contracts for direct sale. I submit that our new policy should be applauded by anyone who has the interests of prospective house purchasers like young married couples and low-income groups at heart.
    Mr. Wiley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

    Smokeless Zones
    Mr. Kelleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities had to suspend the introduction of smokeless zone orders during the years 1971 and 1972 because of a national shortage of solid smokeless fuel.
    Mr. Eyre: The information is not available, since local authorities are empowered to defer the coming into operation of confirmed smoke control orders for up to 12 months without reference to my right hon. and learned Friend. However, the shortage of solid smokeless fuel inherited from the previous Government was ended during the summer of 1971. Since then all authorities have been urged to press forward with smoke

    SMOKE CONTROL ORDERS

    (a) Submitted

    Year

    Number

    Acres

    Premises

    1971

    …

    National

    …

    237

    89,487

    374,304

    North Region

    …

    24

    7,353

    23,395

    1972

    …

    National

    …

    360

    147,521

    492,299

    North Region

    …

    56

    19,126

    57,344

    1973 to end April

    …

    National

    …

    132

    73,479

    207,419

    North Region

    …

    25

    3,745

    15,121

    (b) Confirmed

    Year

    Number

    Acres

    Premises

    1971

    …

    National

    …

    203

    76,491

    321,225

    North Region

    …

    22

    7,218

    26,801

    1972

    …

    National

    …

    314

    130,632

    456,821

    North Region

    …

    33

    6,396

    32,371

    1973 to end April

    …

    National

    …

    183

    67,022

    258,260

    North Region

    …

    39

    7,586

    32,745

    control. I am glad to say that in the first four months of this year considerable progress has been made.
    I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Kelley: Is the Minister aware that there is considered to be surplus capacity for producing solid smokeless fuel and that serious consideration is being given by the National Coal Board and others to closing down about £10 million of public investment in this business? Does not the Minister think that it is now the duty of his Department to give instructions to local authorities, or at least to advise them, to press ahead with the declaration of smokeless zones wherever possible? Does he not think that at this moment it would be a retrograde step to cut back stocks of this fuel when there is such a grave need to improve the quality of the air we breathe?
    Mr. Eyre: At present, stockpiles of solid smokeless fuels are adequate for foreseeable needs. There is, therefore, no need for anxiety in that respect. But I stress that the Government regard the policy of extending smokeless zones as of great importance and are doing everything possible to encourage local authorities to adopt such schemes.
    Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would greatly help the extension of smokeless zones if the Department and the NCB were to look at the standard and quality of the smokeless fuel being provided?
    Mr. Eyre: I will certainly note that point.
    Following is the information

SLATER WALKER-HILL SAMUEL(PROPOSED MERGER)
Mr. Clinton Davis (by Private Notice)Mr. Clinton Davis (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his decision, announced on the
22nd May, that the proposed merger between Slater Walker and Hill Samuel should not be referred to the Monopolies Commission.
The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): After full consideration, I reached the view that the proposed merger did not raise issues which required investigation and report by the Monopolies Commission. While the merger satisfies the size-of-assets test, since the assets taken over exceed £5 million, it does not satisfy the market-share test. The proposed new company will not account for a third of the market either in merchant banking or in any of its other activities, such as investment management, unit trust management insurance broking, insurance, leasing and credit finance, and property. In most of these sectors there are a number of larger companies involved and the situation in all of them will remain fully competitive.
Mr. Davis: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would have been preferable if a statement had been made to this House before the decision was revealed, somewhat furtively, to the Press yesterday? Where is the Secretary of State himself, bearing in mind the magnitude of this matter and his former involvement with Slater Walker?
What are the private assurances which have been reported in the Press and which are alleged to have been given by Mr. Slater to the Secretary of State, and why have they not been made public? Should not matters of this kind be considered by an independent body, in the open and not behind closed doors, so that the public can understand what is happening and what are its ramifications?
Finally, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a strong case, particularly following the revelation of events during the last week, for a full-scale public inquiry into our financial institutions?
Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman has a capacity for drawing and linking innuendos none of which is justified. I will deal with each of them specifically. He used the rather remarkable phrase that the decision had been disclosed "somewhat furtively". It was announced, as soon as it was arrived at, publicly to the Press yesterday for everyone to know, including hon. Members.
Mr. Loughlin: Peter Walker is involved.
Sir G. Howe: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) echoes the second false point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), who asked why my right hon. Friend was not here at this time to deal with the matter. I will give the House the precise reason.
As the House well knows, my right hon. Friend was, until he became a member of the Government, associated with one of the companies involved in this bid. In these circumstances, it was entirely right and proper that he should, on becoming a Minister, first of all, have given instructions that all his financial interests in Slater Walker should be sold and, secondly, have made it clear that, in connection with a matter of this kind, he should play no part whatever in its consideration. It is perfectly plain, and I wish to make it plain, that this matter has been under my consideration and not under that of my right hon. Friend. That is his position.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the private assurances which have been given. In almost every case of this kind, discussions take place between my Department and the companies involved in merger bids. Various inquiries are undertaken, various answers are given and various assurances are given. These companies have confirmed to me that their policy in regard to any substantial shareholding in an industrial company will be directed to the long-term interests of the company and its employees. They have made plain their intention to hold prior consultations with my Department about share purchases, direct or indirect, which in certain circumstances might lead to the control of industrial companies, and to divulge more information in regard to company holdings than is required under

467
the Companies Acts. The precise terms will be made clear in the terms of the offer bid, which is shortly to be made public.
Mr. Benn: The House will accept without question that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has behaved perfectly honourably throughout this matter. I want to devote myself to a quite seperate question.
The proposed merger has been described by The Times as unique for British financial institutions. It will have gross assets of £1,500 million. First, therefore, why should the House of Commons be denied precise knowledge about the assurances sought by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and given to him before he decided not to refer the bid to the Monopolies Commission?
Secondly, did the Governor of the Bank of England consult Ministers before he indicated his support for the merger, and what assurances did the Governor seek and obtain before coming to his view?
Thirdly, why should the public and the employees, and, for that matter, the City and the shareholders, not know the guidelines or criteria, which could be brought out only by a Monopolies Commission inquiry? Would it not be prudent to refer this matter to the Commission, since both Sir Kenneth Keith and Mr. Clark hold major Government appointments and, of course, Hill Samuel and Slater Walker have both contributed very substantial sums to the Conservative Party in the past?
For all these reasons, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not now reconsider his decision and allow the Monopolies Commission to do the independent scrutiny which I believe is right in this case?
Sir G. Howe: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I am glad to have it unquestioningly underlined.
It was because I anticipated that questions as wide ranging as those which the right hon. Gentleman has put might well be raised on this matter—for example, involving contributions to party funds and so on—and because of the importance
468
of a merger of this kind and of this size that I gave the matter the closest possible consideration. It does not necessarily follow that such consideration should lead to the reference of a merger to the Monopolies Commission.
The combined assets will be less than the right hon. Gentleman suggested. They will total about £1,300 million. The Governor of the Bank of England made it clear that his conclusion was subject to any conclusion I might reach.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I might not have concluded that it was prudent to refer the matter to the Commission. Of course, because of the public interest involved, I gave that point particularly close consideration. But equally it would be right to bear in mind, when one is concerned with the creation of institutions of this kind, capable of winning great advantage in terms of international banking activities, that while it would be right to refer something if it were concluded that it was necessary so it would be wrong to refer if no case were made out. On these considerations, I reached my conclusion.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he can ignore the typical political dirt thrown by the right hon. Member for Bristol. South-East (Mr. Benn)?
Looking at this matter in the overall context, my right hon. and learned Friend will remember that I had certain views on the advisability of signing the Treaty of Rome, but now that that is an accomplished fact, will he keep in mind that it is vital that we should have big financial institutions which are capable of standing up to their competitors within the Common Market, and that it is essential that we should join the giants' team if we are to preserve our share of financial leadership in Europe?
Sir G. Howe: I am particularly grateful to have my hon. Friend's support on that point. That argument, like every other argument in this sort of case, cannot be allowed to be decisive on every question, but it is important to bear in mind that, in the expanding international economic environment, strong overseas representation capable of discharging a wide range of functions is desirable to

469
meet competition from American and European institutions which, in many cases, are larger and perform a wider range of functions than comparable organisations in this country. That was one of the factors I bore in mind in my consideration.
Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State's personal involvement in this matter is of no consequence in our view? Is he also aware that this is the second time within the past 10 days that the Government have made curious and odd decisions about the effect of monopolies legislation on companies which have donated large sums to the Conservative Party? Further, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is an issue of major importance and that the time has come not merely for an investigation by the Monopolies Commission into the affairs of Slater Walker but for a full inquiry into the whole aspect of corporate donations to political parties?
Sir G. Howe: The question raised by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) does not arise out of this matter. It was the subject of legislation by the last Government. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, so far as these matters are concerned, that it is a matter of total indifference to me in my discharge of my statutory responsibilities under this legislation whether a company subscribes to the Conservative Party, to the Labour Party or even conceivably to the Liberal Party.
Mr. Biffen: Did I hear my right hon. and learned Friend aright when he said that certain undertakings had been given to him by the proposed merged company as to how it would conduct itself commercially and industrially in future? If those undertakings were given to him, under what statutory authority could they be exacted? That raises an issue of a more profound character than the exhibitions of envy which have so far marked many of these exchanges. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take an early opportunity of expressing to the House exactly what philosophy lies behind the requirements of these professions of future commercial and industrial behaviour?
Sir G. Howe: The position is that, in deciding whether to subject any particular
470
change in industrial organisation to examination by the Monopolies Commission, plainly one needs to satisfy oneself about a number of existing facts and possible future developments in relation to the merged organisation. In doing that one acquires inevitably, and rightly, the House will think, indications and assurances as to the way in which the proposed organisation is likely to see its immediate future. Those assurances are useful indications in reaching a decision about the instant matter. They are also part of the background which can be taken into account if any future question arises as to the consequences of any further decisions which are taken. It would plainly be foolish to disregard an opportunity of getting some indication of the future probable development of a merged organisation of this kind.
Mr. Dell: Is it the position, precisely for the reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives—that the merger does not meet the market share criterion —that once the merger has taken place the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be able to make any future reference of it to the Monopolies Commission, whether or not the assurances are fulfilled?
Sir G. Howe: If it were to turn out that the monopoly share of the market test were fulfilled—and I have seen no evidence to suggest that—that would be a matter for further consideration. It is obviously possible for me to consider further evidence of that kind.
Mr. Dixon: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider that where a merger was proposed between two trade unions the mere fact that conceivably one of those trade unions had contributed to the political funds of the Labour Party would of itself give him grounds for referring the matter to the Monopolies Commission?
Sir G. Howe: Many interesting questions could arise when we begin to look at the other side of the fence.
Mr. Benn: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise, without prejudice to whether he is right or wrong in his judgment, that the question to which we are addressing ourselves is whether he is the right person to reach that view and whether it is right that

471
that view should be reached in secret so that, if the assurances are not fulfilled, the House and the country will not be able to judge whether the assurances have been met?
I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when Ford acquired the equity of the Ford Motor Company of Britain his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, published the assurances which he had sought from the Ford Motor Company. Thus, we were able to judge the extent to which those assurances had been fulfilled. Surely the public is entitled to judge the criteria. The criteria and the guidelines are in a sense even more important than this issue. In the light of what I have said, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not now reconsider his decision and ensure that the matter is considered independently so that everyone will know by which criteria matters of this kind are judged?
Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman persists in saying that this is the wrong way in which to judge matters of this kind. The fact is that successive Governments, when considering the pattern, shape and administration of monopolies legislation, have recognised that it is sensible to operate in two stages, with a decision to be arrived at by the Secretary of State, or another Minister on his behalf, as to whether a reference should be made, and a decision to be arrived at by the Monopolies Commission after a reference has been made. No Minister taking a decision of that kind can do so lightly. It is a substantial responsibility to discharge. It would be easier, as a matter of political convenience, to say, "Let it be referred". In that way the responsibility would be lifted from my shoulders.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and his right hon. Friends reached decisions in favour of substantial mergers in the motor industry, the electrical industry and the banking industry without referring those matters to the Monopolies Commission. They were right to accept that responsibility and to stand up to questioning and criticism, as I do now. It is upon that basis that we recognise that good sense of the two-tier pattern.
472
As to the underlying facts, I have already stated to the House the nature of the answers given to certain questions raised in relation to the merger. The undertakings will be published in the offer documents. It is upon that discharge of these responsibilities that I think that I am entitled to take my stand and to face questions.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (SECURITY)
Mr. Wellbeloved: 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 security arrangements at the Ministry of Defence."
I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for the late notice which I gave you about this matter. It has only just reached my ears that the Prime Minister, as head of security, did not intend to make a statement to the House today. I submit that this is a matter of definite importance as there are allegations circulating both in the national and international Press about matters which have occurred twice in a decade as far as this nation is concerned.
Further, it is a matter of importance because any delay in the Prime Minister making a statement to the House will invite speculation and will arouse in untutored minds perhaps unfounded fears that the delay has a sinister motive in allowing a cover-up to be prepared.
Unless a debate takes place tomorrow under Standing Order No. 9 there will not be adequate opportunity for this important matter of national importance to be debated by the House. Even if a statement were made tomorrow by the Prime Minister, there would not be adequate time for the House to debate any terms of reference for any judicial inquiry which seemed to many people to be imperative. Many people consider that it is imperative that such an inquiry should be set up.
I again apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for the lateness of the notice which I gave you, but the matter is of grave national importance. I urge that the House be given time to debate it before the Whitsun Recess.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I should explain to the House the reason why I have taken this application now. I have had cast upon me the burden of presiding at the Conference on Electoral Law. That has slightly altered the time for which I can be in the Chair, because it is a fairly onerous task, and it involves my leaving the Chair rather earlier on a Wednesday. But I thought it right that I should deal with this application myself.
Under the Standing Order, notice must be given by 12 noon. Notice was not given by then, but was given just before the hon. Gentleman raised the matter. The only other information I have about the matter is that the Prime Minister intends to make a statement tomorrow. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in making my decision. I will not grant the application.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Further to that point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not a point of order."] In that case, on a fresh point of order. I should like to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expects to make a statement tomorrow afternoon on matters arising from recent reports in the Press.

EEC (MINISTERIAL MEETINGS)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement about the matters discussed in the Council of the European Communities within the past 10 days. [interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber as quietly as possible? We have a great deal of business before us, and we must get on.
Mr. Davies: The Council has met in four capacities during that period, involving Ministers concerned with foreign affairs, agriculture, social affairs and energy matters.
The principal matters dealt with were general policy papers produced by the Commission in response to decisions reached at the summit meeting last October.
474
These concerned first, the next stage towards economic and monetary union where there was a brief reference to the joint float, on which the Government's position is unchanged; secondly, regional policy and the creation of a regional development fund; thirdly, the Community's position in the multilateral negotiations under the GATT to be started later this year for the further liberalisation of world trade; fourthly, the negotiations due to start around 1st August for new agreements with the countries now associated with the Community under the Yaoundé and Arusha Conventions as well as those with which association is envisaged under Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession; fifthly, the development of general guidelines in the field of social affairs; and, sixthly, the development of a concerted policy on energy matters.
In each case the Council has commented upon the broad approach outlined by the papers, copies of which have been made available in the Library of the House.
This now allows the Commission to proceed to a more precise definition of the aims of the Community in these fields and for the next phase of the work to go forward.
In addition, approval was given to an agreement between the Community and Norway to provide for a free trade area between the two and to bring Norway into line with the remaining EFTA countries which did not seek membership.
Further consideration was given to the development of a basis for negotiation with the countries bordering on the Mediterranean.
Progress was made towards reaching a formula as a basis for support for the production of coking coal for the steel industry.
The purpose is to subsidise the production of coal of this sort by any member country for use in another.
As the United Kingdom is to all intents and purposes self-sufficient in this product the arrangement affects us very little, though it is likely to procure some small net advantage.
Discussion also took place concerning the early convening of a conference with representatives of employers and unions

475
to consider the proposals for a Community policy on social affairs.
I should make clear that the Council's discussion of future regional policy did not cover the quite separate question of determining under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession those areas of the United Kingdom which are to be regarded as peripheral for the purposes of existing Community rules on the application of competition policy to regional aids.
This has been the subject of a number of separate discussions, including talks which took place yesterday in London between my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development and other of my right hon. Friends and M. Borschette, the Commissioner responsible.
It was made clear to him that Her Majesty's Government are only prepared to contemplate a determination which does not involve cutting back on the present levels and coverage of assistance available under the Industry Act.
The House will be kept informed of developments.
Mr. Shore: I first give an unqualified welcome to the agreement between the Communities and Norway, which I am sure will be greeted with satisfaction, not only because of our long and traditional friendship with Norway but because the nature of the agreement reached with Norway is one that many of us believe to be very satisfactory in principle, one which could well have far better served the interests of this country.
On the other matters which the right hon. Gentleman has brought before us, he will, I am sure, understand if I concentrate my questions on only three points, because the field is so wide.
First, I put it to him that the whole question of the second stage of the economic and monetary union which was discussed on a paper from the Commission at the recent Council of Ministers is, in the view of many of us, entirely premature, and not only premature but dangerous in so far as it involves the premature fixing of the pound and the end of its present floating. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has been no change at all in the position outlined by his right hon. Friend the Prime Mini-
476
ster—that there would be no fixing of the pound without the total commitment of reserves by all the other member countries? Even that, if it were accepted, is something which we should want to examine very carefully.
Secondly, on regional policy, while we note that the report has nothing to say about the common regional policy which is still being much discussed in Europe, the statement has a great deal to say about the effects of Community discipline on our own regional policy operated in in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman obviously sought to be reassuring in what he said, but when he says that the Government would not contemplate a determination by the Commission that involved any cutting back of the level of support under the Industry Act, will he take it from me that that is only a very partial safeguard for both the development areas and the intermediate areas? The level of support in those areas is not crucially determined by the Act. It is determined very much also by the regional employment premium, about which we have heard nothing, and by the whole range of incentives to industry—investment incentives, free depreciation and the like—which, unless we assert ourselves very strongly, I understand could be ruled out by decisions of the Commission, on the ground that they infringe the principles that the Commission agreed even before we became a member.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession it does not lie in the Government's power, because they have already accepted the Commission's authority under the Treaty, to say that they would not be prepared to contemplate a Commission determination? I understand that that is something that the Commission itself has the power to decide, not only under the Treaty of Accession but, emphatically, under the Treaty of Rome.
Lastly, I should like to refer to the most important talks that are to take place with the United States, the multilateral trade talks later this year. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he and his right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have pressed and made sure that agricultural

477
trade matters, including the common agricultural policy, will be subject to serious multilateral negotiations when the trade talks begin, and that we have rejected the French effort to exclude any serious debate on agricultural policy, which the French made in the Council of Ministers. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that when such important matters of this kind are raised affecting our future trade and monetary position, the future of the Yaoundé and association agreements, it is incumbent upon him to press his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for adequate time to debate these matters before any Community determinations are reached in June or July.
Mr. Davies: It is neither implied nor implicit that the studies made for the attainment of the second phase of economic and monetary union involve an obligatory return to the Community float. I make it clear that the situation has in no way changed since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the position abundantly clear to the House in March. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman seeks a reassurance on that, he has it.
In dealing with Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession and its effect upon the existing assisted areas in this country the right hon. Gentleman made use of the expression "Community discipline." I should bring to his mind the thought that Community discipline is not a matter of damage to us—quite the contrary. It is true that the Community discipline to which he refers prevents the concentration of investments which are mobile by unfair bidding-up between member countries for those investment operations. To this degree it represents a discipline which I am bound to say I welcome and which I believe is to our advantage.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the recent outcome of the discussions by the Commission would penalise the full arrangements we have for helping our assisted areas. I can reassure him. It seems exceedingly unlikely. As I have said in the statement, it is our determined intention to see that we are not put in a position when we are obliged to reduce the incentives we currently make available for the regions.
478
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about our attitude towards a substantial agricultural element in the multilateral trade negotiations. I can again confirm that we have consistently pressed for there to be a substantial agricultural element. I should add that it has not been the Government's intention, and it will not be this Government's intention, to seek to break up the common agricultural policy, which we accepted—as our predecessors accepted it, when they approached this problem—as a factor of life in the Community. That does not mean that there are no agricultural matters, outside the existence of the basic requirements of the common agricultural policy, which are open for consideration in the multilateral talks. It is certainly the Government's intention to make sure that such elements are brought into the discussion at the appropriate time. I will bring the comments of the right hon. Gentleman about the need for additional time to debate these matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Jay: If Norway has obtained the advantages of a free trade area outside the EEC, what additional advantages did we gain by joining?
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is a matter which has been lengthily debated in the House. The Government firmly believe that the advantages we obtained by joining are many and extensive and go much further than those of the free trade area provided for Norway. We believe that there are real advantages, in terms of the extension of our industrial position in Europe, which are not available to the Norwegians. We believe that the development of a number of policies which are currently in the course of elaboration in the Community will be of immense advantage to this country. The right hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): Order. If all hon. Members who wish to ask questions—and there is a large number of them—could take a leaf from the book of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) they might all be called.
Sir Robin Turton: Among all the subjects mentioned by my right hon. Friend

479
I did not hear any talk of the International Sugar Agreement, which poses an urgent problem. Can he confirm that the Council of Ministers discussed this matter and came to an agreement that the Community should join the International Sugar Agreement before the forthcoming conference?
Mr. Davies: No, Sir. The International Sugar Agreement has not been under discussion during the meetings of the Council. I should remind my right hon. Friend that some time ago the Community stated its intention favourably to consider membership of the International Sugar Agreement. The Government will be pressing their partners to that end in the course of any discussions that take place.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the central weakness of the Green Paper on regional policy published by the EEC a fortnight ago was that it was subject to Articles 92 and 94, which are the restrictive provisions of the treaty and which can stultify the freedom of State Governments to carry out regional policies? Is he prepared to ask for a relaxation of these impediments upon our system?
Mr. Davies: There is no doubt that it is not in my mind nor in the mind of the Commission that the provisions of Articles 92 and 94 would seriously limit the application of the policies proposed by Mr. George Thomson in the paper which he circulated to the Council. In preparing the paper the Commissioners had very careful regard to the provisions of the treaty so that it is unlikely that they would produce proposals which ran athwart the treaty. On the contrary, it is right to say that this paper, which embodies many of the ideas and thoughts which have been generated in the House and the country, offers a real opportunity for us to attain through the Community substantial help for some of the regions which need assistance.
Mr. David Steel: May I return to this question of regional policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that labour subsidies in the development areas are at present within the rules of the Community and that there is no intention to change this? Will he therefore say
480
whether the Government intend to wait until after the matters in the Green Paper have been resolved before deciding on the future of the regional employment premium?
Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made the Government's view on the regional employment premium abundantly clear. I will not seek to elaborate it. It is right to say that the existence of a labour subsidy is not against the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, which has no provisions automatically debarring such a scheme. In fairness to the House, it is true to say that there has been a pre-judgment against this kind of support. It is not something which is embodied in treaty terms.
Mr. Powell: At what stage and in what form will the Government take the view of this House upon the Community's negotiating position in the GATT negotiations?
Mr. Davies: Through the papers which have been made available to this House, hon. Members have the existing recommendations and proposals which have been put before the Council. These have to be refined, in the next phase and put into a more precise state. I fully expect that elaborated papers will be in the hands of hon. Members in the same way. Members of this House have the widest capacity for ensuring that matters which they consider important are fully debated.
Mr. Powell: How? By Standing Order No. 9?
Mr. Davies: No. There are many other methods. I am bound to say that I am surprised at the relatively few questions I am asked on matters of this kind during Question Time. I would be prepared and happy to answer them. There are many ways which are not at this moment fully exploited.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister explain, if REP is not to go forward, what the Government position is on alternative proposals which have been put up, including congestion tax and other suggestions of great importance to our areas?
Mr. Davies: I certainly did not say that REP is not to go forward. I said that REP is subject to the provisions

481
which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined during the course of a statement which he made on the subject last year, and that involved the progressive running down of REP at a cadence to be decided in due course.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that when it comes to discussing the question of worker participation throughout the European Economic Community, this Government will support that strongly?
Secondly, would my right hon. Friend assure the House that the real difference between the agreement between Norway and the EEC and this country and the EEC is that whereas this country has a full part to play in what the EEC does, Norway can play no part but must stand idly by while she is affected by the EEC?
Mr. Davies: On the first question, it is correct that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, during the course of the recent Council meeting of the Ministers concerned with social affairs, referred to worker participation, and made a positive statement on this Government's interest in this matter and determination to press forward with it. That will be the pattern of discussion we shall pursue.
As far as Norway is concerned, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I should point to the five papers which have now been made available in the Library, and ask Members whether objectively they cannot see within them the wide field of representation and points which have come from here. That in itself is a proof of what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Frederick Lee: The right hon. Gentleman reported on the efforts to get a co-ordinated energy policy. Is he aware that up to now this House has heard nothing of the Government's thinking on this vital issue? How can it be that the Government can put a point of view on the Continent to which we are not party?
Mr. Davies: Here again the Commission paper on the subject is before the House. It would be fully open to Members to raise these matters, and they would certainly be replied to.
I should equally point out that the question of energy policy is inevitably at
482
an early stage of discussion in the Community, bearing in mind that there has been little discussion in this field of policy for some considerable time. Therefore, the meeting which took place on this subject yesterday was the first meeting for three years or so, and inevitably found itself faced with a wide range of discussion. It will take some time.
Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend indicated that he is hopeful that it will be possible to get agreement on the designation of peripheral areas between the EEC and Britain. Could he tell me what happens if we do not agree? Whose view prevails?
Mr. Davies: I am rather disinclined to contemplate hypothetical disasters. I should say to my hon. Friend that I intend strongly to pursue the purposes which I have outlined, and at this stage I do not contemplate having to deal with what would be a defeat of that proposition.
Mr. Baxter: I understand that the Minister has had some discussions with regard to the exploitation of coking coal. Is he aware of the fact that very valuable seams of coking coal are under the Forth area of Stirlingshire? Roughly 20 years ago the Coal Board spent almost £1 million on sinking a mine to go down to that coal, but disbanded it because of lack of demand for coking coal at that time. I hope that he will bear that factor in mind when he is having further discussions on the subject.
Mr. Davies: Yes, indeed I will. I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman says. I must point out that the cost of coking coal in this country, as in other Community countries, is pretty high in relation to imported supplies. It is difficult to maintain the efficient fuelling of the steel industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has now been found necessary to have recourse to a subsidy in that field, although this subsidy little affects us.
Mr. Laurance Reed: The energy crisis makes the energy problem all the more urgent. Does my right hon. Friend have the impression that other members within the Common Market, especially the French, understand that this problem can be solved only by transatlantic co-operation?
Mr. Davies: This was one of the matters which was discussed at the Council meeting yesterday. It is right to say that with differing degrees of insistence or emphasis, all member States are concerned about the future of the energy policy. I recognise—and there is no dissentiment on this—that it is necessary to have a concerted position in Europe in relation to energy policy.
Equally, I believe that the problems of the mounting demand, both in the United States and elsewhere, is a worldwide problem which will need some form of worldwide solution.
What I have said about the problem of starting these discussions after a long intermission precludes one from going further than that in response to my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Molloy: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman the last point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore)? Does he in his heart believe that what we have been going through for the last quarter of an hour is the right way to discuss matters of which he has informed the House this afternoon? Does he believe that it is quite right for a British Member of Parliament to be told that all these important papers are there to be read in the Library, with not much chance of doing anything about it?
Would he not, finally, agree that what we have had demonstrated this afternoon confirms the grave apprehension of many of us that this European Economic Community will undermine the great traditions of British democracy, and that it is about time we stood up and said this loudly and clearly?
Mr. Davies: I would simply recall to the hon. Gentleman that what I am doing this afternoon is responding to the requests made by the ad hoc Select Committee, on which his party was represented, as indeed was my own.
Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that my constituency is closely associated with Norway, could I convey my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for the new arrangements? I am going to Norway on Friday.
In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend made a comment about the
484
regional employment premium, and in view of what the Chancellor has said, would my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that I do not agree with the Chancellor on the regional employment premium? Therefore, when this matter comes up for discussion, would he please look at both sides of the question because it is a good thing to have criticisms as well as support?
Mr. Davies: I will certainly bring my right hon. Friend's attention to what my hon. Friend has said. I know from experience that he will be far indeed from disregarding her advice.
Mr. McBride: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what are the indications of future investment policies rising out of the EEC fund for peripheral nations such as Wales? Does he not think that the regional fund is insufficient for requirements and that, with the free flow of capital from this country, future investment in the Community will be centred in one area, such as Paris, as the centre of the radius taking in London, to the detriment of small nations such as Wales? Will he please tell the truth?
Mr. Davies: The first truth to tell is that no figure whatever has yet been stated in respect of the regional development fund of the Community. The matter is still open for discussion and will no doubt be freely and intensely discussed in the course of the next weeks and months.
On the second point, it is indeed precisely the point on which I was responding to his right hon. Friend, that the provisions of Article 154 are a support for our own prospects of investment in this country.
Mr. Body: Has the House power to express an opinion about the GATT negotiations before they take place and, if so, will the House be allowed to express that opinion?
Mr. Davies: Before these negotiations start in September in Tokyo, I am convinced that the House will have every opportunity to express its views as the papers which are at the base of the Community's thinking on how it should handle its part in these negotiations become available to the House. Furthermore, it seems perfectly evident that the length of these negotiations will be considerable. The House will be continually

485
informed of the progress and will no doubt have an equal opportunity to comment as the negotiations go forward.
Mr. English: Has the Council of Ministers eyed discussed the fraudulent and corrupt use of Community funds and has anybody been prosecuted in relation to that?
Mr. Davies: Since we have been a member of the Community, to the best of my belief there has not been discussion in the Council of the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As he knows, in the European Parliament there has been considerable discussion on the subject, as there has been within the European working parties and committees. This matter as yet has not come before the Council of Ministers, but I have no doubt that it will.
Mr. Farr: I am surprised and disturbed by what my right hon. Friend said about CAP. If I may remind him, he said that there might be peripheral changes which might come up for discussion. That is in direct contradiction to the assurance which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the House three weeks ago after the European Price Review. Is the undertaking which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture secured at that time—namely, that there would be a fundamental reappraisal of the CAP—superseded by what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said today?
Mr. Davies: No. The word "peripheral" is my hon. Friend's, not mine. On the contrary, I said that it was not the purpose of the Government to undermine the basic principles of the CAP. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture certainly did not in any way give the impression that that was the purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] What he said was that the Commission had undertaken to make a deep-seated study of the CAP in today's circumstances with a view to seeing whether modifications and improvements should be made. This is a matter which will go forward and one to which, obviously, the Government attach great importance.
Mr. Eadie: In the discussions on energy, was the question of North Sea
486
oil raised in the context that it is Common Market oil, as has been claimed within Europe? Were there any discussions on the coal mining industry? Common Market countries have slaughtered their coal mining industry and have begun to regret it. Were there any discussions on new coal pit sinks and where they are likely to be?
Mr. Davies: No mention was made of North Sea oil during the Council meeting on energy yesterday. On the subject of coal mining, there was extensive discussion on the importance of this source of fuel to the Community from many points of view. There was no specific discussion on the subject of the sinking of individual pits, but Ministers concerned with energy policies expect to undertake further examination of the importance of coal in the future to the Community.
Mr. Deakins: Did the Council of Ministers disagree in principle with any of the named points put forward in the Commission's paper on the forthcoming GATT negotiations?
Mr. Davies: Ministers certainly had many nuances of difference in their views, but it would not be right to say that there were fundamental disagreements on the Commission paper. Indeed, it should not be so, because the Commission was authorised to proceed with the paper to formulate more precise facts and proposals for elaborating this mandate for discussion. There were many comments, which the Commission will take into account.
Mr. Sutcliffe: My right hon. Friend said that sugar was not discussed. Will he say to what extent the trade interests of Commonwealth countries were discussed?
Mr. Davies: Yes. This was a matter of specific discussion because one of the papers to which we were addressing ourselves dealt with the negotiations to take place later this year to replace the Yaoundé and Arusha Conventions and to provide, I hope, new single-type agreements to embrace all existing associated and associable countries, or as many as possible. Many of these countries are involved in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. As my hon. Friend knows, within the framework of Protocol 22 there

487
is specific provision with regard to sugar. That specific provision has been firmly emphasised and underlined during the two Lancaster House meetings, the last of which took place earlier this year.
Mr. Milne: Before the Community finalises its regional policy, will the Minister arrange for the Regional Commissioner to visit all development areas in Britain, particularly the North-East, to acquaint himself with the British view-point? On the question of Norway and other EFTA countries which have not joined the Common Market, does the Minister realise that the agreement was beneficial not only to Norway but also to the North-East which was able to share in Norway's oil boom which otherwise might have passed us by?
Mr. Davies: I know that it is Mr. Thomson's personal wish to visit all the main areas throughout the whole Community where material assistance is required, and the North-East will obviously not he missed out. I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the effect of the Norway Agreement.
Mr. Moate: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for the House to have an opportunity of discussing the GATT negotiations before the Community reaches a fixed negotiating position? Will not the GATT talks represent a unique opportunity to secure free trade in industrial goods right across the free world? In view of the importance of this, does not my right hon. Friend agree that this question and answer procedure is unsatisfactory? Does not he himself want this matter to be fully debated on the Floor of the House at an early date?
Mr. Davies: I personally welcome as many opportunities as possible to talk about these matters on the Floor of the House, or indeed elsewhere in the House. I should be happy to find opportunities to do so in addition to those that already exist. I say firmly to my hon. Friend that information will be available upon which debates can take place. There is the necessary machinery. An ad hoc Select Committee of the House is considering the means by which these matters may be more effectively ventilated. Surely
488
these matters are in the hands of the House?
Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister reconsider the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) that North Sea oil was not discussed at the meeting of Ministers responsible for energy? I find that extremely difficult to believe in view of the Commission's document and its assessment going back as far as 1968. Will the Minister accept that we in Scotland would find it difficult to accept North Sea oil being used as a bargaining counter in a common energy policy when it should be used as a bargaining counter to get agreement on scarce resources of oil and other energy within the Community, the United States and Japan?
Mr. Davies: I can only strongly reaffirm what I said just now, that North Sea oil was not discussed yesterday during the meeting of energy Ministers. What were discussed, perhaps naturally, were the gross figures of supply and demand. These were not specifically broken down, except in broad terms as between Middle East supplies and supplies from other sources. It is perhaps not altogether surprising that North Sea oil supplies were not identified and separately discussed.
Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Will the Minister accept that before the regional development fund has any realistic hope of acceptance three conditions must apply? First, there must be no discrimination in the extent of coverage and the amount of assistance under the British national development policy. Secondly, in order to be meaningful the fund must run in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds. And, thirdly, the genuine peripheral areas, such as South-West Wales or North-West Wales, must get extra assistance even above those development areas which are far more advantageously placed.
Mr. Davies: On the first point, I must underline the fact that the question of the definition of assisted areas in this country as peripheral or central is a matter entirely divorced from the development of the regional policy or the setting up of the regional development fund. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another and the basis on which these two activities are

489
conducted, and indeed the bodies by which they are conducted, are quite different. I must insist on that point.
I take note of the hon. Gentleman's rather bold statement about quantity, which I am interested to hear. I am not sure that I can undertake that specific parts of Wales will be at an advantage as against other parts of the country, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Shore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House is pleased to see him at the Dispatch Box and wishes to see him more often, but also wishes —and this is the point of some questions put by my hon. Friends—to have the opportunity of debating these matters in addition to questioning him on them?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could clarify two points. Can he make it clear that the forthcoming multilateral trade talks with the United States and other countries will include agricultural products generally and not just those agricultural products which lie outside the CAP? I should like to be very clear on that point.
Secondly, will he make clear whether it is the case that, if there is a disagreement between the British Government and the Commission on what is a peripheral area for regional purposes, the British Government can prevail against the Commission only if it gets the unanimous support of all the other members of the Council of Ministers? Is that so?
Mr. Davies: I have resisted hitherto, and propose to go on resisting, outlining what course of action might be necessary if there were to be the hypothetical dispute to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I can only say that I do not believe that we are without recourse, but beyond that I will not go.
As regards the question of the range of agricultural products which can be introduced into the multilateral negotiations, I did not wish to make the point that no single product that falls within the common agricultural policy could be introduced into the multilateral talks. I do not think that is so. What I said, and now repeat, was that any product which figures prominently within the CAP would not, I believe, be introduced, and we would certainly not press for
490
it to be introduced if it meant the undermining of the common agricultural policy.

BILL PRESENTED
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by Mr. Hector Monro, presented a Bill to make provision with regard to the powers of the Secretary of State under Sections 1(2) and 76(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, and under the said Section 1(2), as re-enacted as Section 2 of the said Act of 1962 by the Education (Scotland) Act 1969, in relation to the employment of teachers, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

ANTI-HARASSMENT BILL
4.35 p.m.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law against harassment of occupiers.
No one who reads the property pages of our national newspapers or magazines can have failed to notice the enormous profits which are to be made out of the conversion of old houses in inner London into self-contained units or very expensive furnished flats. Nor can he have failed to notice that vacant possession at least doubles the value of the property prior to conversion. The process of emptying these properties prior to conversion is becoming known as "winkling" and the people who carry out the practice are known as "winklers".
That there is ample incentive for these men to indulge in this business is shown by these typical advertisements. One taken from a recent issue of the Kensington News and Post says:
"£500 reward Dead or Alive (i.e. occupied or empty). This reward will be paid for information leading to purchase of a House that is not advertised and is suitable for conversion to flats."
Then it gives the name and address of the agent. Then there is this advertisement taken from the Financial Times:
"How to make £100,000. Get into property. You don't need tremendous capital, but you do need the know-how."

491
I am told that if advice is taken from the experts one buys property fully occupied as cheaply as possible and then begins to winkle out the sitting tenants. If anyone still thinks that Rachman is dead, let him visit my advice service any Friday evening and listen to the heartbreaking stories of what these unscrupulous men are prepared to do, almost always to elderly people, in order to get vacant possession. I could give scores of examples: not the kind of stuff that makes national headlines, but the kind of thing that ought to concern every decent citizen. Let me mention a few cases by way of example.
Take the case of the tenant whose backyard was dug up and a trench about 2 ft. deep made which exposed all the drains leading from her back door to the door of her outside lavatory. This was done under the guise of necessary repairs. A plank was placed from her back door, over the trench, to her lavatory, and it was left like that for weeks. This lady, none too steady on her legs, had literally to walk the plank to get to her loo, or use a bucket in the kitchen.
Then there was the old lady who was the last controlled tenant left alone in a great big house; during the night the winklers would enter it and march about the stairs and landings, making a tremendous din, while the old lady sat in her flat or lay in her bed absolutely petrified until they had gone. When they went they invariably left the front door open.
I will give one more example to show the kind of thing that concerns me. This time it is the story of a woman of 69 years of age who had spent years cultivating a little garden outside her controlled accommodation. The property changed hands, and this is the lady's own story of what happened. She said that:
"during the summer of 1971, her landlords had thrown pieces of wood across her plants and placed her clothes line on the lawn; cut down shrubs and trees, and then invited friends in to eat the fruit from the loganberry and blackberry bushes; thrown her stone bird bath into the fishpond; burnt her bird table, a fence, three clothes props, some sticks and poles and a ladder; and placed a wire down the middle of the garden and put up a notice forbidding her to use half of the garden."
492
There is not a London representative on any local council, in inner London certainly, or in this House who could not add to that long list. If time permitted I could spend a long time reciting stories of dreadful harassment in the inner London area. For instance, I heard just before I entered the Chamber this afternoon of a landlord who has removed the inner staircase from a house which is still occupied. At the other end of the scale, we are all familiar with stories of young couples who are being asked to give an undertaking that the wife will stay on the pill for at least five years before they can qualify for a mortgage. This is amazing harassment. Yet that part of the 1965 Rent Act which deals with protection against harassment is the most difficult to enforce.
When a complaint is received and the local authority considers the complaint to be genuine, the question of evidence to comply with Section 30(2) must be considered. The most difficult problems usually centre around the words in the Act:
"does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort".
This, together with the word "persistently", causes the most difficulties and will be redefined in my Bill.
The Bill will seek to shift some of the burden of proof from the prosecution and thus ease the burden of local authorities, which are trying to deal with this problem. I will seek in this Bill to reduce the difficulties encountered by local authorities in stress areas in protecting tenants from exploitation and harassment, and enable them to carry out some of the recommendations contained in the Francis Committee's Report of 1971.
It is true that the Criminal Justice Act 1972 includes penalties for harassment. But in two recent cases in my borough the learned justices have chosen to impose very low penalties. In one case there was a fine of £10 with £10 costs. In the other case, which was a case of unlawful eviction, the defendant was given a conditional discharge.
In the neighbouring borough of Islington, of nine successful prosecutions, recently brought by the council for harassment or unlawful eviction, one case resulted in an absolute discharge,

493
four cases in fines of between £2 and £3, two in fines of £20, and two in fines of £40. No costs at all were awarded in two of those cases.
I believe that the time has come to think in terms of minimum penalties, and my Bill will seek to introduce such penalties, including very heavy gaol sentences.
The Bill will not solve the housing problem. But, by strengthening the hands of those local authorities which are trying to deal with this evil practice of winkling, it will help to curb those greedy, ruthless men who are concerned only to make enormous profits out of the misery, unhappiness, hardship and desperation of usually the most vulnerable, the weakest and, in many cases, the oldest of our citizens whose only fault is that their continued presence in their accommodation interferes with the selfish plans of property developers and individual speculators. This is really the most brutal face of capitalism, and I intend to expose it at every available opportunity.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. David Weitzman, Mr. Julius Silverman, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Gavin Strang, Mr. Roland Moyle, Mr. James Wellbeloved, Mr. William Price and Mr. Robert Hughes.

ANTI-HARASSMENT
Bill to amend the law against harassment of occupiers, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th July and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

2. Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973.

3. London Cab Act 1973.

4. Overseas Pensions Act 1973.

5. Law Reform (Diligence) (Scotland) Act 1973.

6. Education (Work Experience) Act 1973.

7. Employment of Children Act 1973.

8. Succession (Scotland) Act 1973.

9. Land Compensation Act 1973.

10. Mallaig Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1973.

11. Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1973.

12. Forward Trust Act 1973.

13. Upper Mersey Navigation Act 1973.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
    Clause 1

      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND AGENCIES
      4.46 p.m.
      Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness): I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'ten' and insert 'thirteen'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 1, in page 2, line 4, at end insert:
      'one of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the retail consortium'.
      No. 59, in Clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end insert:
      'and

      (e) as to three other members who shall be members of Industrial Training Boards, Industrial Training Boards'.

      Mr. Booth: It may be appropriate if at the outset I declare an interest in employment and training. I am a sponsored member of the Technical and Supervisory Section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.
      The purpose of this amendment is to create three places on the Manpower Services Commission for members of industrial training boards.
      As it is drafted at present, Clause 2 reads:
      "… it shall be the duty of the Commission to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the purpose of assisting persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities and to obtain suitable employees …".
      I submit that members of industrial training boards have experience and knowledge which suits them ideally to assist the commission and to serve on the commission for the purpose of carrying out this duty of the commission.
      As it is defined at present, the commission is composed of representatives of
      496
      employers, of trade unions and of local authorities. In addition there is one member of an organisation concerned with education. All of those members have a very proper interest in the duty of the commission. However I consider that their interests are no greater and have no higher importance than those of the industrial training boards in that duty of the commission.
      While employers may take a pride in good training, they have a primary duty to their shareholders to maintain the profitability of their firms.
      The unions, which in many cases have a proper concern for training and do much to develop training schemes, nevertheless have as their first interest on behalf of their members who are trained the promotion of their interests in wages and working conditions.
      The local authorities, which are very closely concerned with the effects of industries operating in their areas in order that they may discharge their statutory duties and give proper expression to the views of the communities which they represent, nevertheless are more concerned with the exterior effects of industry and its employment capacity than with the primary duty of the commission.
      Members of educational organisations, although concerned about the duty of the commission and about industrial training, are concerned about that only as a minor part of their overall concern for education. It is only right that that should be so. I hope that we shall never regard the rôle of education organisations as being solely a matter of creating labour forces for our factories. I believe that we should see the duty of education organisations as being that of fitting people to lead full lives in our community and not merely seeing that they can earn their bread and butter.
      I suggest, therefore, that the commission is not complete as it is defined in the Bill at present. While it contains people who should be on the commission, it omits one other category of people who should be on it, namely, representatives of the industrial training boards.
      The industrial training boards take a broader view of industry than any of those already having a direct right to be on the Commission. In the first place

      497
      any industrial training board is bound to look at all the firms in the industry with which it is concerned, be they large or small, be they making a wide range of products or dealing with very specialist products. They take a broad view of industry.
      An industrial training board has a certain independence in its attitude towards the industry with which it is concerned in that it is not answerable to shareholders nor directly answerable to the trade unions. An industrial training board can take a view about the way in which its industry should develop and the way in which its manpower requirements should be met. That is a broad view and it is often one which is forward looking.
      An industrial training board is concerned not only about those currently training or seeking employment in its industry. It is also concerned about the future manpower requirement of the industry and the changes that the development of new techniques in manufacture will have upon those working in the industry in the future. It is concerned therefore with future craftsmen and with those at present at school who will be seeking employment in the industry in the future, as well as with those currently in the industry. Therefore, the view that the industrial training boards take of industry and the contribution that members of such boards could make to the Manpower Services Commission is considerable.
      I admit that I was faced, as were my hon. Friends whose names appear on these amendments, with considerable difficulty in determining the number of people to suggest. The amendment proposes there should be three members of industrial training boards to put the representatives of such boards foursquare in numbers with representatives of employers and of unions. The amendment presumes that their contribution is not necessarily any more important than that of employers or unions, but that it is no less important in the total rôle of the commission. I believe that three members from industrial training boards would greatly strengthen the commission and enable it to perform its duty in a more effective and far-seeing way. I therefore commend these amendments to the House.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I could discuss at length the point made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), because for 10 years I have been professionally engaged in helping to operate the Industrial Training Act and in dealing with some 12 boards. I have mixed views about the boards. Some are good. Others which are not even capable of managing their own accounts are probably not fitted to give advice to industry on other aspects. However, I shall not develop that point today.
      I want to confine myself to the membership of the commission. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give me a satisfactory assurance on the point that I want to make.
      I speak as chairman of the all-party retail group in this House. It is a pity that the Bill, as it emerged from the Standing Committee, did not provide that one member of the commission should be appointed after consultation with the Retail Consortium. The Retail Consortium is now a fact with which the Department has to reckon. It comprises, to name only four of its components, the Multiple Shops Federation, the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain, the Co-op and the Retail Alliance, which gives it a broad enough cross-section to show that it is representative of the entire retail distribution organisation of this country.
      Distribution is a vast industry on its own. I say bluntly to my hon. Friend that I hope he will not listen to some of the views coming out from his officials that the CBI can talk for the retail trade. I say that even though I am a member of the council of the CBI.
      It is right, in considering the retail trade, to appoint someone specifically who understands the problems of retail distribution. I repeat, the Retail Consortium, made up of these four major components—the Co-op, the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain, the Multiple Shops Federation and the Retail Alliance which in itself is an alliance of a substantial number of specialist organisations—is the body that should speak for the retail trade.
      I remind my hon. Friend that when the Government were holding their discussions on phases 1 and 2 they specifically invited the Retail Consortium, led by my

      499
      noble Friend Lord Redmayne, to discuss with them ways in which prices in the retail trade might be controlled and examined. If it was good enough for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and subsequently my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss matters specifically with the Retail Consortium, I suggest it is not good enough for the Department of Employment to say that it will not discuss these matters with someone specifically qualified to talk about retail matters.
      My hon. Friend knows me well enough to appreciate that I am not a difficult character. I am sure that he will be able to satisfy me on this point. I do not necessarily want an acceptance of my amendment, but acceptance of the idea behind it. This can be achieved equally well, even though my amendment may not be accepted, if, under Clause 1(2)(a), one of those three members is appointed by him after he has consulted the Retail Consortium.
      I shall find it difficult to accept the answer that if my hon. Friend has to consult the Retail Consortium other organisations might wish to be consulted. It might be that the Welsh TUC or the Scottish CBI will want separate representation or consultation. If my hon. Friend is to use that argument, I suggest that it just is not on. It is not an acceptable argument which would convince me, and, knowing my hon. Friend, I do not think it would convince him.
      The Scottish CBI is an offshoot of the whole CBI, and the Welsh TUC, if it exists, is an offshoot of the whole TUC but talking for a specialist part. However, the CBI is the Confederation of British Industry. It has not spawned as an offshoot the Retail Consortium. Therefore, unless my hon. Friend assures me that he will take this point on board. it means—I suppose it is odd that I should say this—that the voice of the Co-op would not be heard, whereas, if he consults the Retail Consortium, the voice of the Co-op, as one of the members of the Retail Consortium, would be listened to, as would the voices of the Multiple Shops Federation, the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain and the other component parts of the Retail Consortium.
      500
      That is the brief point that I wish to make to my hon. Friend. I hope he will take it on board. I ask the House to forgive me for not being here if this section of the debate goes past six o'clock, because I have a long-standing engagement elsewhere. I do not wish to be discourteous.
      Mr. Robert Taylor: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him which particular industrial training board has been of great benefit to the retail industry, and in what way?
      Mr. Finsberg: The Distributive Industry Training Board has not been as bad an organisation as many of its detractors would make out. It has learned from a very shaky start. It had a very shaky start, but under the excellent directorship of my noble Friend Lord Mottistone it learned that if it was to be a constructive body it had to consult its industry. Although the good major retailers managed their own industrial training quite well before the DITB was set up, I do not think anybody could say that it has been too bad.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I cannot resist the temptation to take part in the debate after the reference by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) to the need for the voice of the Co-ops to be heard. I am a Co-op Member, and as such I declare my interest.
      I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I take the view that the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) would meet the case. If an additional three people were appointed, as suggested by my hon. Friend, that would provide the opportunity for one person who represents retail distribution to come from that Industrial Training Board, and the voice of that service could be heard in that way.
      In this House and elsewhere from time to time a lot of emphasis is laid on productive industry. People tend to forget that thousands are employed in retail distribution, and it is because of that imbalance of emphasis that the case made by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend deserves the Government's attention.

      501
      Efforts that have been made to secure higher standards in industrial production have had their counterpart in retail distribution. Training colleges and courses and other action that has been taken by the training boards for retail distribution have sought to help the economy on the other side of the coin.
      It is not enough to produce goods and then leave things to chance. After the goods have been produced they must be distributed, and distribution costs are part of the total economic price which the community has to pay. Therefore, when we are considering the constitution of the commission we must consider not only the production side and representatives of employers and of the TUC, who must inevitably have a large say in these matters, but also the service industries and retail distribution trades.
      I, too, am a member of the all-party group chaired by the hon. Member for Hampstead, which has as its secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). The hon. Gentleman has done a service by bringing this matter to the attention of the Government.
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): I have listened to several persuasive speeches full of temptations but I have not been persuaded of the need to accept the amendment. We had a full discussion in Committee about the size and constitution of the commission and about the difficulties which would be likely to be posed by a number of organisations on both sides of industry which might understandably feel that they wished to be represented on that body.
      A new point merges from the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) relating to the representation of the training boards on the commission. This was not discussed at an earlier stage, and perhaps I may first deal with Amendment No. 58.
      It has been deliberate policy to restrict the commission to 10 members. I believe that in order to make a body of this kind, which will have executive responsibility, work effectively, it ought to be kept small. That is a paramount consideration in this whole matter.
      502
      Moreover, not only would the addition of three training board representatives, as proposed in the amendment, in itself increase the size of the commission, but it would also be bound to result in pressure from other sources to be included on that body. I think, too, that it would be invidious to have to choose between the training boards themselves. That is not to say that I do not share—I do—the high regard which the hon. Gentleman has for the training boards and for the work that they have done.
      Mr. Booth: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it will be invidious to have to choose three members from among all the unions in the country?
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I agree that there is some substance in that, but I shall come to an even more powerful argument against the inclusion of training boards' representatives on the commission. They would upset the balance of the commission. The hon. Gentleman rather skirted around that difficulty.
      The make-up of the commission—three employers, three trade unions, two local authority representatives and one educational representative—was arrived at after full discussion and consultations, and it seemed to be almost the unanimous view that that was about the right balance.
      I said that it would be invidious to choose between the training boards, but I added that there was an even greater difficulty. The training boards' representatives on the commission would, at least potentially, face the conflict of interests in their work. The Bill provides the commission with various powers and duties in relation to the boards themselves. For example, it has to approve proposals for the exercise of functions by the boards, to consider levy proposals by the boards, to decide the allocation amongst boards of such money as is available for key training grants, and so on. The representatives of the training boards might very quickly find themselves in a difficult situation.
      Having said that, if one of the hon. Gentleman's motives is to make sure that the boards themselves are not in any way diminished by the existence of the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Services Agency, let me assure him that the boards will not be shut out from the commission. They will in the

      503
      main, be dealing with the agency, but they will have access to the commission. In the last resort the chairmen of the boards will have access to the Secretary of State himself. Their position will not be weakened, and I think that that will come as some relief to the hon. Gentleman. The last thing that anybody in this House wants to do is to let these people feel that they are being downgraded. There is general admiration for the work that has been done, and valuable work it has been, for very little reward; and little assistance.
      Mr. E. S. Bishop: The Minister says that the boards will have access to the Secretary of State. May I ask for some more information how that will be achieved? I am sure the House will accept that it could be invidious to choose representatives from the categories specified by the Minister. One can see the need for representatives of the CBI, the TUC and local authority associations, but will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the representative of the training boards might be the member referred to in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) which will represent educational interests?
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: If I may deal with what the hon. Gentleman has just said—
      Mr. Harold Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to try to help. I was hoping he would say that there was nothing in the Bill to preclude any other member of the commission from being someone who serves on a training board. It is not only category (d). Any person in any of the other categories may be serving on an industrial training board. In that sense there could be a cross-fertilisation of ideas and representation from the training boards on the commission.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. He said that he wanted to help, and he has done so.
      In the normal way, the members of training boards will not seek access to the Secretary of State. They do not do so now. The commission will be interposed between them and the Secretary of State, but their relationship with the
      504
      Training Services Agency will be similar to that between them and the Cvil Service in my Department. They will have access to the commission, and if necessary the chairmen of the training boards will be able to see my right hon. Friend or his successor. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman and that he will not feel obliged to press the amendment.
      I now come to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), supported by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I have every sympathy with and recognise the importance of the Retail Consortium to which reference has been made. Under the Bill, however, the Secretary of State will appoint three members of the commission after consultation with such organisations representing employers as he thinks appropriate. The Bill does not specify the organisations to be consulted, and for the purposes of legislation that is quite right. But we made it clear in the White Paper—paragraph 3, I think —that it is the Government's intention that those three members should be appoined after consultation with the CBI.
      As I said earlier—I am sorry if I have to say something that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead did not want me to say, but it is true—it is of paramount importance to keep the commission small if it is to discharge its task effectually. We must therefore limit the number of employers' places to three. It seems right that before appointing them we should consult the CBI as the body representing employers in industry and commerce generally.
      When I say that, I am not for a moment disputing the importance of particular sectors such as the retail sector, and I certainly recognise that the views of the Retail Consortium carry great weight. However, I hope that it will make my hon. Friend happier to know that if it or any other body wishes to put its views to the Secretary of State about membership of the commission or any subject connected with it, he will naturally take full account of them. But I do not think that we should write into the Bill an obligation to consult the retail consortium. The real answer here is that the commission, taken as a whole, should so far as possible have the authority and

      505
      range of experience to tackle the manpower problems of the whole country.
      Mr. Finsberg: Will the Minister clear up one point? He said that the Retail Consortium and any other body could make representations. What good will that do? Will it still mean that the three people that he appoints will in the end come from the list put to him by the CBI, or does someone put to him by the Retail Consortium, who is not a member of the CBI, stand any chance of being appointed?
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I cannot go further than I have. We made it clear in the White Paper—I stand by that—that we would consult the CBI. There are channels of communication. As I have said, it is obvious that if the Retail Consortium wishes to put views to my right hon. Friend about membership or anything else he will take full account of them. I cannot go further than that.
      I hope that the commission will have a membership that has great authority and a great range of experience to tackle the manpower problems of the whole country. It will have to deal with a large range of important issues, affecting the service industries, including retail, as well as manufacturing. It will have to take the small firms into account. Its members need to be people with the knowledge and breadth of experience to deal successfully with all these issues.
      One other point that has not been made is that they will need to be conscious of the different needs of different parts of the country. It will not be easy to find the right sort of people or to form a body with such a wide range as I believe is required of these people. We shall not be able to find room for someone directly involved in every sector that comes within the commission's sphere. What we must do is try to appoint members with an ability to approach our manpower problems not from any sectional standpoint but with an understanding of the manpower needs of the country as a whole.
      While I may not entirely have contented my hon. Friend, I hope that I may have given him some reassurance, and that the Amendment will not be pressed.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 2

      FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND AGENCIES
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 20, at end add:
      'and to secure the implementation of sections 6 to 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944'.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 51, in Clause 12, page 15, line 14, at end insert:
      '(c) of the Commission and all officers designated by the Secretary of State to advise registered blind or disabled persons about their opportunities for employment to include not only sheltered workshop opportunities but also those available in open industry, and it shall be the right of the blind or disabled person to choose between these two types of employment'.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Walker: Amendment No. 3 refers to those sections of the 1944 Disabled Persons Employment Act which provide for the quota system. I am grateful to the Minister of State for having carried out the promise he made in Standing Committee to send me a copy of the consultative document on the quota system when it was ready. We received it last night, on the eve of the debate. Obviously, I have not had time thoroughly to study it, but I have gone through it.
      At the risk of over-simplifying, I would say that the quota scheme at present requires that firms employing more than 20 people should take at least 3 per cent. of their work force from the ranks of the registered disabled. Contrary to popular assumption, it is not an offence not to fill this quota, but it is an offence to go below the quota without the permission of the Department of Employment. In comparison with some of the schemes set out in the appendices to the consultative document—those of West Germany, France, Italy and Holland are mentioned —ours seems very modest.
      Table I of the consultative document presents statistics that show that we are discussing the employment prospects of over 600,000 people—a figure which, although smaller than in previous years, is still a large one. Table II, however, shows

      507
      that compliance with the quota has also diminished over the same period.
      Any comfort that we may have gleaned from the falling numbers of registered disabled in the table is offset by the knowledge that their employment prospects seem to have weakened. Although the numbers of registered disabled were previously higher than at present, until 1961 the quota obligation was largely, year after year, being fulfilled. But, from that year, although the total numbers of registered disabled have fallen, the position in respect of fulfilment of the quota obligation has progressively deteriorated.
      In the absence of any information to the contrary in the document, I can only assume that one cause, if not the primary one, has been the fall-off in enforcement of the provisions of the 1944 Act. The figure omitted from the consultative document tables seems to bear this out.
      In 1972, over 60,000 firms were within the scope of the scheme. Nearly 60 per cent. of those were not fulfilling their quota obligations. More significant—this is the point on which the document is silent—in that same year, 9,000 of the firms which were not in compliance had not sought the Department's permission to go below the 3 per cent. quota. In other words, 9,000 firms were in clear breach of the law and the Department took no action.
      This is astonishing from Ministers who have repeatedly preached the need for everyone to observe the law. It is a matter for regret that they did not apply that philosophy with equal vigour in this crucially important field of the employment of the disabled.
      One question to which we are entitled to an answer today, notwithstanding anything in the consultative document, is what the Government propose to do about the 9,000 firms that are in clear breach of the law.
      These are the sombre and depressing facts that prompt the amendment. They point not only to the failure of the Department to enforce the scheme but to what seems to be the dereliction of the Department's statutory duty. It is difficult to see how that state of affairs will be improved by the fragmentation of responsibilities which the Government now propose in the Bill.
      508
      At present, responsibilities for almost every aspect of the employment of disabled persons are unified within the Department's headquarters at No. 8 St. James's Square. Instead of that, in future we shall have, for example, the disablement resettlement officers and the blind persons resettlement officers working within the Employment Service Agency. The training for the disabled will be the responsibility of the Training Services Agency, yet the rehabilitation units will be run by the Employment Service Agency. So we shall have a division of what is at present a unification of two agencies. Added to that, there is a further division, in that questions of sheltered employment, the maintenance of the disabled persons register and the application of the quota scheme will be looked after by the Secretary of State.
      This seems an odd and inexplicable dispersal of duties. In replying to the debate the Under-Secretary will no doubt repeat the assurance he gave when we raised this question, en passant, in Committee. He said then that in his view
      "Nothing will be gained by writing into the Bill…specific provisions that the commission should devote itself to the welfare and to the employment of disabled people. It will do this. Its remit is over the whole field of employment."
      However, it was the Under-Secretary's following phrase—particularly in the light of the figures that I have given to the House—that worried me. He went on to say that the commission
      "will give it just as much attention as the Department of Employment does at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 3rd May 1973; c. 495.]
      It was the prospect of just that prophecy being fulfilled—that the commission might give it just as much attention as the Department of Employment does at present—that provoked the amendment.
      In my constituency over 18 per cent.—nearly one in five—of the registered disabled are jobless, and 92 firms in the Doncaster travel-to-work area are out of compliance with the quota. Yet the Bill offers them the assurance that they will get just as much attention in the future as at present. I should like the Minister to look into this matter and to let me know which firms have not applied for permission to go below the quota.

      509
      Over 18 per cent. of the registered disabled will be offered no assurance by the Bill. It is no consolation to them to be told by the Minister that they will get just as much attention in the future as they do at present.
      I have deliberately avoided any reference to the critique of the present scheme which is contained in the newly published consultative document, or to the various alternatives which are canvassed in it. I may have been ruled out of order had I done so. In any case, the proposals which the Government are now putting forward deserve more careful scrutiny than we have had chance to give them so far. Neither do I want in any way to pre-empt the consultative procedure. To do that might let down the Minister, in view of the kind gesture that he has made. But I hope that, unlike the way that the Government have handled the Robens Report, the House of Commons will be given the chance to express its view before the Government commit themselves to any policy. I see that the Under-Secretary is smiling cynically. No doubt he felt a little sore on Monday when he felt that he had done the House a kindness by making a statement. He may be entitled to feel sore. But had he listened to us he may not have had that rough treatment, and if he listens to us now he will avoid it in the future. He can avoid it if the Government decide to give the House of Commons a chance to express its view.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am happy to debate this matter with him at any time in the future. We are looking forward to having the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
      I was not smiling cynically; I was smiling warmly to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is far too old a hand to know that I can decree what type of debate will take place in the House. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But I will help the hon. Gentleman by conveying what he has said to my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Walker: I apologise if I did the hon. Gentleman an injustice about the warm smile that he bestowed upon me. I appreciate that it is up to the Leader of the House. But it is equally within
      510
      the power of the Secretary of State—the Under-Secretary's master—to say to his colleagues in the Cabinet, "I shall not commit us to any policy, on this or any other subject, until the House has had a chance to debate it." The longer the Leader of the House defers the debate, the longer will the Secretary of State postpone his policy commitment to the public.
      I am not arguing that the scheme in the 1944 Act is ideal, or beyond improvement. Clearly, it has not worked. It would be wrong to say that it is the embodiment of perfection when it manifestly is not. When I say that it is not working, I do not mean that the scheme has necessarily failed. Clearly, it is not fulfilling its purpose, but the concept is not necessarily wrong. What is wrong is the absence of the will and the determination to implement and enforce it.
      The Under-Secretary means well and is as anxious to serve the needs of the disabled as I am, but to canvas the Inner Wheel, Rotary and Junior Chambers of Commerce on the need for them to help the disabled is not the way that a Government ought to conduct themselves. No doubt the Under-Secretary meant well when he did that, but that is not what we expect from the Government. The Government should say that the scheme will be applied and enforced, and that if it does not work they will look at something fresh. Until that is done we ought to impose on the commission an obligation to do what the present Government and, admittedly, their predecessors have failed to do since 1961.
      Mr. Pavitt: I wish to address my remarks mainly to Amendment No. 51, in my name, which covers part of the same subject and the arguments so powerfully deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). I strongly support everything that he said. It is unnecessary for me to repeat his comments. The Under-Secretary has a formidable task in replying to my hon. Friend's forthright points.
      I feel that I am an interloper in the debate. Other hon. Members have served on the Standing Committee and done many hard chores. As someone who has entered the debate on Report, I feel that I must apologise to my colleagues who served on the Committee.

      511
      Before tabling the amendment, I read with interest the debate that took place on the Tenth Sitting of the Committee with regard to disabled persons. I wish to address the House on a narrow point, mainly from the point of view of a small section of the disabled—the blind. When one does this from time to time and addresses oneself to a particular section of the disabled, one is always anxious not to divide one section of the disabled against another. My comments arise mainly from the problems of the blind person which are caused by the fact that his situation regarding employment is different from that of other disabled people. Nevertheless, I am anxious that the House should realise that the last thing that we should ever do is to try to make one sector of the disabled, whether it be the deaf, the blind or those who suffer from other disabilities, the prize sector to which the House should give compassion and consideration to the exclusion of others.
      5.30 p.m.
      My amendment arises as a result of the resolution passed at the annual conference of the National League of the Blind and Disabled, a copy of which the Under-Secretary has received directly from its secretary. The essence of the argument is that the blind or disabled person should have the same freedom of choice on employment as anyone else. The fact that disability limits the scope for employment should not be a reason for leaving it up to the officer of the Department to decide into which employment the disabled person should go. At the moment, because of the way in which the 1944 Act is interpreted the blind person can be classified under Section 1 or Section 2 purely on the judgment of the disablement resettlement officer at the local employment exchange.
      The Under-Secretary will recall the all-party delegation which I took to meet him last July. However, perhaps I may remind him of the points he made in the letter he sent to me after meeting that deputation. He said:
      "I understand and fully appreciate the point made by the representatives of the League, that prolonged periods of unemployment may be especially demoralising for some blind people, and create an unemployability complex'. This is indeed one of the reasons why we genuinely try to interpret the constraints placed upon us by Section 15 of the
      512
      Disabled Persons (Employment) Act of 1944 with maximum flexibility. However, these constraints apart, there is always the question of the availabilility of work opportunities within workshops for the blind which for a variety of reasons are tending to decline."
      He went on to say:
      "It is clear to me that the National League of the Blind and Disabled have genuine fears that some blind people are being deprived of what is in their best interest because of what I might term alleged 'bureaucratic decisions' of some of our officers. I wish to dispel those fears"—
      I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that intention—
      "and I am therefore asking our local officers to ensure not only that they themselves keep these cases under constant review, but also to keep in close consultation with social services departments of local authorities whenever decisions about eligibility for admission to workshops for the blind arise."
      Those fears have not been dispelled, and I remind the Under-Secretary of the case he now has before him, which I should like to put on the record. It is typical of a number of cases concerning the blind. Roger is 29 years of age and has been registered blind for 12 years. He has worked only six and a half years out of the 12. He has had five different jobs in different parts of the country, such as Yeovil, Salisbury, Surrey, and two in London. Some of the jobs he had to leave owing to redundancy.
      A period of high unemployment hits the disabled and the blind first. An inevitable consequence of Government policies which led to such a large number of unemployed over the last few years has been that this sector has been hit hardest. The problem is that in industry the last in is always the first out where redundancy is imposed. Therefore, a disabled person who is employed after being trained under one of the Department's schemes is often the first out. In this case the person concerned, Roger, is currently unemployed.
      A blind persons resettlement officer arranged for Roger to be interviewed at the Peckham workshops of the London Association for the Blind. He was found to be suitable and therefore acceptable to the workshop management. The London borough of Southwark agreed to sponsor his employment in the workshop, and it was arranged that he should commence work on 19th March last. On 14th March, Roger was interviewed by an official from the regional office of the

      513
      Department of Employment and was told that the Department would not approve his entry into the workshop. Immediately representations to the Under-Secretary were made, reminding him of his statement to the deputation last July that he would be prepared to consider such cases. He rejected the representations and indicated that Roger had been offered a job by the Department which he had turned down. That is true, but the rejection of the job was in my view based on valid grounds. Roger lives in Camberwell and the workshop is close to where he lives. After a short training period he would receive a basic wage of £24 per week. The job offered by the Department was in Mitcham with a basic wage of £19·40 per week. It would also have entailed an extremely difficult journey for a blind person to undertake.
      This kind of decision is made by an official of the Department, but the wishes of the blind person should be paramount and he should not be subjected unnecessarily to the administrative arrangements of the Department. The blind and disabled are the only persons to remain virtually under the direction of labour under an Act passed during the last war. The absolute power of officials to decide whether to classify a blind person in Section 1 or Section 2 according to their judgment and discrimination under Section 15 of the 1944 Act should be altered. If it is possible for the amendment to be accepted the problem will be solved. But if the amendment is not accepted the Under-Secretary can make an administrative change merely by instructing his officials not to be so adamant about not changing the designation of the type of work that a blind person is suited to—for example, that he is suitable only for work in a sheltered workshop, or only for work outside. If such a change were possible my point would be met.
      I urge the Under-Secretary to re-examine the representations we made last July and the discussions which took place on the resolution passed at the League's conference at Blackpool at Easter in order to meet this point.
      Mr. Bruce Millan: I wish briefly to support my hon Friends the Members for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). The Under-Secretary will recall
      514
      that I had long correspondence with him about a case concerning the quota system. I shall not reopen that case now because it is not strictly relevant to some of the other things that have been said so far.
      We seem to have the worst of all worlds. We have a piece of legislation which on the face of it provides the maximum safeguards and opportunities for disabled people, but which, in the event, is shown to be in default, as the consultative document has demonstrated, so that the intentions of the law are not being carried out. The Department is also making no serious effort to have the law enforced. That is highly unsatisfactory situation.
      As the editorial in The Times this morning said, it seems that the consultative document is rather defeatist and it is as if the Government are saying that because it has been difficult to work this law we should perhaps give it up altogether and get rid of the disablement register and the rest. I would have to be strongly persuaded that what the Department put in its place was very much more effective in its safeguarding of the interests of disabled people under the law before I would agree to the proposition that the law should be abolished.
      My point is in support of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West. First, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to say when the consultative document on sheltered employment will be made available. There have been assertions in the Press that this document has been completed for some considerable time but that, because of the difficulty Ministers face in making up their minds even at this preliminary stage, it has not been published. The original intention to produce the document was announced in 1970 and it is now a matter of considerable urgency that it should be made available because it will be relevant to the points made by my hon. Friend.
      In some respects the blind are treated better than other disabled people, at least to the extent that if they are employed in sheltered workshops their basic rates of pay are better than in sheltered workshops for other disabled people.

      515
      The basic rate of pay in Remploy for a man is only £16.32 a week at present. It is utterly disgraceful and disreputable that that should be the basic rate of pay. I am not making any particular criticism of the present Government about that, because these low rates of pay are of long standing at Remploy. The basic rate of pay for women in Remploy is only £13.24 a week, which again, in present circumstances, is utterly disgraceful.
      In the blind workshops, admittedly, the rates of pay, while still low, are rather better than that, but the whole business of selecting and designating blind persons as suitable for sheltered or open employment is highly unsatisfactory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West has indicated. I have always felt that nothing in Section 15 of the 1944 Act prevents the Government, if they wish, from interpreting it in a liberal way, which would meet many of the objections that my hon. Friend has raised. But successive Governments, despite their protestations, have interpreted it in a highly restrictive manner.
      There are examples in Glasgow, as in other parts of the country, where blind people who have been in open employment but have become unemployed are unable, in the circumstances of today—particularly with high unemployment rates—to get back into open employment, and are nevertheless being denied access to sheltered workshops, although the facilities to employ them are available there, the workshops would be delighted to have them, and their entry into workshops, because they are marginally the sort of people who might have made a success in open employment, would very much increase the level of skill in the workshops themselves and therefore, give a considerable filip to the efficiency and atmosphere of the workshops. It is surely deplorable in this kind of situation that blind people are being denied any employment at all when the facilities are there for them in sheltered workshops.
      My hon. Friend's amendment would allow a blind person to choose whether he wanted to go into open or sheltered employment. In principle, I go 100 per cent. of the way with him on that. If there are practical difficulties, we should
      516
      consider them, but if they prevent the acceptance of the amendment there is nevertheless an overwhelming case for a much more liberal attitude by the Government. I ask for that assurance from the Minister today.
      I am referring to sheltered employment particularly in relation to the blind—although again I say that there is no intention of singling out one category of the disabled as being necessarily more deserving of our help than other categories, since what is said in this case in many respects applies to the other categories of disabled as well.
      The way in which the workshops are run and the Government's attitude to them again leave very much to be desired. There is a variety of workshops throughout the country and a variety of work takes place in them. But still in many of them the old traditional blind crafts of brush making and so on are carried out, often in very depressing circumstances, and the full range of employment opportunities which blind people are capable of carrying out is not being made available to the extent it should.
      This raises the whole question of the rôle of the Industrial Advisers to the Blind. There is almost universal dissatisfaction with its rôle, even within the management of the board itself. It has a restricted, consultative rôle. It does not have an initiating rôle, or the kind of rôle that the board itself would like to have in relation to the workshops. Neither the employers' side of the workshop nor the National League for the Blind—representing the employees—is represented on the board, so that it is very difficult for those most intimately concerned to know exactly what the rôle of the organisation is meant to be and for that matter how it sees its rôle in relation to the workshops for the blind.
      5.45 p.m.
      In this sort of situation, the dissatisfaction with the range of work available, the rates of pay—although these are better in the workshops for the blind than in other workshops for the disabled—and the selection of people for open or sheltered employment receives even more emphasis and causes even more irritation, anxiety and anger among blind people at the present time.
      If the Under-Secretary of State cannot accept the full implications of

      517
      Amendment No. 51 I hope that he will at least give us an assurance that the promises made last year will be discharged, as they have not been so far, and that the Department will adopt a far more liberal and flexible attitude towards the equation of open sheltered employment and therefore provide many blind people, who are at present unemployed, with employment to which they are well suited and which they are very anxious to take up.
      Mr. Edwin Wainwright: We support the amendment because we are desirous that more should be done for disabled people. We are only scratching the surface in looking after them, in trying to create some kind of independence in their minds and in their hearts, and to give to them a place in society. We are really doing nothing much, although the Minister will say that we are doing better now than we were a few years ago.
      Let us consider the situation of some of the blind people, and the kind of lives they lead. They are always cheerful in company and seem to give the impression that they enjoy life tremendously. But their innermost thought must be, "What is society doing to help us?" We talk about training these people, but it is of no benefit to train them without finding them jobs. We must do more about this.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) talked about the 3 per cent., but what can we expect of employers when there is heavy unemployment, and when even fit, able and strong men cannot obtain work? The Government must do more and more about supplying jobs for people so that we can try to make certain that disabled persons are looked after. There are so many degrees of disability that it is difficult to define any given section. I sometimes wonder whether we do not leave too much to the private employer.
      When we discussed safety and health on Monday, we talked about leaving them to the private employer. We cannot do that, and neither can we leave them to deal with the problem of the disabled people. We must compel employers to carry out the Act as it stands. I am thinking about what we could do in another case. The Spastics Society is
      518
      helping tremendously in looking after spastics, but finds it difficult. We scarcely think about training spastics, yet many can be trained to do jobs. Private employers are taking advantage of some of these unfortunate people. I use the term "unfortunate" but I do not like doing so.
      I have mentioned one of these cases before in the House. It is disgraceful that society allows it to happen. I cannot blame anybody involved. I cannot blame the Spastics Society for what it is doing. Neither can I blame a spastic of whose case I am aware, who is working for about 15p a day and leaving home for about 10 hours.
      The person to whom I refer could be trained to do a useful job—for example, a good clerical job. He is not a boy; he is a man, aged 40 years. He is glad to have a job that takes him out of the home for about 10 hours a day, five days a week, and gives his mother some time to do the ordinary housework. His mother is in her seventies.
      I know of another case of a man who was injured in the pit. His foot was almost severed, but it was stitched back on. He can stand for only a few minutes. He cannot walk further than 100 yards without pain. He has an industrial injuries pension and a superannuation scheme pension. That man is keen to work and to be trained, but he cannot get a job. There is no job available for him.
      What do we do? What does the Ministry do? That man is told "You must sign on at the labour exchange." He draws his 312 day's and then goes on to supplementary benefit. That is then taken away from him. He is now getting what he paid into his superannuation scheme and his industrial injuries pension. As that man has no job he cannot claim any benefit because of the pain that he receives from his injury. Instead of earning £40 a week he is getting about £12 or £13 a week. He and his wife live together. Their children are working, or they have left home.
      We talk about training our young people but we do not give a great deal of consideration to the subject. They do not receive sufficient training. The Government—any Government—must be more determined than ever to look after the disabled and to give them more independence. It must be impressed upon them

      519
      that they are part and parcel of society, that there is a place for them, and that we welcome them. That would be only small recompense for their disability and suffering. I hope that the Minister will take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has said and accept the amendments.
      Mr. James Dempsey: Our discussion about the employment opportunities for blind persons has been very interesting. It has covered a wide spectrum of employment, including sheltered workshops. One omission in our discussion has been the lack of reference to blind persons who are self-employed. I did not hear or detect reference being made by any of my hon. Friends to the fine contribution which is made by such persons.
      I shall place briefly before the Minister the problems which self-employed blind persons face. The Department of Employment has some responsibility for assisting them. My remarks will be addressed to the one-man business. That is a very difficult business for a blind person. I am talking about individuals who have totally lost the sight of both eyes. They make considerable efforts to be employed and to keep their employment, and they receive very little co-operation from some Government Departments and local authorities.
      I have in mind a chiropodist who has to go from door to door, house to house, and town to town. He does that along with others who have similar types of employment, rather than be unemployed. Those who are totally blind are now considered to be disabled, yet that type of disablement is not being treated as a disablement at present.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigtown (Mr. Millan) indicated to what extent blind persons are better off, compared with other disabled workers. I shall mention one respect in which they are much worse off. Many blind persons must take their cars with them when undertaking their work. They should enjoy the car parking facilities that are enjoyed by other disabled workers. Self-employed blind persons often require to carry the tools of their employment with them from place to
      520
      place. They must do so in a car driven by somebody else. As it is driven by somebody else—as if it could be driven by the blind person!—they are denied the parking facilities which all other disabled workers enjoy. A self-employed blind person must be taken from his car and escorted into a house or other premises. He must then be escorted back to his car. He cannot carry out his work by himself because of the nature of his disability.
      A senior Minister told me only today that because a self-employed blind person has a driver he cannot have parking facilities. Therefore, such a person may have to walk one mile, one and a half miles or two miles, carrying all the tools of his job, in order to keep himself employed simply because someone in Whitehall is of the opinion that he does not require any parking facilities for his transport, which is indispensable to him in undertaking his form of employment.
      I hope that the Minister will say something about the problem of the self-employed blind person. The present situation is a complete discouragement to such individuals, who do their utmost to be able to work. They should be assured of a reasonable weekly wage for their labour. I fully share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), and support his representations to the full. I ask my hon. Friends and the Minister to consider the type of case that I have described. The Minister should say to those responsible, "These people are in full-time employment. They pay for their insurance stamps and they are living off their own earnings and not off the State. The least you can do is to accommodate them by giving them parking facilities for their transport as near as possible to the town or even the house where they are doing their work."
      6.0 p.m.
      I was deeply disappointed to learn that, in spite of what has been said in the House about disablement, and despite the Act promoted by one of my hon. Friends, in which one of the principal factors was the treatment of totally blind persons as disabled persons, any Department could deny them the simple and elementary right to have reasonable parking facilities for their transport to enable them to carry on a good job. I appeal

      521
      to the Minister to give an assurance—or, rather, an undertaking—that he will do his best to ensure that the Departments will interpret such legislation more humanely on behalf of the self-employed blind person.
      Mr. James Tinn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the almost total absence of Government back benchers, the Minister may care to ask that further discussion of the Bill be postponed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): That is not a point of order.
      Mr. Tinn: Government back benchers ought to have an interest in this important matter.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I have known occasions when the Opposition benches have been pretty empty. I do not think it wise for the hon. Gentleman to make such a challenge, for there are often important Committees sitting at which attendance is virtually compulsory. Therefore, attendance here does not always reflect the feeling and understanding which Members on either side may have for a particular subject. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman making that observation, for he is an experienced and popular Member.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is the quality that matters.
      Mr. Smith: I do not want to be deflected from my main task this afternoon.
      This is the third time within the last week or two that I have had the opportunity of speaking in the House about the problem of the disabled. First, as I was reminded earlier in the debate, I spoke in Standing Committee when, through the ingenuity of Opposition Members, this matter was raised. We then had a useful and thoughtful debate.
      The second occasion on which I have recently spoken on this matter was last week when, unexpectedly, I found myself addressing the Welsh Grand Committee on the subject. I see that the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) and Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who on that occasion suffered having to listen to me, are present today. We then had a constructive and useful debate, and I enjoyed taking part.
      522
      Today we are on a slightly narrower matter, I shall endeavour to deal with a number of points which have been raised. I cannot range entirely over the Department's disablement service, but I will try to deal with various points as I go along and to answer the main strictures of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker).
      Sections 6–12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 are unamended by the Bill. Thus the powers and duties of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relating to the register for disabled people, the quota scheme and the designated scheme remain unchanged by these provisions.
      I accept entirely that it would be sensible for the commission, through its Employment Services Agency, to carry out the main executive functions which are necessary for the quota scheme that we have been discussing. I admit that it is a very controversial scheme. For example, the commission would clearly need to maintain the register for disabled people and to work through its disablement resettlement officer service, which it will be operating to help to get people into employment and to get employers to fulfil their quota.
      We believe that it is right for the commission to perform those functions on behalf of my right hon. Friend, and that the necessary statutory duties and powers should remain with him. I can see no reason why the relationship between the commission and my right hon. Friend should cause any great difficulty. I am certain that there will be effective liaison and co-operation between the Department and the commission and its agencies. The whole idea is to have the utmost co-operation and understanding. In the unlikely event of that not occurring at some time in the future, the Secretary of State of the day, in the last resort, has powers of direction under this legislation, and would be able to do something about it.
      A number of hon. Members have fairly asked why the Secretary of State's present duties and powers should remain with him. I should like to give three main reasons before dealing more specifically with the quota.
      First, the power to make statutory instruments, such as that determining the

      523
      quota percentage, should be exercisable only by the Secretary of State of the day. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Doncaster nodding agreement. I think that most hon. Members would support that.
      Secondly, the commission will be primarily concerned with the provision of employment and training services. If it operates successfully, as we all hope it will, it will be involved in developing a close and cordial relationship with employers and industry. It has to do that if it is to be effective in placing the right people in the right jobs. Therefore, I do not think it is desirable that it should have the duty of enforcing quota provisions.
      We have improved the system of inspection of employers' records with regard to the quota by making this the responsibility of the wages inspectorate. It is by and large doing a good job, and there has been an improvement in inspection over the past year or so. The wages inspectorate is remaining with the Department of Employment, so one would believe it right that the inspection procedures should remain with the inspectorate under the Secretary of State for Employment.
      There must be consideration of the institution of criminal proceedings in respect of offences under the quota system. I know that there is criticism on this point, and we can go into the matter a little later. I believe that it is right and proper that a commission seeking to obtain very good, cordial relationships with employers should not be saddled with that duty but that a Minister of the Crown should be responsible.
      Mr. Millan: When have there ever been criminal proceedings?
      Mr. Smith: I am coming to that. I readily admit that there have not been very many. There was a successful prosecution earlier this year, and there was nearly a prosecution in a case concerning one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Despite the controversy over the delay in that case, his constituent did not suffer by that delay. Full consideration was given to the matter, and it was referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate for a
      524
      legal decision. The decision was nothing to do with us. It was that there was insufficient evidence for further proceedings.
      But I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Let us make the hypothetical assumption that it is the will of Parliament that there should be more prosecutions. That is one of the things that must be decided. If we have a sterner approach to the problem, surely it is even more important that the Secretary of State of the day should be the one to initiate the prosecutions, not the Manpower Services Commission, which is so concerned with placing people in employment and gaining the good will of industry and employers. I am sure that on reflection hon. Members will think that it is fairly undesirable to place on the commission the onus of deciding whether to proseccute. It is far better that it should remain with the Secretary of State.
      A third reason why this should remain with the Secretary of State and not go to the commission has to do with the consultative document which we have just published. It came out yesterday, and I fully appreciate that because it is a lengthy and technical document hon. Members have probably not had an opportunity to read it. I have not had the change of re-reading it, although I read it a month or two ago during its preparation. There will be wide-ranging consultations and debates when my right hon. Friend will be relying heavily on the advice and opinion of the National Advisory Council for the Employment of the Disabled and other worthy bodies and individuals, including hon. Members. We believe that as there is an air of uncertainty about what is to be done about the quota it is right that the statutory responsibility should remain with the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Unless the Secretary of State is determined that the employer shall carry out this obligation we shall not be successful. It is simple for an employer to get away by saying that he employs 3 per cent. disabled. There are many registered disabled who have very slight disabilities. Such people assist the employer to get round the legislation.
      Mr. Smith: I know the sincerity of the hon. Member's views, which are

      525
      shared by many. There are others who take a different view. We have published this document in an attempt to deal with these controversies. It is a fascinating document, and I am sorry that The Times was not at all friendly towards it in its editorial, because I believe it deserved a better reception.
      This is an honest attempt by the Department of Employment to present the real facts about the quota, not to come to any conclusion but to put the various alternatives, ranging from what the hon. Member wants—a retention of the quota and sterner enforcement measures—to those who say that we should get rid of the quota and put something else in its place to ensure that disadvantaged people do not suffer. It will take time for this document to be studied. I hope that eventually we shall receive useful and detailed advice so that we may carefully consider our course of action.
      There is always agitation that something should be done at once. On the other hand, it is possible to fire too quickly and make the wrong decision. There has to be a balance. I believe that my right hon. Friend and all others who are responsible will consider all the evidence and reach a decision which will have the support and understanding of the vast majority of people who have expert knowledge and realise the difficulties.
      I know the views of the hon. Member for Doncaster on this subject. He is a little unfair to the Department of Employment, of which he was a distinguished member in the last Labour administration. [Interruption.] All Under-Secretaries are distinguished in that Department. He was a little unfair because, more than almost anyone else, he must know the difficulties surrounding this legislation. It was conceived 30 years ago at a time when handicapped people were in many ways different from the handicapped people of today. Many were returning from the war with handicaps. There was a different sociological approach.
      6.15 p.m.
      Surely now is the time to look at the situation and see what sort of serious amendment is needed. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the Department
      526
      being very lax and not wanting to prosecute he must know that the main philosophy has been one of persuasion rather than prosecution. More can be achieved on behalf of disabled people by using sanctions as a back-up rather than embarking on a series of prosecutions which would result in only a marginal increase in the number of disabled persons employed.
      Mr. Neil Kinnock: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are a number of unemployed but employable disabled persons who will see what he has said and what the Government are doing as part of a massive exercise of beating round the bush? Would he not agree that the major difference between 30 years ago when this legislation was conceived and now is not the technological and manpower changes in the economy but the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House felt then that employers who did not fulfil their social obligations should have the full weight of the law brought against them whereas now, apparently, we believe that they should get away with it?
      Mr. Smith: I do not agree. A number of disabled people do not sign the register. This is not because of any laxity on the part of the Department. The whole subject is fraught with complexity because of the various anomalies. For example, we estimate that there are as many unregistered disabled people in employment as there are registered people. If we were to get much tougher with employers it might happen that they would begin searching around in their factories and finding people who were disabled but not registered. They would then have those people sign the register and thus meet their quota.
      A lot of people do not register because they do not like to be thought of as disabled. They are as abled-bodied as most hon. Members and perfectly capable of holding down a job. The difficulty about disablement is that there is such enormous variety. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday when introducing this document to a Press conference, "It is possible to have severe polio and become President of the United States. At the same time, having severe polio, you cannot be a man who digs up the road or does heavy manual work".

      527
      There is one point which caught my eye in The Times leading article, towards the end, where it says:

      "Like the Race Relations Act it is intended as an aid to conciliation and persuasion. Prosecution is a last resort and would in most cases be unwise. But the authority of the law ought in theory to make it easier to induce employers to take on somebody whom they would otherwise reject, but whom they find with experience can serve them perfectly well."
      It is true that there are differing views and that there are these anomalies. One of the biggest is that if all registered disabled people were tomorrow suddenly and miraculously wafted into employment many employers would still be in breach of the quota provisions. There would not be enough disabled people to go round. This is a point made in this document which deserves consideration. It is a question whether we take the view that the most effective way of proceeding is to have a policy of greater enforcement and prosecution or whether we say that there are so many anomalies in the quota system that any Government would be sensible to scrap its provisions and replace them with new ones which would give disabled people a far greater opportunity of obtaining employment.
      Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the powers of persuasion being used at present are totally unsuccessful. Is he aware that in 1961 there were 25,340 firms not implementing the 3 per cent. quota, whereas in 1972 the figure had risen to 34,794? There are still 13,000 firms that have made no move at all and do not have even 1 per cent. disabled persons. He will recognise that powers of persuasion have been totally inadequate, but I think he will agree that there is something radically wrong with the situation at the present time.
      Mr. Smith: I do not say it is radically wrong, but because there are doubts we have this document so that we can get people's views and thrash this out on a bipartisan basis. There are no politics in this.
      The idea that all hon. Members have is to see better facilities and great opportunities in employment for people who are disabled. It is not quite as easy or as facile as the hon. Gentleman makes out. There are many industries and commercial enterprises where there often is
      528
      not available the requisite number of disabled people to fill that employment. If a man said "I am available; will you send someone along to me" and that requirement is not fulfilled, it would be difficult indeed for my Department not to issue him with a permit, or, if it refused him a permit, to prosecute him.
      Undoubtedly there are backsliders. There are people who dodge their obligations. Please do not forget the large number of employers—despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, they are in the majority—who recognise their obligations to disabled people and employ disabled people, and often employ many unregistered disabled people.
      We must certainly look at this matter very carefully and quietly, taking into account all the various opinions which have been expressed which run really from the spectrum advanced by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) to others I have heard expressed by people outside this House who believe that perhaps it might be a good thing to dispense with this quota because it is not really as effective as it should be, and never could be even if that policy were adopted.
      What I would stress is that we have an open mind on this, quite genuinely so. Indeed, the quota document does not reach any conclusions. I hope that in due course we shall be able to do so. Certainly the scheme at the present time will continue to operate in its consultative period. It is right and proper that it should remain with my right hon. Friend and that the statutory duty should remain with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment until such time as a decision is reached by the Government—by this Government or any succeeding Government—that there should be a statutory change, that there should be new legislation on the subject, in which case the whole matter can be looked at again. One does not want to put time limits on these things. I hope that over the course of the next few months we shall be able to get some of the best advice we can on the scheme and be able in due course to announce what we should like. I am sure that when the time comes we shall have a definite expression of opinion from the

      529
      hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite and, indeed, from hon. Members from all parts of the House.
      I have gone on rather long, but I did so because I think this subject is important. It is indicative of the interest we have had in the quota scheme that we have had comments from so many hon. Gentlemen today. Indeed, it is a subject which one can debate exclusively on its own, not especially in the context of this Report stage.
      Mr. Neil McBride: To what extent is there medical supervision or examination of applicants for employment in sheltered workshops? Are there any terms of reference for medical officers so concerned on physical disability limitations which will enable them arbitrarily to exclude from employment selected applicants who wish to enter sheltered workshops?
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating me a little on sheltered workshops. There is very good medical inspection of those who are concerned with employment in sheltered workshops. Whilst opinions differ, we endeavour all the time to get people into open employment where we can. The main philosophy should be where handicapped people are concerned—whether they are blind or otherwise disabled—that they should be in open employment because it gives them a better chance to be competitive and enjoy a fuller life with able-bodied people.
      May I now move to the amendment which was moved, with his usual sincerity and assiduity, by the hon. Member for Willesden, West. We know his great interest in these subjects. The hon. Member raised one case. I apologise to him for not having instantly recognised it, but he will know that we get hundreds of constituency cases from hon. Members every week, and one does not always remember every one. However, I will give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that I will look into this case again to see whether there is anything further that can be done, especially as the hon. Member quoted a letter I had written on the subject.
      Under Section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 employment under sheltered conditions is reserved for disabled people who, by reason of the
      530
      nature or severity of their disablement, have neither the abilities nor the skills to be employed under normal conditions. The effect of the amendment of the hon. Member for Willesden, West would be to alter fundamentally the statutory conditions set out in that section governing the eligibility for sheltered employment. I must make it plain that since the passing of that Act in 1944 it has been the aim of successive Governments that disabled people should, wherever possible, be placed in open employment. The importance of this objective was emphasised in the Tomlinson Report which led to the creation of the 1944 Act. It was subsequently endorsed by the Piercy Committee, and has been accepted by my right hon. Friend's National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled, not only in our time but also in the Opposition's time in Government, and nearly all others concerned with the employment problems of disabled people.
      As recently as last spring the advisory council reaffirmed its view that this policy should continue to apply to all disabled people in the employment field, including blind people, who are mentioned in the amendment.
      Perhaps I can illustrate just how successful this policy has been in relation to blind people. Since the publication of the Tomlinson Report, the proportion of blind people of working age in employment has increased from 22 per cent. to 32·4 per cent., and the proportion of those in employment who work under ordinary conditions has increased from about one-third to about two-thirds of the total.
      Perhaps I can give the actual figures to the House. In 1941 2,994 blind people were working under ordinary conditions and 6,137 under sheltered conditions. By 1972 the number working under ordinary conditions had increased to 6,708, and the number working under sheltered conditions had fallen to 3,238.
      Perhaps I might mention in passing that during the six-month period ending as recently as 31st March 1973 the number of blind people placed in employment reached all-time records. I am sure it is right that employment under sheltered conditions and in special workshops should be reserved for those who really need it. To change that policy on the

      531
      lines sought in the hon. Member's amendment would, in my view, be contrary to the interests of disabled people. That is not to say that I do not fully agree that the officers of the commission and its agencies will need to discuss the possibility of sheltered employment with any disabled person who believes he is likely to need it.
      Perhaps I should also add—this is a point which the hon. Member for Craigton asked me about specifically—that as part of our general review of ways and means of improving our Department's policies and services for helping the disabled we propose to publish a consultative document on the future of sheltered employment later this year. Contrary to what the hon. Member said, there has not been a lot of heel-dragging on this. In fact, it is a difficult and complex problem with large numbers of views to be obtained from people within the sheltered workshop environment. The document is not ready for publication. It is not pigeon-holed somewhere waiting to be printed. It has not been fully composed as yet. Efforts are being made to speed it up as much as possible. It will be an important one. It will be of equal importance to, if not greater importance than, the quota one and deals with specific points raised by hon. Members during this debate—important ones about the future of sheltered employment.
      The question of eligibility for admission to sheltered workshops will be dealt with in the document, which will form the basis of wide-ranging consultations about the future of sheltered employment. For that reason alone it is desirable to await the future before making changes in legislation affecting sheltered workshops.
      6.30 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Craigton commented on the different rates of pay in sheltered workshops and the rôle of industrial advisers to the blind. How best to modernise blind workshops and provide management advice and marketing services will be dealt with in the consultative document. We have those matters very much in mind. We know that there is controversy and difficulty in these areas, and we want rationally
      532
      and sensibly to consider how best improvements can be made.
      The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) spoke about self-employed blind people being more difficult to deal with than those in public or private employment. We try to give as much advice as we can. Generally speaking the DROs show great sympathy and understanding and are always ready to assist self-employed blind people. We are never completely satisfied that we are giving the best possible service and are always trying to improve it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not feel that I am deflecting his argument when I say that parking is a matter chiefly for the Department of the Environment. I will take up the matter of parking with that Department to see whether improvements can be achieved. I know only too well the frustrations and difficulties suffered by blind people with transport generally and with parking in particular.
      Bearing in mind what we are trying to do on the quota and the document on sheltered employment, it would be unwise for the Government to accept the amendment. We feel that it is right to make the Manpower Services Commission the agent of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Pavitt: Bearing in mind the Minister's comments about changing social conditions and what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said about blind people no longer being expected merely to put bristles into brushes, it is nonsense to say that a disabled person, although capable of working in an open workshop, should not be allowed to work in a sheltered workshop if he prefers to do so. The Minister is only deferring an assurance of more flexibility in the interpretation of the law.
      Mr. Smith: The flexibility is already there. If there is a marginal doubt about whether a person should be in open or sheltered employment he will often be given the benefit of the doubt when he opts for sheltered employment, although it might be said that technically he should remain in open employment. As I said in Committee, there is no monopoly of concern. Concern is shared throughout the House and the country. We have to provide the best possible

      533
      means of helping those who need help. We must never be complacent whilst so much needs to be done. On the other hand, we need not be ashamed of our record under successive Governments. What we have done bears comparison with what has been done by many other modern industrialised countries. We have made good progress and should not under-estimate what has been achieved. Perhaps in the future we shall be more sophisticated and be able to get more disabled people into employment, particularly now that the employment figures are improving throughout the country.
      In these circumstances, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
      Mr. Harold Walker: We have had a good, timely and useful debate which has justified the tabling of the amendment. I look forward to seeing the consultative document later this year and hope that when it is presented we shall have an opportunity to debate sheltered employment. I agree with the Minister that this is a difficult and complex subject, but its complexities should not be used by the Government as a pretext for not facing their obligations to provide the maximum amount of employment opportunities for disabled people.
      The Minister is right in saying that the Department's philosophy has been to persuade rather than to prosecute. Although I have held office in the Department, I do not accept that philosophy, nor do I accept it in industrial health and safety. That is a wrong philosophy which needs to be changed.
      The Minister gave a full reply, for which we are grateful, but he omitted to say anything about the 9,000 firms which are in breach of the law. Those firms apparently will continue to be in breach of the law. The Department has an obligation to do something about it. In no other area of our social life would we take no action against people who behave in defiance of the law. Will the Minister tell us what he proposes to do about these 9,000 firms?
      I was glad to hear the Minister say that the consultative document will put forward alternatives, and that those will not be the only alternatives that the Government will consider. I hope that before long the Leader of the House will
      534
      give us an opportunity to debate those alternatives and others that we might suggest to improve enforcement of the present scheme.
      The hon. Gentleman did not refer to the interim period between now and the presentation of the alternatives. I beg him to consider this carefully and to tell us what he intends to do in the interim period to secure the more effective implementation of the obligation that Parliament has placed on the Department to ensure that people behave in a proper manner.
      In view of the publication of the consultative document and the need for hon. Members to study the Government's views, and in the hope that before long we shall have a fuller debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Roland Moyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 44, at end insert:
      '(e) include provisions for the making of arrangements to encourage and enable women and girls to participate more fully in the skilled trades and professions'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 5, in line 44, at end insert:
      '(e) include provision to ensure that adequate training facilities and opportunities are available for young persons who have not attained the age of nineteen years and who are not in full-time education or employment, and such facilities shall include the provision of such cash grants as the Secretary of State may by Order determine'.
      No. 52, in Schedule 2, page 22, line 44, at end insert:
      `(c) in paragraph (e) after the word "persons" there shall be inserted the words "financially and"'.
      No. 50, in page 35, line 30, after 'persons', insert 'financially and'.
      Mr. Moyle: Amendments Nos. 52 and 50 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) commend themselves to the Opposition and we shall support them, but in the interests of time I will leave my hon. Friend to put his case for them.
      By way of introduction I wish to refer to the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion." The Under-Secretary of State for Education and

      535
      Science flitted briefly through the Chamber, and I am sorry that he has gone out again because what I have to say is of as much interest to him as it is to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment.
      The vast bulk of the White Paper, which was presented to the House by the Secretary of State for Education and Science last December, is devoted to the future of the 22 per cent. of the nation who go on to higher and further education after the compulsory school leaving age of 16. The other 78 per cent, of each age group, as they reach the age of 16, are dismissed in a chapter of barely two pages, which concludes:
      "The Government believe, however, that they have identified a gap that still remains in the growing manifold of options that await the choice of school leavers well qualified by their examination results to enter higher education."
      That, as I have said before, is very like saying that the Atlantic Ocean is a gap in the middle of the British Isles.
      However, having identified that great gap in paragraph 109, the Secretary of State says in paragraph 101:
      "The further education system has a vital contribution to make in ensuring that the country has a work force capable of meeting—at all levels—the changing demands of industry and commerce."
      I take that to mean that, whether the hon. Gentleman or the Department of Employment like it or not, the future of about 78 per cent. of the age groups as they reach the age of 16 is dumped in their laps. Whether they have provision to deal adequately with the problem or not, the Secretary of State for Education and Science has neatly handed the problem over to them.
      In those circumstances we have to face the problem, which is that at the moment, under the existing arrangements although I think it is common ground on both sides of the House that the quality of industrial training has improved the quantity has shown no very great increase since the days when the Henniker Heaton report on the future of industrial training was presented about 10 years ago. Yet, in the Bill we are faced with the fact that the levy is to be made the subject of a power instead of being compulsory. So that is to be weakened. The number
      536
      of small firms excluded in practice now is to be increased and they are to be excluded by law, and education is to be very strictly related to training, if we understand the replies which the hon. Gentlemen have given us in Committee.
      So we are moving the amendment in the hope that it will present the Manpower Services Commission with some aim in life and an incentive to exert all the influence and power it can to increase opportunities for the training and, particularly, the education of our younger people under the new dispensation which is being set up by the Bill.
      A number of ideas have been put forward from this side of the House as to how that might be carried out. For the benefit of the House, I reiterate that on this side we would like to see the country moving rapidly to a situation in which nobody between the ages of 16 and 18 or 19, whichever is the more convenient, should be regarded as unemployed. They should be undergoing education or training, or they should be at work, or they should be undergoing a combination of both. But certainly, so long as they have not reached the adult stage, there ought to be no question at all of these young people ever again being considered unemployed.
      6.45 p.m.
      I have moved a little nearer, probably, to the Government since we debated matters relating to this in Standing Committee. The Under-Secretary was then kind enough to mention that it was a question of economics. I suggested that it was a question of Government will for that policy to be adopted. By the way the Government's economic policy is developing, I am beginning to wonder whether there will be any money at all left in the kitty by the time we take over the direction of affairs. I think the policy I am advocating is the one the country should move to, and as quickly as possible.
      On this side of the House we have a number of other ideas as well. For example, we think that compulsion to attend evening classes in order to obtain qualifications is a totally unworthy way of going about things in this country at this stage. People should undergo day or block release to obtain education and training to give them the qualifications they need to succeed in their careers

      537
      and jobs. They do not want a moral obstacle course in which, after a hard day's work, they snatch a quick cup of tea and dash off to a college of further education to work hard again to obtain the qualifications necessary in their trade, profession or education.
      We are prepared to accept that many of these young people who leave school at 16 do so because they wish to have no further connection with it. This has to be faced, and the problem of motivation has to be solved if we are to treat these young people properly in our education and training process.
      There is precious little sign of the Department of Employment accepting the implications of the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion" in drawing up their policies, and the situation seems to be that they are determined to do absolutely nothing extra to meet the problem which the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has dumped so unceremoniously in their laps. The Under-Secretary, replying to a similar debate in Committee, said:
      "we are here mainly dealing with employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th March 1973; c. 125.]
      One would expect a Department of Employment to have very much that sort of outlook when it comes to education and training. But that is not the sort of attitude it should adopt in view of the White Paper which the right hon. Lady has placed before the House.
      In summary, when it comes to our young people the Department of Education and Science has dumped the 16-year-old school leaver in the lap of the Department of Employment, and the Department of Employment shows no signs of being able or willing to take up the challenge.
      I turn to the other amendment on the Notice Paper, which concerns the possibility of the Manpower Services Commission making much greater provision for women to be trained for occupations and professions. Anything I have said when talking about young people generally and the inadequacy of the education and training which they are likely to receive under this Bill can be multiplied one hundredfold when the problem which we are considering is the education and training of young women—and indeed older women as well. I will give some rather
      538
      gruesome statistics, which I also gave in Committee.
      At the age of 16 50 per cent. of the boys who leave full-time education go into a trade where they are able to take an apprenticeship, and, in fact, do take an apprenticeship. At the same age 67 per cent. of girls have no training at all in the occupation which they enter. In fact, only 7½ per cent. of girls who leave school at the age of 16 take an apprenticeship, and of that very small number 75 per cent. go into hairdressing. I am indebted for these figures to the excellent Sixth Report from the Expenditure Committee for this Session on "The Employment of Women". The Sub-Committee was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), and the report was presented to the House of Commons on 8th March this year. We very briefly mentioned that report during the Committee stage of the Bill, when the Under-Secretary fairly replied that his Department had had very little opportunity to consider its implications. Now his Department has had the better part of two and a half months to consider the items, matters and recommendations in that report.
      The Committee makes a very important statement on page 13 of its report:
      "We are also most concerned that the proposed reduction in levy/grant to 1 per cent. will adversely affect the training opportunities of women."
      Having made that statement of the situation as it sees it, the Committee goes ahead firmly to recommend
      "We therefore think it of maximum importance that the impact of the reduced levy should be closely monitored and that immediate action should be taken to stimulate training should this prove to be necessary."
      I said in Committee, and I reiterate, that if I had been a member of that Committee the recommendation would have been much stronger than that. Nevertheless, that is the recommendation with which the Minister is faced, and to try to put the recommendation into legislative form we have tabled Amendment No. 5.
      Here again, I am prepared to admit that much of the problem is a social one. It is still true that most girls and their families regard a job as a stopover between school and marriage and perhaps as a source of pin money after the family grows up. We must try to alter that and

      539
      make an improvement in the situation. However, I see no indication from the discussions on the Bill so far that the Government realise what the problem is and are trying to do something to solve it.
      So in presenting Amendment No. 5 we are giving the Government a chance to indicate at least their wish to help in the future training of women in their occupations and professions by accepting the amendment. If there is to be any improvement it will come about under the present Government policy only within the industrial training board sector.
      The Sub-Committee stated—
      "We therefore think it of maximum importance that the impact of the reduced levy should be closely monitored "
      That should lie well within our amendment. The Sub-Committee was obviously very unhappy about the entire Government scheme. The Government now have the chance to improve on the Bill.
      In summary, it is fair to say that everybody now would accept that there is probably as much talent for skilled and responsible work among our women as among our men. The way that we as a nation waste that talent can only be described as profligate in the extreme. In consequence we invite retribution from a world economic system which I hope we shall avoid. We shall not avoid it other than by good fortune unless we mend our ways and take a much more positive attitude to the education and training of women.
      Mr. John Sutcliffe: I believe that training needs to be given the kind of outright priority that is being accorded to housing in the allocation of resources. Yet no sort of priority is being given to the training of those between 16 and 19, who are excluded from the otherwise admirable training opportunities scheme. Their omission mars the Bill in its vital efforts to get training on the move.
      Unemployment among young people tends to be greater in the Northern Region than elsewhere, though there has been a welcome drop. The latest figures published this week show that 600 young people were unemployed in Teesside in the past month—that is, 600 fewer than in the equivalent month a year ago.
      540
      But this is a very special year. It is the year in which the school leaving age has been raised. Next year and subsequent years we shall revert to the level of 1972; there will be more than 5,000 leaving school and seeking work in the Teesside area compared with 1,400 this year.
      It is well known that the number of apprenticeships within employment has declined. Between 1970 and 1972 in the engineering manufacturing industry recruitment fell by 40 per cent. At all events, it has not been expanding to match the demand for skilled labour, which will be critical in the Teesside area with North Sea oil coming in, with the new steel complex to be built, and with general economic expansion under way. We shall probably be faced with the biggest labour crisis ever if the boom which we expect comes about.
      We must look now to the demand five years hence. How are we to meet this shortage? There is no evidence that industry will recruit and train sufficient boys and girls to help meet the shortages which we expect. Neither is there any evidence that we are using all available training capacity to mect the demand for labour and give young people the chance better to equip themselves to do a job. I fear that we are not doing either of these things, and present measures—unchanged by the Bill—amount to a palliative.
      The training award schemes in the engineering, construction, and hotel and catering industries in the Teesside area take 38 young people. In all these industries there is a tremendous labour shortage. The skills appreciation courses give a rather more modest training to another 45 young people at any given time over a 12-week period at Imperial Chemical Industries, Billingham and Wilton. There are, in addition, 80 young people applying rather than acquiring skills in Community Industry.
      I do not decry these efforts that are being made, but I deplore the fact that there is a total of only 160 young people being given the opportunity of any kind of training. We cannot just bury our heads and say that the training of 16- to 19-year olds is the responsibility of industry and leave it at that. Unless young people in this age group are lucky enough to obtain an apprenticeship or its

      541
      equivalent, there is no hope for them in terms of training or developing their full potential.
      The lack of such a policy discriminates severely against the less academically able. It also denies the need to develop all our resources in the national interest. If only we devoted half the resources to the non-academic or less-academic that we devote to the academic—the students in higher education—what an impact that would have on current and future social problems!
      The real long-term answer to the young unemployed is not the creation of more jobs by expanding the economy, important though that is. The real answer lies in sponsored apprenticeships which make full use of available training capacity, and this policy has been backed by the CBI and the trade unions. There is spare capacity not just in industry but in technical colleges.
      7.0 p.m.
      In this matter of sponsored apprenticeships, 18 months ago ICI took the initiative with my hon. Friend. The proposal came largely thanks to the dedication of the chief training officer at ICI, Mr. Parramore, and it was backed by Mr. Hurst, who is the principal careers officer in Teesside. Teesside is very fortunate to have such dedicated men. ICI wanted to give four-year apprenticeship training to 80 16-year-old boys. At a stroke this would have doubled the training opportunities for school leavers in the area. When unemployment was at its height, as it was 18 months ago, and when the cost to the State of keeping unemployed young people was also at its height, we could have had 80 in craft apprenticeships. In two years or so from now we could have been turning out mechanical and electrical fitters, turners, instrument artificers, welders, platers and plumbers—all these skills which the local economy will desperately need. It would have cost the Government £500 per trainee in wages for the first year, and thereafter for three years a very limited fee to cover some contribution to wages. Between the cost of apprenticeship and unemployment benefit there can be no doubt where the best return on money lies.
      The scheme was rejected, and, frankly, I am ashamed of the grounds on which my hon. Friend rejected it. He said
      542
      that apprentice training was the responsibility of employers, and that no firm should be subsidised to use its spare capacity or others might be tempted or induced to cut back or defer their apprentice recruitment. One wondered just how obtuse the Department could be. It must have known that the ICI scheme was in no way connected with ICI's own recruitment. Here was the Department implying that the company wanted to avoid its responsibilities for its own apprentice training when ICI stated categorically that if at the end of the four-year training jobs were to be offered to those trainees in ICI, which it never foresaw as being likely, it intended to reimburse the Government.
      There was another argument against the pilot scheme which was devised to use spare capacity to train a number of unfortunate people and to equip them better to find employment either locally in Teesside or elsewhere where the work was. It was said that one could not justify a pilot scheme to other areas where youth unemployment was high, though not as high as in the Northern Region.
      I hope that I have made the point. This is one glaring omission from the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friend will see it as such.
      I turn now to skills appreciation courses. One assumes that these courses were made possible under Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act. It gave my right hon. Friend power to run courses for unemployed persons who were above the upper limit of compulsory school age. This specific power is not spelt out in the Bill, and I should welcome clarification of what the proposed Training Services Agency can and will do for this category of young people who have training potential, however limited. In this connection may I say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) that no person should be regarded as untrainable.
      Those instrumental in persuading my hon. Friend to introduce these courses in 1971 have now had a great deal of experience in running them. They have had sufficient experience to realise the benefits to be gained from extending these 12-week courses to 26 weeks. Yet it is now two and a half months since

      543
      ICI, which runs these courses, and the Teesside education committee, which has done so much to promote them, put up a proposal to which there has been no response.
      By extending these schemes it would be possible to introduce day release and give training to develop the personality of the young persons trained. By far the largest category of young unemployed do not possess the academic ability to meet apprenticeship standards. We know that. But we cannot just write them off as long-term unemployed, or as untrainable. If we do that we shall create greater social problems in the future than any that exist at present.
      In a booklet published by the National Foundation for Education Research, the chief education officer of the West Riding, Sir Alec Clegg, points out the dangers of those who see themselves as the rejects of a qualification-conscious society. These young people can well turn against society in their resentment at the stigma of failure, and this stigma is felt more acutely at a time of frantic social change.
      I make one further plea to my hon. Friend. It is for better training allowances to encourage more young people to go for training.
      I shall listen carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say when he replies to the debate. But he will sense how strongly I feel and how much I believe the Bill does not go far enough in matching training opportunities to the need in the crucial years after school. If no more is to be done to gear training capacity to its full extent, I must support the amendment the whole way.
      Mr. Dempsey: I wish to speak in support of my own amendment, Amendment No. 52, and also the other amendments being discussed in this group. I do so because in my part of the country we have high unemployment. Among the high unemployment we have the tragedy of young school leavers—boys and girls—reaching the age of 18 without ever having had a job. This is the first time since the Hungry Thirties that we have had this experience in my part of Scotland.
      When I first looked at the Bill, I did my best to ascertain whether any financial
      544
      provision was being made to assist in the training of young unemployed school levers. Failing to observe any such provision, I decided to table Amendment No. 52.
      In this part of Scotland we are recovering from our dependence on the old heavy industries of coal, iron and steel. We are in the midst of diversification, and we have still a long way to go before we reach the happy standards enjoyed in the south of the country.
      The big question is: what is to be done with these boys and girls when they leave school? Are they to be allowed to roam the countryside? Are they to be allowed to get into mischief here, there and everywhere? This is one of the contributory causes of vandalism. I interviewed nine young teenagers representing a gang of young people. They were well known in the courts for being vandals. I asked: How many of you are unemployed? Eight out of the nine were unemployed. They had nothing to do with their time except hang about on street corners and rampage through our streets in the middle of the night.
      Therefore, one of the main problems is finding suitable employment for these young people, and we must ascertain how best they can be prepared for such employment. Surely one of the most attractive elements for any employer when engaging young people is to be assured that they have some degree of skill. So the proper attitude to adopt is to give them training when they leave school. It is because this training is so important that I am speaking to-night. Now that system of training is in danger of disappearing.
      If the Bill goes through in its present form, I assure the House that we shall require to put up the shutters on the training of our school leavers. At present they receive a year's training. During that period they are in receipt of a weekly allowance from the Department of Employment. My ambition, in tabling my amendment, is to try to ensure that that element will continue to operate so that we can carry on training these young people.
      For example, in my constituency 36 school leavers were taken off the dole to undergo a course of training, and every one without exception found a job at the

      545
      end of the training period. This shows how training is vital to these young people.
      One of the greatest problems in my part of the country in attracting industry is the lack of a pool of skilled labour. It seems ludicrous that after efforts to bring employment to this district to provide full employment we should remove the skill that attracts industrialists into special development areas. Unless the Bill is amended it will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
      I wonder whether the Government realise that they have taken leave of their sense on this issue. Throughout the ages Government Departments have felt the need for training unemployed young people. When I left school I was sent along to a training association to receive a measure of training because I was unemployed. That process has been going on for many years. If the Bill is enacted in its present form we shall be unable to provide the staff or the accommodation or the weekly allowance to enable young people to undergo a year's course of training.
      When I looked at the Bill I felt sure that the Government had made a mistake. It must be an omission. Surely no Government would consider depriving young people of the opportunity of training. I cannot believe that they prefer to see youngsters roaming the streets at all hours of the night instead of receiving some skill to enable them to find an attractive job and settle into some niche in society at an early age.
      We all know that land and buildings capital are important, but I ask the Minister to try to understand that the most important capital of all is human capital. I therefore urge him to accept these amendments.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. James Hamilton: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to these amendments. I was kept fully informed about the progress of the Bill in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan), who unfortunately cannot be here this evening because his wife is ill.
      On Second Reading I made special reference to apprenticeship training. I have put down Questions on this matter
      546
      to the Minister of State over a long period. Between 1962 and 1973 there has been a drastic decrease in the number of youngsters entering apprenticeship training. This was not to the benefit of the country or of the economy. In fairness to the Minister of State, I should point out that because of the pressures that I have attempted to bring to bear, not on him but on the system, we have made tremendous progress and some companies in the county of Lanarkshire have started to take on apprentices.
      Recently I visited a sponsored school and discovered that it was totally understaffed for the number of boys attending it. I went to some of the employers in my constituency who send boys on these sponsored courses, and they made it indelibly clear to me that, much as they wanted the boys to be trained for the one year, they found that in many instances there were no jobs for them at the end of that time.
      The Minister may say that apprenticeships are the concern of industrialists. I subscribe to that view for the British Steel Corporation, Caterpillars, Honeywells, and all the large companies which employ substantial numbers of people. However, we find that the smaller companies do not have the financial resources which are so vital to give boys these opportunities.
      The employers and the trade unions pay lip service to the views that are put forward by both the CBI and the TUC. However, we find that employers are not prepared to accept boys of 17 and 18 years of age because they must pay the wage for the age. This is a decided handicap for boys over sixteen. This point was made very forcibly by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) when he said that 70 per cent. of our young people do not have academic qualifications. We certainly give opportunities to the 30 per cent. who have academic attainments. We give them bursaries and other opportunities. We give them every encouragement. But the other 70 per cent., who in the main are the boys, and girls for that matter, who enter industry, are given no consideration.
      In my constituency there is a training school that is run by the local authority. Boys of 16 and under, before the school leaving age was raised, attended this

      547
      training school. If they take the full week's training course they receive no remuneration, but if they attend for only three days and sign on at the employment exchange they are entitled to supplementary benefit. Consequently, if the financial resources in the home of a boy who is attending this pre-vocational school are inadequate he will not take full advantage of the opportunity that has been given to him for technical training. I have raised this matter on several occasions—indeed, I raised it with the Prime Minister—but so far nothing has happened.
      Unless the Government change their course on this issue, the Bill will have an adverse effect in the county of Lanark. My constituency is cheek by jowl with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). We know the problems affecting our young people. We know, too, that 7·2 per cent. of our people are unemployed. We hope that with the changes that are taking place things will improve, and that when the new industries arrive, as we hope they will, we shall have available a reservoir of trained people.
      I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will take cognisance of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham (Mr. Moyle) and others on this side of the House and by his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe), who made an excellent case. I should like to add to it, but as I want to be brief I shall confine myself to asking the Minister to consider seriously the points that we have made and accept them not only in the interests of young people but in the interests of the country as a whole.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the views expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, on reading Clause 2(1) which provides that
      "it shall be the duty of the Commission to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the purpose of assisting persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities"
      it seems to me that the Minister can in any case meet the point which hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind and that there is no need for an extra subsection. I hope that the Minister will
      548
      be able to make noises and express a view that will justify my having said that the subsection covers the point at issue.
      There is a need to give special consideration to young people, particularly at a time of high unemployment. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised an important matter. There is nothing worse than a young person leaving school, perhaps having a certain amount of part-time education afterwards, looking for a job and not being able to find one, being idle for about two years, and then trying to take up an apprenticeship, only to find that he is too old. The result is a waste both from his and the country's point of view, and it leads to the situation that young people who might at a later age be skilled are unable, by force of circumstances, to acquire those skills.
      The responsibility for that state of affairs does not rest entirely with the Government. Employers and trade unionists bear some responsibility for it, because sometimes they are extremely remiss in that they do not accept people into apprenticeships at the ages of 17 or 18 if they have not taken them up in earlier years. There should be more flexibility in terms of the period of the apprenticeship and the age at which it might be undertaken.
      I remember talking about this matter in the 1959 Parliament. There has been some progress since then. Some apprenticeships have been reduced from five years to four, but for many trades an apprenticeship of three years could thoroughly equip the person for the work that he would be called upon to do. That is particularly so in the construction industry, in which there is a shortage of skilled workers. One reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is cutting back on local government building operations that were to go ahead in 1974 is the lack of skilled labour to do the work required. If we are to complete our housing and school programmes, there must be more trained people in the construction industry.
      The Government are not the only people involved in this problem, but they should grasp the nettle and endeavour to stimulate training through their centres. The process must be assisted by employers and unions acting together to

      549
      produce, for example, more bricklayers, joiners and plumbers. Unless people with those skills are available, the housing programme will not be completed. There is a great waste if young people are ready to take up these skills but are not able to do so. The debate on Friday brought out the fact that the "lump" is not conducive to providing the number of apprenticeships that are needed in the construction industry, and the more that the Government can do to help the situation the better it will be for everyone.
      For years we have been talking about the need to increase training. We have a 5 per cent. economic growth target. We are hitting that target, but we shall fail to take advantage of the growth that is open to us unless we get the necessary skilled labour. There is, therefore, a good deal of sense in saying that the commission should make sure that young people who leave school in any part of the country are given the advantages of further education and of the skills that come from training for a job that will eventually enable them to give us the very growth that we are expecting and seeking.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesborough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) on an excellent and most thoughtful speech. One of the most important things said by him is that we are now living in a technological age, and the most worrying feature of it is what is to happen to those youngsters who have no pieces of paper and no qualifications.
      The people with whom we are dealing are in the age group 16 to 18, and those about whom I am particularly concerned are those who are not up to normal apprenticeship standard. It is interesting to read some of the educational reports that came out between 1943 and 1947. There were some wonderful visions. There was something called a county college. I wonder what has happened to the county colleges that were envisaged in the 1944 Act and in educational reports of that time. I wonder how many county colleges there are today. There seem to be few indeed which fulfil the original concept of the county college.
      I believe that in Committee I was the first Member—though my hon. Friend the
      550
      Member for Lewisham (Mr. Moyle) rather stole my thunder today— to say that there should be no such thing as an unemployed person under the age of 18. I go further, and say that I want to see introduced as quickly as possible a scheme under which youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 are released from education to work, rather than the other way round. The first step is to do something to improve the whole question of day and block releases. There are scandalous differences in practice between industries on the question of day release. The situation is particularly bad in the distributive trades and it is worse for girls than for boys. Some industries are good, but others are appalling.
      Capacity is available in technical colleges to provide the necessary education for these young people. It is not a question of having to build large numbers of new technical colleges. My first priority, which I hope will be brought into being, would be compulsory day release for those in the 16 to 18 age group. Whether it was day release or block release would depend on the individual case. I look forward to the day when we can say that up to the age of 18 a person shall be based educationally somewhere, but that he shall be released from that education to go to work.
      This is a modest amendment. It is by no means what those who served on the Committee would have liked. We should have liked something much stronger, but I must not go into that now. We should have preferred this matter to be tied up rather less with the commission and rather more with the youth advisory and careers services. There was a long discussion on this matter in Committee. I accept that much of this will now be the responsibility of the commission. The least that the Government can do is to accept this modest amendment.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I hope that the Government will either accept the amendments or at least reconsider the position of youth training before the Bill goes to another place. Every speaker has said that the Bill represents a missed opportunity in regard to youth employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) said that this was to some extent the result of a

      551
      failure of co-operation between the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science.
      Ever since the Plowden Report, the Department of Education and Science has been sold on the principle of positive discrimination in favour of those who, because of social background or housing difficulties and other problems, have not been able to measure up to the achievement of children from more favourable backgrounds. Money has already been pumped into those areas which are deprived. Now that the Halsey Report has been published, I am sure that opinion in that Department is in favour of every possible discrimination in favour of children from deprived areas who did not succeed at school.
      It is no accident that a high proportion of the 70 per cent. of young people mentioned by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) will be the very ones who have not succeeded at school, who will therefore be anti-education, and who will move into dead-end jobs or no jobs at all. This is what we are desperately concerned about. It is time that the Department took a leaf from the book of the Department of Education and Science and thought in terms of positive discrimination in favour of these youngsters, of which there is little or no evidence in the Bill.
      This is a modest amendment to draw the attention of the Manpower Commission to the importance of this subject. The training boards scheme does not apply to this age group, so their opportunities for training are limited to those firms with good apprenticeship schemes. A very good example is the firm of Harvey's, in my constituency, which has a magnificent scheme. But what about a youngster who goes into an industry or a firm that does little or no training or who enters those areas in which under the Bill's proposals, the levy will not be so serious, which means the stick to encourage firms to train will be less serious? What concerns some hon. Members on both sides of the House is the fact that the levy will be a much less serious encouragement to firms to operate training schemes of their own, and that training for young people will therefore actually decrease.
      With changing technology and the existence of declining industries in which
      552
      there will inevitably be a declining need for skill, there is every reason why the training of young people should be on the decrease in some industries and some parts of the country. It is vital that decisions about youth training and the financial resources made available for it should be made in the interest of the young people, and not, as is obviously predominantly the case now, because it is in the interests of the industry or the firm concerned to have a training programme.
      I hope that this debate will be taken seriously and that the Department will start thinking about positive discrimination in favour of these youngsters.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I assure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) that my Department takes seriously every debate on this measure.
      I shall try to reply to every point that has been raised in this interesting and wide-ranging debate. I hope that I shall not take as long as I did on the last amendment, since many hon. Members wish to speak on later amendments, but hon. Members are apt to be very irritated if their questions are not answered.
      The amendment confers no new duty on the commission, except to include among its powers one to encourage women and girls to participate in skilled trades and professions. That is a perfectly sensible, laudable and understandable point of view, but the amendment is unnecessary, because the commission already has a duty under subsection (1) which is wide enough to cover the encouragement of more women to take up skilled work. Indeed, the commission has a duty, subject to the Secretary of State's approval, to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate. If it considers certain arrangements in connection with the training of women to be appropriate, it is its duty to make them, and I hope that it will consider this point seriously.
      We are therefore left with the question whether there is value in this exhortation, knowing the philosophy behind the amendment. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) is trying to do, and sympathise with him, but it is not as simple as that. If the Bill made special reference to services for men, there might be a strong case for saying that it should also make

      553
      special reference to services for the disabled, the socially disadvantaged, older workers, coloured workers and many other deserving groups. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, indeed."] The hon. Member may say that, but there are potential dangers in such an approach.
      If we were to spell it out that services could be offered to various groups, we might find later that we had not defined those services widely enough. As time went by we might come to recognise other special groups which required special services, but if they had not been mentioned in the Bill there might be some doubt about the commission's ability to do anything for them. It is far better to have a comprehensive approach, and in a Bill like this it is better to rely on the broad and general duty imposed in subsection (1).
      At present 5,000 women are in training under the training boards scheme, compared with only 1,000 in 1971, so the progression is forward. Perhaps it is not enough, but I am sure that it will go on improving. The Government are well aware of the need to extend the employment opportunities for women and girls. This is a fundamental problem which was the subject of the Expenditure Committee's important report which was published only recently. In due course we shall be publishing a document on the consensus of all these reports, as is the usual practice in the House.
      In debate on 14th May in another place on the recommittal of the Sex Discrimination Bill, my noble Friend Lord Colville announced that the Government are working on legislation of their own design to assist in the removal of unfair discrimination on grounds of sex and to promote the opportunities open to women. As he pointed out, it is not possible at this stage to say what form that legislation will take, but it is expected that it will be concerned with unfair discrimination in employment, including training.
      Discrimination is a major manifestation of unequal treatment. It has been said that it is a social problem. I agree with that. The Government recognise that the reasons for inequality of opportunity are complex and deep rooted, and that measures of legislation will not be sufficient to bring about the major shifts in attitude
      554
      needed to secure improvements even though they may be advantageous and helpful.
      My Department has engaged in a study of the whole problem of the unequal treatment of women in employment and training with the object of determining what kind of action will be effective in improving the range and level of employment activities of women. I have been very much involved in this study. We are taking it very seriously and attach considerable importance to it. I very much hope that as a result of this very intensive inquiry some useful ideas will develop.
      Turning to Amendment No. 5, which runs in harness although on a different subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) is correct in what he said. Already there is power under Clause 2(1) —indeed, there is a duty—for the commission to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for assisting people to train for employment. The words in subsection (1) clearly include a duty to make such arrangements as the commission considers appropriate to assist the training of young people under the age of 19 just as much as the training of other people.
      Equally, there is already sufficient power in the Bill to pay training grants under subsection (2)(c).
      There have been many criticisms in the debate about the inadequacy of training for young people. It should not be underestimated that the Department of Employment is providing substantial training facilities for young people. The problem relates mainly to areas of high unemployment. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe). He represents an area which has had very high unemployment, and it is still too high there. But in the areas of high unemployment we are providing short courses for young people with no reasonable prospects of employment, and training is now proceeding at the rate of over 1,000 courses a year. It is still not enough, but it is certainly increasing considerably over what it was. These facilities are likely to be extended in the near future. There will be more facilities for assessment and an examination of the probabilities of a

      555
      wider range of occupational skills for those concerned.
      We have these matters constantly under consideration. It is important to remember that the Department of Employment is giving a great deal of attention to this area. This matter was also raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett). I must tell him and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West that the Government remain firmly of the view that the primary responsibility for training of young people rests with employers. Industry has generally taken this view in the past. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say that employers do not do it, but very many of them do. It will be the job of the Employment Service Agency to make sure that more employers do so. Therefore, as a result of that approach there are well established spheres of craft apprentice training, in other fields, and there are also many admirable training schemes for young entrants.
      It would not be right for the Government to seek to assume industry's responsibility in this area, nor would it be right for us to provide to young people of an age to take apprenticeships or similar training the sort of accelerated training available under the training opportunities scheme. The training opportunities scheme is a retraining scheme designed to meet the needs of adults. In addition to what is being done in the adult sphere, there is a better overall approach, certainly, for the training of young people, and it will be invigorated by the activities of the Training Services Agency once it gets under way. A great deal is being done in this area.
      I was sorry to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West that young people on industrial appreciation allowances are not particularly happy. They have a lead of up to £1 over supplementary benefit rates, which are subject to periodical reviews. They get their lunches or an allowance in lieu, and free travel if they live some distance from the training centre. I shall, however, look again at what my hon. Friend has said.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West also raised the question of Imperial Chemical Industries. I
      556
      do not know the case personally. We can look into the matter. I am advised that we have had interdepartmental discussions and that we shall shortly be replying to ICI. We hope to be able to offer some positive proposals which will be of advantage to my hon. Friend's area.
      The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised some interesting points on his amendments. I assure him that industrial training boards will retain full power to mount such schemes where necessary, subject to the approval of the commission, and to pay maintenance allowances as at present for the young people concerned. Again, this is accommodated.
      Because it is not spelt out in great detail in the Bill, many hon. Members are jumping to the assumption that many of the duties at present laid upon the Department of Employment will not necessarily be implemented and invigorated by the new Manpower Services Commission. Exactly the opposite is the case. Concerning the expertise of the twin arms of the commission, they will be able to tackle in a very enlightened way both training and the employment services.
      Mr. Sutcliffe: Is my hon. Friend saying that he will agree to look into not only the skills appreciation courses, and extending the period of courses that are run by ICI to 26 weeks, and the allowances for those, but also the four-year sponsored apprenticeship scheme which ICI has proposed? Am I to take it from my hon. Friend's remarks that where there is spare capacity in industry the Government will not be seeking to see that training is given to those who at present cannot get that training?
      Mr. Smith: No. On the first point, we are looking at this matter, and I can give a guarantee about that. On the other two points, I should like to refresh my memory in more detail before giving a complete answer, but I shall look into that matter.
      I was seeking to draw the debate to a conclusion, as many hon. Members wish to come quickly to our later business. I was saying that the fact that it was not spelt out does not mean that the legislation is bad. The legislation is good and will provide a very useful fillip in the

      557
      areas that have been dealt with by the Opposition amendments.
      Mr. Moyle: We have had a very brief but interesting and well-informed debate. I should like the pleasure of replying to all the points raised in detail, but as time is very short I shall confine myself to thanking those who have taken part in the debate.
      I can understand the resentment of the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State at the fact that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has dumped this huge problem in their laps. It involves 70 per cent. of the population of 16-year-old school leavers. The Department of Employment is not properly equipped to give a lead in these circumstances, but the Secretary of State for Education and Science has dumped the problem in the
      laps of the hon. Gentlemen and they will have to do the best they can with it.
      I should have thought that, from their own viewpoint, the Government would have met us. Already their manipulation of the economy is running into the trouble of a shortage of skilled manpower, just as it did in similar circumstances 10 years ago. The Government are back with the same problem they had in 1963. Admittedly, the powers of Clause 2 are wide but, given the context of the Bill, they are not specific. We are disappointed with the Under-Secretary's reply and we intend to divide the House on this matter of principle.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 158.

      Division No. 142.]

      AYES

      [7.50 p.m.

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis

      Hamilton. William (Fife. W.)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Hardy, Peter

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Pendry, Tom

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Baxter, William

      Horam, John

      Prescott, John

      Bennett, James(Glasgow,Bridgeton)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Radice, Giles

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

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

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Booth, Albert

      John, Brynmor

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

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

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

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Buchan, Norman

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

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

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Cant, R. B.

      Judd, Frank

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Kaufman, Gerald

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

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Kinnock, Neil

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

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Lambie, David

      Sillars, James

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Lawson, George

      Silverman, Julius

      Cohen, Stanley

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Spearing, Nigel

      Coleman, Donald

      Leonard, Dick

      Steel, David

      Concannon, J. D.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Strang, Gavin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Loughlin, Charles

      Sutcliffe, John

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Swain, Thomas

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      McBride, Neil

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Deakins, Eric

      McCartney, Hugh

      Tope, Graham

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Maclennan, Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Dempsey, James

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Doig, Peter

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Dormand, J. D.

      Marquand, David

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Wallace, George

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Watkins, David

      Eadie, Alex

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Wellbeloved, James

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Millan, Bruce

      Wells, William (Walsall. N.)

      English, Michael

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Faulds, Andrew

      Milne, Edward

      Whitlock, William

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

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

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Foot, Michael

      Moyle, Roland

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Ford, Ben

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Forrester, John

      Murray, Ronald King

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Freeson, Reginald

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Woof, Robert

      Garrett, W. E.

      O'Malley, Brian

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Oswald, Thomas

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gourlay, Harry

      Pardoe, John

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gummer, J. Selwyn

      Onslow, Cranley

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Gurden, Harold

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Astor, John

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Osborn, John

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Harrison. Brian (Maldon)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Batsford, Brian

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Biffen, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Body, Richard

      Hicks, Robert

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Higgins, Terence L

      Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M L.

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Hiley, Joseph

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Bowden, Andrew

      Holland, Philip

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Bray, Ronald

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Raison, Timothy

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hunt, John

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      James, David

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts. Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Jopling, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

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

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Buck, Antony

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Royle, Anthony

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Kilfedder, James

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

      Carlisle, Mark

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shersby, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knox, David

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Soref, Harold

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

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

      Spence, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Luce, R. N.

      Sproat, Iain

      Clegg, Walter

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Cockeram, Eric

      MacArthur, Ian

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Cooke, Robert

      McMaster, Stanley

      Stokes, John

      Coombs, Derek

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

      Costain, A. P.

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Crouch, David

      Maginnis, John E.

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

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

      Mather, Carol

      Tebbit, Norman

      Dean, Paul

      Maude, Angus

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Mawby, Ray

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Eyre, Reginald

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trew, Peter

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Fidler, Michael

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Fortescue, Tim

      Moate, Roger

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Fowler, Norman

      Molyneaux, James

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Fox, Marcus

      Money, Ernle

      Warren, Kenneth

      Gardner, Edward

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      More, Jasper

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Gower, Raymond

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Younger, Hn. George

      Gray, Hamish

      Mudd, David

      Green, Alan

      Murton, Oscar

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Neave, Airey

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      Grylls, Michael

      Nott, John

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 33, at end add:
      ' (6) Nothing in this Act shall diminish the responsibility of the Secretary of State to be accountable to Parliament for the Commission and the Agencies and the exercise of their functions'.
      It was in Standing Committee that the Opposition became fully aware of the extent to which the Bill diminishes the rights of Members of Parliament. It is fair to say that over the last few years we have seen a steady and progressive erosion of the rights of back-bench Members. We have seen the creation of extra-governmental agencies, boards,
      560
      commissions and so on and the slipping away of responsibility from Ministers to bodies which are beyond the reach of MPs. I believe that this has caused growing disquiet which is not confined to the House. Obviously, the most dramatic phase in this steady process was our entry into the Common Market, but we shall be faced with yet another severe curtailment of the Member of Parliament's traditional rôle if the Bill goes through in its present form.
      Obviously the creation of a body like the Manpower Services Commission must inevitably be accompanied by some devolution of departmental responsibility and by some transfer of parliamentary accountability. We are worried about

      561
      the amount of power that is being put beyond the reach of Parliament, and about the range of matters involved. My fears and anxieties are only heightened by the reply given by the Minister of State when we raised the issue in Standing Committee. I ask hon. Members to examine the remarks that he made then and compare them with, for example, Questions that have been tabled for the next occasion on which the Secretary of State for Employment is due to give oral answers.
      8.0 p.m.
      I conducted the exercise last night of going through Questions in the Order Paper and trying to anticipate some of those that, 12 months from now, may well not be allowed. These may be Questions about the executive recruitment service, about location of job centres, about training facilities in Watford, about the numbers of local authority employees and about the employment transfer scheme—some of the Questions tabled for the right hon. Gentleman to answer on 14th June.
      My reading of the Minister of State's remarks is that it may be the case that hon. Members, once the commission has been established in this functioning, will no longer be entitled to table such Questions, or may well get dusty answers at best. Some of us recall the introduction of the Post Office Corporation. I remember the interesting and useful Question Time that the Postmaster-General used to have. Contrast that with the limited range of Questions for which the present Minister for Posts and Telecommunications is answerable.
      That was a good example of the very substantial whittling away of the rôle that Members of Parliament have played for a long time. But a big difference between it and the subject we are discussing now is that we are dealing in this Bill with matters of much greater importance than, for example, delay in fixing up a constituent with a new telephone. It is not only parliamentary Questions but a wide range of matters about which in future we shall be urged to write to the chairman of the commission.
      I put it to the Minister of State that there is a world of difference in writing
      562
      to some anonymous figurehead, who cannot be openly or publicly questioned and is not directly accountable and does not have to face up to the consequences, politically or otherwise, of his decisions in the same way as a Minister has to do. He will be a person who can make arbitrary decisions, and we shall be powerless to retaliate. He will have the cloak of parliamentary privilege, which is of such crucial importance to hon. Members in giving them the freedom that is necessary to pursue their responsibilities on behalf of, above all, their constituents and their country.
      I was told before I entered the House that amongst the duties and responsibilities of a Member of Parliament were first of all his obligations to seek redress of grievance on the part of those whom he represents. One of the first historical functions of a Member of Parliament is to seek redress for those whom he represents. Another is to act as a watchdog over the executive. Both of these functions we have seen steadily eroded over the last few years. If the erosion of the function of watchdog over the executive continues much further, we are likely to be reduced to a pack of whining, impotent poodles.
      When I contrast the present Department of Employment with the Department of Employment and Productivity in which I was privileged and proud to serve, with its vast range of responsibilities three years ago, and see the diminished rôle that it has now, I wonder what, by the time we have created the National Health Executive Authority, the Department will then consist of and just what the Secretary of State will be answerable for in the House. We have a responsibility in this House, recognising that Governments can be served by extra-governmental agencies of wide authority, to guard against giving these bodies a licence to govern. That is the responsibility of the Government, answerable to this House.
      Because there were only a handful of Members in Standing Committee to hear the Minister's remarks and with the opportunity to participate in discussion, I thought it right that we should bring this matter to the Floor of the House so that the whole House might be aware of what was going on. I understand that much will depend on the attitude of the Secretary of State and his willingness to

      563
      accept responsibility in the House for some of these matters.
      The Minister of State went some way to giving us assurances in Committee. I want him to have this opportunity to repeat not only what he said then but to add to it and to assuage some of he anxieties that I feel. An example of what worries me is the repeated refusal of the Secretary of State for the Environment to give the House figures relating to local authority house building, arguing that it is not his responsibility but that of the local authorities. It is this kind of runing away from responsibility, the diminishing of powers of hon. Members, that I am extremely concerned about. When I look around the Chamber at the handful of hon. Members present I wonder whether their absence is not a reflection of this process, and whether hon. Members are not becoming increasingly frustrated and wondering what is the purpose of coming when the real power is being exercised by bodies to which it has been entrusted and transferred by the Government. It is that process which causes anxiety, on which we must put checks and of which hon. Members must be aware.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I intervene but briefly, because we discussed this subject in Committee. When we have an agreed view across the Floor of the House about setting up a commission of this kind, we must expect much of the day-to-day management of whatever the commission will be involved in to flow from the Department, thereby placing such matters outside the direct responsibility of the House. Therefore, I cannot believe that there can be any misapprehension about this, to the extent that agencies grow within Ministries.
      On the other hand, there is so much detail in Government today that it is almost inevitable that this kind of process will go on, and it may mean that we shall have more opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House the major issues concerning the country rather than to be constantly concerned with the minutiæ. One of the reasons why there are not so many hon. Members in the House today is that the matter has been debated on Second Reading, when there was a reasonably good attendance. It
      564
      has been discussed in Committee, and hon. Members know that the die is now cast.
      I appreciate the reason given by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) for raising this important issue. It is important in terms of the House on two or three counts. In setting up a commission, it is vital that we should be able to direct Parliamentary Questions to the Minister and that there should not be too much restraint on them. It would be unfortunate if Parliament found that it could not probe what the Commission was doing through the Ministry. I am sure that hon. Members would not be willing to accept from the Table Office that Questions could not be tabled which were broadly about policy, and even detailed policy, being pursued by the commission, without getting down to day-to-day matters of great detail.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster that regular statements must be made to the House, on request, which will cover the broad policies of the commission and will indicate how the commission's work is affecting the country in terms of the movement and training of labour. From time to time we must have the opportunity to receive statements from Ministers. Ministers will have less to do in their Departments with the day-to-day management of such affairs. I hope that they will not find it too difficult to indicate to the House what is happening in the country and to answer questions raised by Opposition or Government Members by means of a statement.
      From the commission's point of view it is important that that should happen. The commission is involved with an important aspect of our national life and, through the Minister, it should have the opportunity to give to the House an appreciation of what it is doing.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I intervene only briefly, because one matter which I consider to be of supreme importance has not yet been mentioned. The House will obviously be interested in Parliamentary Questions. We look forward with interest to the Minister's reply about them. I hope that he will be in a position to give us some assurance.

      565
      I am more concerned about the power of the Minister in relation to the commission. The Minister or the Secretary of State should not from day to day be able to interfere with the affairs of the commission. We would not set up a commission to carry out a series of responsibilities and to legislate on those responsibilities if we did not think it right that the commission should be given a large degree of freedom. But I can conceive of situations in which disagreement arose between the Secretary of State—who is responsible to this House—and the chairman of the commission. In those rare circumstances it is vitally important that on matters of high policy the Secretary of State should be in a position to override the commission—because he is Secretary of State for Employment, and has responsibilities to this House.
      I do not find satisfactory the statement which the Minister of State made in Commitee, when referring to Members there, namely, that
      "They will discover from that schedule that, in the ultimate, the Secretary of State, if he believes that the commission is operating in an outrageous and outr'e manner, can dismiss the members from office. That is the ultimate sanction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 12th April 1973, c. 346.]
      The ultimate sanction should not be for the Secretary of State to dismiss the lot in order to get his way.
      My understanding is that at present there is no provision for the Secretary of State, to override the commission on the rare occasions when he believes, as a matter of major Government policy, that it is right to do so and when, in response to pressure from Opposition or Government Members, he is forced into the position of doing so. It should not be necessary for the Minister of State to have to say that the only way in which the Secretary of State will be able to get his way against the commission is to dismiss the members from office.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: This has been a short but interesting debate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) brought the subject back to the Floor of the House. He said that it was only in Committee that he and his hon. Friends recognised the extent that the Bill and the establishment of
      566
      the Manpower Services Commission appeared to diminish the power of Parliament. In his later remarks he was content to refer not to a diminution but to a devolution. That is perhaps a better description of what the position will be.
      It is true that on Second Reading there appeared to be a considerable degree of agreement between the two Front Benches as to what kind of creature the commission would be and the kind of controls over it which might emerge from our later deliberations. It did not seem to my right hon. Friend and to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) that they were very far apart. Both seemed to agree that the Secretary of State should not be continually intervening in matters of details within the commission's responsibility. There is a great deal of agreement about that.
      We all recognise that in setting up a body such as the commission there are difficulties in striking the right balance between the ultimate responsibility and accountability to Parliament of the Secretary of State for the body's activities and excessive interference in its day-to-day affairs. If I was unable to reassure the hon. Member for Doncaster to the extent that he would have wished in Committee, I hope that my failure was due to my excessive modesty in these matters as much as anything else. It would be a bold person who at this stage would be prepared to say how matters will pan out in the end.
      It is clear that there will be an evolving process, just as the relationship between Ministers and the nationalised industries has evolved. Of course, that relationship is much more controlled by statute than is the relationship with which we are now dealing.
      The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) was a little unfair to me when he suggested that I had said in Committee that the only power or sanction which the Secretary of State will have over the commission will be through the members' dismissal. I am sure that he will accept that at an earlier stage during another sitting I went in some detail into the powers of direction. Those powers are wide. The Secretary of State can direct the commission to do anything that is within its powers to do. Alternatively, he can direct it not to do anything that is within its powers to do. Of course,

      567
      there is one exception which we discussed in Committee.
      There is agreement that the Secretary of State has wide powers. There can be no doubt that the Secretary of State is fully able to control the commission or that he will be ultimately responsible to the House for its activities. His powers are very much wider than a Minister's powers in relation to the nationalised industries. The power of direction is much more extensive. In this case the Secretary of State has power to approve the commission's proposals and to attach conditions to the commission's grant in aid.
      Therefore, I think it follows that hon. Members who want to question the Secretary of State about the commission will not face the same difficulties as those that can sometimes arise over Questions about the nationalised industries, because in that case they would have to be restricted to matters for which the Minister was made responsible by the statute concerned. Therefore, with the Secretary of State having wider powers in relation to the commission, the range of matters about which he could be questioned would also be wider.
      There is another important point which I omitted in Committee. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration will be able to investigate the commission and agencies, whereas in the nationalised industries are outside his scope of such an animal. It does not follow that the extent to which the Secretary of State would answer questions from hon. Members, or reply to Adjournment debates, ought to be exactly the same in the future as it would be if the commission did not exist. It is right, as I said earlier, that one should be modest in making predictions in this field.
      It may help the hon. Gentleman if I give illustrations of what the situation may be in the future. I will try to deal with the matters of Questions and of replies to Adjournment debates. The hon. Gentleman was particularly worried in committee about the possibility that he and other hon. Members might be unable to ask Questions about unemployment in their constituencies. I reassured him in Committee by saying that unemployment figures are supplied to the Secretary of State from the Employment
      568
      Services Agency. The figures will continue to be published by the Department of Employment, and it will be perfectly right and proper that my right hon. Friend should be asked Questions about them.
      The hon. Gentleman stated that he had been looking at forthcoming Questions. He wondered whether in future some of these types of Questions would appear. One of the Questions he had in mind was about the opening of a job centre. I would like to get a commercial in here by stating that the Government are opening 40 of such centres during this year. It would be proper for an hon. Member to ask my right hon. Friend if he would give the commission a direction to do such a thing. I doubt whether my right hon. Friend would say that he would. He would probably reply that he was not prepared to do so. and that it was a matter for the commission to decide. None the less, the Question would have been asked and attention drawn publicly to what might or might not have been a need.
      Another example would be the commission's policy on the training of women or of disabled people. These are categories which we discussed in another context earlier today. It would be possible to ask the Secretary of State whether he was satisfied that arrangements made by the commission in this field were satisfactory and whether he would give a direction on the subject to make sure that future programmes of work included provisions or measures to help particular workers. It would be perfectly possible for hon. Members to ask such a Question. What the answer would be is an entirely different matter, for it would depend on the policy view which the Secretary of State of the day took at the time. I do not think that future Secretaries of State could be committed to that.
      Another Question that the hon. Gentleman had noticed on the Order Paper concerned training arrangements at Watford. I imagine that it was about the siting of a new training centre. Again, there is no reason why an hon. Member should not ask my right hon. Friend to direct the commission to put a training centre in his constituency, in Watford, or wherever it might be. That would certainly have the effect of drawing attention to the problem that the hon. Member

      569
      concerned believed to exist, and would no doubt be taken into account by the commission. But it would be unlikely that the Secretary of State would immediately reply that he would issue a direction of that kind on such a matter.
      The last example is the question of finding a job for an individual. At one time or another every hon. Member is concerned with that kind of problem. I do not think there would be any reason why an hon. Member should not put down a Question on the subject, even if it concerned a complaint about the commission's handling of the matter. I would guess that the normal way of handling it in the first instance would be to write to the chairman of the commission or the chief executive of the agency and take it from there. But there is no reason why, if he is dissatisfied with the answers, an hon. Member should not raise the matter either by way of Question or on the Adjournment. There is the important safeguard that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration can act. The case for the individual is stronger when we are dealing with the commission than it is with the nationalised industries.
      Most of the usual means of pressure to get the Secretary of State of the day to issue a direction are available on virtually any subject within the commission's sphere. I see no exceptions there. I do not believe that hon. Members' opportunities to raise matters on behalf of their constituents are diminished to any considerable extent. There are other opportunities for bringing matters within the competence of the commission before the House. We must not forget that it is the Secretary of State's duty to produce an annual report for the commission, which will be open to debate in the House.
      Moreover, the commission must, under the Bill, send a statement of its accounts, and with it a statement of the accounts of the agencies, to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That again is laid upon the Table and can be debated here. There is a great deal of accountability, and I hope it is of a kind which strikes the correct balance between accountability and excessive interference in the day-to-day working of the commission.
      I hope it will be felt that I have been able to go a good deal further than I
      570
      went in Committee, and I hope that in some way I have been able to allay the fears of hon. Gentlemen.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Reg Prentice: In the main I shall be content to listen to these debates, enjoying the distilled wisdom of those who did the work in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has raised an important point. We are satisfied that the Minister has gone a long way to meet us. We are dealing here with a totally new situation and it is right that we should recognise it. We have accepted the principle of the hiving-off of these functions to the Manpower Services Commission. This is becoming a trend, particularly with the Department of Employment. The proposed Safety and Health Commission is a further example.
      We are likely to have a broad measure of agreement about this, in the sense that we want both sides of industry to be involved more and more in running services of this kind. There is great value to the community in this. There is, however, the danger that the whole process will become more remote from Parliament and more remote from the constituent's approach to his Member and his expectation of a reply. The Minister is right to say that this is a different situation from that of a nationalised industry. The constitutional position is different by reason of the clause giving power to issue directives.
      We want to see this degree of hiving-off, which must not be disturbed by too much interference. On the other hand, the Secretary of State and the Government will be held responsible for matters such as full employment, overall training policy and the rest. There must be this accountability. How does that apply to matters such as Adjournment debates? The Minister was giving us something with one hand and taking it away with the other. He said that it would be possible to table Questions but went on to say that he could not tell us what answers we would get because everything depended on whether or not the Secretary of State issued a directive. Therefore, he can be questioned whether he will do so, but it would then not be possible to go into the same sort of detail as would be the

      571
      case if there were direct responsibility. We will have to wait and see about this.
      It is important to give as much information as possible, because of the subject matter. There is a tendency to find reasons for not giving information. A distinguished ex-Permanent Secretary is said to have told a seminar that the good parliamentary answer should have three qualities. It should be brief, true, and should add nothing whatever to what is already known on the subject. That attitude does exist in Departments of State.
      Ministers are sometimes tempted to give the minimum information. The good Minister in any Government tries to use Question Time to give information and thus create an understanding of what his Department is doing. In these circumstances, with the Manpower Services Commission, a new veil will be dropped over the subject, because it can be said that this is a matter for the commission and that that answer is all that can be given. That would be the wrong attitude. The maximum information should always be given. This is right from the point of view of the health of parliamentary institutions and the public's attitude towards Parliament.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says. I can, however, visualise a reply from a Secretary of State saying, "I have consulted the Manpower Commission and I understand that its view is this, that and the other." That is possibly what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
      Mr. Prentice: We are both being very hypothetical here, but the hon. Gentleman has just said that the reply might contain the words "I understand its view is". I hope that there would be a flow of information from the commission via the Ministers to the House on matters in respect of which the Minister has decided not to intervene in any way but was conveying information to the House wherever possible, always erring on the side of giving information rather than withholding it.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not know whether the reply would be likely to begin "I understand its view is". It might be
      572
      more likely to start—this is a matter which will evolve, I suppose—"As I understand it, the facts are". This is a matter that will have to evolve. We shall have to wait for it to do so.
      Mr. Prentice: We shall indeed, but it is important. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would require the maximum information to be given. As I said a moment ago, when in doubt Ministers will err on the side of giving information and conveying views rather than withholding them.
      As my hon. Friend said, in many ways Governments seem more and more remote from people. In respect of a growing number of problems, Members of Parliament, when replying to their constituents and meeting people in their advice bureaux, can say that this is a matter on which they can intervene; that they can write a letter to the chairman of this board, or that commission, and convey the problem to him and relay the reply back, but that there is not much else they can do. They can say that they can make representations on behalf of their constituents, but that they have no power in the matter.
      We are living in a society in which that sort of thing is increasing. We have to be hypersensitive about it. There may be perfectly sound reasons for hiving off a function from Government, but this is one area where the House of Commons has to be sensitive and take great care. Most hon. Members in the House tonight will probably feel that the Minister has been forthcoming, and my right hon. Friend may consider whether he wishes to press this matter to a Division. That is a matter for him. Anyway, the Minister of State will know that we shall be watching this carefully, and when, in a short time, Members on the Government benches are in opposition, I hope that they will watch us carefully on this point, which is of great importance to our parliamentary institutions.
      Mr. Harold Walker: In the light of the full and, on the whole, helpful reply that we have had from the Minister of State, and on the advice of my right hon Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      OBTAINING AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY THE COMMISSION AND AGENCIES ETC.
      Mr. Moyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 4:
      leave out paragraph (a).
      The House does not need to be detained an undue length of time on this point. It appeared during the course of the Committee stage that paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 of the Bill maintained the coverage of the Manpower Services Commission by Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, and it was explained to us at that stage that the object of including that provision was to allow the Manpower Services Commission to collect statistics and information but to prevent its employees—although they ceased to be civil servants—from disclosing any of their information unless they were authorised to do so during the course of their employment.
      On this side of the House we have come to the conclusion that although this is a peculiar extension of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, in the circumstances if the Manpower Services Commission is going to operate properly we would accept that.
      But what we are also interested in is the existence of Clause 4, and especially Clause 4(3) of the Bill which will exist alongside Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. We want to know why that clause is included, in view of the protection given to all and sundry—both to people supplying information to the commission and the officers of the commission in carrying out their duties—by the 1911 Act.
      The clause contains reference to the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. Perhaps that is the answer. When we debated paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 we were promised an explanation of Clause 4, but when we debated Clause 4 Ministers did not volunteer an explanation. The object of the amendment is to provide Ministers with the opportunity of making that explanation.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: This is a lawyer's paradise into which I do not intend to stray far for fear of getting lost. One
      574
      reason why I shall not detain the House for more than a moment is that I think the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) will find that the amendment does not do quite what he thinks it does, but it may be a convenient vehicle for answering his question, if I do not meet with your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The hon. Gentleman is really asking why we need the safeguards of Clause 4 as well as the Official Secrets Act. I am advised that as the Official Secrets Act will apply to the commission and agencies it will be an offence for any of their employees to make any unauthorised disclosure of information obtained in the course of their duties. Disclosure is an offence only if it is unauthorised. It might be authorised by a Minister or by a senior official.
      Information collected under the Statistics of Trade Act is collected compulsorily and there are more extensive safeguards against its disclosure. Except with the written consent of the person who supplied the information it may not be disclosed at all save in certain limited circumstances which are specified in the Act. There is no concept of authorisation as there is in the Official Secrets Act.
      In the Bill we are extending the circumstances in which information collected under the Statistics of Trade Act may be disclosed in the ways which will be necessary when the commission and agencies are set up. Clearly, we should not extend those circumstances wider than is strictly necessary. Therefore, we must specify in the Bill the cases in which disclosure is right notwithstanding the Statistics of Trade Act. I am advised that it would not be sufficient to rely on the Official Secrets Act because that will not give safeguards against disclosure which had been authorised under that Act even if the person who supplied the information did not want it to be disclosed.
      I recognise that I have strayed from the path of virtue but I was tempted. Unless I am pressed by the hon. Gentleman I will not deal with the point which his amendment really concerns.
      Mr. Moyle: The Minister has taken the hint, and I am grateful to him for his

      575
      explanation which makes an opaque situation somewhat clearer.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 7

      MODIFICATION AND EXCLUSION OF OTHER ENACTMENTS IN RELATION TO THE COMMISSION AND AGENCIES
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 9, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
      '(3) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 of the Contracts of Employment Act 1972 and sections 27(1)(a) and 28(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, a person's period of continuous employment by a relevant body shall be treated as increased by the period or the aggregate of the periods for which he was previously continuously employed by that or another relevant body or in the civil service of the State if the period or each of the periods for which he was so employed was immediately followed by a period for which he was employed by a relevant body or in the said service; and for the purposes of the said section 28(a) a person's period of continuous employment in the said service shall be treated as increased by the period or the aggregate of the periods for which he was previously continuously employed by any relevant body or in the said service if the period or each of the periods for which he was so employed was immediately followed as aforesaid.
      (3A) For the purposes of the preceding subsection—

      (a) the Commission and each of the Agencies is a relevant body;

      (b) periods of continuous employment shall be determined in pursuance of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1972, and "employed" has the same meaning as in that Act; and

      (c) employment in the civil service of the State shall be treated as employment under a contract of service but shall be disregarded unless in the course of it the person in question gives personal service of at least twenty-one hours a week, or of such number of hours less than twenty-one as the Secretary of State may by order specify, and the remuneration for the employment is defrayed entirely out of money provided by Parliament'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 17, in Clause 13, page 16, line 23, leave out' (1) and Schedules 1 and 3' and insert' and Schedule 1'.
      No. 19, in page 17, line 16, at beginning insert:
      '(5) No order shall be made in pursuance of section 7(3A)(c) of this Act unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      No. 48, in page 54, line 27, leave out Schedule 3.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: The amendments reflect an unease which I expressed in Committee. Paragraph 35 of the White Paper states that
      "Subject to discussion with the Staff Sides on the detailed arrangements involved it is proposed that Civil Service terms and conditions should continue to apply to the staff of the commission and agencies in order to facilitate free movement of staff between them, and between any of them and the Department of Employment and other Civil Service departments."
      The amendments are to make sure that that comes about. Workers have certain rights, depending on the continuity of employment, the most important in this context being that a worker has the right not to be unfairly dismissed if he has been continuously employed for at least two years. This applies to civil servants as well as to other workers. I explained in Committee that I was not altogether happy that Schedule 3 adequately safeguarded these rights in all possible combinations of transfer between the Civil Service, the commission and the agencies.
      8.45 p.m.
      These amendments, which for technical reasons remove the continuity of employment provisions out of Schedule 3 to Clause 7, ensure that the continuity of employment is observed despite any combination of successive transfers between the Civil Service, the commission and the agencies. Therefore a worker, if he moved from the Civil Service to the Employment Service Agency, then to the TSA, then back to the Civil Service and then to the Commission would never lose his "unfair dismissal" rights.
      I think these are two amendments which are worth while and safeguard important rights, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. John Grant: The Minister has probably answered to some extent the point I wish to make, but I wonder whether I could press him a little further on this. Perhaps I should declare an interest. As I think the Minister

      577
      knows, I am an adviser to the Civil and Public Services Association, which has recently taken under its wing the Ministry of Labour Staff Association and represents the bulk of the staff concerned in this matter.
      On the staff side there is still some apprehension. They have pointed out to me that the White Paper "Employment and Training: Government Proposals" says in paragraph 35:
      "Subject to discussion with the Staff Sides on the detailed arrangements involved it is proposed that civil service terms and conditions should continue to apply to the staff of the Commission and Agencies. …"
      Subsequently, in a letter to the Department of Employment Whitley Council, Staff Side, the Secretary of State confirmed that it was:
      "the Government's intention that after the change Civil Service terms and conditions should continue to apply to the staff concerned, so that there would be freedom of transfer between the new bodies and the Department and other Civil Service Departments. Their staff would continue to belong to the Civil Service Superannuation Scheme. All new conditions of service and pay agreed for civil servants would apply automatically. There will be detailed discussions with the Staff Side of the arrangements necessary to bring all this about. The only change involved in our proposals, therefore, will be a change of name which follows automatically from the fact that the staff will be employees of the new bodies and not of the Crown."
      As I understand it, the Staff Side remains somewhat unconvinced that the job which the Government require of the proposed Manpower Services Commission and its agencies could not be performed equally satisfactorily within the confines of the Civil Service itself. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not think it is necessarily so, but I ask the Minister whether he could record quite categorically tonight the undertakings regarding future conditions of employment which have been given to the staff associations outside this House but, as far as I can understand, have not really been given in that categorical fashion inside the House. I would remind him that the good will of civil servants is very much involved in this. I think it is really a small step for him to take to give this categorical assurance that what was said outside the House does apply. They would like it on record in this place, and I ask him, in the interest of improving the rather difficult relationships which have
      578
      existed latterly, to go on record tonight as giving that assurance.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: In certain respects I have already given considerable reassurance in the sense that I said in Committee that this was something that needed looking at. We have looked at it, and I hope that we have done the right thing. I have no hesitation in giving the assurance, although I am not going to put it into words, on the broad terms which the hon. Gentleman wants. I hope that will satisfy him.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8

      PROVISION OF SERVICES BY EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 18, at end insert:
      'and it shall also be the duty of each local education authority to arrange for officers of the authority to be appointed to administer the arrangements made by the atuhority in pursuance of this subsection'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Government amendment we are discussing Amendment (a), in line 1, after 'for' insert 'appropriately qualified'.
      Mr. Smith: The amendment fulfils an undertaking that I gave in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) who pointed out—he was supported in this by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) and others—that the Bill required local education authorities to make arrangements for the purpose of providing a careers service but did not actually make it mandatory for the local education authority to set up a careers service.
      I hope that the amendment will stop up any possible loophole that existed, by imposing on local education authorities a duty to arrange for officers of the authority to be appointed to administer the arrangements made by the authority for the provision of a careers service.
      Amendment (a) in the names of hon. Members opposite seeks to add a requirement that the officers appointed should be "appropriately qualified". I made it clear in Committee that the Government are wholly sympathetic to the

      579
      principle that careers officers should have proper training and that a mandatory training requirement should be introduced when practicable. Therefore, we reexamined the possibility of introducing a reference to training in the Bill.
      We have reached the concluson that it would be inappropriate to do so until we have received the advice of the Youth Employment Service Training Board on what the training requirement should be and how soon it would be practicable to impose it, together with an assurance that the necessary training facilities will be available. It is difficult to insert the words "appropriately qualified" if we do not know exactly what "appropriately qualified" means at this stage.
      The board has all these matters under consideration. It is also examining the implications of advising staff already employed in the service, the majority of whom do not hold the board's diploma in vocational guidance, which may well become the minimum requirement. When we have received the board's advice, which I hope will include its views on the timing of any mandatory training requirement it may recommend, we shall need further discussions with local government about the recommendations.
      I am sure that hon. Members who have studied the matter will agree that we need to keep three points firmly in mind. First we must be careful that by introducing any training requirement too early we do not pitch it at too low a level. Secondly, we must ensure that mature people with experience in education, industry and commerce should be able to come into the careers service. Thirdly, the advisory staff who are now working with young people and who have given excellent service over many years, as is generally recognised, but who lack formal qualifications should not be placed at a disadvantage.
      Fortunately, I can assure the House that once we are ready to go ahead my right hon. Friend will be able to prescribe the qualifications which will be needed for a post in the careers service by a regulation under Section 4(2) of the Local Government Act 1966 which provides that
      "The appropriate Minister may make regulations for prescribing standards and general
      580
      requirements in relation to any function of a local authority."
      Section 40 of that Act provides that such regulations are subject to negative resolution only. There is a parallel provision in the corresponding legislation for Scotland.
      I am advised that these provisions give us full power to lay down mandatory requirements for the training of careers officers. Therefore, I do not think that we should accept Amendment (a), knowing full well and appreciating what hon. Members opposite are trying to achieve.
      We accept the principle that careers officers should be "appropriately qualified". When we are ready to introduce a mandatory requirement, we shall be able to do so under existing legislation. It would be a mistake and unnecessary to add a provision to this Bill repeating a power which exists already. I have given the assurance that as soon as we have the advice of the Youth Employment Service Training Board on a training requirement we shall discuss its recommendation with local government.
      We have gone some way to meet the spirit which came out of the Committee. I hope the House will be prepared to accept this amendment, which is designed to meet the point raised in Committee. I hope, too, that the Opposition will be prepared to withdraw their amendment to it.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: I confess to feeling some disappointment at the Minister's refusal to accept the Opposition's amendment. In many respects this clause is the nub of the Bill. I am sure that the Government do not want to see officers appointed as mere afterthoughts on the part of local education authorities. It is essential for the purpose of the legislation that the officers should be properly qualified, and if the Minister wants some definition of what proper qualifications they should have I suggest that if they were seized of the importance of this matter that would be enough.
      My hon. Friends do not ask that any specific qualifications should be laid down. The Minister made some play with the fact that at this stage he was unable to spell out in detail what these qualifications might be. I appreciate that. It is for that reason that we have

      581
      suggested inserting the words "appropriate qualifications". I do not see why there should be difficulty in this.
      Although I am happy with the Government's amendment, it does indicate the timidity with which they approach the subject. We do not spend nearly enough money on training and retraining. We spend a pittance. At any one time Sweden, for example, has 3 per cent. of its labour force under retraining. That would be equivalent to 750,000 workers in this country. The Minister knows how far short we are of that total.
      We should be adopting a much bolder attitude. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe), in an admirable and clear thinking speech, talked about the less academically gifted. This is an aspect of the problem of training for employment and retraining which has occupied my mind for a long time.
      The waste of the potential of young people is criminal folly. When one recognises that 80 per cent. of the population leave school at 15 and have no form of education afterwards, one sees clearly that it is disastrous not only to the people involved but to the country's economy.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) came near to the truth when he pointed to the problem as being one of the major causes of delinquency.
      9.0 p.m.
      It is a stupid policy to restrict spending to a great extent to the academically gifted so that they may have pieces of paper which are called qualifications. But I go further than this. Our relative failure—I put it no higher—as an industrial nation stems from our inability to grasp the necessity of a measure such as this. Commendable though this legislation is, I believe we should be geared to this whole policy as a matter of routine continuation, not as something we have thought about and brought forward as an adjunct. It is the most important part of our industrial potential as a major industrial nation.
      We all need training and retraining. There is hardly a profession or industry in which both men and women, after a time, do not require retraining. This applies to doctors as well as to engineers. Most skills require updating.
      582
      I do not intend to make a long intervention in the debate. I did not serve on the Committee. However, I congratulate those hon. Members who hammered out the Bill, which has a considerable amount to commend it
      Regarding these officers who are to he appointed by the local authorities, I believe we must bear in mind the necessity for a certain degree of boldness. This is not merely a matter of embarking upon an attempt to solve an immediate problem. As everyone knows, in industrial areas there is an immediate problem of the necessity to train young people for employment. This is a matter on which the future of the nation is at stake. I believe that the Government should think again and insist upon appropriate qualifications for the officers who are to be appointed by the local authorities. We should be thinking in terms not merely of what will happen tomorrow, but of the longer-term industrial requirements of this country as a whole.
      Mr. John Page: I want, first, to comment on the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Dr. Miller). I appreciate interventions by hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee. It is annoying how often the Report stage of a Bill seems to be a warming up of the arguments that have been deployed in Committee. It is most refreshing when hon. Members can give us new insights.
      On the other hand, I have a feeling that because the hon. Gentleman was not on the Committee he missed the genuine enthusiasm of my hon. Friend and the Minister of State and the momentum of the Department behind them in this whole affair. Those who were on the Committee are probably more enthusiastic about the determination of the Government and the Department to make a success of this than are those who were not.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having carried out the undertaking that he gave to the Committee. It has gone all the way to satisfy me, bearing in mind that the clause comes under the part of the Bill that deals with careers services of education authorities. The amendment underlines the Government's intention to ensure that someone who is not the commissioner or the welfare

      583
      officer or the deputy assistant park superintendent is available to do the job.
      I wonder whether sub-amendment (a), which uses the phrase "appropriately qualified", means something or nothing. If it means something, it should mean "qualified to a certain degree". My hon. Friend said that he does not consider that it is up to us to say that only those with certain qualifications should be admitted as careers officers. One has to say either that they have to be qualified, or they do not have to be qualified. The phrase "appropriately qualified", though fairly inoffensive, does not add much to the strength of the argument.
      The strength of the case lies in the fact that my hon. Friend has given an assurance that the Secretary of State has power to lay down what the standards shall be. The House will watch the position, and I believe that it will be watched carefully by the careers officers themselves, who have brought great pressure to bear on hon. Members to get them to appreciate their point of view and their interest in the Bill. The careers officers are able people and they will ensure that the standards which they wish to see introduced are maintained over the years.
      Mr. KinnockMy intervention will be brief. I recall that in a similar debate in Committee the Under-Secretary was good enough to congratulate me on a long but interesting speech. I hope that tonight he will congratulate me on a short but interesting one.
      The Minister has been forthcoming. He has met the demand made in Committee by his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who asked that there should be set up
      "a careers advisory service which shall be supervised by a trained career officer".
      The Minister has gone as far as adopting the first part of that sentence, hence his hon. Friend's congratulations.
      We are mollified by what the Minister said about the powers in the Local Government Act 1966 and the determination that he showed to use those powers to ensure that when the appropriate information was available to him following the investigations and deliberations of the
      584
      Youth Employment Service Training Board he would as quickly as was practicable, and following reasonable consultations with local authorities, see to it that youth employment officers held appropriate qualifications, whatever they might be.
      We recognise, as do the careers officers, that it is much more satisfactory that there should be deliberate and specific qualifications for such an important job. I am glad that the Minister, in accepting the principle that each local education authority should arrange for officers of that authority to be appointed to administer its arrangements in pursuance of the subsection, is also acknowledging that there is no definite commitment to introduce appropriate qualifications for careers officers.
      In order to show that there is unanimity about this, the Minister gave an undertaking, bearing in mind the need to bring into the careers service people of maturity and experience outside formal education, that safeguards will be provided for those who continue in the youth service without formal qualifications to provide a useful service. We welcome the Minister's undertaking.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 19, after may', insert:
      ',and shall so far as the Secretary of State directs it to do so,'.
      This amendment fulfils another undertaking that I gave to the Committee. In our discussions, we were all agreed that the LEA careers service must be available to young people who had left education but wanted to go to the careers officer for further guidance and help. It is very important that those young people should have a choice between the LEA service and the general employment service provided by the new commission.
      Some hon. Members would prefer that these youngsters should go to the LEA service and not have the option of using the commission's service. But whatever our views on that—I am prepared to accept that there is a big division on this point—it is accepted on both sides that the LEA careers service must be available for these young people if they want to use it.

      585
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan), who is not with us tonight, among others, pointed out that, although the LEA had power under the Bill to provide a careers service for those who had left education, it was possible that some LEAs might choose not to exercise that power. In that case, the young person would not be able to go back to the careers service even if he or she wanted to.
      This amendment seeks to overcome that problem by providing that the LEA will have not only a power to provide a service to those who have left education but a duty in so far as the Secretary of State directs it to do so. As I said in Committee, I have not the slightest doubt that in practice LEAs will make their services available to these young people. Indeed, I am sure that they will be eager to do so. The amendment ensures that, in the odd case—it would be a very odd case—in which the LEA opted not to provide this service to young people, the Secretary of State might direct that it did so.
      Although the amendment may not go quite so far as some hon. Members opposite would have liked, I hope that all hon. Members will agree that it is a valuable strengthening of the Bill. It covers a problem which we all agreed existed as the Bill was previously drafted. The Bill will certainly be in much better shape as a result of the amendment.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I do not want to seem churlish or ungrateful, but the Under-Secretary is assuming that, by and large, local education authorities will do what is expected of them by the Government and the Bill. But he recognised the anxieties that we expressed in Committee and has responded to them by now putting in a power which will enable the Secretary of State to intervene if some local education authority does not do it, and to compel it to do so.
      The same result could have been achieved by removing the word "may" from line 19 on page 10 and inserting the word "shall". That would have been much simpler and very straightforward. It would have put the matter beyond doubt.
      586
      However, at least we are grateful to have had a crumb from the hon. Gentleman for all the advice that we have given to him. I hope that the Secretaries of State, in the plural, will bear in mind, even if the hon. Gentleman cannot respond in terms of an amendment, the very strong arguments which we deployed—I shall not repeat the arguments; the Government are very familiar with them by now—for giving the sole responsibility for placing young persons up to the age of 18 in employment, or, as we would have had it, those who have not attained the age of 19, to the careers guidance people.
      Mr. John Page: I thank my hon. Friend again for having bowed to the good sense of the Committee. This is more than a crumb. It is at least a bread roll, if not a loaf. I am half way through my dinner and my mind is on such matters. I always took the view that the White Paper gave an undertaking that this was a braces and belt matter and not "either/or". Local authorities have received a very clear direction from the Under-Secretary that they are expected, unless there are very special circumstances, to make the services of the careers advisory service available to all young people up to the age of 18.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was straightforward, as usual. He was very clear about this matter. I shall fold this page of HANSARD and put it away in the back of my wallet. I am sure that Harrow will never backslide in the manner of some local authorities which may try to renege on this. I shall be able to hand the page of HANSARD to any hon. Member who is dissatisfied with the services being offered to his constituents by his local authority. This strengthens the matter a good deal. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, Amendment No. 13, in page 10, line 37, after first 'and', insert 'persons'.
      This is a purely drafting amendment, to remove a possible ambiguity in the present text. Subsection (3)(a) provides that the arrangements that a local education authority makes in pursuance of

      587
      subsections (1) and (2) shall be arrangements
      "for the giving of assistance by collecting and furnishing information about persons seeking and offering employment and providing facilities for training."
      The intention of the last few words is that the LEA should collect and furnish information about persons providing facilities for training. But as the words stand, they could be misread to mean that the LEA is to provide the facilities for training. The amendment makes the meaning perfectly clear, and it can be accepted without difficulty.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 16, leave out 'arrangements' and insert:
      'temporary arrangements for such period as the Secretary of State may determine'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 15 and 18.
      Mr. Walker: I have to move Amendment No. 14 in order to speak on this subject but in view of Amendment No. 15 I intend to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
      My amendment was tabled as a "belt and braces" arrangement to ensure that the Under-Secretary carried out an undertaking that he gave in Standing Committee that the transitional arrangements under which the Commission would carry out temporarily the functions of the local education authorities would indeed be purely temporary. I do not mean to question the Under-Secretary's intentions or integrity in so doing. Of course, he has fulfilled his undertaking in the form of Amendment No. 15 and in the light of that I merely express my gratitude to him. It represents a bigger crumb than the last, and we appreciate it. As I have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I intend to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I am happy that the amendments reflect a refreshing unanimity of view between both sides of the House. Perhaps I had better explain the provisions of the Government amendment. Clause 8(5) provides that LEAs may make arrangements with the commission for the
      588
      commission to perform the LEAs careers services function on its behalf. Provisions of this sort were necessary for the transitional period with some LEAs which did not have a careers service but which would be setting one up.
      It was strongly represented by a number of hon. Members on both sides that these provisions should be only temporary, to rule out the possibility that some LEAs might try to avoid their responsibilities by leaving the commission to provide the service on their behalf permanently. I said in Committee that we accepted the principle that this power should be transitional with certain special exceptions but after full consideration I have decided that the right course is to make the power transitional only. It is not practical to define any possible exception in a way which would be workable and in a way which would preserve the basic principle. The Government amendment simply gives the Secretary of State power to terminate this and associated provisions by order.
      It is right to provide for termination by order rather than trying to set up a specific time limit and I am glad that the amendment to which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) spoke so briefly took the same line. We cannot be sure at present how long this transitional period should be, and we do not want to stipulate one which is too long or too short. It is something which should be settled in consultation with local government after the new arrangements come into force.
      The Government amendment also enables us to fix a terminal date in relation to Scotland, because the new arrangements will not begin in Scotland until more than a year after they start in England and Wales, because of the difference in the date of local government reorganisation. Furthermore, many education authorities in Scotland—more than in England and Wales—do not at present provide a careers service. It may be necessary to have a longer transitional period in Scotland, England and Wales. That does not mean that we have any intention of letting transitional periods drag on unnecessarily. This needs to be settled by consultation with local government.
      I am grateful for the spirit with which our amendment has been received and I have no objection to the Opposition's

      589
      having tabled one of such similarity, as there has been such unanimity of feeling on both sides.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 11, line 33, at end insert:
      '(5A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the preceding subsection, subsection (5) of the following section, this subsection and any arrangements in force by virtue of the preceding subsection or the said subsection (5) shall cease to have effect on a day specified in the order; and different days may be specified in pursuance of this subsection in relation to Scotland and the rest of Great Britain'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith]

    Clause 11

      FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 14, line 3, at end insert:
      'and such sums shall include a sum not less than £35 million in each full year which shall be payable in respect of the key training activities of Industrial Training Boards, and the administrative expenses of such Boards, and for the promotion of training in sectors of employment not covered by Boards, and such sums shall be adjusted each year to maintain its value at the level it had in 1973'.
      This amendment to some extent reverses an attitude I expressed in Standing Committee. I expressed the view then that it was undesirable to write into the Bill the £35 million to £40 million we were discussing—the sum referred to in the Government's discussions prior to the production of the White Paper.
      I was prompted, among other reasons, to reverse that view by my growing fear, which was justified this week, that the Government might find it desirable, due to the changing economic circumstances, to attack public expenditure. I thought it would be advisable, therefore, if this somewhat derisory sum of £35 million was written into the Bill as a firm commitment, with the proviso for the automatic adjustment of its value in an inflationary situation. The wording of the amendment follows the wording of paragraph 65 of the White Paper and the words used by the Secretary of State on Second Reading—words which are nowhere reflected in the Bill.
      590
      I repeat my belief that the £35 million is wholly inadequate. That view is shared by many, if not most, people concerned with industrial training. The Road Transport Industry Training Board, one of the biggest boards, said:
      "£35 million is inadequate if impetus is to be maintained."
      The Heating and Ventilating Contractors' Association said:
      "The proposed annual budget of £35 million would seem to be inadequate to meet industry's demands upon it as envisaged in the White Paper"
      The Construction Industry Training Board said:
      "More money is needed than the £35 million. The sum is inadequate."
      The TUC General Council
      ". .did not believe that the £25 million to £40 million was adequate."
      The Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board said:
      "The provision of £25 million to £40 million appears totally inadequate and can be expected to result in a decline in training activities."
      I will not weary the House with more quotes, but these are typical of many that have reached the Opposition and, I am sure, the Government. I put them before the House so that it may be clearly seen that we are reflecting the view of those engaged in, and concerned about, industrial training, including many employers. It is part of our fear that the Government will allow even this inadequate sum to be eroded by inflation and nibbled away by their attacks on public expenditure.
      I hope that the Minister will amplify and clarify the statement made by the Chancellor on Monday. Will he tell us where the further £6 million will be spent and whether the proposed eight months' deferment of the commencement of the new arrangements is firmly fixed, or can we expect further revisions? It is an extraordinary situation when one Minister gives what appears to be a firm, clear and categorical statement in Committee only a week or two ago about the dates of commencement of different parts of the Bill and then another Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, comes to the House this week and changes what the first Minister said. That not only creates doubt about the credibility of Ministers' statements but it creates doubt

      591
      and confusion amongst those who even-tually have to implement the provisions of the Bill.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that some of the training boards—I cannot speak for all of them—are very glad that there has been a postponement for eight months? That is because they are not yet in a position to run the new arrangement.
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are many training boards which would be pleased if the whole arrangement was permanently deferred. That is hardly an answer to the point which I am making. During a few weeks one Minister's statement was rebutted by another Minister. Such an event can only cast doubt on the credibility and the reliability of Ministers' statements.
      I return to the central sum of £35 million. It seems clear not only from the comments of the boards but from a scrutiny of the figures in "Training for the Future" that the totality of training activities is bound to be reduced. The money will have to be allocated to the different purposes set out in the White Paper which are referred to in the amendment. There are bound to be cuts in the activities of the boards because the boards must necessarily budget in advance. By now they must have worked out the worst. They must be told quickly. We are entitled to know as well so that we shall know which training activities will be cut back.
      How much of the £35 million will go to the Engineering Industry Training Board? If we recognise that there are about 20 boards, how much will be left in the bowl for the others to scramble over? I am pleased to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us whether the agricultural, horticultnral and forestry training board's grant of £1·9 million is coming out of the £35 million or whether it is coming from another source.
      We have been told that the electricity and gas industry training boards are to go. We are entitled to know whether
      592
      the Government's grant will be extended to cover their administrative costs. Will they be expected to provide their administrative costs from their revenue whilst private industry will largely receive Government grants which are, in effect, Government subsidies? Will that be equally applicable to the other nationalised industries, all of which are providing adequate training facilities? All the nationalised industries are doing a first-rate training job.
      It seems incredible that the nationalised industries will be required to provide their administrative costs out of their own revenue whilst private industry is to be subsidised by Government grant. It seems that the Government are trapped between an electoral commitment which was designed to win the support of the small and backward employers who were loth to pay the industrial training levy, whose support the Government wanted and who by and large were the people doing a poor job of industrial training, and the new-found realisation that the inevitable consequence of implementing their pledged commitment would be to diminish industrial training at a time when expansion would be needed. The course on which they have embarked commits them to yet a further subsidy to private industry, a cut-back on our training effort, and not only the sacrifice of our industrial and economic seed corn but the frustration of the hopes and ambitions of many of our young people.
      Mr. Dempsey: I want briefly to comment on the implications of the amendment. The Government have had sad failings in their thinking on industrial training. In 1972, £215 million was put into industrial training by industrialists, but now the maximum under the Bill will be £35 million. That is a reduction of £180 million, or 84 per cent. of the total normally expended on industrial training. It is a very serious situation. I cannot understand where the Government intend to find the difference. Does it mean that the 84 per cent. reduction is bound to result in a reduction in industrial training, or are the Government so idealistic that they think industrialists will provide the money?
      Now that employers with fewer than 120 employees are exempt from the levy, have the Government considered the

      593
      implications of what they propose? It will involve 17,700 firms, employing a total work force of 490,000. A study of industrial training reveals that small firms employ the bulk of apprentices. I know of a large firm in Lanarkshire which has international connections and is a large employer of labour but does not engage a single apprentice. The firm poaches them all after the small firms have trained them by offering them attractive conditions. Statistics show that over the past eight years large firms have reduced their apprentice intake by 50 per cent.—a substantial amount.
      The small firms upon which we depend to train apprentices are opting out because they have been exempted from the levy. If the Minister thinks that they will automatically take part when they are entitled to be exempted, he and the Government are living in cloud cuckoo land.
      In my constituency we have an automobile group training association and an engineering group training association called LETA. Our trainee places numbered 200, but they have fallen to about 124 since the Government introduced exemption from the levy. We have all those vacant places, and not a hope of making them up. If this further exemption takes place we shall have to consider whether it is possible to continue a training establishment in my constituency. Incidentally, it was the first in Scotland. We pioneered this form of training. This is the implication of the lack of financial provision in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) referred to the £35 million, and I have drawn attention to the £215 million. There is a leeway with not a snowball's chance of it ever being made up. It is bound to have disastrous consequences for the industrial training of apprentices. It will certainly have such consequences in my constituency, in North Lancashire. It is my duty to draw the Minister's attention to this serious situation. I have quoted these figures to try to impress on him the seriousness of the inadequate provision in the Bill.
      The Minister ought to tell us whether the Chancellor's statement means that there will be a postponement of the operation of the inadequate £35 million from August 1974, when it was due to
      594
      be introduced, until April 1975. If that is the implication of the Chancellor's statement, may I ask where the training establishments will get the money needed during the eight-month period to pay for the on-cost of running the training centres and providing all the necessary equipment for the training? The money will not fall from the trees in Scotland, neither will it come from the gas. It has to come from somewhere. It has been coming from the grant on the one hand and the levy on the other, but this is now in danger.
      A small employer probably receives a grant of £600 for the training of apprentices. When we bear in mind that the employer is losing that apprentice's skill, production and service the average cost works out at nearer £1,200 with a deficit of £600. Where will that come from? The employer has now opted out. He is not responsible for the levy. Will he pay the additional £600? I cannot visualise many small employers in my constituency or in the West of Scotland being willing to meet such a payment. This means there will be a further rundown in the number of apprentices, and sooner or later the question will arise whether the training establishments are viable units I regret to say that at the moment we have not ruled out the possibility of considering closing dates for some centres.
      It is absolutely tragic in view of the necessity to train our young people. We have heard about the importance of skills. This is a serious situation, and I want the Minister and the Government to get down from their ivory tower, to the grass roots, so that the implications of this disastrous policy—reducing the amount of money available for industrial training by £180 million—will be realised. I hope that even at this late hour the Government will have second thoughts and will appreciate that we are talking not about millions of pounds but about the future of young girls and boys, our future citizens.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I expected to hear the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and indeed perhaps the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) on this subject, but I did not expect the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie to ascend so far into

      595
      the clouds. He certainly disappeared from my sights in some of the things he was saying. Where he was getting the figures from I do not know. Perhaps I should have a private conversation with him because I would be getting a little far from the amendment if I were to follow some of his flights of fancy. I understand his anxiety, however irrelevant some of it may have been to this amendment.
      I ought to acknowledge that the hon. Member was right in certain respects; namely, the timetable in relation to the Government's intention to make public funds available for the administrative expenses of the boards to encourage key training activities. In fact, the £35 million has been changed by what was said in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday.
      As I say, I was not quite sure where the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie was getting some of his figures, and I could not understand where he thought the training boards had been getting their money from hitherto. I will sort that one out with him.
      The fact remains that as a result of the postponement, the levy will continue; that is, for a limited period. That is how the boards have been financed in the past.
      As the hon. Member for Doncaster knows, our original intention was that the new system should start from 1st August 1974. But now, as the Chancellor has said, the plans for meeting the expenditure of training boards out of Government funds will be deferred by eight months. This postponement includes the financing of the key training activities and the provision of services to sectors not covered by the boards, the areas which we have sometimes in the earlier stages of the Bill referred to as the gaps.
      Equally, it will not be possible to introduce statutory levy exemption schemes before then, or the 1 per cent. limit on levy, or the new small firm exclusion requirements. I recognise that this is a matter which will disappoint my hon. Friends, but I am sure they will appreciate the overriding concern to cut down on public expenditure.
      So boards will need to continue to operate the existing levy grant system until the end of March 1975. I am afraid—and I acknowledge it straight away—
      596
      that this is bound to cause some concern amongst training boards which have been working hard to prepare their plans for the new system. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) pointed out that in some cases they might find the delay even beneficial in getting on with their plans. If it has cause inconvenience, that is something we must all regret. It is certainly disappointing for some firms which are looking towards exemption or exclusion, as the case may be, under the new system.
      However, it is fair to say that we know that the trend in a number of industrial training boards has been to move towards an exemption-type approach, even under the existing scheme of things, and there has been a strong tendency to exclude more small firms. I have no doubt whatsoever that that is likely to continue. Obviously the postponement will cause some problems. Nevertheless, it is an eight-months' postponement only, and the problems which it causes have to be set against the clear need, which my right hon. Friend defined, to take action now to sustain the steady growth in 1974, 1975 and beyond.
      I would say that postponing the change in the system—and here I cross swords with the hon. Gentleman—is something which is different from slashing the budgets of the training boards after the new system has been introduced.
      The hon. Gentleman complained once again about the inadequacy of the £35 million. He can complain about it, but he was reading in the main—unless I am mistaken—from statements which were made before it was known that the intention was to move towards a levy exemption system, and that there would be an element of levy still available to the boards. Sometimes that is forgotten.
      Mr. Harold Walker: To correct the wrong impression of the Minister, each of the quotations I gave was of remarks made either in Committee or on Second Reading. I could have given many more.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am still glad that I made that remark, because many people concerned with training have not grasped that the £35 million will not be the amount of money spent on industrial training. There will remain a levy element. The sooner that message gets across, the more reassuring it will be

      597
      to those who care about the future of training.
      I was asked about money for the Agricultural Training Board. That is financed out of the Vote of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so it is not affected. I was also asked where the extra £6 million mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday will go and whether it will do anything to help. There has been a vast extension of the training opportunity scheme, which has been a considerable success since it was launched last year. We have a target of 40,000 people to train this year, and the £6 million is in the main needed for the higher cost of the training courses in colleges of further education. That is mainly because trainees are taking more two-term rather than one-term courses than was expected.
      This gives me an opportunity to mention how we are expanding construction training under the training opportunity scheme. By the end of May nearly 3,950 places should be available for GTCs in the construction trades, and the number of places will have been increased by nearly 40 per cent. in 17 months. By the end of this year about 4,200 places should be available providing 7,200 trainees a year for the industry. The total this year is expected to be about 6,500 trainees. In addition, there are classes providing training at a skilled and semiskilled level available in employing establishments and colleges.
      The Chancellor's announcement does not mean that we are less conscious of the importance of the training boards and their work. There has been no reduction in the training boards' current account which is derived almost entirely from the levy. It is merely a question of postponing the introduction of the new system by eight months as a contribution towards the reduction of public expenditure in 1974–75. It is still the intention to bring the commission into existence by about the beginning of 1974, although it may be rather longer before it is given formal powers in relation to approval of the boards' proposals on levy exemption and other matters.
      The amendment seeks to provide a sum of not less than £35 million, to be adjusted each year to maintain its value at the 1973 level. On the question of
      598
      maintaining the 1973 value of the sum allocated, all the figures included in the public expenditure programmes are updated each year to take account of changes in price levels. That is standard practice. The sums allocated will therefore automatically be adjusted each year for price increases.
      I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment. The hon. Member for Doncaster must concede that in Committee we have been fairly generous in meeting his requirements. I think he will concede also that we have managed to make a better Bill, and I acknowledge his help in this. We made our policy clear in the White Paper which was published with the Bill, and my right hon. Friend also made it clear on Second Reading.
      The White Paper said:
      "It is intended that when the arrangements are in full operation up to £35 million in a full year should be available to the Commission for these purposes …".
      That, of course, is different again from what was in the original consultative document, which the hon. Gentleman will remember was £25 million to £40 million, and, as I have already reminded the House, since then we have decided to retain the levy, although within a new framework. One must see the £35 million within the context of that retention of the levy.
      I do not think it would be right for this Government, or indeed any Government, to commit a future Government in legislation to a minimum amount of expenditure on a particular service or area of activity. Obviously, the House has before it each year the estimate for the grant in aid to the commission with a provision for grants to the training boards, which will be clearly identifiable. The Bill gives the commission full power to make grants to boards under Section 5(1) of the Industrial Training Act 1964 as amended by the Bill, and I am sure this is the right way to deal with the question. Any limit, whether maximum or minimum, laid down in legislation might turn out to be inappropriate as time goes on because of changes in circumstances. No one can really say what the scale of this problem of training is going to be in 10 years' time or what scale of public funds might be needed for this purpose.

      599
      I think it would be better to stick to the sensible practice of not referring to any specific sum in the Bill. At the same time, I recognise how important it is that when the new system is introduced the training boards should know what sort of amounts may be available to them from public funds, and that is why the £35 million has been included.
      I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, if for nothing else, for giving me the opportunity to set out what the position is in relation to the postponement, but I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 13

      INTERPRETATION ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 16, line 23, leave out '(1) and Schedules 1 and 3' and insert 'and Schedule 1'.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
      No. 18, in page 17, line 12, after 'section', insert '8(5A) or'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      No. 19, in page 17. line 16, at beginning insert:
      '(5) No order shall be made in pursuance of section 7(3A)(c) of this Act unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

    Clause 15

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 17, line 41, leave out 'paragraph 3' and insert 'paragraphs 3 and 4'.
      This is a technical amendment which achieves the effect that certified copies of or extracts from records of the commission or agencies which are in the Public Record Office should be admissible as evidence without further proof in the courts of Northern Ireland as well as Great Britain.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      MODIFICATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ACT 1964
      Mr. Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 23, line 2, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 61, in page 23, line 4, at end insert:
      '(i) may inspect the place of employment of any person being trained in the industry if the employer of that person is subject to, or exempted from the levy specified in section 4 below'.
      Mr. Booth: The amendment is necessary in the present construction of the Bill to make way for Amendment No. 61, which, if accepted by the House, would give any industrial training board the right to inspect places of employment of people in the industry with which the board is concerned. That is to say, it would give the engineering training board the right to examine and inspect engineering factories, and the shipbuilding training board the right to examine shipyards, and so on.
      It may seem surprising that such a right was not included in the Industrial Training Act 1964. However, it must be accepted that the reason may be that industrial training boards as they were envisaged in 1964 were regarded by firms as having a substantial power to determine levy to be paid for industrial training.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That the Employment and Training Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jopling.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
      Mr. Booth: It was expected that any employer seeking to persuade a training board of the quality of his training schemes, with a view to his being exempted from levy, would be willing to allow the board or its officers to examine his premises, even though he might not positively welcome the board's doing so.

      601
      However, the Bill, which makes substantial amendments to the 1964 Act, has cast considerable doubt upon the extent to which training boards will in future exercise a right to determine levy. The Bill amends Section 4 of the 1964 Act by adding subsection (2A):
      "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring the Minister to make a levy order in a case in which he considers it inexpedient to make one; and the Minister shall not make a levy order in pursuance of any proposals under the said section 7 unless''.
      The Bill then lays down strict qualifications, ending with a suggestion that the levy may be either severely limited or subject to an almost unlimited discretion in the Minister.
      The position now is not what it was in 1964. Whereas in 1964 one could not conceive of a case in which an employer would not allow an industrial training board to examine his premises if the board was responsible for training in the industry, the same presumption cannot necessarily be made now.
      The position is unclear, in that the determination of the levy in the Bill is left almost entirely at the Minister's discretion, on the one hand. On the other hand, there is provision in the 1964 Act for a tribunal to determine questions of the appropriate level of levy and the question whether a levy should be paid.
      We should consider the position of an industrial training board operating in present circumstances without a statutory right to examine the premises of a firm, if the board had to go before the tribunal. The levy board representative might say "We take the view that this firm should pay such-and-such a levy." If he were asked "Have you seen the training scheme in the works? "he could answer" No, I have not been allowed to do so." That might be taken to indicate a certain measure of bloody-mindedness on the firm's part. The training board representative would not be able to claim any expertise from having examined the scheme, whereas the employer's representative, from his access to the premises, could make that claim.
      It seems to me that it is necessary for the normal operation of an industrial training board for it to be able to examine the industry for which it is responsible with a view to setting up training schemes and the furtherance of training. There is
      602
      this additional consideration now brought about by the change in the levy position and the doubt hovering over the position of the tribunal. However, I do not wish these other considerations to influence or to be set against the major consideration of the industrial training boards doing their job properly. That is why I have framed the amendment so as to make the power to inspect relate to Section 2(1) of the 1964 Industrial Training Act.
      If the House accepts the amendment, a board will have the right to inspect the industry with which it is concerned for the purpose of encouraging the adequate training of persons employed or intending to be employed in that industry. The other benefits that it may have will be incidental, and I hope that any fears existing on the other scores to which I have referred will not be realised.
      It is almost self-evident that there is a very serious responsibility resting upon industrial training boards to know fully the premises and service areas in which those for whose training the board is responsible have to undergo that training, and that it should be the statutory responsibility of that board to inspect those premises.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment. It would be a mistake. It is both undesirable and unnecessary.
      We should be extremely cautious before starting to create a fairly wide-ranging right of entry into private or commercial premises. I quite see that there is nothing sinister in the hon. Gentleman's objective, which is, I suppose, that he wants firms inspected. Incidentally, even if I were to accept the amendment I should prefer to see the word "visited" rather than "inspected" because it is less offensive to many people.
      The object of such visits presumably would be to see whether firms were worthy of exemption under the new system. I do not believe that that would be necessary in any event. If a firm refuses to allow the board's representatives to visit it—which in itself would be very unlikely if it applied voluntarily for exemption—assuming that the board cannot find other means of satisfying itself about the training arrangements there, it will not issue an exemption certificate or

      603
      make a grant. It is better that the board should not have the power to inspect but that it should have power to refuse to make grant or, subject to appeal, to refuse to issue a certificate.
      There could be difficulties here. It is possible, for example, to imagine circumstances in which a firm has commercial secrets where, clearly, the right to privacy ought to be respected. In that sort of case the employer will have to accept that his refusal may lead to a loss of exemption if the board cannot satisfy itself in any other way that his training arrangements are adequate. But it will be possible to write into the exemption criteria the right to pay visits to premises in order to look round them.
      In all the circumstances, the amendment is both undesirable and unnecessary.
      Mr. Bishop: I do not wish to detain the House long in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) on Amendments Nos. 53 and 61.
      The Minister's reply is completely unsatisfactory. I think that the amendments commend themselves to the House.
      The Minister said that there is power to refuse a certificate. I presume that if the employer does not allow his premises to be inspected, so that the board may be satisfied about the conditions, there would be refusal of a certificate. But, even so, there still must be power to inspect the premises where training is taking place.
      I am not clear whether the Bill gives power to inspect. For the board to be satisfied on this matter inspection will have to take place, and refusal to allow inspection would apparently mean refusal of a certificate.
      The proposed paragraph (h) to Section 2(1) of the Act refers to the provision of
      "advice about training connected with the industry".
      This is essential. So is the requirement that the amendment seeks to put into the Bill that, apart from the training, the premises, equipment and other facilities essential to training should be open to inspection. Surely on these grounds alone the amendment is justified.
      604
      Many of us felt that the Minister would get up and say that he could accept the amendment. We all know from our experience and knowledge of industrial training and training boards that standards vary considerably from place to place. If the Minister has not got the powers that we seek to give him, surely those who are providing the industrial training, which is essential to younger people, and retraining, which is necessary because of technological changes, will not be able to provide the standard of industrial training and retraining which is so desirable. I think it would help to raise the standards of training to have the right to inspect premises and thereby gain some idea of the equipment and facilities being provided. It would make bigger demands on those who in the past have been lagging behind with industrial training and apprenticeship schemes. It is essential to make greater demands on those who provide the training so that the standards of education and training in future are higher than in the past. I hope that the Minister can still see his way clear to reconsider his reply.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not want to do an injustice to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop). I think he may have come into the Chamber after I had begun to reply, because he appears to have missed the burden of a good deal of what I said.
      One of the objects of a levy exemption scheme is to cause firms to move towards better training.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether the right to inspect is written into the Bill. No, it is not. However, the Bill specifically provides, in Schedule 2, in a new Section 4B(2)(a), that the board can make it a condition of issue of the certificate that it should be able to inspect the training arrangements if it wishes to do so. I do not think that the board will wish to do so in every case. If a firm refuses to allow the board to visit its premises, the board is free, subject to appeal, to revoke the certificate. However, it does not, and should not, have an enforceable right of inspection as such.
      I think that I have now answered the hon. Gentleman's point. I think, in fairness to him, that he missed what I said earlier.
      Mr. Bishop: I heard the Minister say that, but I thought it was a one-sided way of putting it.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. It is not in order for the hon. Member to make a second speech on the amendment. If he intends to make a short intervention, that will be all right.
      Amendment negatived.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 24, line 25, at end insert:
      606
      '(1A) In section 4(2) of the Act, after the words "to proposals" there shall be inserted the words "In respect of a levy which have been".'
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 36, in page 37 line 29, after 'proposals', insert:
      'in respect of a levy which have been'.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: The amendment is a technical one which makes it clear that a levy order gives effect to levy proposals and not to any other proposals. The second amendment makes a consequential change to the keeling Schedule.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Robert Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 24, line 27, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 25, in page 25, line 15, at end insert:
      '(2B) The Minister may, in making a levy order in pursuance of any proposals under the said section 7, make it with such exemptions or further exemptions for any employers or class of employers as he may, after consultation with the Commission, consider appropriate'.
      Mr. Taylor: Most hon. Members will be aware of individual companies which claim to train with exceeding efficiency and still finish up as net losers on the levy grant system. My hon. Friend will, I believe, recall that over the last few years I have sent to him and to his predecessor numerous examples of companies which fall within that category. Indeed, on at least two occasions the industrial training board concerned has admitted that the courses are of no use to the firms in question, but it has pleaded as an excuse for demanding the levy the fact that it is statutorily obliged to do so.
      After the enactment of the Bill, the position for a number of these firms will, as I understand it, be the same because, as the Bill stands, there are two grounds for exclusion from levies. The first is on the ground that the pay roll of the firm does not reach the minimum laid down by the industrial training board, and we are to a certain extent legislating in a vacuum because we do not know what those minimum payrolls will be. Certain industrial training boards—notably the Engineering Industry Training Board—are moving in a progressive way to a high cut-off figure, but other boards—notably the Construction Industry Training Board —persist with a low cut-off figure and demand a levy from very small firms.
      The other criterion which the Bill lays down for exemption will be rules approved by the industrial training boards. Here again we are legislating in a vacuum, because we do not know what those rules will be. It is true that my hon. Friends will have the opportunity to approve those rules, or to withhold his approval of them, but the point that I want to emphasise is that there will be
      608
      no flexibility once those rules have been approved. In other words, any firm with a payroll above the minimum and which does not meet the specific rules of a relevant training board will still be forced to pay the levy irrespective of whether it is generally agreed that its training reaches a high standard. It may be a firm which is unique in its manufacturing processes or has some other individual characteristic which is not catered for by its industrial training board.
      The two amendments will have the effect of giving the Minister some flexibility, and I suggest that that is of the greatest importance in the context of the speeches that we have heard tonight about the £35 million to be made available to the training boards and for the training services. Without the amendment, there will undoubtedly be many appeals involving legal expense and the training boards will have to defend their demands for levies. This will eat into the £35 million which is to be made available.
      I am not dogmatic in my request that firms should automatically be excluded. All I ask is that my hon. Friend should take unto himself the opportunity to say that a particular firm is trading in a satisfactory fashion, although it does not meet the set of rules laid down by the industrial training board, and that it should be excluded from the levy.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will not say that he already has that power, because I have read the Bill carefully on this point. Although he has the power to amend regulations, once those regulations are firm I do not believe that the Bill allows particular specialised firms to be excluded from levy payment, although such exclusion is well justified by the enthusiasm that those firms put into their training.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I entirely accept the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor) about the number of times that he has pressed me about his fears regarding certain firms. But his fears are groundless. He is right when he says that we do not know at this moment what the minimum payrolls will be. This matter is still under discussion. Equally, he is right to say that we do not know

      609
      what the rules for exemption will be. We do not know what the criteria will be for every board at this stage: they may vary.
      What we do know is that there will have to be published criteria; that may, of course, be of considerable help to him and to the firms whose interests he is always so ready to defend. In Committee I gave some idea of the sort of suggestions, which might form acceptable criteria, that the Department had sent to the boards. Our suggestions included questions like
      "Are there appropriate means for identifying a firm's training needs? Is there a plan for providing training to meet identified needs? Is training carried out in accordance with the plan?"
      I think that the House will agree that, given criteria like those, it should be possible for almost any firm which provides proper training to secure exemption.
      I accept that it is possible that a firm may have no training needs at all and that such firms should not be barred from gaining exemption from levy.
      My hon. Friend was also right to point out that, if a firm is dissatisfied with a board's refusal to grant exemption, the Bill provides for a right of appeal, first to the board concerned, and then, if the firm wants to take it further, to an independent body. So there are some safeguards.
      There is one aspect of my hon. Friend's amendment about which I should be unhappy. He has written to me about this. I acknowledge his motives in suggesting it, which are of the purest. However, I certainly could not accept an amendment which would enable the Secretary of State, after consulting the commission, to include in the levy order the exemption of particular firms or classes of firms independent of any proposals made by the board concerned and without having to consult the board. That is not the direction in which we should move. It is all very well to send the proposals back, but it would be quite wrong for a Secretary of State of any party, to be in a position to exempt particular firms as well as classes of firms from levy. I think that the House would feel that a Secretary of State, of any party, ought not to have almost completely unfettered power to exempt a
      610
      particular firm as he considered appropriate. The suggestion for exemption ought to go through the usual channels. I should not like to go along with my hon. Friend on that point.
      I hope that I have been able to give my hon. Friend some sort of reassurance and that he will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Robert Taylor: My hon. Friend knows my enthusiasm on this subject. Although his explanation meets my case in some way, I should still prefer, if there were any support, to press the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move. Amendment No. 23, in page 24, line 36, leave out 'that section' and insert 'the said section 7'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient for the House to take Amendment No. 37, in page 37, line 41, leave out 'that section' and insert 'the said section 7'.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: These are simply minor drafting amendments to put right a reference in the text to Section 4 of the 1964 Act. The reference there should be to Section 7.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 25, line 5, leave out 'one' and insert 'one and a half'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to take Amendment No. 26, in page 25, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
      Mr. Walker: I shall seek to be as brief as possible, but I hope that the House will not assume that the brevity of my remarks somehow detracts from the very great importance and significance that we attach to the amendments.
      The Minister will be familiar with the fundamental arguments because in Committee we had a similar duo of amendments. But in Committee we sought to raise the ceiling of 1 per cent. which the Minister is now imposing on the levy to 2 per cent. We hope that what we are now advancing, 1½ per cent., is a reasonable compromise between what we

      611
      sought and the position to which the Government have dogmatically adhered. This accords with the desire that has been represented to the Government by the TUC.
      Obviously we cannot talk of the levy level without referring to what we discussed earlier, the £35 million which the Government are allocating for administrative training board costs, key training activities and several other activities. The imposition of this 1 per cent. ceiling on levy inevitably diminishes the income of the boards. I am not falling into the trap to which the Minister drew attention and assuming, that a certain percentage reduction in levy means a corresponding reduction in income to the board which is available for training purposes. It does not. But the Minister will equally accept that the imposition of a 1 per cent. ceiling diminishes the income to the boards and the amount of money available, broadly, for training purposes, and that amount is not offset by the £35 million. I hope that the Minister will not quarrel with that, not-withstanding his earlier remarks.
      Added to this, however, we have the very dramatic extension of scope for exemption that the Minister is now providing. They are, perhaps, not new principles, but nevertheless it is a very substantial increase in degree in the scope for exemption, both for those whose training needs may be considered adequate in the view of the board and the employer and because of the extension of exemption for small firms. Therefore, we see a very dramatic reduction, for all these reasons, of the income of boards for training purposes if the proposals in the Bill remain unaltered. We seek to offset that by advocating 1½ per cent. instead of 1 per cent.
      But there is also another reason. The levy/grant system has been repeatedly referred to as the carrot and stick concept. It is a positive and a negative incentive. There has been universal acceptance since the Industrial Training Act came into full operation that the permanent shift in attitudes of industry to training to which the Government have referred has been brought about much more by the stick than by the carrot. The stick has been much more influen-
      612
      tial in bringing about that shift in attitudes and we think that the size of the stick should be maintained. The Government, however, are deliberately diminishing its size and it is for that reason amongst others that we should keep in the word "permanent". Only time will tell how permanent it is or will be, and I have strong reservations.
      Perhaps I might now turn to our proposed exemption under subsection (4). Its purpose is that the Minister has power in certain special circumstances to breach the 1 per cent. ceiling, yet those circumstances require that there should be an affirmative resolution of both Houses rather than use of the negative resolution procedure as is written into the 1964 Act. Hon. Members know what a formidable hurdle that is. It will be only in the most extreme cases and exceptional circumstances that the Minister is likely to come to Parliament, knowing as he does that he must argue his case through both Houses particularly in the teeth of the reactionary opposition of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor) and hon. Members who tend to share his views on industrial training. The Government should think again about this. I hope that in reply the Minister will be more sympathetic than he was in Standing Committee.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am sorry I cannot be sympathetic as the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) wishes but I must be consistent. We have covered most of this ground before. As he said we have cantered over a good deal of it in Standing Committee and most of the objections which I raised to his amendment on that occasion seeking 2 per cent. still stand in respect of his present proposal of 1½ per cent. I cannot change my mind.
      His suggestion is that the imposition of this as a normal levy limit taken with the new levy exemption arrangements will result in a diminution of the boards' activities. There are three points I must make. Only a small number of boards have a levy above 1 per cent., and the trend has been to move down to 1 per cent. and then below. Certainly the indications which we have so far suggest that more and more boards are reducing the size of their levy still further. When

      613
      the new arrangements come into force on 1st April 1975 the £35 million will be available to the commission to take care of the boards' administrative costs, key training grants and to cover the groups which are not covered by boards now. That will be there and it is additional. It is not our policy that the boards should exempt firms whose training is not adequate. We should certainly look askance at a situation where Exchequer funds were set aside in order to support training which could reasonably be secured through the criteria for exemption. The general principle on exemption should be that the boards grant exemption to employers if they are satisfied that a firm is carrying out training adequate to its needs.
      10.30 p.m.
      After very extensive consultation we accepted last year that the correct approach was to provide that levy exemption should enable boards to fulfil their responsibilities for securing and improving standards of training in industry and to do so in a way which enabled firms with sufficient training to avoid the administrative complexities which have become associated with the levy/grant system.
      We believe that pressure for good training will be maintained by the criteria which the boards will set for exemption. These will relate to what a firm can be expected to be doing in order to carry out training adequate to its needs. The criteria ought to reflect the good training standards which the boards will have worked out with their industries, and the process can be expected to start at any time.
      Standards of good training rise over a period, so the exemption system can be used to exert pressure for improved standards. It is right that standards for firms qualifying for exemption should be raised. The exemption is a new tool which the boards will use to renew pressure for good training.
      The system we are adopting was given full thought and consideration and will get rid of much of the detailed paper work which was proving a positive hindrance to training itself, not to say the firms. It will enable the boards' advisers who go visiting firms to use their time in talking about training and not
      614
      about money, as they so often have had to do in the past, and that is as it should be.
      As we have said over and over again, I do not believe that it is necessary to provide in normal circumstances for levies above one per cent. Having said that, however, I stick to the position I maintained in Committee—that in exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State should have the power to impose a levy of over one per cent. As I have said, I do not think that it would be right to attempt to forecast what those exceptional circumstances might be, but one example could be where there was a widespread falling-off in an industry's training effort. Because such levies would be exceptional, it is right that they should be subject to consideration by Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 25, line 39, leave out 'employed' and insert
      'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 38, 39 and 40.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: These amendments put right a flaw in the provision concerning exemptions which have come to light since the Committee stage. The purpose is to ensure that exemption proposals and exemption certificates themselves must take into account the number of trained people an employer is expected to need at a particular establishment. Thus, he would be entitled to a certificate in respect of an establishment if he were training enough people to meet his needs, and in accordance with the criteria he could be refused one if he were not—in other words, if he was relying excessively on recruiting already-trained men. This is an anti-poaching measure.
      We all agree that it would be absurd if a board found itself obliged to give exemption to a firm which was giving adequate training to existing employees but no training to meet its future needs for skilled people, relying instead on poaching other people's trained men.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 30 in page 26, line 31, leave out 'employed' and insert
      'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.
      No. 31, in page 26, line 48, leave out 'employed' and insert
      'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.
      No. 32, in page 27, line 14, leave out 'of its issue' and insert
      'on which it comes into force'.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
      Mr. Moyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 27, line 22, at end insert:
      '(3) The Commission shall not approve proposals for the issue of certificates where it is not satisfied that representatives of the categories of employees affected have been consulted before the application was submitted'.
      This amendment is founded on the principle that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and those who eat mostly of the pudding of training are the employees. If training is skimped, their expectations, jobs, careers and prospects will suffer. We also found the amendment on the idea that training is probably as good as one pays for and that good training is founded on the financial provision. Therefore, employees are vitally affected by proposals for the withdrawal of the levy from their firm. With that end in view, employees should be entitled to have a say in the exemption or otherwise of their firm from the levy.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends are astounded by their moderation. There is a spirit of workers' participation abroad which is even lapping around the foundations of the present Government. But we are not asking for workers' control or workers' participation. We are not asking for their consent and for the withdrawal of the levy. All we are asking for is that employees in a firm from which the levy will be withdrawn should be entitled to be consulted.
      Just as in the first debate today we had occasion to refer to The Times, as we near the end of our debate this evening we can refer to The Times, again. We are promised on the front page of The Times today that we shall have a Green Paper on workers' participation by no less a person than the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I gather that the right hon.
      616
      Gentleman is travelling to Europe and back to seek inspiration. Why he could not get the same sort of inspiration from his fellow-countryman in the TUC I cannot imagine.
      That is not all. We are told that the message of particpation has even been received by the Secretary of State for Employment. Apparently he is now beavering away in the background with an enthusiasm which is terrible in its own wonderful way to behold. We are told that he has been exploring the options, whatever that might mean. We hope that he finds them. He has suggested that there should be three lines of advance in participation—namely, in control, in management going beyond the trade unions' tactical rôle and in ownership. I hope that he takes all lines of advance simultaneously if necessary. It may be thought by some that it will be a considerable improvement to have the right hon. Gentleman going in only three ways at once instead of his normal state of mind.
      We are not asking for exploration of the options or for suggested lines of advance. We want the Government to signalise their impending conversion to workers' participation by accepting the amendment. In that way workers will be consulted when it is proposed that the levy shall be withdrawn from their firm.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I had not realised that we were going to get into a sort of competition as to who could be keenest about workers' participation. It is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who the hon. Member for Lewisham. North (Mr. Moyle) seemed to infer had some form of reluctance, is a pioneer of such participation. He has probably been advocating share-ownership longer than any hon. Member. He has done so with some success. I must rebut any suggestion that he is not taking a keen interest in this matter.
      Mr. Prentice: Follow his example.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: But the amendment is not about share-ownership, nor is it a correctly worked out and considered plan such as that which my right hon. Friend advances on share-ownership. Of course, we are all being out-bidden by the Liberal Party. The right

      617
      hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has suddenly discovered the Code of Practice, which some of us have seen before. The right hon. Gentleman has put down a Ten Minutes Rule Bill. If ever there was an example of stealing your clothes while you are wearing them. that must be it.
      While I naturally appreciate what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North has said—this is a matter which was discussed in Committee in perhaps a rather oblique way—it would be wrong to rush into this proposition in a Bill of this kind. I accept the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is a wide matter. The proposition that an employer must consult representatives of his employees before he submits an application for exemption is an idea with which I have some sympathy. I do not think that it can be written into the Bill. However, it is certainly true that employers should consult their employees about training.
      10.45 p.m.
      The point is made specifically in the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, which says
      "managements should initiate and accept primary responsibility for these policies"—
      employment policies, which include training.
      "But they should be developed in consultation or negotiation, as appropriate, with employee representatives."
      The Code of Practice and I are both in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. But when it comes to including it in legislation why should we pick out the employer who wants to apply for exemption and require him to consult without requiring other employers to consult about their training arrangements? The need for consultation about training may well be greatest in the very firm whose training arrangements are not good enough to enable it to apply for exemption.
      I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intention, as I am sure every hon. Member has, but the question is far too wide. Before we have concluded our diligent studies on worker participation, which are proceeding, it would be wrong to try to apply the only half- or quarter-ripe fruits of those studies to a Bill of
      618
      this kind, so I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Moyle: There is a wide gap between worker participation and share ownership. I hope that that will be borne in mind in the preparation of the Green Paper.
      I am sorry to have embarrassed the hon. Gentleman by moving the amendment and showing the great gap between precept and practice in the Government's attitude. We await the Green Paper with bated breath, fairly confident that before the General Election there will be proposals for action afterwards that will never be carried out.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 27, line 27, at end insert:
      ';but for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this subsection a notice given in pursuance of this subsection shall be disregarded if the board subsequently informs the person to whom it was given that the notice is withdrawn'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Amendment No. 42, in page 40, line 29, at end insert:
      ';but for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this subsection a notice given in pursuance of this subsection shall be disregarded if the board subsequently informs the person to whom it was given that the notice is withdrawn'.
      This is merely a question of tidying up loose ends. Under the Bill as drafted it would be possible for a training board to issue a notice revoking a firm's exemption certificate if in the board's opinion the firm had not complied with conditions that the board has specified in the certificate. For example, an exemption certificate may be issued with the condition that the firm concerned sends certain of its employees on a particular training course. The board may then decide to issue a notice revoking the certificate if the firm fails to do so. However, at a later date the board may conclude that the circumstances of the firm have changed in one way or another so that attendance at that course is no longer appropriate.
      The amendments would permit the board to withdraw the revocation notice in those circumstances, and thus in effect restore the exemption certificate. It is

      619
      desirable that there should be this flexibility.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 32, line 29, after 'Act', insert
      'in subsection (2) the words "ought not to have been assessed to the levy or" and "rescind, or as the case may be" shall be omitted, and'.
      In Section 12(1) and (2) of the Industrial Training Act 1964 there is a requirement placed upon the Minister by regulations to establish
      "a tribunal or tribunals to determine appeals by persons assessed to any levy imposed under this Act".
      There is also a provision under the section giving to those tribunals the right either to reduce or rescind the assessment of levy.
      In the circumstances of the 1964 Act that may or may not have been a reasonable provision. I do not wish to argue that. I do want to argue that it is not a reasonable provision in the circumstances of this Bill. The Bill will require industrial training boards to pass some severe tests to obtain a minimal levy provision. If, having undergone all those tests and jumped all those hurdles, the board secures the right to a small levy within the industry in which it operates a person assessed to pay levy can go to the tribunal which has the right to wipe out that assessment for levy. The board will then receive nothing at all in respect of that firm.
      The amendment would limit the power of the tribunal to reduce the assessment and would remove from it the power to wipe out the assessment. Without knowing the criteria which the tribunal will take into account it is difficult to make any prophecy about how far the work of the tribunal could place a limitation upon the effectiveness of the board.
      Unless the Minister can give some fairly clear indication that he will, by regulation, tell tribunals the circumstances in which they should reduce or eliminate the assessment, I believe that the House would do well to accept the amendment and be wary about continuing the power of the 1964 Act. It would help if the Minister can give us this information and also tell us something about the manning
      620
      of the tribunals in these new circumstances. Without some assurance the House would do well to impose this limit on the tribunals.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. The industrial tribunals will not have anything to do with appeals against refusals to grant exemption certificates.
      Mr. Booth: I think the Minister must have misheard me. I was talking about assessment to levy.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I accept that the hon. Member did not mention exemption certificates. I wanted to get that on the record. But appeals on the straightforward factual questions of whether the amount of levy has been correctly calculated, or whether the firm is in the industry covered by the levy order, or whether the firm is not liable to levy because the levy order for example exempts employers whose employees' emoluments are less than a specified amount—appeals on these matters will continue to go to the industrial tribunals.
      If a levy assessment should never have been made for a particular firm, it is quite correct that the industrial tribunal should be able to rescind the levy assessment.
      There are two cases in which the need to do this is likely to arise. The first is where the board considers that a firm falls within its industry as defined in the industrial training order but the firm disputes this. To take a hypothetical example—and I stress this is a purely hypothetical example—the Air Transport and Travel Board might consider that a ticket agency fell within its scope because it was partly involved in travel agency work, and issue it a levy assessment. However, if the travel agency part of its work was only the minor function, the firm would not legally come within the scope of the board. If the ticket agency appealed to the tribunal and the tribunal felt that the travel agency work was only a minor function, it is right that it should be able to quash the levy assessment.
      Another example is where the levy order provides that small firms should be exempted from levy. It could happen

      621
      that a firm is small enough to be exempted but the board wrongly issues it with a levy assessment, possibly because the firm failed to supply the board with the right information about its payroll and the board had to make an estimate in the absence of better information. If the firm cannot persuade the board to withdraw the assessment, it is right that the firm should be able to appeal to the tribunal which could establish the facts and, if it transpired that the firm was small enough to justify exemption, could quash the assessment.
      The effect of the amendment would not be that the employer who was wrongly assessed for levy would be unable to obtain justice. He would not be able to obtain justice from the industrial tribunal, which would be the simplest and best way of doing so, but would be able to seek a remedy in the courts.
      I cannot advise acceptance of the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 33, line 20, after '(e)', insert:
      'In paragraph 10, after "may" there shall be inserted "giving preference to persons with experience in the industry chiefly concerned"'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in the recruitment of staff industrial training boards should give preference to people with experience of the industry with which the board is concerned. The philosophy behind the amendment—to use an industrial analogy—is that of an engineering firm which instead of employing a computer programmer and teaching him its brand of engineering so that he can write a computer programme for it sends one of its engineers to be taught how to programme computers.
      The argument can be made both ways, but on balance it is better that people with knowledge of a particular industry should be trained in the administration and mechanics of the board's work than that people who are experienced in management and administration should be taught the attitudes, practices and working ways of the industry.
      Some of the industrial training boards have been in existence long enough to have started to build their own equivalent of the Civil Service. I am the last to
      622
      deprecate the Civil Service, which is effective and efficient, but by its nature it can be divorced from a knowledge of industry. I should like to see far greater interchange.
      In the work of industrial training boards, in their development and ability to adapt to changes within industry, it would be of considerable value if in recruiting staff preference were given to people with practical experience in the industry concerned.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: There is nothing to which I take exception in what the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) says. It is good common sense, but it is unnecessary to write it into the Bill. The boards will realise this for themselves, and I am sure that in the main they will recruit people of the kind the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It would be unnecessary and undesirable to place any restriction on the boards' discretion to appoint staff in their own way.
      11.0 p.m.
      In the last year I have had a good deal of experience of boards and I am convinced of their calibre, common sense, and ability to choose the people they want. I can take no exception to anything the hon. Gentleman said, but it would be unnecessary and rather fettering to the boards to write this provision into the Bill.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No 36, in page 37, line 29, after 'proposals', insert:
      'in respect of a levy which have been'.
      No. 37, in page 37, line 41, leave out 'that section' and insert 'the said section 7'.
      No. 38, in page 38, line 48, leave out 'employed' and insert:
      'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.
      No. 39, in page 39, line 37, leave out 'employed' and insert:
      'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.
      No. 40, in page 40, line 4, leave out 'employed' and insert:
      'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.
      No. 41, in page 40, line 17, leave out- 'of its issue' and insert:
      'on which it comes into force'.
      No. 42, in page 40, line 29, at end insert:
      '; but for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this subsection a notice given in pursuance of this subsection shall be disregarded if the board subsequently informs the person to whom it was given that the notice is withdrawn'.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 48, line 40, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 44 and Amendment No. 46.
      Mrs. Fenner: I have the full support of the agricultural industry and its training board in moving this amendment, which gives the board access to essential information about the industry it serves. We are here concerned with the board's access to information collected under Section 78 of the Agriculture Act 1947, more generally known as the Agricultural Census. We propose a limited extension to the access which the board, again with the industry's agreement, has to this information so as to ensure that it enjoys equivalent facilities to other industrial training boards as regards the availability of statistical information so necessary for planning and research.
      Under paragraph 1(d) of Part III of Schedule 2 to the Bill, Sections 4 and 6 of the Industrial Training Act, which enable industrial training boards to impose levies and require returns of information from employers, are not to apply to the Agricultural Training Board. As the main reason for a statutory return—the levy—does not apply to the Agricultural Training Board, and as the kind of information which the board needs in planning and research to do its job is already available in the census, we concluded—the industry fully agreed with this—that it would be both unnecessary and undesirable to ask farmers to complete two separate returns embodying the same information. That is why the Bill seeks to remove from the Agricultural Training Board the power to issue a statutory return under Section 6 of the Industrial Training Act.
      But we cannot deprive the board of access to data necessary to plan its
      624
      courses and to carry out research. The effect of the amendment is to give the board access to the kind of data which it could obtain under Section 6, and it avoids the duplication of paper work for farmers to which I have already referred. To a limited extent already some census information can be disclosed to the board under Section 80(c) of the Agriculture Act 1947 which I am advised is confined in practice to the name and address of owner or occupier, the number and kind of livestock, and the area of crops and grass and of rough grazing. Information on the number of workers employed, the acreages and types of crops and above all the type of machinery could not be provided.
      If the board is to carry out its task effectively, we are convinced that it must have access to data of this kind. For example, if the board proposed to provide farmworkers with a course in the safe use of a particular machine it would need to know, not only which farmers employed workers, but also which of the holdings were equipped with the particular type of machine concerned. The information to be made available under this amendment is of a non-fiscal nature and the data supplied would be disclosed to the board only on application and for planning and research purposes.
      It is with the unqualified agreement of the industry that we ask the House to authorise us to disclose limited informaion in these limited circumstances and for those limited purposes.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 44, in page 49, line 10, at end insert:
      'Disclosure of information to Agricultural Training Board.
      2B. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of assisting the Agricultural Training Board in planning and carrying out activities (including research) connected with the functions conferred on it by section 2(1)(a) of this Act, disclose to the Board any information about—

      (a) the kind of crops grown on any land and the areas of land on which crops of any kind are grown; and

      (b) the number and description of persons employed on any land and employed on disposing of the produce of any land; and

      (c) the kinds of machinery used on any land,

      which has been furnished to him in pursuance of section 78 of the Agriculture Act 1947'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 49, line 11, at beginning insert:
      '(1) In section 3(1) of the Act after the words "section 2" there shall be inserted the words "or by virtue of section 2A"'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 47.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: These are very minor amendments. As the Bill stands, the Agricultural Training Board can only delegate to committee functions which it has under Section 2 of the 1964 Act. But the board may also under new Section 2A have certain functions connected with agricultural training which it carries out on behalf of the Agricultural Ministers. These amendments empower it to delegate to a committee any such functions which it may have by virtue of new Section 2A.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 52, line 44, at end insert:
      'Disclosure of information to Agricultural Training Board.
      2B. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of assisting the Agricultural Training Board in planning and carrying out activities (including research) connected with the functions conferred on it by section 2(1)(a) of this Act, disclose to the Board any information about—

      (a) the kind of crops grown on any land and the areas of land on which crops of any kind are grown; and

      (b) the number and description of persons employed on any land and employed on disposing of the produce of any land; and

      (c) the kinds of machinery used on any land,

      which has been furnished to him in pursuance of section 78 of the Agriculture Act 1947'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]
      No. 47, in page 53, line 6, after 'section 2', insert:
      'or by virtue of section 2A'.
      No. 48, in page 54, line 27, leave out Schedule 3.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

    Schedule 5

      REPEALS
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 59, line 17,
      626
      column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 2(1)(f)'.
      This again is a minor technical amendment which does not make any substantive alteration to the Bill.
      In Committee, Section 2(1)(f) was added to the list of repeals in the 1964 Act in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2, Part 1, but the necessary consequential amendment to add it to Schedule 5 was omitted. The amendment remedies that accidental omission.
      Mr. Harold Walker: This amendment marks the close of this further stage in the Bill's progress. I only regret that the hon. Gentleman was unable to say that he was making yet another amendment in response to our pleas in Committee. We appreciate the fact that he, along with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, has shown that he listened to some of our arguments in Committee. It is unfortunate that he did not listen to more of them. However, it is to be hoped that the Bill will return to us from another place showing that the Government have listened to us more carefully than they have until now.
      I wish the Bill a fair wind and Godspeed.
      Mr. Chichester-Clark: Perhaps I may be allowed to express my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his assistance. I am sorry that I have not been able to accommodate him in every way. But I have the entrenched feeling that that may be for the benefit of the Bill. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

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

  HANDICAPPED CHILDREN (SPECIAL SCHOOL PLACES)
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Cecil Parkinson: We have heard a great deal this year about the problem of children handicapped as a result of their mothers taking thalidomide tablets. On the day of the great debate in this Chamber, I visited a school on the borders of my constituency which specialises in helping handicapped children. In the course of that visit, I came to realise that although there is and has been a great deal of discussion about the problems of the thalidomide children there is a gigantic army of handicapped children in our country many of whom have problems which compare in their horror with those of the thalidomide children but which do not get the same discussion, the same coverage, or the same attention.
  I want to talk about the problem of the son of a constituent of mine, Christopher Capes. I want to talk about his problem in particular terms, and as an example of the large problem that exists in this country and with which we are not dealing in a very satisfactory manner.
  Christopher Capes is now 11 years old. When he was 2½ his parents realised that he was retarded, and he was taken to hospital. In 1967, when he was 5, he was transferred to a selection unit and there a first doctor advised that a residential school was desirable and necessary.
  A year later Mr. Capes received a notice under Section 34(4) of the Education Act informing him that his son had been classified as a member of category G and that
  "arrangements will therefore be made for the child's admission to a suitable residential school as soon as a vacancy arises."
  A later letter said that that vacancy was not likely to arise until Christopher was 7.
  One year later, in 1969, Christopher was examined by a third doctor, Dr. Weiss of the Steiner School, who said that he was a suitable child for admission to a Steiner school and that he should be admitted as soon as there was a vacancy.
  628
  In March 1970, by which time Christopher was 8, he had to be admitted to hospital since he was causing great physical damage to himself by punching himself on his cheeks until they bled, and in other ways. This was two years after the parents had been informed that Christopher should be educated in a residential school. Again, a fourth doctor said that he must be admitted to a residential school as soon as possible.
  In 1971 the parents had an interview with a representative of the chief education officer of Enfield, and after that there was an ominous silence.
  In October 1972 Mr. Capes came to see me. The last correspondence that he had had from the chief education officer was pretty specific. In a letter dated 7th June 1971, the chief education officer simply said:
  "… I have now heard from the Camphill-Rudolf Steiner-Schools that they cannot fore-see when a suitable vacancy for Christopher will arise. The situation appears to be that the class for Christopher's age group is overcrowded. There is, however, a chance that a parallel class in the age group might be started within the next two years".
  That class has not yet been formed.
  Therefore, the position is that over a period of nine years four doctors have said that this child should have residential education and everyone is in agreement. Indeed, the chief education officer of Enfield classified him as being a person in category G. It was at that point that I was contacted by Christopher's parents.
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and to the chief education officer of Enfield, both of whom not only promised to look into the matter, but wrote conciliatory and would-be helpful letters. But the plain fact is that nearly a year after that Christopher is still at home, is still not receiving the education that everyone admits he needs, and is five years older than on the day that it was first admitted he needed this treatment.
  The plight of Christopher and of his parents is tragic. One can imagine the chaos that his condition is causing in the home. Indeed, it is causing or is threatening to cause the breakdown of the family.
  I have since taken an active interest in the problems and education of handicapped children. The subject of this debate is Christopher as a particular case

  629
  against the background of the general problem of special places for educating handicapped children—I make no apology for devoting quite a long time to this specific case—and if we examine his case we find that he is an extreme example of a problem about which our society knows very little indeed.
  At present, there are 112,000 children in special classes, and it seems to be widely accepted that the number who should be receiving special treatment could be between 10 and 15 times that figure.
  The situation is getting worse. In January 1969, there were 13,000 children waiting for places, of whom 5,650 had been waiting for more than a year. There are now 14,900 children waiting for places, of whom more than 6,000 have been waiting for more than a year. Of that total, a high proportion are in the category of educationally sub-normal—five out of six, approximately.
  Immediately one starts to take an interest in the subject one runs into the fact that not very much is known about the size of the problem and also that it is very badly defined, and here we come to the heart of the matter. Mr. Segal, the President of the Guild of Teachers of Backward Children, said in a most interesting article in Where in May/June 1972:
  "The problems are as yet insufficiently well defined to enable training objectives and processes to be firmly and confidently established."
  We are not sure of the size of the problem. We do not know how the problem should be defined. We are working on 10 categories of handicap which were defined in 1959 which have been overtaken by medical and scientific knowledge and by events.
  The conclusion to which one is inevitably drawn is that what is needed is what the Conservative Party promised when we were in opposition, namely, a commission of inquiry into the whole problem. One fact which comes over very clearly as one studies the problem is that we do not have sufficient data and we do not know enough about how many children need help. The problem is not well defined, and therefore we do not know how to set about giving the help that is needed.
  630
  Other problems immediately spring to mind, but I do not want to go on about them. There is a complete lack of trained teachers, but that is hardly surprising. We do not know the size of the problem. and therefore it is not possible to make provision for an adequate supply of teachers. We know that local authorities are not seconding teachers to take the additional training that is necessary. In a recent survey of 31 local authorities. it was discovered that only 150 teachers a year were being seconded for special training—one teacher for every 184,000 pupils in those authorities—and yet we know that the number of children who need care is anything up to 10 per cent. of the number of children in schools.
  There is a real and desperate need, and I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will not deal only with the specific problem of Christopher Capes who is a very sad and very serious example of a national problem. If one considers the problem of Christopher Capes, and my own experience, over 18 months, of trying to help, one sees a pattern emerging. At first, there is an enthusiasm from my hon. Friend's Department and from the education department in Enfield, and one gets hopeful letters. Gradually one gets less hopeful letters, followed by silence, and then nothing happens.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will examine the problem of Christopher Capes. His is a case in which specific help is needed now, but it is a warning to us of the huge problem that the country faces. It is a problem that we do not seem to be prepared to face, and one for which we are not making adequate provision.
  I conclude with the cold medical note which the consultant psychiatrist sent to me. He said:
  "The consultant paediatrician in charge of this child recommended over two years ago that residential schooling was required urgently. Since then nothing has been done and there is a cumulative deleterious effect on the child and the whole family."
  That letter could have been written about tens of thousands of families in our country. It is time we started to take action and to ensure that the Christopher Capes of this world get a fair chance to develop the very limited abilities with which they have been born.
  11.21 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) on raising this issue. He has a special reputation in the House as a zealous constituency Member, and the fact that he has taken the trouble to raise this individual case is typical of his concern for his constituents.
  There are, of course, wider issues involved than that of one child, however important every child is. Special school populations contain many more children with multiple disabilities than was once the case. There are two reasons for this, both of which are creditable in their way. First, medical science is now ensuring the survival of some children with severe physical handicaps who would previously have died in infancy. Second, ordinary primary and secondary schools are managing to cope satisfactorily with more children whose handicaps are comparatively mild and straightforward.
  The boy whose sad circumstances have so tellingly been brought to the attention of the House tonight by my hon. Friend obviously presents acutely difficult problems of diagnosis and placement. Between 1964 and 1970, Christopher Capes was seen by a paediatrician and at least three psychiatrists. From those reports which I have seen it appears that none of them was confident about a diagnosis and their provisional views varied. Amentia, psychotic disturbance and autistic symptoms were all mentioned.
  It may be helpful if I say a word about autistic symptoms. The three most characteristic features in early childhood are usually considered to be a difficulty in forming relationships with other people, severe retardation in the development of language, and ritualistic and obsessive behaviour. Christopher has, I understand, exhibited all these traits. It will easily be understood how behaviour involving destructiveness and interference with almost every ordinary activity, resulting in a need for constant attention throughout the day and also at night, imposes a terrible strain upon the parents and, indeed, upon the whole life of the family. Mr. and Mrs. Capes, and their elder son, have carried an immensely heavy burden for the last 10 years.
  632
  What help have they received from the Enfield local education authority? The local child guidance clinic recommended as long ago as 1968 that Christopher should certainly be placed away from home. As my hon. Friend said, admission to a Rudolf Steiner school was sought, but it could not do more than place him as an urgent case on its waiting list. The LEA approached several other schools for mentally handicapped or maladjusted children in 1969 and 1970, but could not obtain a place for him. In the meantime, Christopher had in 1967 been transferred from a junior training centre under the local health authority to a so-called "selection unit", whose function is partly diagnostic but where some handicapped children stay for longer and receive skilled teaching. He is still at that unit.
  Two of the few encouraging documents about the case which have been sent to us by the Enfield authority were most perceptive reports written by the teacher in charge of the selection unit in 1968 and 1972. These showed that, along with some very bizarre behaviour, Christopher could be happy and co-operative at times and respond with warmth and affection. The last report said that altogether he seemed a much happier child than he was 18 months previously.
  I understand that the authority has arranged short-term care for Christopher during holidays, once or twice a year, to give the parents a much-needed break. The fact remains, however—and I am almost as aware of it as my hon. Friend —that five years after a strong recommendation was made that Christopher should be boarded away from home, he is still at home.
  What is my Department's attiude to this situation? We do not provide any schools, nor do we control placement in special schools run by local education authorities or voluntary bodies. No one can guarantee a suitable school place for a particular handicapped child, but what we are always willing to do, when asked, is to suggest some schools which seem worth approaching to see whether they can offer a vacancy. In this instance the Enfield authority never took the initiative in asking for the help of my Department. It was only when, in December of last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. West, in pursuit of his duties as

  633
  a Member of Parliament, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the case that we heard about it.
  After obtaining medical and other reports from the authority, officials then wrote to the chief officer, in January 1973, suggesting eight schools which might conceivably take Christopher, though we were handicapped by the fact that the last report sent from the Enfield child guidance clinic was dated 1968. None of the schools could offer a place. It seemed pointless to make any further suggestions until an up-to-date medical report was available. The psychiatrist at the Enfield clinic agreed to see the boy and his parents for the purpose on 17th May, and I have seen his report this morning. The psychiatrist is now confident about a diagnosis of mental subnormality and recommends a boarding school for severely mentally handicapped children.
  Now that we have this clear recommendation, we shall be glad to give all the advice and assistance we can, though there is a serious shortage of boarding places for the severely mentally handicapped. At least there are several options: boarding special schools, or independent schools, or hostels, run either by the education department or by the social services department of the local authority, where children can live while attending day special schools. Failing all else, there are hospitals, some of which have schools attached. If necessary, the co-operation of the social services department of the local authority must be sought in working out a residential solution.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the question of an inquiry. We do not need a general inquiry because we have had a whole series of particular investigations into various aspects of this subject. But I am aware that it is not only the situation of one child that we are discussing. We are discussing something of much wider importance to the community. I appreciate the fact that the parents of Christopher have agreed to the exposition of what to them must be painful facts in public in order to assist others who find themselves in a like position.
  I should like to put the facts about this whole situation in perspective. Governments of all complexions are frequently
  634
  criticised because of the length of the waiting list for special school places.
  In January 1972, the latest date for which figures are available, it was 14,900. What is often not realised is that, since 1955 at least, this figure has not gone down very much despite a substantial growth in the number of special school places provided. In the 15 years between 1955 and 1970 there was an increase of 31,800 children attending special schools, but the waiting list went down by only 2,400. This shows that the waiting list represents only the tip of the iceberg of need. Local education authorities tend to stop identifying more children as requiring special school places when their waiting list reaches a certain length.
  Now, however, the Government have announced in the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion" accelerated building programmes for special schools between 1972–73 and 1976–77, which should substantially reduce what we believe to be the genuine, as opposed to the announced, waiting list. The programmes should mean an average increase of some 30 per cent. in the annuol provision of new places in the next five years compared with the three previous years. Handicapped children should also benefit from the expansion of nursery education which is another prominent feature of the White Paper. Educationally sub-normal (severe) children will enjoy a high priority in the enlarged special school building programmes, including those in hospitals; and we hope that some 5,000 new places for these children, in addition to the replacement of unsuitable premises, should be started out of the resources announced in the White Paper.
  The contents of building programmes, however, depend on the nature of the proposals for new schools that LEAs submit. A remarkable proportion of the school places available for children with severe multiple handicaps are provided by voluntary bodies. We would welcome more proposals for special schools of this kind from LEAs. There are, of course, exceptional circumstances over provision for ESN(Severe) children. Until April 1971, when they were brought into the educational system, these children were the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security. LEAs naturally had to use the premises of the

  635
  former training centres for the new special schools that were created overnight. The transfer has gone very smoothly, and I should like to pay tribute to the deep interest taken by LEAs in this new group of handicapped children and their readiness to make generous provision for the education which is now the children's due.
  It has inevitably taken some time to assess the adequacy of the facilities available and so far the only boarding project submitted by an LEA for inclusion in a building programme has been a 12-place hostel providing for both groups of ESN children—medium and severe. This has been included in the 1973–74 design list, which will be issued in a week or ten days' time and will allocate resources totalling £11·5 million.
  I very much hope that more proposals for boarding places for ESN (Severe) children will reach the Department from LEAs for the next design list. Increasingly, too, we want boarding special schools to be planned to meet regional needs, instead of—as still too often happens—children being sent to the other end of the country because there is no suitable school with a vacancy nearer home. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the House in December 1972 that she was considering promoting a series of regional conferences at which LEAs would be invited to consider, with the voluntary bodies concerned, the needs for all types of handicap within their region. My right hon.
  636
  Friend added that the timing of such conferences would depend, amongst other things, on the progress of the local government reorganisation. I would expect these conferences to stimulate the regional planning of increased boarding provision for ESN (Severe) children.
  These are long-term aspirations which, when translated into bricks and mortar, will in the years to come benefit many children in great need. But Christopher, of course, requires help immediately, and, as I have said, we now have an up-to-date medical report on him, which we have just received, with clear-cut recommendations. I pledge to my hon. Friend that we will do all we can to help the Enfield authority to find a suitable placement for him and so provide relief for his hard-pressed parents. I assure my hon. Friend of my personal concern in this case.
  I thank my hon. Friend for having raised this case, which affects a particular family so intimately and profoundly. I thank him, also, for his action tonight, which has drawn the attention of the House to the plight of many children in a similar position to that of Christopher. This short debate will, I think, be a valuable contribution to improving the lot of those who suffer from such severe handicaps and need the help of the community in overcoming them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Alcoholism and Violent Crime
  Alcoholism and Violent Crime
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Missing Persons
  Missing Persons
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Marriage Law (Non-Christian Ceremonies)
  Marriage Law (Non-Christian Ceremonies)
  Departmental Organisation
  Departmental Organisation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia (Double Taxation Agreement)
  Rhodesia (Double Taxation Agreement)
  Extradition (EEC Reciprocity)
  Extradition (EEC Reciprocity)
  Scotland (EEC Statistics)
  Scotland (EEC Statistics)
ENVIRONMENT
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Rent Allowances
  Rent Allowances
  Road Accidents (Staffordshire)
  Road Accidents (Staffordshire)
  Operation Eyesore
  Operation Eyesore
  Council Housing (Gloucester)
  Council Housing (Gloucester)
  Toxic Pollution (Monitoring)
  Toxic Pollution (Monitoring)
  Public Health Inspectors (Vacancies)
  Public Health Inspectors (Vacancies)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Departmental Co-operation)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Departmental Co-operation)
  Listed Houses (Islington)
  Listed Houses (Islington)
  Football
  Football
  Bypass Schemes
  Bypass Schemes
DEFENCE
  Royal Radar Establishment
  Royal Radar Establishment
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Tank Gunnery Ranges, Lulworth
  Tank Gunnery Ranges, Lulworth
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Gas Explosions
  Gas Explosions
  Tourism (EEC Development Policy)
  Tourism (EEC Development Policy)
  Insurance (EEC Directives)
  Insurance (EEC Directives)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Skyvan
  Skyvan
  Lonrho Limited
  Lonrho Limited
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Procedure (European Economic Community)
  Criminal Procedure (European Economic Community)
  Violent Crime (Deaths)
  Violent Crime (Deaths)
  Police Uniforms (Sale)
  Police Uniforms (Sale)
  Robbery with Violence
  Robbery with Violence
  Motoring Offences (Cheadle)
  Motoring Offences (Cheadle)
  London Borough Elections
  London Borough Elections
  Bail (Applications)
  Bail (Applications)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Self-employed Farmers
  Self-employed Farmers
  Fishing Industry (North Sea Oil)
  Fishing Industry (North Sea Oil)
  Food (National Expenditure)
  Food (National Expenditure)
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  PERJURY
  PERJURY
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers of the Deaf
  Teachers of the Deaf
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons (Stockport)
  Disabled Persons (Stockport)
  Everton Football Club (Manager's Remuneration)
  Everton Football Club (Manager's Remuneration)
  Young Persons (Leek)
  Young Persons (Leek)
  Deaf School Leavers
  Deaf School Leavers
  Industrial Accidents (Liverpool)
  Industrial Accidents (Liverpool)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  House Prices (Belfast)
  House Prices (Belfast)
  Bail
  Bail
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospitals (Medical Appointments and Qualifications)
  Hospitals (Medical Appointments and Qualifications)
  Barncoose Hospital, Redruth
  Barncoose Hospital, Redruth
  Hospital and Local Authority Services (Co-operation)
  Hospital and Local Authority Services (Co-operation)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Disabled Persons (Chiropody Services)
  Disabled Persons (Chiropody Services)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Disabled Persons (Aids and Appliances)
  Disabled Persons (Aids and Appliances)
  Elderly Persons (Undetected Deaths)
  Elderly Persons (Undetected Deaths)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax (Museums and Galleries)
  Value Added Tax (Museums and Galleries)
WALES
  Railways
  Railways

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.
The Earl Peel—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Baroness Dudley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of her brother.

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

Matrimonial Causes Act.

Independent Broadcasting Authority Act.

London Cab Act.

Overseas Pensions Act.

Law Reform (Diligence) (Scotland) Act.

Education (Work Experience) Act.

Employment of Children Act.

Succession (Scotland) Act.

Land Compensation Act.

Mallaig Harbour Order Confirmation Act.

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act.

Forward Trust Act.

Upper Mersey Navigation Act.

E.E.C.: BENEFITS TO BRITISH PUBLIC
2.37 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what benefits have yet accrued to the British public from membership of the European Communities.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, membership of the European Communities brings econmomic benefits of increased growth and employment. Political benefits include the power to influence the world's trade and monetary arrangements, on which this country depends.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am much indebted to the noble Baroness for calling attention to benefits which I had not personally appreciated; neither had many of my noble friends. May I ask her whether she will give an explanation of two features of the situation? The first is that when we joined the Common Market dazzling hopes were held out to us that our exporters would have this great Market open to them, with great compensating benefit to this country. In fact, it seems that the boot has been on the other foot. During the first quarter of this year imports from Common Market countries have come flooding in and, while exports have also increased modestly, the net result has been that the adverse balance of trade has been very nearly doubled.
Secondly, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she can explain why her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on the radio the other day that it would be very wrong for him to mention any matters of definite benefit to ourselves? Can it be that it would be wrong because there are no such matters, and that therefore, if he were to try to list them, he would be making a statement which, in what I understand to be the current American idiom, would be inoperative?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords. In answer to the first question about the balance of trade, the noble Baroness will of course be aware that there has been a 20 per cent. reduction in customs duty between the old and the new Member-countries of the Communities, which has applied from April 1. Of course these

1193
tariff reductions help us both ways. They certainly help us to keep down the cost of living. But the fact is that now, after a decade of uncertainty as to Britain's economic and political future, confidence has at last been achieved for our companies to encourage investment. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, will realise that she cannot expect everything to happen in only five months. As regards the statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I am afraid that I do not have the advantage of an insight into my right honourable friend's mind, but the fact remains that there are many matters at present under discussion which will, I am quite sure, in time bring us very great benefits.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, did the noble Baroness have the pleasure this morning, anent the benefits of the Common Market, of listening to that wonderful little radio programme, "The Living World"? Had she listened this morning, she would have heard a yodelling blackbird. May it not be that that blackbird was a manifestation of things yet to come, and that as a result of our joining the Common Market British blackbirds will now be yodelling Tyrolean yodels?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I listen to the blackbirds every morning because I happen to live behind Smith Square; and I also listen to the owl.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure us that the new regional policy introduced by our Commissioner, Mr. George Thomson, will be more favourable to Britain than the national regional policy that we are abandoning?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that this matter is still under discussion in some detail. But it is also a fact that my noble friend the Leader of the House is to make a Statement later this afternoon.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to the tariff reductions from April I, and to the reductions—which some of us have not noticed—in the cost of living. Is it not remarkable that the retail price
1194
index rose during April by much more than it has risen for a number of years past?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it happens to be a fact that most of this rise, which is of course of great concern to us all, is attributable to increases in world prices and is not the result of our membership of the Community.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, arising out of the noble Baroness's Answer, could she enlighten your Lordships' House as to where, as a consequence of our entry into the Common Market, there has been a reduction in the cost of living?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the Government have no cause whatsoever to revise their estimate that joining the Communities would involve us in increases averaging about 2p in the pound every year of the six-year transitional period. The average has in fact been less.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in her first reply the noble Baroness said that, as a consequence of our entry into the Common Market, there had been a reduction in the cost of living. I asked the noble Baroness whether she would tell us where.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR BELHELVIE: My Lords, I regret to say that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, could not have been paying his usual attention to what I said. Therefore, perhaps I may repeat it. I said:
"Membership of the European Communities brings economic benefits of increased growth and employment",
and that the
"Political benefits include the power to influence the world's trade and monetary arrangements, on which this country depends."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness now refer to her answer when she originally referred to the cost of living?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, on the cost of living I said that most of this rise is attributable to increases in world prices.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the last thing I would do, or dare to do, is to accuse

1195
her of being dishonest; but would it not be more honest and fair to the British public to admit that so far no benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom and the people of this country? Would it not be far better to say that? Indeed, when she replied to my noble friend Lady Wootton and said that joining the Common Market brings benefits, did she not in fact mean that so far there have been no benefits, but that she has faith that some day benefits will accrue?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I have faith that in the future greater benefits will accrue; but I said that we have at last got rid of the uncertainty as to Britain's future. One can see there is increased investment; one can see that there are more jobs available; and one can also see, if one looks around and is not prejudiced in this matter, that this is partly due (I was very modest about it, of course) to this Government's policies.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply about more jobs being available, but if that is due to our entry into the Common Market and members of Her Majesty's Government take credit for more jobs being available, they are not telling the whole truth.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I did not mention the Government's policies until the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, mentioned that matter himself, but I will certainly now take credit, as he suggests, for the Government's policies, which have brought about a continued growth rate of over 5 per cent.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are some Members on this side of the House who still have faith in the long-term benefit to the standard of living of the people in this country of our entry into the E.E.C.?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, may I say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, because we also have great faith, which he shares, in the final success of our joining the European Community.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, may I just say this? I do not wish to stand between the noble Baroness and the House for more than a second, but I think it would be right, after the noble Baroness has put her second supplementary, if we passed on; otherwise, this discussion on long-term and short-term will certainly be continued in the long-term.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be good enough to tell me when I may again put down this Question, with the hope of a more optimistic Answer? Would she not also think it wise to inform her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that, since she is not afraid to mention the benefits that she sees, he might speak with the same voice, so that the Government may for once be speaking unanimously?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the Government always speak unanimously. Just occasionally some of us are more optimistic than others.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness answer the first part of my supplementary? When may I put the Question down again?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, naturally, I shall be glad to answer any Question which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, puts down, but perhaps she would give us a little more time than five months.

CHANNEL TUNNEL AND MAPLIN SEAPORT PROJECTS
2.48 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent the estimated European traffic from the proposed new Maplin Seaport was taken into account when estimating the revenues and traffic of the proposed new Channel Tunnel and where these estimates can be found

1197
in the published Green Paper on the Channel Tunnel project.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT: (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, no firm detailed proposals have yet been submitted for a Maplin seaport, but it is expected that it would be used primarily for deep-sea cargoes. The extent to which a container berth there for European cargoes might attract traffic was not specifically estimated by the Channel Tunnel consultants, who did, however, consider competition from all the East Anglian and Thames Estuary ports taken together.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is it not a strange way to come to a decision, when we have two immense projects like these, for one to be considered without any consideration of the effect of the other? Can we not expect that, before Parliament is asked to vote sums of money for further steps to the Channel Tunnel, we shall have some estimate as to what the effect will be of the Maplin seaport?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think my original Answer indicates that the competition from all East Anglian and Thames Estuary ports was weighed by the consultants. I am conscious that I owe the noble Lord a letter on the more detailed aspects of the interaction between these two projects, which I hope to be able to send him within the next week or so; but his next Question deals with all the other studies about which we need further information before coming to a decision.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, while the noble Lord says that the effect or the interaction of the traffic from other seaports was taken into account, is it not a fact that when those estimates were made Maplin was specifically excluded; and if one takes into account what his right honourable friend Lord Aldington said the other day about the proposed new traffic from the Maplin seaport, is this not a mistake?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; I do not think so. The traffic and the demand for port facilities on both sides of the Channel is there already. The addition of a seaport at Maplin would
1198
make some difference, but in so far as it is primarily designed for deep sea cargoes it will not make a very great difference. But the total traffic analysis was made by the consultants.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would not a seaport at Maplin also affect the rest of the ports along the Thames by virtue of the fact that it is abundantly clear that many of the very large bulk ships now being built will not be able to get to the traditional ports but will have to go to Maplin and elsewhere at the mouth of the Thames? Will that fact be taken into consideration at the same time as the change of traffic routes is considered?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords. The interaction on all the different ports in East Anglia and the Thames Estuary will have to be weighed and certainly before approval is given under Section 9 of the Harbours Act on the basis of the review by the National Ports Council. But that is rather a different point from the one which arises from the original Question.
known their views on these studies as

CHANNEL TUNNEL: STUDY RESULTS
2.51 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they now expect to publish the results of all the various further studies on the Channel Tunnel to which reference was made in the Green Paper and, in the light of the debate in the Upper House, what is now the proposed timetable for the publication of a White Paper and for the First Reading of any relevant Bill.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, a summary of the results of the economic and financial studies was published by the British Channel Company last week; a fuller report will be available soon.
The full report of the study on the economic and social implications for Kent was published on Monday. Further material will be published as it becomes available. The Government will make

1199
known their views on these studies as soon as possible. If their view is that it would be worth proceeding to the next phase of the project, financial powers for that purpose will be sought from Parliament during the current Session.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, first may I ask about these reports resulting from these other studies. In what form are they being made available? In what form was this study made available on Monday? Is it being issued by the Government, or not? To what extent is Parliament being officially informed of these studies? That is the first question I wish to ask the noble Lord. My second point is that when he says Parliament will be asked to legislate within the current Session, my Lords, the Session may well go on until next October or November. Does the noble Lord mean October or November, or is he still sticking to the July date?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first question I have a copy of the second report I referred to which I shall be glad to give to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, if he has not already seen it. As regards the other studies mentioned, the likelihood now is that the results of these—and the results of all other studies needed—will be summarised and issued in one form or another by the Government before Parliament is asked to come to a decision about going to the second phase. The noble Lord will have seen from Chapter 9 that a target date of July 31 is mentioned, but in the same paragraph it is also mentioned that it may be possible for this date to be slightly postponed; and so far as the timetable is concerned, I have nothing to add at this stage.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have read Chapter 9. It says that the target date is July 31, with the possibility of postponement. I have put down a Question now in order to get further information and to find out whether there is to be a further postponement. The point on which I am asking the noble Lord to be more precise is this: when all these various studies are collated and published by the Government, as apparently they are to be, together with comments by the Government, are we really to have time before Parliament is asked to approve any next step?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is the Government's hope and expectation that the programme we are working to can be fulfilled. But I would give the categorical assurance that Parliament will not be expected to take a decision or to grant further financial powers until the key results of the studies referred to have been assembled and made available, and time has been allowed for discussion in public as well as in Parliament.
LORD DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, first, that we are grateful for the latter part of that answer? Secondly, is he aware that it is not good enough to say to any speaker from the Opposition Front Bench, or any other Front Bench, that a copy of a document will be available for him? Will these papers be available in the Printed Paper Office? Thirdly, when these studies are made may we be given some more information about a bridge, especially in view of the fact that British bridge builders have now won a £15 million contract for building over the Humber Estuary a bridge with a 4,266-foot span and with a four-lane toll way for traffic at the rate of 50,000 vehicles a day? May we have facts about whether British bridge builders also put in a contract for building a bridge over the Channel? There is no need to knock the Tunnel. Those two holes under the sea may be needed, but let us at least encourage the idea of a bridge for the future.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we have had a whole debate on the Channel Tunnel and quite a bit of that strayed into the question of a Channel bridge, but this subject does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper today.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to answer two further questions? First, today being May 23, is it possible to say quite categorically that Parliament is not going to be asked to take legislation through two Houses by July 31 when, as of this day, we have still to see the result of all these further studies? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether these various studies, which he tells us are to be collated, will include an estimate of the capital cost of improving the rail access to the Tunnel from London; and to what extent will any development of the rail services to the

1201
Tunnel terminal be delayed as a result of the cuts announced yesterday which affect surface transport?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the information which has to be laid before Parliament before it can take a decision about the next phase, and before it can be asked to grant any further financial powers, will include the scale and nature of railway investment and improvements to rail access between London and the Tunnel terminal. I cannot be more categorical than I was just now when I said that Parliament will not be expected to take a decision on either of these matters until the key results are available and time has been allowed for discussion. Of course, Parliament is sovereign on the question of whether it has been given enough time or not.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred to the recent debate on the subject. Can he say whether the estimated cost has increased since that debate? Will he recall that the noble Lord, Lord Harcourt, made a statement which surprised Members of your Lordships' House, when he declared that the estimated cost had increased by about 100 per cent.? Can the noble Lord say whether there has been any increase in the estimated cost since that debate?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords, there has not. What has happened is that the details of its computation have been published and are available for all to see.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, will the studies include the estimated capital cost of converting British transport, bridges and so on in order that Continental rolling stock—I know it is the same gauge but it has wider load limits—can pass over the British railway system?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords. That is one of the things included in by general remark that the scale and nature of railway investment for the improvement of access between London and the Tunnel terminal will be among the matters to be made available.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, can the Minister give any further information about whether the material facts required
1202
have yet been collated and published in a prescribed and readable form? If so, what information is still outstanding and not already in the hands of the Government?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I hope I understood the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, right in thinking that he asked whether my right honourable friend now has from British Rail the information which he has asked for. The answer is, "Yes". It is being studied, collated, assembled and considered.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord; but, with all respect, it is now nearly 3 o'clock and we are still on our third Question. I know that this is an important matter and it rightly engages your Lordships' attention; but we debated it at length only three weeks ago. I would suggest, with deference, that perhaps it is now time we moved eastward to the Indian subcontinent.

PAKISTANI CITIZENS AND BRITISH ELECTIONS
LORD BARNBY: 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 why the situation which allowed Pakistanis to record votes at the recent elections has not yet been regulated, when aliens are not allowed to vote and Pakistan is a foreign country.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, it is in the course of being regulated. The effect of the Pakistani Bill, which was introduced in another place on May 14, will be that Pakistan citizens who do not also hold the citizenship of a Commonwealth country will not be entitled to vote at elections held after February 15, 1974.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since this Question was put down before the Bill was introduced yesterday in another place, may I, with the indulgence of the House, ask the Minister (as I admit to not having had time to read the whole of yesterday's Parliamentary proceedings in another place) whether the Bill, which presumably establishes legally beyond

1203
question that aliens did vote in the Elections, also confers immunity against possible claims of invalidation in the Elections in which such votes were cast?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, my noble friend and the House will have to wait until tomorrow for the full report. The OFFICIAL REPORT of another place only got as far as 10 o'clock and will continue reporting the subject in to-day's issue. My noble friend's premise is wrong. Aliens they may have been, in loose terms, but until this Bill is law they will, for the purposes of elections, continue to be Commonwealth citizens. Although this is a very complicated subject and one I should not wish to try to deal with by question and answer, I think the full situation will become more apparent if my noble friend reads yesterday's debate.

E.E.C. COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETING
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with leave, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. on the recent meeting of the E.E.C. Council of Ministers.
HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a;, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT BILL [H.L.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Carrington, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable women to serve in the Ulster Defence Regiment, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a;.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

ADULT EDUCATION: THE RUSSELL REPORT
3.5 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE rose to call attention to the Russell Report on Adult Education; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. If all the noble Lords who were kind enough to write to me expressing their regret at not being able to take part in this debate had been in their places we should possibly have been continuing until after midnight. Perhaps fortunately, some noble Lords have not been able to be here, although we much regret that they will not be able to make their contributions. I hope it will not be thought invidious if I mention only one whose absence I particularly regret; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Hands-worth. He would have made a particularly valuable contribution to our debate.
My Lords, it may seem early to be debating a Report which took almost four years to produce and which saw the public light of day only on March 27 this year, but I believe it is none too soon to begin stirring up the Department, drawing the attention of the Ministers concerned to the recommendations of this Report and asking them for at least their first reactions. Sir Lionel Russell. the Chairman, and his colleagues who produced this document were themselves in no doubt that in this particular sector of education the lead must come from central Government. They devote a whole section of their Report to this topic and, I believe, with good reason; for while justification for their demand is firmly based on the provisions of the 1944 Education Act, unless the present Secretary of State is prepared to give a clear lead there is some danger that the Report may be regarded as largely a waste of effort.
The reason why I say that is simple. It is that while the Report, to my mind rightly, opts for a continuation of the partnership between statutory and voluntary bodies, the resources required for pump priming in this field must come largely from the centre. Neither the voluntary bodies nor the local education authorities can generate these resources

1205
unaided, so a lead from the top is essential. This is not just a matter of cash, important as that is; it is also a question of recognition—of status, if you like. Adult education has been for all too long the Cinderella in the educational world and it is surely time that that attitude was changed. I understand that some steps have already been taken within the Department. I hope that either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord—and I am delighted that both are to take part in the debate—will confirm the point made in paragraph 160 of the Report, that part of the general uncertainty about the priority accorded to adult education derives from the fact that it had no obvious place in the administrative structure of the Department. I hope that this point has been, or is being, met. I hope also that the same can be said about the strengthening of Her Majesty's inspectorate referred to in the succeeding sub-paragraph. I have given the Minister notice that I would raise this point and I hope, therefore, that I shall have specific answers on these particular matters.
I think it would be fair to say that the Report generally has had what might be termed a rather tepid reception. One should differentiate between what one might call the "trade Press", which is more clearly aware of its undoubted merits, and the generality of newspapers, who wanted a great State Paper and did not find one. After Crowther, Robbins, Newsom and Plowden, I think they felt somewhat let down. Nevertheless, we have concrete evidence that there is widespread interest in this sphere of education, and there can be no better proof of this than the fact that the first print of the Report, 10,000 copies, was, I understand, sold out within the first couple of days and a second print of 15,000 was immediately put in hand. That, I am sure, must have been gratifying to the members of the Committee who for so long laboured to produce it.
I must admit that on reading the Report I was reminded of the quotation from William Blake, used recently by Dame Margaret Cole at a Fabian dinner in her honour:
"He who would do good, must do it in minute particulars."
This seems to have been the motto of those who drafted the Report. There are certainly moments when one wishes that they had switched to Emerson and hitched their wagons to a star. It would have been more exhilarating. There are advantages, when engaged in selling a product, in making the customer feel that he is buying something exciting. What the Russell Committee have concentrated on is assuring the customer about getting value for money. This they have done very successfully, and herein lies the merit of their careful and thorough analysis, their costing, their refusal to look in detail too far ahead and their determination not to be lured into anything remotely resembling romanticism.
For those who already know something of the value of adult education that makes this Report peculiarly satisfactory. One can rest assured that, within the limits set by the Committee's rather narrow (as I think) terms of reference, and by their own approach, what the Russell Report says can be relied on. It is, as its authors intended it to be, a sound base for administrative advance, both departmentally and at local level. The truly remarkable conclusion which they have reached, given in outline in paragraph 4 of their general recommendations on page X, is that we spend on adult education barely 1 per cent. of the national education budget and that this amounts to less than £10 per head per annum on the 2 million or so adult students currently attending classes. I hope that the Minister may be able to give us more up-to-date figures than those that were available to the Committee, but according to their calculations this expenditure has been running at about £16 million per annum by the local education authorities and about £1·4 million per annum by the Department of Education and Science.
The Committee's detailed proposals, for which they undertook, I think, a very careful exercise of costing, extending over the next five to seven years, would involve an increase to a figure of the order of some £38 million for local education authorities and to around £2·65 million for the Department. All these costings which I have given are in terms of 1968–69 prices. For this proposed very modest increase, taken in relation to our total expenditure on education, one

1207
could double the number of beneficiaries, and in the view of Sir Lionel and his colleagues, which I believe to be very well founded, we could thus secure one of the best bargains in terms of value for money in the whole field of education.
I fully recognise that after Mr. Barber's razor cuts announced on Monday this is hardly the most propitious moment to ask for more of anything, but I firmly believe that the Russell Committee were right. Education for those who left school at 15, or even younger, is an essential element in our social fabric which I believe we shall neglect at our peril. Rising economic benefits can turn into Dead Sea fruit if people have not the range of skills and interests needed to enjoy and develop their more prosperous lives. People whose jobs are less than satisfying need to find achievement outside their work or they will prove either troublesome or apathetic at work. Management and workers need enough common background of knowledge to be able to communicate intelligently. Our community life calls more and mare for men and women with enough knowledge and understanding to be able to put forward grievances, and proposals for remedying them, articulately and convincingly. They need to be capable of putting a case in terms which will compel attention.
At present, community activities are far too much the prerogative of the middle classes who become spokesmen without always understanding the true aspirations of those whose needs and wishes they seek to represent. I think this was brought out most strikingly by Mr. Jack Jones, General Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union, in a notable address at the Workers' Educational Association Conference in Harrogate ten days ago. He emphasised that the vast majority of ordinary people find decisions being taken for them by other people who do not always know much about them, leading to the perpetuation of the "us" and "them" division in our society. The only way to break this barrier is to give working people greater skill and hence greater confidence in themselves, and this I believe to be the main and primary job of adult education.
But there is also a compensatory aspect. In recent years the emphasis in educa
1208
tional circles has been strongly on the deprived child. In the urban aid programme and the designation of educational priority areas, in the recent move forward in nursery and other pre-school age provision, the disadvantaged child has been in the centre of the stage. But surely, my Lords, the main lesson of the Russell Report is that the deprived child grows up into the deprived adult. Newsom spoke of "Half our Future" in that most graphic Report on the children of what were then the secondary modern schools. My Lords, we have with us at the moment far more than "half our present" among the adults who have not had the full benefits of education which some of us have enjoyed; and throughout life, not just during the school years, the deficiencies which one has failed to make good in childhood persist. Therefore one of the objectives of adult education is to repair, so far as one is able so to do in later life, these disadvantages of the earlier years.
There is another group of people, not perhaps noticeably disadvantaged in their social or family background, who are simply late developers. At the right moment in school, or possibly later in life, they are just not ready to take advantage of opportunities offered to them. Later on they wake up and realise what they have missed. Then there are those who have specific disabilities for which special training for long periods of life may be required. So in terms of social investment we need adult education as compensation for earlier deprivation, for disability or as a second chance if one has let the first chance go by.
Finally, my Lords, there is the wider concept of education as a continuing process for everyone—"permanent education" (and I quote from the French expression) does not seem to me a very happy phrase in English, but it surely does not take a very great effort of imagination to realise how much richer and happier the lives of many men and women could be if from time to time they could immerse themselves in learning or improving skills or interests connected with their working lives, their community lives or their domestic lives. There is a good deal of discussion going on internationally, at the I.L.O. and elsewhere, among representatives of the more advanced industrial countries about the need sometime during

1209
one's working life of the equivalent of the academic sabbatical—in other words, of some interlude of paid study leave not necessarily directly related to qualifications for one's job. This is a fairly recent idea, but I think it is one which may well prove to be a testing one for our progress in civilisation.
My Lords, in preparation for this debate I wrote to every member of the Russell Committee (except Sir Alfred Owen who is so gravely ill that he is not able to deal with correspondence) and I asked for their reactions to the comments made since publication of the Report. One recurring theme in the replies which I have received was that one should scotch the notion that all the Report does is to propose ways and means of securing a little more of what we have already. Of course more of what we have already is needed, and the Committee has put forward very practical suggestions of how it can be achieved at minimal cost, particularly if the fullest use is made of existing and newly designed buildings and equipment. But, though couched in sober language, the Report also shows full awareness of the fresh thinking and experimentation which in the last few years particularly has become evident, though so far often confined to a few places where local enthusiasts have blazed the trail. The term "adult education" (and I wish we could find a better one: I find it off-putting, but we know what it means) covers every gradation from the Open University and the degree equivalent standard of some university extra-mural classes to local community groups concerned with pre-school playgroups, tenants' associations, women's institutes, Oxfam or what ever it may be.
One recent trend is the recognition that much of our expensive infant and primary education is partly wasted because parents, particularly mothers, who in the early years see most of the child, simply do not know how to reinforce the work of the schools or how to foster and encourage youthful interests. If ever educational investment could be expected to pay dividends it would be through education, however informally arranged, of mothers of disadvantaged children. Even a cursory glance at the National Child Development Study, From Birth to Seven, which is, I am sure, familiar to many of your Lordships,
1210
shows how desperately far we are from being one nation in this matter of childhood opportunity. Concentrating on the children is not enough. We must also concentrate on the homes.
As someone who has been a supporter of the Workers' Educational Association all my adult life, but not actively in touch in recent years, I have been much encouraged to receive up-to-date information which shows that this great pioneer body is at length bestirring itself and recognising that its conventional pattern of classes, which has become more and more beamed to the professional or semiprofessional person, is not enough. It is now trying energetically to move back into the workplace, at any rate in London and Oxford, as I have no doubt the noble Baroness is aware, with industry-based branches, and trying to meet many groups on their own chosen ground of interest, such as branches of the National Association for Mental Health and the Child Poverty Action Group.
These moves, to my mind, are admirable, but one does not have to read far between the lines to sense that such enterprises are still very thin on the ground. I hope that the Minister will refer to the grant arrangements, by which more resources could be made available for development work of this kind, without differentiating too closely between actual teaching, organising and informal development work. I believe that the pattern of grant might make a great deal of difference to the kind of advances that could be made: and the current regulations, as I understand it, do not entirely fit the case.
My Lords, I should like to refer now to one particular sphere of interest of my own, a small, but I think important, sector of adult education; namely, the long-term residential colleges, of which I suppose Ruskin College at Oxford is the best known. I have strong personal links with our Welsh equivalent, Coleg Harlech. This was founded by my father nearly fifty years ago, and I believe was the first to use the phrase, "the college of the second chance". My father, while still a full-time civil servant, as Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, put his great energies into starting this college, with the help of his more wealthy friends, because he felt so passionately that while he, after some years in industry, had been

1211
able to reach university, so many gifted young people had no hope of doing so. This he felt was a great loss to the nation, as well as to themselves.
Nowadays, it may be said that the pattern has changed. There is a broader road of opportunity. But our experience in the residential colleges shows that there are still many adults who have ability but who need the intensive tutoring given by the residential colleges to enable them to jump the gap later in life if they have failed to take the straightforward path earlier on: and this failure can be due to all kinds of complex circumstances. Such people cannot do all that is needed simply by going to the local technical college or polytechnic; nor can everyone cope with the pattern of study of the Open University, admirable though that is for some people. So I was much encouraged by the tribute paid by the Russell Committee to the small band of residential colleges. They are few in number, but serve an essential purpose of very high quality teaching: and I would support the view of the Committee that a further college is needed to complete the picture in the North of England. I hope that the Government may also be willing to support this proposition. I wish, frankly, that the Russell Committee had come down much more strongly in favour of mandatory student grants for these residential colleges, as the preent system of discretionary grants leads to the most gross injustice as between one student and another. At the very least, I hope that the Government will pay attention to the proposals put forward in the Report for the pooling of money for student grants for these colleges.
My Lords, I will not detain the House on the particular references to Coleg Harlech in its Welsh context made by one of the members of the Committee, Mr. Tom Ellis, M.P., in his personal addenda to the Report, beyond saying that we have always recognised the College's particular duty to Wales, that the number of Welsh students has been consistent, but that the proportion has dropped somewhat recently with the overall increase in our numbers, partly because certain English L.E.A.s are generous with grants and certain Welsh ones are less so.
In conclusion (and I am leaving a wide untouched field for noble Lords who are to follow in the debate), I come back to where I started, to the responsibility of Central Government in this matter. I know only too well as a former Minister how the shadow of expenditure cuts can blight the most progressive of Departments. But these things pass, and one must always be prepared to seize the opportunity swiftly when the cloud lifts. If one is not prepared, the shadow is likely to descend again before one has made the desired advance. It is in this context that, on behalf of the whole adult education movement in this country, statutory and voluntary, I urge the Secretary of State to come forward with an unequivocal commitment to the cause of adult education. The right honourable lady knows as well as anyone that there are areas where advance is essential if we are to maintain the quality of our community life, and, if I may say so, if the dialogue between Government and the working people of this country is to have any chance of successs. Fully responsible citizens cannot be produced even with a school leaving age of 16. Much more is required.
As an earnest of intent, I hope that we may have to-day an assurance that, while it is too soon to expect acceptance of the Russell recommendations in full, or even maybe in part, there will be acceptance of what the Committee members assure me is crucial; namely, their recommendation for the setting up of a National Development Council for Adult Education. I would hope, in passing, that there could be special, but not entirely separate, provision for Wales. This will not cost money; this is not affected by the Barber cuts. But it is an essential prerequisite of any real move forward. Given this declaration, consultations can proceed with the bodies concerned. Without such a declaration, the whole effect of the Russell Report may be stultified. I give notice that this request will be forthcoming. I confidently hope that either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in addressing the House will be able to give us the assurances that we seek. If we have this assurance as a preliminary, as I have said, as an earnest of intent, then I think the members of the Russell Committee will feel

1213
that their work has been worth while; those who labour in this field will be encouraged, and we shall be able confidently to proceed with our efforts to build a more civilised, a more equitable and a more progressive society in this land. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, before speaking to this Motion I ought I think to confess an interest. I am proud to be the president of Hillcroft College, an adult college for women, and also chairman of the Morley College Council, a literary institute just the other side of the river, and therefore I am speaking in this debate to plead the cause for adult education with an unashamedly partisan approach. I shall also, if your Lordships will forgive me, illustrate what I have to say by incidents of a more personal kind than perhaps are normally used in debates of this sort.
I welcome the Russell Report, although like the noble Baroness, Lady White, I am aware of its limitations, part of which are due to its terms of reference. I welcome it because it asks for a national development council for adult education, and perhaps most important of all because it asks for more money. But, my Lords, I am a realist, and even if there had not been the cuts of this week I know that claims for more money for adult education have to compete with claims for more money from many other sectors, within the education system and outside, and I do not believe, powerful though the advocacy of the Russell Report is, that there is very much hope of getting the money that is needed for adult education unless there is a change of view as to what adult education is really all about and what the function of adult education is within the educational system and in our society as a whole.
Of course there are many informed persons and enthusiasts who know what is really happening and what needs to happen inside the field of adult education, but to the great mass of people I suspect that adult education still suggests the paternalist "do-gooding", the unashamed paternalist "do-gooding" of our Victorian ancestors; and of course somebody has to be the father, and I
1214
have never quite seen why it was wrong to do good. But nonetheless the constitution, now to be revised, ninety years old of the college with which I am associated, talks about the provision of education for the working classes, in a way which does not meet with great applause at the present time. Or if adult education is not seen in those terms, then to many people it means the jingling sounds of the country dance. And yet, my Lords, I would suggest that, on the contrary adult education has a function at the present time which cannot be fulfilled by any other instrument inside the educational service or without it. It is a cliché to say that we live in an era of violent and disturbing change: change at work, change within the family, change in human relationships, change in values and beliefs, and in these circumstances it is not surprising that many people lose their way. But while this is a generation of violent change it is also a generation of unprecedented opportunity, and the function of adult education is to enable people who have lost their way to find it and to find the opportunities that are all around them.
May I illustrate the kind of groups of people to whom adult education comes as a form of rescue and of enlightenment, and as an opportunity? I was talking a little while ago to a young man who had taken an honours degree in chemistry, and he said to me, "You see I cannot write"—it was all too obvious. He said, "In the whole of my university career I wrote only two pieces of written work", and indeed he had no vocabulary. Such a man, who will sooner or later fill a very responsible position in industry, needs educating as urgently as many a late developer who did not get to the university, to supplement the studies that he had had up to the age of 22.
Then there are the women who are at home for a period of time bringing up their families. It is a universal experience that they lose their confidence and their nerve while they are at home. They wish to keep up their interests, to return to work, but they do not know how to do it. For such people, there are the kind of classes that one of the colleges with which I am associated provides, mid-day classes, when the younger children and the husband are out, where it is possible for them, because we have a creche, to

1215
leave the children well cared for, to buy themselves a cheap meal in the college canteen, and to spend a couple of hours keeping themselves "in the swim", keeping themselves in touch with the adult world and adult thinking, keeping themselves in a situation which makes it easy for them to return either to the world of work or to civic or other responsibilities when they are freer from the family duties. Again, may I illustrate: a woman in her fifties who left school at 14, as is often the case, described to me how she had suddenly realised that there was such a place as an adult college for women where she could go for a year, where she could fill in some of the deficiencies in her general education, where she could discover that she had abilities that she had never known she possessed, whence she went to take a two year course at the university and is now filling a responsible industrial position. Then again, for people facing retirement, unexpected leisure at an earlier or later age, such colleges are providing specially devised courses which enable them to use the years of retirement as a period of opportunity rather than for it to be a period of wasting decay.
I would say that, much as I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, that adult education is an opportunity for people who are deprived of education beyond the age of 15, it is a good deal more than that today; indeed, it provides a remarkable outer conscious opportunity for the mixing together of people of many classes and backgrounds drawn by the common interest which they find provided inside the adult education college. In the college with which I am most closely connected you will find in the art classes and in the opera classes, which happen to be a speciality of that particular college, people who have had no education since leaving school; you will find in the same classes the wives of Ambassadors, and indeed a Member of your Lordships' House. This is because these are interests that they all share; it calls the bluff to much of the nonsense that is talked to-day about class, and it is a way of overcoming it. It makes it clear that there are values and interests that people with all manner of background are able to enjoy together. This is one of the great opportunities that adult education has to offer.
1216
My Lords, it is surely plain that work of this kind demands talent of a high and rare order among those who are responsible for it. It is, I submit, in many ways far more difficult to plan and maintain a successful adult college with the advantages but also the problems of so much freedom in the educational field, with no prescribed examination system, no predetermined course, the need to analyse what is wanted by your students, and to provide it and to keep changing the provision as the need arises. This requires people who have themselves a wide and deep education, and to-day people who have both a wide and deep education are not so very easy to find. It requires also imagination to understand what many different types of people are seeking; and it requires administrative skill and effort, as well as educational knowledge, in order to be able to provide it.
Is it not ridiculous that people doing this kind of work are regarded as very much the lesser lights in the educational field and are paid accordingly? In the college to which I have particularly referred, although there are over 4,000 registered students there are only four full-time members of staff. All the rest of the facilities are provided by part-time tutors; and anyone who has had anything to do with the provision of education knows what that means. We are asking from these people a quite exceptional service, but we are not regarding it as an exceptional contribution that we are making; nor are we paying it in this way. Therefore I am very glad indeed that the Russell Report has asked for more resources for building and for a quite new view of what is required in terms of staffing and salaries in adult education. I very much hope, with the noble Baroness, Lady White, that with a new name attached to it, and one that describes far better the contribution it is really making, out of the Russell Report, and out of the debate we are having to-day, we shall have a new vision of adult education and shall be prepared to pay for it.
3.41 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady White, has put us all greatly in her debt by introducing this important debate on the Russell Report on Adult Education. As we all

1217
expected, she has given us an informed and interesting speech. To-day we listened with great interest as she told us that her distinguished father was the founder of one of our best-known colleges of adult education. If I may say so, I thought that the sub-title given to it, "The College of the Second Chance", was particularly appropriate, and led in so well to the speech given by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
I should like to begin by paying tribute to the energy and conscientiousness of Sir Lionel Russell and his colleagues in carrying out the heavy task which they were given in 1969. His thoroughness is a quality which all those who have had the privilege of working with Sir Lionel have come greatly to admire, and his Committee's Report will for many years be an invaluable source document to all those concerned with adult education. As the Committee themselves note, the 1919 Report of the Ministry of Reconstruction on Adult Education inspired much of the work which has been achieved in this sector of education during the past 50 years, and I do not doubt that the Russell Report will similarly inspire and dominate developments in the years ahead.
During the weeks since the Report has been published we have been carefully examining its analysis and recommendations in the light of the rate of progress with the provision of adult education while the Committee has been sitting, and preparing the ground for discussions with the main interests concerned. Very understandably, as soon as a major Report of this kind is published, all those who are interested in its field of work press for instant action. But if action is to be practical, relevant and successful, its lines must be formulated with care and they must take account of current and planned developments. It will therefore be my main purpose to-day to give the House a briew account of our thinking since the Report was published to indicate broadly the present scale of provision and its projected development. The Committee took 1968–69 as the base-line for their detailed proposals regarding provision. Substantial growth in adult education has been going on throughout the Committee's life. We are now engaged in relating this to the provisions of the Report.
1218
The Committee emphasise that adult education is not a neat or well-defined sector of the education service and all concerned need to understand its diversity and range of provision and its context in the whole educational system. Indeed, although this lack of neatness presents difficulties in terms of identification and estimation, it is none the less one of the real sources of strength of the sector. The Committee expressed their surprise at the range and number of bodies which submitted evidence—and here I quote:
"presumably because they saw themselves as part of the world of adult education".
This surprise must be shared by many readers of the Report, and it illustrates well the dangers of over-simplification implicit in the use of phrases like the "adult education system" or the "adult education sector". This variety in adult education provision reflects the wide range of needs which it is attempting to satisfy. These needs include the completion of the school's unfinished tasks, the filling-in of gaps left by specialisation at school or college, the opportunity to acquire qualifications recognised in adult life to be necessary—re-training, keeping up with developments in fields where knowledge is rapidly developing, education about education and counselling services. In terms of development of the individual, the provision made needs to offer opportunities for creative fulfilment, physical activity, self-discovery and self-expression and intellectual activity.
Whatever view may be taken of the concept of "permanent education", about which the Report has some interesting things to say, it emphasises the need to consider adult education as part of the whole educational provision. Not only are a variety of institutions involved in this provision; not only are the needs, aims, capacities and available time of the students different, but as school education and further and higher education themselves develop and change, the links and relationships which adult education has with each must change and develop, too.
The detailed proposals regarding provision which the Report makes for an initial period of some five to seven years will have the effect of doubling the 2 million students attending adult education classes in 1968–69 and rather more

1219
than doubling expenditure, at 1968–69 prices, from about £17 million in 1968–69 to about £40 million over the same period. This, my Lords, represents a substantial programme of expansion. However, we have not been simply "waiting for Russell" since 1968–69. Firm figures of student numbers for 1972–73 are not yet available, but I shall be surprised if they do not prove to be of the order of 2¾ million. Forecasting in any field, but particularly in this one, is a hazardous business; but it seems reasonable, looking ahead, to envisage some 3¼ million students by 1978—an increase of some 1¼ million over the ten years from 1968. On the present basis of staffing, this increase will attract about 700 more full-time staff and some 45,000 more part-timers. The Russell Report, of course, made a point of urging the desirability of more full-time staff, and this is certainly one of the points that we shall examine with care. But I am sure that Sir Lionel and his colleagues were right to assert that both the quantity and quality of adult education will always depend upon part-time tutors.
Then there is the matter of buildings. It is fortunate that, by the nature of much of the work in adult education, it is frequently possible for classes to be held in schools, colleges and other premises when they are not otherwise in use. This promotes the economical use of expensive capital plant at times when it would be idle and, by bringing adults into contact with schools and colleges, makes them more fully aware of the work done by these institutions, their nature and their goals. It is very encouraging that in planning new accommodation for schools and colleges many local education authorities have regard to the adult education needs of their areas and make specific provision for them. But the growing needs of adult education cannot, and should not, be entirely satisfied in this way. The service requires some building of its own, and local education authorities are starting work annually to the value of about £1¼ million. This is a modest sum, but the needs identified in the Russell Report were themselves modest.
Adult education, in its many forms, is provided, as the House knows, by local education authorities, a variety of voluntary bodies, notably the Workers' Educational Association, some residential colleges, and the extra-mural departments of
1220
universities. By far the greatest part of total expenditure falls on the local authorities—who provide for over 85 per cent. of adult education students in a wide variety of courses designed to meet the needs of their areas. I know from my own experience in local government of the variety and extent of this provision. It includes courses in basic arts, domestic and other skills, languages, general education and physical activities, and, increasingly, studies of a more academic nature, particularly in fields of local interest such as archæology and history. An increasing number of courses are concerned with social and community problems.
My Lords, it would not be right to conclude without some mention of what adult education has done, and will continue to do, for women. Many of the earlier initiatives were aimed towards groups who, through no fault of their own, were educationally deprived, as, for example, both married and single women whose lack of early educational opportunities and whose personal responsibilities had prevented them from developing fully their innate abilities. Women responded eagerly to these initiatives and it is noteworthy that to-day they form no less than 68 per cent. of all adult education students.
What I have said shows, I think, that the continuing progress of adult education is to a large extent in step with the recommendations of the Russell Report relating to scale of provision; and it is on this wider aspect that I have thought it right to say something at the beginning of our debate. It is of course essential to discuss with the representatives of the local education authorities and the other main interests concerned how they view the recommendations of the Report. Progress is substantial and will continue to be so. An exchange of views about this rate of growth in relation to the terms of the Report and in the context of further education generally is a necessary step, and it is to this end that our preparatory work is now going forward.
When this is complete—as it should be fairly soon—we intend to initiate discussions with the local authority associations, the relevant teachers' associations, and representatives of the other main interests in adult education. So much careful investigation, thought and arguwent went into the preparation of this major Report that it would be a great

1221
mistake and, indeed, an affront to the Committee if those involved in provision did not now have full opportunity to analyse the recommendations and relate them to the practicalities of the situation. There is no doubt about the vitality of the adult education service and the enthusiasm on which so much of its value depends. I believe your Lordships will agree that, for these very reasons, consideration of further action should be based on careful examination by the interested parties of the recommendations in the light of the development which I have indicated. This will be the basis of our consultations. They will not be narrow or restrictive but will be realistic and practical, and I am confident that they will be fruitful. My Lords, we shall listen with great interest to the views expressed by members of this House, in this debate. They will be of great interest to my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, and to my noble friend, Lord Belstead, who will reply.
If I may conclude on a personal point, it is that I should never myself feel any sympathy with a tendency to underestimate the essential importance of the humane values which the adult education tradition represents within the wide area of further education. It was Sir Winston Churchill who said at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1948:
"No technical knowledge can outweigh knowledge of the humanities in the gaining of which philosophy and history walk hand in hand."
This reminds us all that the values which so much of our adult education helps to foster and develop are an essential part of our prosperity as a nation and the quality of life each individual may enjoy.

E.E.C. COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETING
3.56 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, it might be convenient if I repeated a Statement which is being made at present in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission. Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a
1222
Statement about the matters discussed in the Council of the European Communities within the last ten days.
"The Council has met in four capacities during that period involving Ministers concerned with Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Social Affairs and Energy matters.
"The principal matters dealt with were general policy papers produced by the Commission in response to decisions reached at the Summit meeting last October.
"These concerned: the next stage towards economic and monetary union where there was a brief reference to the joint float, on which the Government's position is unchanged; regional policy and the creation of a regional development fund; the Community's position in the multilateral negotiations under the GATT to be started later this year for the further liberalisation of world trade: the negotiations due to start around the 1st of August for new agreements with the countries now associated with the Community under the Yaoundé and Arusha Conventions as well as those with whom association is envisaged under Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession: the development of general guidelines in the field of social affairs: and the development of a concerted policy on energy matters.
"In each case the Council has commented upon the broad approach outlined by the Papers, copies of which have been made available in the Library of the House."
In our case, my Lords, in the Printed Paper Office.
"This now allows the Commission to proceed to a more precise definition of the aims of the Community in these fields and for the next phase of the work to go forward.
"In addition approval was given to an Agreement between the Community and Norway to provide for a free trade area between the two and to bring Norway into line with the remaining EFTA countries who did not seek membership.
"Further consideration was given to the development of a basis for negotiation with the countries bordering the Mediterranean.

1223
"Progress was made towards reaching a formula as a basis for support for the production of coking coal for the steel industry.
"The purpose is to subsidise the production of coal of this sort by any member country for use in another.
"As the United Kingdom is to all intents and purposes self-sufficient in this product, the arrangement affects us very little, though it is likely to procure some small net advantage.
"Discussion also took place concerning the early convening of a conference with representatives of employers and unions to consider the proposals for a Community policy on social affairs.
"I should make clear that the Council's discussion of future regional policy did not cover the quite separate question of determining under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession those areas of the United Kingdom which are to be regarded as peripheral for the purposes of existing Community rules on the application of Competition Policy to Regional Aids.
"This has been the subject of a number of separate discussions, including talks which took place yesterday in London between my right honourable friend, the Minister for Industrial Development, others of my right honourable friends and M. Borschett, the Commissioner responsible.
"It was made clear to him that Her Majesty's Government are only prepared to contemplate a determination which does not involve cutting back on the present levels and coverage of assistance available under the Industry Act.
"The House will be kept informed of developments."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement which my right honourable friend has just made.
3.59 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, for repeating this Statement. It is right and proper that Parliament should be informed of what has been discussed at the Council of Ministers and for the Government to give as much information as they can on the
1224
consequences and results of those discussions. I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate that Parliament would be much more indebted if ways and means could be found by which it could be informed some weeks prior to such a Council meeting in order to be able to have some influence on the views of its Ministers who represent this country at the Council of Ministers.
May I say, in particular, that we very much welcome the agreement that has been reached in regard to the Community and Norway. Regarding regional policy, to a certain extent we are reassured by the attitude of the Government in that field. I hope that the noble Earl will understand that we on this side of the House—and I suspect Parliament as a whole—would not be prepared to accept the Community's being in any way entitled to lay down the classification for regional development within our country. That is a responsibility of Parliament and not of Brussels. I hope that the noble Earl, in regard to the last paragraph of the Statement, which lays down that the Government would accept a determination only in certain circumstances, will realise that what we look for in regional aid as a consequence of entry into the E.E.C. is the availability of more money and resources for regional development, and not less. I hope the noble Earl will take that point aboard.
In regard to the economic and monetary union and the brief reference to a joint float, I can understand the dilemma of the Government, with their great claims of a booming economy and great strength, because they are not yet ready to meet the wishes of the President of France for fixing the parity of the pound. The noble Earl can rest assured that, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we shall support the Government in keeping the pound in its present flexible situation until such time as a parity can be fixed that not only is fair to this country but has a real relationship to the economic strength of the various other countries in the E.E.C., and in particular the United States and Japan.
In regard to the number of subjects which were discussed by the Council of Ministers and are set out in the Statement, all these are matters about which we certainly should wish to have a great deal more information. We have had

1225
from the noble Earl only a statement that they were discussed. I certainly have not read my papers all that fully to-day, but I am not aware of what conclusions or provisional conclusions were reached, and I think the noble Earl as the Leader of the House will have to give careful consideration as to how this House can be kept informed of the progress of these talks. This may have some beating on the report of the Select Committee of this House. I hope that the noble Earl, in view of the importance of these subjects, will accept that it would be quite intolerable for this Parliament to go into the next Session without the proper machinery to understand and to obtain information, and without this House then being able to debate it, in adequate time, in order to influence its Ministers prior to their going to the Council of Ministers for the final deliberations.
The noble Earl said that the papers to which he referred were in the Printed Paper Office. I have not been able to check in the Printed Paper Office. I have checked so far as the Library is concerned, and I can only say that one or two copies of important papers of this character are quite insufficient for a Parliamentary assembly such as this. I hope that the noble Earl will look very seriously not only at ensuring that these papers are in sufficient number in the Printed Paper Office but at the method of notice so that Members of this House can be informed very early on of the existence of the papers. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, has had discussions with me across the Floor of the House in regard to papers dealing with the Associated Territories—those territories which wish to have an association with the Community—for which Parliament has a very special obligation. This paper was printed on April 4. I got it by strange ways, but quite legitimate; but it was only as a consequence of letting the noble Baroness's office know that I intended to raise it in debate that it became available in the Library—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords—
LORD SHEPHERD: May I finish, my Lords? I think this is wrong, and I am not now being critical. I would ask the noble Earl to devise ways and means by
1226
which these important papers should become available to Members of this House, and that there should be a method of notification that these papers in fact exist.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I wondered whether he could recall to me which Commission or Community document it was that had the distinction of being produced on April 4—my birthday.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suppose it was as a consequence of the noble Earl's birthday that he was not in the House to listen to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir. It is a very important document on a subject on which the noble Earl defended the Government when we took the E.E.C. legislation through this House. It is a paper dealing with the Yaoundé and Arusha Conventions. It is an important document. If he doubts it, he should speak to the noble Baroness.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for repeating this Statement and to make one or two brief comments. There are a number of proposals which I welcome, including the proposed convening of a conference of representatives of employers and unions to consider social affairs. On the carrying out of the aims of the Community, I wonder whether the noble Earl can give us any idea of the timetable. The noble Earl said that the result of the meeting will allow the
"Commission to proceed to a more precise definition of the aims of the Community … and for the next phase of the work to go forward."
This includes many important matters such as regional policy and the creation of a Regional Development Fund and policy on energy matters. Is it possible to give any indication as to how long this next phase is going to take?
On energy, there are, as the noble Earl is aware, reports in the Press to-day about differences between members of the different member countries of the E.E.C. on energy matters. Are these differences going to hold up the achieving of an agreed policy on energy?—because that is obviously very important. On the last part of the Statement, I note that the Government are opposed to any cutting

1227
back on the present levels of coverage and assistance available under the Industry Act. Does that in any way conflict with the cuts that were announced by Her Majesty's Government on Monday this week?
4.8 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his considered comments on this Statement. I should like to say straight away that I very much share the general views which he has expressed about the extreme desirability of keeping both Houses of Parliament abreast of Community developments and, where possible, of giving both Houses of Parliament a chance of expressing their views before Community policy finds its final mould. I would also agree with the noble Lord that this matter might appropriately be explored when we discuss the Report of our own Select Committee on Community Instruments: this would afford a good opportunity of discussing this matter. I should like to share Lord Shepherd's expression of appreciation of the agreement concluded with Norway. I think it is true to say that it is satisfactory both to Norway and to the members of the Community, and this is as it should be.
May I revert for a second to the question of information?—and I apologise for putting this, as it were, in parenthesis. I would also agree with the noble Lord about the need for us to keep a sharp eye and continuing look over the supply of papers bearing on developments in the Community for the information of noble Lords. We are, as it were, rather feeling our way here, and this is essentially a matter which we should work out by agreement around the House.
On regional policy, this of course falls into two contexts here. First, there is the Article 154 context, our own national regional aids, which as the Statement says was not discussed at this meeting, although it was discussed at a meeting in London yesterday at which Mr. Borschett, the Commissioner responsible, was present. I can confirm that, as we have frequently made clear, we do not envisage that the Community rules will lessen the incentives we are able to offer under the Industry Act. As the noble
1228
Lord, Lord Wade, will remember, when I repeated the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer two days ago he gave an assurance that the rate of regional support would remain unaltered.
There is a second aspect of regional policy, and that is the question of the elaboration, within the context of the Community, of proposals for a joint organic regional policy as a whole and also for the establishment of a Community Regional Fund. As I understand that, the present intention is that the Commission are due to produce specific proposals for the Regional Development Fund this summer. Such suggestions as they have made so far have been of a somewhat tentative nature. I understand that the responsible Commissioner hopes to table his proposals some time in July, and discussion of these proposals is likely to extend throughout the autumn.
On the question of the joint float, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred, this is a matter on which it is wise to tread gingerly. All I can again affirm is that the Government's position, as stated by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on, I think March 22, remains unchanged.
Turning to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I should like again to welcome his brief comments—and I notice that he underlined the adjective "brief". So far as the timetable is concerned, I think this is somewhat complicated. If noble Lords recall the Summit communiqué of last October, they will know that it varies a little between different subjects; but, as I understand it. on the great majority of subjects the Summit deadline is for agreement by the end of this year. The process of consultation is now gathering momentum and. indeed, is more or less continuous. So far as the energy policy is concerned. which I think was discussed by the Council yesterday, I believe that this was the first discussion by the Council of this vastly important subject, and they have a long way to go. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on the great importance of a common position on energy policy.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, those of your Lordships who visited Brussels and met the Commissioner for

1229
the Region, Mr. George Thomson, were impressed by the skill and devotion and energy he is giving to the task of creating a European regional policy. The fear in the minds of many people was that one of the possible sacrifices to be made when we went into Europe might have been the loss of some of our own regional policy advantages. It is clear from the Statement made by the noble Earl that at any rate we are not going to be worse off under the new regional policy. And is it not more than likely that we shall be better off when the new European regional policy comes into operation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, these are early days yet, but it is certainly the hope and expectation of Her Majesty's Government that this will in fact be the position—and perhaps, prompted by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir, I might elaborate for one second on the question of the timetable. I think that a large proportion of the Summit items are due to be agreed by the end of this year; but, of course, the other end of the spectrum is the timetable for Union in Europe, which as noble Lords who recall the Summit communiqué will know, is 1980.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Earl will understand that despite my profound opposition to British entry into the E.E.C.—and I am unrepentant; time will judge who was right on this —I welcome any information that can be conveyed about the proposals that emanate from the Commission in Brussels. But the noble Earl will understand that what he has told us about the proposals is in a somewhat amorphous state and requires to be detailed. Are any of these proposals to be presented to the Parliamentary delegation who sit at Strasbourg? Members of your Lordships' House and of another place engage in debate on many of the proposals which are concerned with our entry into the E.E.C. Do I understand that these proposals never go before the Parliamentary delegation at Strasbourg?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I recognise the sincerity and consistency of the noble Lord's position: he remains an unrepentant opponent to our entry into the Community. I remain un unrepentant supporter of our entry into the Community, and time alone will tell—perhaps
1230
a little more time than the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was inclined to permit us at Question Time earlier to-day. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the Statement which I have made, compressing four series of Council discussions, was inevitably rather—I would not say "amorphous", but "general in scope is the term I will use. But of course the noble Lord will find more detail in the documents which have now been placed in the Printed Paper Office.
With regard to consideration by the European Parliament of these various matters I think the amount of consideration varies from subject to subject, and I should perhaps not pronounce any obiter dicta on that particular point because I may get it wrong. Draft directives have to be referred by the Council to the Parliament, and then back again, but on the various types of Community policy documents, which are mentioned in the Statement, I am not quite certain of the procedures carried out: I do not think the same procedure obtains. However, in your Lordships' House we already have eight Members of the European Parliament; I hope we shall soon have rather more, and they will be able to keep us abreast of these matters.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I should like to ask another question on this point because it is rather important. I shall not press the noble Earl for an immediate answer, but it seems to me to be necessary to define the function of the members of the European Parliament. Is their function merely to be to talk among themselves or to concern themselves with submissions made from time to time by the Commission, or are they to be completely ignored by the Commission? I think the noble Earl might look into this matter and on a subsequent occasion, perhaps in reply to a Question or perhaps voluntarily, he will inform Members of your Lordships' House what is the actual and definitive function of the members of the European Parliament.
EARL JELLTCOE: My Lords, I agree that this is an important subject although it only tangentially arises from the Statement which I have repeated. But I do not wish to be pedantic about that. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a matter which we should look at, and in fact an

1231
opportunity has been afforded by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who has tabled a Motion on European institutions to be debated quite shortly. Obviously that Motion will be a good vehicle for our discussion of this subject.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not wish to keep this discussion going—we have already been at it for 25 minutes. I do so only in the light of the noble Earl's answer to the last but one supplementary question, in which he referred to these particular documents. He is quite right in saying that these are early documents and, as such are not passed officially to the Parliament in Strasbourg. Not until those documents have been passed to the Parliament in Strasbourg will it be possible for this Parliament to receive them officially. Our difficulty as Members of Parliament is to be able to see these documents in their early and formative period. The noble Earl has said that this is important in order to be able to impress upon Ministers the views of Members of both Houses. And it is that area that I would ask the noble Earl to look into, to find ways and means of enabling Parliament to see these documents as quickly as possible.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as is almost invariably the case, I shall be happy to fall in with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I recognise that as he is a member of the Select Committee he has more expert and up-to-date knowledge of this particular point at this particular moment than I have.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion but the noble Earl kindly looked at the point I raised with him regarding one document in particular, namely, the report of the Energy Committee presented by M. Giraud to the European Parliament, references to which appeared in the national newspapers here the following day but copies of which were not available either in the Vote Office or in the E.E.C. office in London. Although the noble Earl has been good enough to write to me since then to say that copies are now available and that I have one, in fact I still have not obtained a copy of this document and I hope that
1232
better arrangements can be made on future occasions.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The trouble is that one has to move with the speed of lightning to keep up with the speed of leaks in Brussels at certain times. However, our mechanical arrangements here can certainly be improved.

ADULT EDUCATION: THE RUSSELL REPORT
4.22 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I remember Sir Donald Bradman once spending three hours in the pavilion when he was seeing Mr. Woodfall and Mr. Ponsford making 168 runs. Eventually it came to his turn to bat, and he hit a boundary off the first ball. While I cannot hope to emulate that feat I hope that we can recall ourselves to the main subject of to-day's discussion, which was not this Statement, but adult education. We have had three memorable speeches and I hope that they have not passed from your Lordships' minds because of this rather overlong discussion which has just taken place. The noble Baroness, Lady White, has placed us in her debt. While we are all well aware of the noble Baroness's own knowledge of adult education, she also did well to mention the great services of her father to adult education in Wales. The noble Baroness introduced the subject most effectively. She was followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who has fled from us, but who is extraordinarily well qualified in this field; and also by the Minister. It must be a record that the first three speeches should be made by ladies. One finds that encouraging. Nearly half the total number of speakers are ladies, which is even more encouraging.
I regret in a way, though feel a certain sense of relief, the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who was here earlier. There is no Member of this House, male or female, who has had longer and more intimate experience of adult education, both as an organiser and tutor, than she has. I have recollections of her when she was a young

1233
and gorgeous woman, 40 years ago. She is still gorgeous, but not quite so young. I see that the noble Baroness is now in her place: I was just recalling that when she was young and gorgeous, and in charge of adult education at London University, I sought a job under her. Unfortunately, I had made my application on the notepaper of the Carlton Club —which I may say I was then entitled to use. I had not, as it were, "pinched" it specially to make that application. When I saw the noble Baroness, young and gorgeous but forbidding, she put a single question to me: "Do you think that writing on the notepaper of the Carlton Club is the best way of making an application for a job in adult education?" I, suitably abashed, fled from the room, and did not get the job. I may say that for many years after that I would not have been allowed inside the Carlton Club and there was no member of it, except the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who would have dared to take me back. But the noble Viscount did venture a year or two ago to give me dinner in the Club, after all those years. I recall that incident only to show that in those days it was very difficult to get into adult education. At the same time it was very valuable experience for some of us from Oxford to realise that we could not, to use the words of the poet, Auden:
"Descend like a dove, like a kindly Papa, But descend, oh descend."
We could not just come from above, from the Carlton Club, as it were.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to say that I hope he is not suggesting political prejudice? I might say that there were other eminent persons, notably Mr. Krishna Menon, whom we had difficulty in bringing on to our staff.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am sure, that I, like the doctor mentioned, was disqualified on other grounds. But looking to the dear friend of the noble Lord, Lord Morris—and I refer to our late colleague, Lord Lindsay—I was more fortunate and obtained my first work in adult education in the Potteries. That must give me my excuse for taking part in the debate to-day.
I shall not try to cover the whole field again; that has been done so very effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady White.
1234
I want to speak from one angle only—though not officially representing: I mean the angle of the W.E.A. I am not of course under the impression that the W.E.A. is adult education as a whole. Quantitatively it is quite a small part of adult education, though qualitatively one can hardly overestimate its influence—past, present and, I hope, future. The Russell Committee pay a generous but well-qualified tribute to the Workers' Educational Association which it describes as unique among the voluntary bodies.
"It has for many years"—
say the Russell Committee—
"been a pioneer not only in bringing university quality adult education to a wide public, hut also in the teaching methods it has fostered "—
and I emphasise this particular point which is referred to by the Russell Committee—
"and the degree and kind of student participation it has encouraged."
The Russell Committee go on to summarise some of the main aspects of the work of the W.E.A., and then they say this:
"These considerations have led us to the conclusion that the roles of the W.E.A. as both promoter of adult education for the universities (and other bodies) and provider of its own programme of classes should continue with grant-aid."
So the Committee totally reject the idea that the W.E.A. has had its time and should now go peacefully to sleep. Indeed they go a good deal further than that. One gathers from the figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but putting it more broadly, that between now and 1980 the total amount to be devoted to adult education under the Russell Report would he about doubled. I think that is roughly right. But in case I seem to be too preoccupied with the W.E.A., let me say emphatically that I personally, like the noble Baroness and others, strongly welcome the Russell Report in its wide bearings and I urge the Government to honour it to the full. I tried to make out whether or not the noble Baroness had accepted it for the Government, and I think that the answer to that would be, "Yes and no". At any rate, I do not think that it was clear what the Government's attitude was, except that they are going to consult with everybody about it They are suspending

1235
judgment of it. That is really the actual situation, is it not? I think that the House should know whether I have misunderstood why.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords. I shall be speaking at the end of the debate but I think that the noble Lord is on the right lines.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I take it I have put it correctly. In other words, the Government are not to-day going to tell us whether they have accepted or rejected the Report. I gather that is the position. I am not blaming them, and certainly not praising them; I just want to be sure that one has it right. I personally, at any rate, agree with most of the recommendations, perhaps with all, but I cannot say that I understand the bearings of all of them, and in particular I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady White, in stressing the need for the Development Council for Adult Education for England and Wales. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say something about the Development Council. One does not have to ask thousands of other organisations to know whether a development council is favoured. I hope that he can say something on that point. May I plead with the noble Lord to give us some indication about the Development Council at least?
To return to the W.E.A., I am advised, although the Russell Committee does not exactly spell this out, that if the total allocated to adult education is doubled between now and 1980, the amount going to the W.E.A. would be a good deal more than double. Not only perhaps for that reason, but for that reason among others, the W.E.A. have given the Report a warm welcome. It seems in fact to embody a good many of the recommendations that the W.E.A. themselves made, both in relation to their own work and more widely. However, the W.E.A. are aware that this is not a kind of carte blanche for the future; this is to he regarded as a challenge and a stimulus, and I am sure that that is how they will set about tackling their work.
At this point may I throw in a few observations of my own, a little anti
1236
quated, and yet they can, it seems to me, be related to the present situation. I was in fact an active tutor for three years, 1929–30, 1930–31 and 1931–32. For the first of those three years I lived in a working class house in Stoke-on-Trent. I taught adult education classes in the evening and during the day I taught in what would now be a primary or secondary school. In the course of those three years I became a member of the Conservative Research Department; that was on the right hand. On the left hand, I became engaged to my wife, who was also by that time a W.E.A. tutor. I became engaged to her in the waiting room at Stoke-on-Trent station while we were both working for the W.E.A. So your Lordships will understand that I feel sentimental about the Workers' Educational Association.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek is not in the Chamber, because he was a colleague of mine in those days. The special duty of the W.E.A. in those old days, their special claim for themselves, was that the classes were a sort of mutual education. It was not simply a question of the teacher and the taught; it was a process of mutual education. This is still recognised by the Russell Committee though not regarded now as unique to them. If I was told once I was told a hundred times, when taking W.E.A. classes, that the students were teaching me at least as much as I was teaching them. In fact they made no bones about it; they thought they were teaching me a good deal more. They said that to all their tutors in those days. Looking back, with my personal circumstances, coming from a very different world, I do not doubt that that was so. I do not know whether it was true in every case, but it certainly was in mine.
Wrapped up with this conception of mutual education was the inspiration that came from the W.E.A. being in some sense or other, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will remember so well, a working-class affair. After all, it was called the Workers' Educational Association, and a meaning was attached to the word "workers". It was not just an adult education association. Not unnaturally, there was considerable suspicion of its political flavour in Conservative circles.

1237
Great intellectual leaders like R. H. Tawney, A. D. Lindsey and Archbishop Temple, all, of course, Socialists, made sure, to the best of their ability, and I think they did in fact, that the standards of genuine intellectual integrity were preserved. There was always suspicion, not unnaturally, because the leading figures in it were of a Socialist kind.
Now I come to the present day. We must face the fact that the whole modern ideas of class are now, so to speak, fluid; that it is difficult to speak in the old rigid terms. I do not think that to-day and in the future one can expect this particular working-class aspect to provide as large a share of the inspiration as it did forty years ago. Yet it is interesting to notice that the Russell Committee selects as one of the areas of W.E.A. inspiration what it calls working in an industrial context in workplaces, with the T.U.C. and individual unions. I do not think that the representatives of organised labour to-day would wish to claim any kind of monopoly in the W.E.A.; yet I hope and believe that the organised workers will always feel that in some undefined and yet important way it does reflect the aspirations of their members. One has, on the one hand, to avoid being regarded as a class organisation, but still some special strength does come from it having this working-class inspiration.
I have one last point to deal with before I sit down. It arises in connection with one of the particular areas, though it may also arise in connection with others, picked out both by the W.E.A. and by the Russell Committee as being suitable for special W.E.A. expansion. They call it,
"education for the socially and culturally deprived living in urban areas."
I do not know whether they deal with this, but I would certainly hope that the black population would here be very much in mind. The Committee say that,
"The approach should be experimental and informal, requiring new forms of activity and unfamiliar techniques."
All that is fine. I think everybody discussing it here this afternoon or discussing it elsewhere must agree that this is a highly desirable development, and if it can be achieved it is just the kind of pioneering work that the W.E.A. might be asked to undertake.
1238
The real question is whether the students one is aiming at will in fact be attracted in the substantial numbers that one hopes for. I heard Lord Soper quote yesterday from John Wesley, and, although I did not take down the exact words, they were to this effect:
"Go to those who need you and go first to those who need you most".
The trouble is, as I and others have so often seen in youth work, that those who need help most are the least likely to come for it. Many of them are utterly distrustful of official bodies and almost as distrustful of unofficial ones. The real difficulty in the old days was not getting finance but getting students. That has always been the problem in the Workers Educational Association. The first class I took was in Longton. It was the last year of a three-year course, and there were eight students, all very intelligent. Some were manual workers—one or two of them afterwards went on to university—and one or two were miners. But there were only nine of us there, with all the, so to speak, machinery that one could wish for at one's disposal, with a splendid book list and all the rest. There were myself and the eight students. This has always been the great difficulty, to reach enough students. In my eyes, the achievement of the W.E.A. over the years has been much more effective in qualitative terms than in quantitative terms. I think one must accept that. It is one thing to provide more adult education, but how on earth are we to persuade—whether through the W.E.A., or otherwise—far more people to take advantage of it than ever before; and, especially, how are we to persuade those who need it most to take advantage of it?
It is no good saying that we are going to provide all sorts of classes—whether in the W.E.A. or in any other way—for the bottom 25 per cent. educationally in the country. We have to persuade them to come to these classes which, after all, are voluntary. That is the essence of the matter. In any particular area—I am thinking of the W.E.A. for the moment—we have to rely on all sorts of volunteers; we have to rely on tutors, and we have to rely on a new race—new since my time, anyway—of men and women development officers with a good

1239
organisation of regional and national headquarters. Without going into details, I conclude that the Russell proposals will go much further to help all this development work, as has been explained by one or two speakers. It will help the promotion of classes, and that means very largely, in practice, the attraction of students. I am quite certain that relatively small sums spent in this way will justify themselves many times over, and therefore I welcome particularly the extra help with development work which the Russell Committee recommends.
I shall not continue. There is a danger that if I speak for much longer I might become philosophical, or, even worse, sociological, or, worst of all, semantic. There are many questions that I have not touched on, and I would mention only one which one never puts very far from one's mind. How can the special glory of the W.E.A., its flavour, its whole creative impulse of mutual education, become an effective instrument in awakening the large sections of the population who are at present least open to education of any kind? It is all very well for me to talk of the eight wonderful students with whom I discussed political theory in 1930. But how can we get hundreds of people to take part in equally valuable discussions at the present time, amidst all sorts of counter-attractions? That is the crucial issue yet one does not want to make an appeal to the masses, which loses the most essential element of the W.E.A. I believe that there is an answer here, but it is not one which is simple and which can be applied everywhere, according to some sealed pattern. I hope I have said enough to express my reverence to all who dedicate their lives in various fashions to adult education. I hope that I have said enough to indicate my own devotion and gratitude to the W.E.A., and to express my solid congratulations to the authors of the Russell Report, and my enthusiastic support for the noble Baroness, Lady White, in pressing the Government to give effect to it even more rapidly than they seem likely to give effect to it at present.
4.43 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to take part in this debate with considerable enthusiasm be-
1240
cause, although I have not read the Report from cover to cover, I have read much of it with great interest, and when I was chairman of an education committee running adult further education classes I had some experiences which I found exceedingly interesting. I would endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady White, said about adult education so often being the Cinderella of the education service, because whenever there was a financial crisis—which I suppose we all admit has happened many times in the last 20 or 30 years, under a variety of different Governments—it was always adult education which one had to cut down on, because obviously one could not cut down on ordinary education. I remember fighting very hard indeed on one occasion for certain classes and for certain teachers and being unsuccessful simply because there was then a "squeeze" and there was not enough money to do all that was required; so that adult education went by the board.
I absolutely agree that adult education should not be treated as the Cinderella of the education service, because it is one of the most important aspects of education and it can, and does, cover a wide variety of both people and subjects. Adult education need never end in people's lives, because when one gets to a certain age one does not have to give up a subject which one is interested in studying at adult education classes. It is something which can go on for all time, and it is therefore something which we should all want to support most wholeheartedly. I can remember in my very early days, at some time between 1921 or 1922 and 1927, meeting Albert Mansbridge, who was, I suppose, one of the greatest founders of adult education, and being immensely impressed by that very remarkable man. From then, I have always had a keen interest in the many different aspects of what can be done through adult education.
The Report is most comprehensive, but I should like to stress the nontechnical side of education—the opportunities for all ages to try something new. Paragraph 64 on page 21 states:
"It must also be a service rooted firmly in local communities, responsive to local variations of need and opportunity, and with the active involvement of the local community in planning and management."

1241
I am sure that that is exceedingly important and, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said, that brings in a whole variety of people in the community, of all classes and of all interests. Furthermore, paragraph 66 recommends using part-time tutors and teachers whose many different skills and many different experiences in life are just the kind of teaching which adult students will enjoy. I am not now talking about those who want technical education; I am talking about those who want to study ad hoc subects of their own choosing. To study the variety of classes provided in colleges of education is to see a really wide kaleidoscope of different subjects which is fascinating and encouraging to us all.
I do not want to discuss the whole Report, but I should like to pick out those matters which have interested me most. Paragraph 178 describes how practical some of the classes can be, even though they can be termed mundane and utilitarian. It is in classes of that kind that the quality of life is improved by outside experience, and it does not involve a great deal of expense. Because of the simple skills which raise the quality of home life, that type of utilitarian and simple class is one which appeals to many people, particularly in the country. I should like to spend a few moments on the subjects described in paragraphs 187 and 277 to 285, which deal with the ways of helping handicapped people to enjoy the informal and stimulating experience of adult education. I believe in the principle of handicapped people sharing these facilities with the able-bodied. I have had a little experience in the world of youth clubs of helping to start clubs for physically handicapped and able-bodied young people together. Those clubs, which are known as Physically Handicapped and Able-Bodied —PHAB for short—have caught on enormously throughout the whole country and, indeed, throughout many countries abroad. With this combination of the physically handicapped and the able-bodied working together, studying together and playing together, all in an atmosphere of learning and of community life, a great deal has been achieved on both sides. I feel sure that wherever educational authorities (and voluntary organisations, too) can adapt
1242
their methods to cover both the handicapped and the non-handicapped together, remarkable results can be achieved.
But the success of this will depend on having the kind of premises where the handicapped can be accommodated. I am sorry to say that we in this country lag behind in the provision of this type of building. I was horrified to discover not very long ago in my own county where a new technical college had been built—it was not a very big college; but it is not a very big county—when in my capacity as chairman of the Social Work Committee I wanted to send a handicapped person to evening classes, that the building, although it had been built only recently, had not got the kind of facilities to accommodate, particularly, people in wheelchairs. Had I realised this defect when the building was going up I should have taken steps to remedy it; but I was not at that time the chairman of the committee. In a great many parts of the country improvements are needed to be made in buildings designed for adult education so as to enable the handicapped and the non-handicapped to work together.
I am making a small contribution on these lines because I am at the moment engaged in establishing a college of further education which is to be called "Prospect Hall" and which is being built at this moment, among further education colleges in Birmingham, at Selly Oak. This college will be unique. It will take both very severely handicapped people—even those in iron lungs —and non-handicapped people in a 50/50 proportion who will be able to study the wide variety of subjects which are available and about which your Lordships, who are more expert on adult education than I am, will know. The whole atmosphere will be that of non-handicapped education, since the Selly Oak colleges are themselves colleges for the able bodied from a variety of different walks of life.
I mention this because in the Report there are quite a number of paragraphs about adult education and about what are called the "disadvantaged". That includes the physically handicapped and the mentally handicapped, in so far as they can benefit from this type of work. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will study this side of adult education,

1243
because I think it is one which can be developed much further and one which would serve a useful purpose in the social work side as well as the educational side of our present local authority work. I hope that the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will indicate that the Government feel that it is important to bring the physically disabled or the "disadvantaged" into our adult education field—not by themselves, not in isolation, but in the ordinary life of the community; because today the physically handicapped can play a great part in ordinary life, far more so than was the case in any other generation that I can remember. I should like to see them being encouraged to come to classes of this kind and I should like to see us providing such accommodation as to enable them to share in these experiences.
In paragraph 193, the Report refers to youth work being essentially of a social character and to bringing youth into adult education activities. There is an entertaining paragraph which someone with great knowledge in these matters has written in which is described the importance of young people's being able to make a noise. They do make a noise. I am anxious at times that they should not make as much as they sometimes do; but in the matter of adult education it is important for the younger age groups to be provided with accommodation which will enable them to undertake what they believe to be of educational value—although some of us might find it rather trying if we did not know of its importance. But I hope that we shall encourage more young adults and young people to enjoy adult education in a more sophisticated and artistic world, as well as in the perhaps less sophisticated world of youth clubs and so on. I should like to see practical classes which might bridge the gap between age groups, so that there is not this segregation which I myself find so trying. I really think that young people do not like being cut off from young adults and adults do not want to be cut off from the young. I hope that in our adult education we shall plan for a wider range of age groups as well as for a wide range of facilities, so that these young people can share the work of the slightly older ones.
1244
I hope that the principle of community enterprise—for the young, for the old, for the handicapped and for the nonhandicapped—will be the governing idea behind the implementation of the Russell Report. If, as I believe, our future is going to contain more leisure and more time for doing things, that leisure could be used to much better effect to improve the quality of life if the kind of experiences described in the Russell Report were available to all individuals. I urge the Government to implement these recommendations and to bring them into the lives of people to-day. I am quite sure that it will be money well invested from the economic point of view and I am certain that it will be greatly appreciated by the present generation, a generation who I think are much more interested in the work done in adult education classes than have been generations in the past. I heartily commend the Report to the Government for their active consideration.
4.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT COMBERMERE: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, for initiating this very important debate and, secondly, as is customary, I wish to explain my own interest in the debate. I am currently engaged as a staff lecturer in Biblical and Religious Studies in the extra-mural department of London University.
One could begin by speaking of the great debt that men and women in this country owe to the various departments of adult education since its inception: the W.E.A., the University Extra-mural Departments, the L.E.A.s. This cannot be denied; but one must look to the future, and I shall confine myself therefore to the future. I shall not attempt, either, to try to cover the whole range of adult education. Rather, I shall confine myself to a few proposals, some of which have been indicated in the Russell Report, which I believe, and I am sure other people believe, to be important.
First, I hope that the Government will accept the recommendations of the Russell Report as it stands, as I believe the Government of the day accepted at an early date all the recommendations of the Robbins Report. I appreciate, as

1245
the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, that time is needed to digest the Report which has taken several years to compile; but all the bodies concerned have given their approval to it and the Government should not delay too long in giving their approval as well. Secondly, I am certain that it is essential that more funds be made available as soon as possible. An opening passage of the Report reads:
"All areas of education will be enriched if demands for the education of adults are met."
Yet adult education is very much, to use a phrase that is perhaps becoming rather hackneyed now, the Cinderella of the educational world. Only 1p out of every £1 is spent on adult education, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has emphasised. This tiny proportion of the total educational budget must be substantially increased, and the Government should give a clear indication of their intentions.
So far as the allocation of funds in the adult education field is concerned, there are certain priority areas on which attention must be focused, although this should certainly not be taken to imply that other areas may be neglected. First, the provision for adult education must be made within the framework of the further education building programme, as the Russell Report indicates. There should be an identifiable building for adult education at least in every area. If there is not, a project should be started. Provision therefore must be made for capital expenditure as well as for current expenditure. The second vital area where new funds must be made available is that of appropriate salaries for part-time lecturers. I believe that this applies to all lecturers contracted by the various bodies; local authorities, W.E.A.s and university extra-mural departments.
My Lords, the Russell Report recognises that the vast majority of tutors in adult education have been employed on a part-time basis and that this is bound to continue. Further, the Report recognises that both the quantity and also the quality of adult education will/always depend on the part-time tutor force. The Report stresses that part-time tutors' salaries should be swiftly adjusted whenever full-time salaries are increased. I would submit, my Lords, that this is
1246
not enough. Part-time salaries have progressively fallen behind comparable rates for full-time staff since the end of the war. If we are to attract tutors of the right calibre, part-time salaries must be substantially increased now and thereafter kept in line with salary increases for the full-time staff.
Part-time staff are not in the adult education business solely for the money. They are dedicated to their work and, furthermore, are invariably called upon to conduct their classes in the evenings in winter, frequently having to travel long distances in order to do so. It is a matter of justice that they should receive adequate remuneration for their work. My colleagues in the extra-mural department of London University, at any rate, will understand when I speak of the difficulty of getting well qualified part-time tutors to conduct our courses. There are a number of reasons for this, and so far as the internal university lecturers are concerned an important factor inevitably is pressure of university work. If we were able to offer adequate salaries this would go some way to ease the difficulty of obtaining the services of part-timers. One wonders what would he left of adult education without the support of part-time staff.
Thirdly, my Lords, funds must be made available to allow part-time and full-time tutors to be adequately trained for the job and then to undergo subsequent refresher courses. The principle that teachers in primary and secondary schools must be trained to teach has long been recognised. This principle is beginning to be recognised in the field of adult education as well. But too often it has been assumed in the adult field, particularly at university undergraduate level, that scholarship itself is an adequate qualification to teach. This is nonsense. Unfortunately, academic brilliance and teaching skill are only too rarely found together, and teaching skill has to be acquired somehow, usually through hard experience and at the expense of the student.
This skill could be acquired much less arduously and painfully if adequate facilities were made available for adult teacher training. If existing facilities are inadequate, funds should be made available to provide one or more staff colleges to train tutors to teach in adult education.

1247
A college of this nature also could initiate and supervise research into adult education generally. It would complement research which should be encouraged in every university department for adult education. In addition, such a college, together with area adult education centres, could provide resource centres for audio-visual aids and other teaching facilities and could provide advice about the use of such equipment. The availability of these types of teaching aids is still very limited. They must be seen as an integral part of the adult education lecturers' equipment. This has long been recognised at school level, but it still needs encouragement at the adult level.
Fourthly, my Lords, I believe that funds should be made available to allow students to be released to attend day courses for, say, one morning or one afternoon per week. I have recently been lecturing at Southwark for the Southwark Ordination Course. Ordinands of this course study for our diploma in religious studies on a part-time, evenings only, basis, and in many cases they travel from far afield in the evening and return home late at night after a full day's work. If students, of whom those attending at Southwark are one example, were able to attend their vocational courses through day release, some of the hardships and difficulties inevitable in working full-time, followed by evening study, could be alleviated. I fully agree with the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady White, of paid study leave as an alternative, or complementary to, day release.
Lastly, my Lords, a national development council needs to be set up at an early stage, as the Russell Report indicates. This could survey the whole field of adult education and develop co-operation between the various bodies. It would be able to keen the recommendations of the Russell Report under constant review and amend them as necessary. One way, it is said, whereby more funds could be made available for adult education would be to put up the student fees. It seems that this is the Government's attitude. I refer to paragraph 78 of the Russell Report, which notes that the last major positive statement about adult education was in 1963, on accommodation and staffing. Since then, it appears, there have
1248
been a number of administrative memos and circulars about the desirability of increasing student fees. I do not believe that this is the answer, and I quote from paragraph 83 of the Russell Report:
"It is firmly believed by many closely associated with adult education that increased fees cause a further decline in the proportionate representation of the lower socio-economic groups".
In other words, this sort of policy merely discourages both social groups who would probably benefit most from adult education.
Finally, my Lords, I feel it almost unnecessary to stress the reason why adult education should not only continue to be supported by the Government but should be the recipient of much greater support than it has been given in the past. One could refer to such features as the rise in population numbers, and with the lowering of the age of retirement the need for ever-increasing opportunities to study and even retrain. One could refer to the certain fact that the task of the schools is greatly eased if parents of the children they educate are themselves articulate and well-informed on a variety of matters. Vocational education must continue and increase but non-vocational education must not be neglected. It must be regarded as equally important and worthwhile in itself, although, as the Russell Report so rightly indicates, a sharp line between vocational and non-vocational education cannot be drawn. If this is acknowledged and life-long education is recognised as deserving Government support, then through the richness which this must bring to individuals in every walk of life the whole quality of their lives could change for the better. Values of inferior or transient worth will be matched against those which are more enduring and worth while and the former will be found wanting. But above all the individual will be enabled to realise his or her full potential. a realisation which might otherwise be completely frustrated.
My Lords, it has been said that in the Russell Report we have only a mighty mouse, but in the field of my own particular interest. Indian religions, the mouse is very significant. it is the vehicle upon which the great Hindu god Ganesha rides. Ganesha is always depicted as an elephant and hence the symbol of strength and the remover of obstacles. Appropriately he

1249
is the god of wisdom. The simile I think is appropriate. The Russell Report may be a mouse, but if its findings are approved and acted on, it too could become a vehicle—a vehicle whereby men and women, taking advantage of the richness and diversity of adult education could be helped to overcome at least some of the obstacles in their day-to-day lives and lead to an enrichment of those lives. It could launch them in an entirely new direction—a new career opening up visions that at one time must have seemed like pipe dreams.
5.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am grateful for being allowed to speak not too late in this debate because I have to go to a memorial service for the late Lord Cohen of Walmer, a distant relative who was a much respected and, in fact, beloved Member of your Lordships' House. therefore hope your Lordships will forgive my apparent discourtesy if I have to leave the Chamber even before the next speech, that of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, to get to another part of London.
I welcome Sir Lionel Russell's Report, first because it is a valuable review of all existing widely ramified provisions and, secondly, for its recommendations for the future. I should like to concentrate my own remarks on one aspect, the Open University, already mentioned by my noble friend Baroness White. I have had the opportunity to visit it several times, and I consider it to be a unique combination of four hitherto separate educational practices. Other bodies, both in Britain and abroad, have used correspondence courses. Other people have organised seminars outside university walls. External examinations for B.A. degrees were first introduced a long time ago; and, most important of all, radio and television adult education programmes have been admirably developed, both by the B.B.C. and in other countries. Now, for the first time in any country of the world, all four practices have been combined to form the Open University. Correspondence course students of the Open University actually meet their tutors in seminars on campuses throughout Britain during the summer vacation when university buildings are unoccupied. Special broadcasts, both for television and radio, have been devised by joint teams of B.B.C. producers and Open University faculty members and are
1250
broadcast for one hour each day, accompanied by very attractive illustrated brochures produced for each course. These are so successful that they have been syndicated all over the world— as also, I may mention, have the ingenious chemistry sets in polythyrene boxes lent to students which have been bought by African Governments for their own elementary schools.
Lastly, the final B.A. examinations of the Open University enable all students without formal matriculation, if they work hard, to obtain a first degree. This even qualifies students to enter a graduate school for a higher degree later, if they wish. They have caught up—which after all is the purpose of all adult education.
When the Open University was planned it was assumed that it would appeal primarily to housewives. Actually they are so busy that they have little time to undertake adult education. But it turned out that one-third of the intake consisted of elementary school teachers with diplomas from teachers' training colleges. They wanted a full university degree which would qualify them to teach in secondary schools.
My next point is somewhat political. It is interesting to note the conversion of the Conservative Party to the idea of the Open University. When it was originally planned the Conservative Party were in Opposititon and some leading members pooh-poohed the whole idea of an Open University. When the Party came to power there was considerable doubt in the Open University whether the essential Government grant would be forthcoming. I am glad to say that the present Government have supported the idea. They have, in fact, supported many important Education Acts, the most important perhaps being the Balfour Act of 1902, over 70 years ago. Education is not primarily a Party matter. But some modern Conservatives went even further. They suggested that since the Open University started so successfully, why not lower the age of admission to 18 and induce some under graduates to enrol in the Open University and not in regular universities? In this way, they said, the Government would save vast sums by not building more classrooms and hostels. I am glad to say that wiser counsels prevailed, and the Open University continues on its original path, taking students after university age. There is room for both

1251
types of university: the traditional university, with students concentrated on one campus, whether they live at home or in hostels; and the Open University, with the student body diffused over the whole country.
The third point, my Lords, concerns the future. The Russell Report suggests widening the range of courses offered by the Open University and introducing more specialised subjects; and it also suggests joint courses with other universities. Here I should like to utter a word of warning. There is much interest in the Open University, both in this country and abroad. Several American universities are considering Open University-type extensions, and even in Israel the idea is being taken up. But I personally think that much of this is premature. The proposers do not realise that it is essential to combine all four of the components that I have mentioned, which are at present in carefully calculated proportions to form the Open University. Unless there were these proportions another Open University would not result. For example, correspondence courses on a large scale require elaborate machinery for handling. The busiest building on the Open University campus at Milton Keynes is the Post Office branch—they have their own post office—which handles the incoming and outgoing mail from all over Britain. Then, widespread seminars throughout the whole of the country require the co-operation of many other universities. Television and radio broadcasts can be done only by some public institution, and that is not easy in a country such as the United States, where nearly all television and radio broadcasting stations are in commercial hands. The trouble is that if one omits only one of these essential components one changes the whole concept. The organisation that emerges may result in a useful contribution to adult education, but it is not another Open University.
So far as Britain is concerned, and the Russell Report recommendations for additional specialised courses, I strongly urge that the Open University be allowed to develop at its own pace. It should not diversify on any large scale before it has fully established its own image. I end by saying that the Chancellor of the Open University is my noble and learned
1252
friend Lord Gardiner, and I am sure that the protection of the Open University from well-meaning but premature expansion is safe in his hands.
5.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I have felt an increasing diffidence at intervening in this debate as I have heard the personal qualifications of noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have taken part before me, because my only qualifications for discussing adult education are that I ran a natural history society at one of Her Majesty's borstals for three years, and almost exactly 50 years ago, as a young subaltern in the Artillery, I was under instruction to teach the dates of the Kings and Queens of England to trumpeters and other junior recruits. The fact that I was more successful, I think, at the borstal than I was in the Army is something from which your Lordships are perfectly at liberty to draw such conclusions as you may wish.
The Russell Committee was set up nearly three years ago. It has been somewhat overtaken by events and by new thinking in local government administration brought about by the passing of the Local Government Act, and that raises a rather important administrative problem to which I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships, and particularly that of Her Majesty's Government. The terms of reference of the Russell Committee were:
"…to review the provision of non-vocational adult education … to consider the appropriateness of existing educational, administrative and financial policies …".
Unfortunately, my Lords, the Committee did no such thing. They seem to have started with the assumption that any change in the administrative system of the educational world must be a bad thing in itself because two of the only three alternatives which they considered were dismissed in a couple of sentences —and I quote:
"Either would be divisive in its effect, and because there were involved a novel system of financing them they would be quite without precedent for an educational service and could be a disastrous beginning to a new era".
As well as that, the Committee found it impossible to draw a clear-cut line

1253
between vocational and non-vocational education—and it is indeed difficult—in particular, because much of the evidence given to them was to the effect that if a certain course is taken in order to qualify for a job it is vocational, and if the same course is taken for the sheer joy of learning, it is non-vocational. In the event, therefore, what the Committee do is to recommend the mixture as before.
They make, as noble Baronesses and noble Lords have said, an admirable survey of the whole spectrum of adult education; and they make some admirable suggestions about improvements in the largely vocational side of adult education, with which other noble Lords have already dealt. But they make no attempt to consider what is the best system of administration for non-vocational adult education specifically. What they say (and I do not think this can be too strongly expressed) is that in times of stringency it is the non-vocational side of adult education which becomes—and indeed it always is—the Cinderella of the whole of the service. Those of your Lordships who, like me, have long experience of local government will know that when money has to be cut it is always the non-vocational side which is cut. If this non-vocational side is going to stand on its own legs, I believe we have to try to think out some new system of administration. And we get no help from this Report. I do not think it is as difficult as it is made out to differentiate between courses which are basically intended to lead to the economic advancement of the people who take them, even if some take them purely for the sheer joy of learning, and those which are basically intended to lead to the social, cultural and personal development of those who take them, even if some of them need those same personal developments in order to further them in their vocation. Indeed, the Committee does identify these last courses rather well as catering for each individual's creativity (and again I quote from it) involving the arts, music, drama, crafts and scientific activities, the individual's physical activity in games and outdoor activities and the individual's social activity in self-discovery and self-expression in groups with a common interest.
1254
I must confess, my Lords, that it is in this last group that I am most interested, because I think the others are always in the forefront of everybody's mind. We tend to laugh at the people who come and want to get a place in, say, a painting class and then, when told there is no vacancy, say, "What have you got?" What they are looking for, and what they get in any of the classes of any sort that we provide, is that self-discovery within a group to which the Committee refers, and leading to that sort of creativity which is really one of the major joys of living. In fact, if you look at it it is more by history than by design that classes of that nature have come to be associated with the general structure of education. By and large, until comparatively recently, it was only to the education committees that Government grants were paid, and if the Government particularly wanted to encourage one particular aspect, like the Physical Training and Recreation Act just before the war, or if some local authority wanted particularly to do something, they tended to lump it on to the education committee because the Government felt it could pay grants and encourage it, and the local authority felt that that was one way of getting money which it would not otherwise get. This non-vocational education, as the Committee point out, should involve all the general cultural activities of local communities. I was sorry that the Committee should dismiss in a few sentences places like museums and record offices, looking at them merely as providers of static education in the way of exhibits for the curious and as perhaps places where some classes could be run.
The noble Lord who spoke last dealt at considerable length with the Open University, and I am surprised that the Committee did not suggest that local museums could do much to help, particularly I think in the biological classes of the Open University, by rearranging their exhibits so as to come into line with the introductory parts of the local university's courses. I think, too, that bodies like that should be far more outward-looking, and certainly in my own county the county archivist and the county archaeologist in fact run classes right out in the outback to a very rural county, teaching

1255
people to look when the land is first ploughed in the spring for signs of archaic sites, to find out more about the scheduled houses, the accounts of local tradesmen and the like. These are all things that bring people together and bring a fullness into their lives which they would not otherwise get, and which mean going right out away from the office, away from the museums, into their hinterland. In fact, what we want to do is to bring into this side of adult education drama clubs, poetry reading, flower arrangement, natural history, badminton, sailing and other clubs, and all the activities which are already being run by such bodies as the Council for Social Service, the rural community councils, the old people's clubs and the groups which are preparing people for retirement. It seems to me that those are much more closely part of the work which most local authorities are attaching to their new amenities and countryside committees than they are to the old regular education committee system of education. The great difficulty is, as we see from the Report of the Russell Committee, that the moment of inertia in local administration is very strong; some people would cynically call it the maintenance of existing empires. I personally feel that this is a problem which needs to be looked at very closely. The Russell Committee, I am afraid, has not been able to help us in any way, and I would hope that the Government would not be put off by that from making further investigations into this problem, because I am certain that if we leave things as they are we shall not be able to provide as good a service as we ought for those who are wanting non-vocational further education.
5.36 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady White for initiating this very important debate and for her excellent speech, which was very informative to me. My Lords, the Russell Report is a thoroughly painstaking document. Apart from the valuable evidence it has collected, the analysis of present-day adult education it presents is sound and in line with the approach to education generally of the Plowden Committee. The conclusions and the recommendations are kept within
1256
the bounds of realism, a word which has a faintly pessimistic ring when applied to education to-day. Because many of the ideas put forward by the Russell Committee are not particularly original and have been widely aired, they could have been expressed more as a précis than as a paraphrase—by which, my Lords, I mean that the Report is too long. But perhaps the evidence it has received justifies its length.
The emphasis in the Report is on the prevailing need for increasing and spreading educational opportunities in our society. This in fact is a recurrent theme in much educational research to-day. For myself I find the views of Dr. Halsey, the distinguished Director of Social and Administrative Studies at Oxford University, the most inspiring about the definition of adult education. He believes that only when every citizen is guaranteed a right to lifelong education can educational justice between social groups be achieved. My Lords, this may not be just a dream. When we consider that by the 1980s one in five of the 18-year-olds will be able to enter university, a polytechnic or a college of education, this leaves four out of five still denied opportunities for educational equality, and the resentment which this must breed will be aggravated as higher and further opportunities are extended. It has become a cliché that, especially in rich countries, the under-privileged groups require greater consideration and a greater degree of fair opportunity. The Russell Report, with its 300 closely printed pages and 118 recommendations, is well aware of the bad social results of an unequal educational system.
In discussing a Report of this length, it would not be popular for a Back-Bencher to try to cover all the organisations, the statutory and voluntary bodies which are dealt with by the Russell Committee. Therefore, I shall refer only to one of the most outstanding of the responsible voluntary organisations, the Workers' Educational Association, which my noble friend Lord Longford took as his main theme. This unique organisation gets a welcome from the Russell Committee, and it responds with a welcome for this Report. I have a sentimental feeling for the Workers'

1257
Educational Association because my husband started his working life as a tutor with the Association, both in Nottingham and in London, teaching economics.
The W.E.A. was a pioneer in bringing university-quality adult education to working people, trade unionists and, generally, to a wider public. It was one of the earliest organisations to realise that in order to educate the children of the less privileged members of our society it was necessary to start with adult education for the parents. This was done by the promotion of courses in liberal and non-vocational subjects of great variety for adults in the Association's thousand local branches throughout its 21 districts, covering the whole of the United Kingdom. It was a national organisation. It receives 75 per cent. grant-aid towards its tuition fees from the Department of Education; and the Russell Committee suggests some additional grants for full-time tutor-organisers and development officers.
In 1971 (I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Longford is not here at the moment), the W.E.A. ran over 7,000 courses and enrolled nearly 135,000 students. These figures are not astronomical, but neither are they negligible. The Russell Committee thinks that the W.E.A. should continue as a promotor of adult education. If the Secretary of State accepts this recommendation and increases the resources available to it, the W.E.A. will be able to expand and work among the more under-privileged groups, where it has been undertaking informal and imaginative projects of an experimental character. It had to do this because of the apathy among such groups. This is very good work, in spite of the fact that progress in this field is very hard to measure. The W.E.A. still remains qualified to play an important role in adult education, and this fact, I am happy to say, receives recognition from Russeil.
I should like to comment on the Green Paper—a report of a Labour Party study group. This is a 40-page document—none the worse for being short—which foreshadowed many of the recommendations and the suggestions contained in the Russell Report. In fact there are many similarities in both documents. They are both expansionist: they are both concerned for the under-privileged.
1258
Russell asks for a Development Council, whereas the Green Paper asks for a Development Commission. Both documents speak of diversification in educational institutions and of the need to provide for students of different levels of attainment. Mr. Anthony Crosland, when Minister of Education in the previous Labour Government, held this view, and I very much agree with him.
I believe there is widespread agreement that up to now the universities have had more than their fair share of resources and that more should now be allocated to the polytechnics and colleges. Yet the Green Paper voices its disquiet about the philosophy behind the polytechnic policy. I simply do not understand this. I do not know why the polytechnics should not relish their share of the snobbery, élitism —call it what you like—that the various universities have enjoyed for so many years up to now. I believe that one should keep an open mind on the changes required in education. All the same, a fear of upgrading the status of polytechnics to-day is foolish. There are bound to be changes in the various institutions, as we continue the progress for more and more equality of opportunity. After all, Oxford and Cambridge had to lose some of their mystique when the new universities were established. So long as polytechnics are good, they have a great equalising and expanding role in education.
Finally, my Lords, I hope that the Government accept Russell. I gather that the amount of money involved is relatively small, but the ensuing benefits can be great. I read that one per cent. of the education budget would double the adult education provision for 1980.
5.47 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, I should like to begin by giving a short quotation from the Russell Report on Adult Education:
"In our changing and evolving society the explicit and latent demands for all kinds of adult education have increased and will continue to increase. Adults, in their own right, have claims for the provision of a comprehensive service which can satisfy these demands in appropriately adult ways: all areas of education will he enriched if demands for the education of adults are met.
"Within our community there exists an enormous reservoir of human and material resources: a relatively modest investment in

1259
adult education … could release these resources to adult education for the benefit of individuals and the good of society."
No one can argue with this statement. However, a comprehensive service is one that caters for all the people, and this includes the handicapped who, in my view, merit special consideration and who are just as much entitled to benefit from adult education, according to their need, as any other person.
The term "handicapped" or "disadvantaged" (as the Report calls it) embraces a very large field; but I wish to speak particularly of the physically and mentally handicapped who cannot easily take part in adult education as normally provided. The Report states that more positive effort should be directed towards the disadvantaged. This is true. It is not enough to take the mentally handicapped out of their sub-normality hospitals and put them in hostels or community homes. Here, although their physical comforts are well catered for, there may be a lack of attention to their mental needs. One must remember, too, that although a mentally handicapped person may be adult in years, his mental age will probably be much less—which means that his needs will be quite different from those of others in his ordinary age group. While physically handicapped or subnormal or mentally ill people will be found in all classes of the population, they are likely to appear in greater proportions among the socially deprived. Therefore it will be necessary for the social services and other relevant departments to seek out these people and, after assessing their needs, join with the Department of Education in trying to cater for them.
Education is already expensive and, on the face of it, must be provided first for those who are able to make the most pronounced use of it—that is, the fit, the able and the industrially exploitable: in short, those who already have. On the other hand, so great is the deprivation of the "have-nots" that even a little more effort to extend educational provision to just a few disadvantaged people would be amply repaid. More specialised teachers are necessary, whether professionals, social workers, part-time paid workers or volunteers. Teaching techniques are improving all the time, but
1260
there must be planned exploration of new areas of work, especially among the disadvantaged of all kinds, and the setting up and evaluation of experiments in provision for them.
In some cases it may be possible to integrate the handicapped adult into normal activities, but there will be many cases which will need specific provisions, not only in teaching but also in premises, timing of courses, and so on. One example: it would be useless to arrange courses in a building and then find that owing to the structure of the building it would be impossible for a physically handicapped person, say in a wheelchair, to enter that building. This, inevitably, must lead to extra expenditure; but it will be money well spent. I agree, as the Report says, that there must be a much more positive effort to help the physically and mentally handicapped; but it is very important that it should be a joint effort of all departments concerned.
Some hospitals for the mentally subnormal have had their classes recognised as evening institutes by local education authorities who have then supplied teaching staff, or paid the staff of the hospital school who take on this duty in their evenings. In other areas, there has been difficulty over recognition. Voluntary organisations have done their best with the limited funds at their disposal, but with the help of further education resources much more could be done. The families of those involved with living with these people will also benefit from training to enable them not only to help the handicapped but also to ease their own burden wherever possible.
Then there is of course the all-important question of educating the public. The mass media has and is being a help here but it cannot change public attitudes; it can only help by information. Therefore, to be a real success there must be co-operation between all bodies concerned with the wellbeing of the handicapped. One must accept that, by normal standards, progress may be slow, but it will be rewarding. These people need a useful role in society to establish their self-respect—they do not want just to be tolerated—and education can help them to achieve this aim.
5.53 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF GRASMERE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has

1261
just told me that unfortunately he is unable to address your Lordships, and he expressed great personal apologies. He has gone away for a commitment which he could not possibly avoid. Time is getting on and your Lordships will not want to be kept very much longer, even in this very profitable debate. I do not as a rule put myself down to speak about education or even about universities, although I have spent my life in them, because so many of my friends, colleagues and ex-colleagues who are more up-to-date with the affairs of the educational world are able to be here and speak. I feel it is better for your Lordships and for me to listen to them, but I have ventured to put my name down to speak in this debate. I have spent more than 50 years closely associated with the work of the Workers' Educational Association and the universities in adult education, and also to some degree with the adult education work of the local authorities.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady White—to whom we are all greatly indebted for raising this subject—I have been waiting a long time for the Russell Report with quite a lot of hope and, like other people I suppose, with quite a lot of anxiety. I must confess that my first feeling was like the first feeling of most people—the trumpet has given a rather uncertain sound. I do not know whether I would say that it has given an uncertain sound, but it has given rather a muted sound. I should have thought the time has come when permanent education, éducation permanente, should be given a trumpet call in this country. It has made a good deal more progress on the headlines of other countries who, if the truth be told, may not be doing as well as we are.
The Russell Report made a considerable claim, if I understood it correctly, that all the good things we think and speak about in adult education are covered by the great 1944 Act. But it also says that adult education is never mentioned in that Act. The Russell Report, if one reads it carefully, emphasises the importance of adult education in the scheme of permanent education. It says that it matters a lot to the primary, secondary and tertiary sections of education. Adult education not only matters a good deal to the adults; it matters a great deal to the next generation. The mothers of the next genera
1262
tion (and I like to think, as some of your Lordships may do, some of the fathers, too) have a considerable influence and bearing on the education and development of their children. I think mothers have exercised an enormous influence on the education system of the past 20 or 30 years. Be that as it may, the great 1944 Education Act is supposed to have covered all this, though it does not actually mention it.
The Russell Report thinks we are embarking upon, or have embarked upon, a new age. The world is changing very fast and people require education much more. One member of the Committee said in something I read the other day that people under 35 in this country have received far greater services in many respects that appeal to us nowadays than people who are over 35. The education system in this country has been greatly affected by adult education. We have been told by previous speakers that many of us as young dons went into the "game" when we were 22 or 23. We found we were in a new world and we were asked questions that our own education did not equip us to answer. I remember talking about the Greeks to a class of agricultural people in a village. I mentioned that the Greeks were tall, fair-haired people. One of the first questoins asked by somebody who had been engaged in the Gallipoli affair was: "You said they were tall and fair. The ones I have seen were short and dark. What is the explanation for that?" My education at that date put me in a poor position to cope with the question. I expect I said, "I must have notice of that". Nowadays my children and grandchildren are in a much better position to answer that type of question. Much of this is due to adult education.
Adult education, under people like Tawney and Cole, the noble Baroness who is now sitting on the Woolsack, and others, has taken in many new things. They changed the subjects of their research, or modified them; they changed their lectures to undergraduates. If we read a great number of books nowadays, especially about social history, regarding the things we have to look at to deal with the problems with which we are now concerned, though the historians have to pay a certain amount of attention—not in some cases very much, I am glad to

1263
say—putting right the smaller errors of their colleagues who wrote books a few years ago, we find that they mainly ask such questions as we would ask ourselves: about what the life of the bulk of the people was like before the Industrial Revolution; what it was like during the years of the Industrial Revolution; what it was like in the country before agriculture picked up. They ask all these questions because adult students ask these questions; and they had only to be asked the questions to realise that they wanted to know the answer as much as anybody else. And this has vitally changed a great number of the books and a great number of the lectures.
Adult education has greatly affected the whole body and scheme of education in regard to pupil influence. In adult education, especially in the W.E.A., which has been referred to many times, the doctrine, a doctrine which everybody tried to keep as practical and as realistic as possible, was that students should determine the subject and indeed choose and approve their tutor. The important thing is that they chose the subject. Years ago, if they knew what they wanted—and I have little doubt it is still true— a tutor was sent along to talk it over with them and between them they threshed it out. If the students said they were interested in something that was absolutely current, the tutor would be pretty sure to say to them: "You must do a certain amount of history. It will throw light on this." But the tutor would probably accept that they must start with something current; then in the second year go back to something historical, and in the third year come forward again and say: "Now, having looked at the history, what do we now think about it all in relation to the problem of the moment?" There was enormous student influence. It went on all the way through. Not only had the tutor to keep his students, all of whom were voluntary and all of whom had to do quite a lot of work in these W.E.A. classes—as they still do—and play a part in the discussions which really made the class; he had to pay attention to their views, even as the year went on and change his syllabus, and so on, to meet the students. This has become one of the latest doctrines for pupils of all
1264
ages: that pupils ought to have some say in what they are taught—and how right, no doubt, that is! But in so far as this has already invaded the system, it is due to adult education.
The muted trumpet call has two aspects which I must deal with extremely briefly, but they are the important part of what I have to say. These two aspects are quite cheering. The first is that I think it is notable that the section of the Report on the needs of adult education is a very good section. It is a splendidly written section. It reflects an enormous amount of thought and a tremendous amount of professional knowledge. Your Lordships can take it from me, as one who has spent fifty years in this game, that a great deal of knowledge has been contributed. But it is in a very subdued key. I found that, in spite of my fifty years of experience, I had to read a good deal of it two or three times to get out what was in it, and I should think that the majority of people who did not know much about adult education might have to read it at least three times before they saw the point.
Why did the Russell Committee think they could do this? They clearly thought that a great deal of the needs of adult education could be taken for granted. If we had been talking twenty years ago there would have been a great deal of appeal about the nature of adult education, what it could do, what it was doing, what it had done, and it would perhaps have had to get rather shrill in order to draw people's attention to it. But the Russell Committee seem to me to have thought that they could take it for granted; and I am told that only one of the papers produced the old jokes about hobbies and raffia work and country dancing—though I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, did not produce what she hoped was a joke about country dancing, but I may be doing her an injustice. But the Russell Committee took it for granted that nobody would do that nowadays; that nobody would laugh when you said these things.
No doubt the Russell Committee supposed that, with the big changes in public opinion, there was great sympathy with all the causes connected with the environment, with the view that man does not live by wage and salary earning work alone but has a great deal of his life in

1265
addition to that, and that he needs something fairly substantial to live on—within but not only within—and that people must be given what they want. If they want something seriously it is the business of the State, it is the business of the Government, to provide at least a framework in which they can have it; provided they seriously want something, and provided it would give them serious satisfaction, the Government must provide it. I think the Russell Committee assumed that the Government would provide it. I hope they are right. I am doubtful whether they were. I should think that a good deal of solid work has still to be done to convince people of the fundamental nature of the needs provided by adult education. But I must leave it there.
The other side of the muted nature of the trumpet call is that the Russell Committee thought we were doing quite well. They paid a good deal of attention, as we all do and have done, to other countries, but they thought we were doing quite well. They clearly thought that the great bulk, numerically speaking, of the work provided by the local education authorities, covering very nearly the 2 million students, was good, and that the public recognised it was valuable. If people wanted it, it must be there. If more of them wanted it, the money must he there for it. If more of them wanted new things, the money must be there for that. If it could be improved, it was comparatively cheap or very cheap and it ought to be provided; that is to say, the Russell Committee took it that the local authorities must be doing pretty well. I realise there is a serious case for the things about which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, spoke regarding the form of provision, and I will say one word briefly about that in a moment.
The other part is that provided by the responsible bodies. I suppose the Russell Committee thought that in the early days there was a free-for-all competition in some spheres between the universities and the W.E.A. but nowadays each of them has its own clientele. The universities are very much concerned with pretty highly educated people who want to change their subjects to take subjects they did not take before; or they want to be up to date with some subjects, or to take some subject which will be very valuable for them to have some know-
1266
ledge of. They are fairly highly educated people who need adult education. I think that not enough has been said about this aspect of adult education. There are some subjects in which you cannot educate yourself except in a way relative to your age. I do not think enough has been said about this. There is the obvious point which I have ventured to mention over the last fifty years a number of times: that if you are talking to an adult class about Othello you frame your whole doctrine and all the questions you raise rather differently than if you are talking to boys and girls of 17 or 18, and differently again if you are talking to children of 13 or 14. There are points that you can take up and discuss with some reason which will be fully understood by adults; there may be really good discussion of them, which would not be possible at age 17 or 18.
Up to a point there are some subjects which need to he taught later. The obvious example is politics. The Greeks said that one could not study politics before 35; and the thing that attracted the young dons into W.E.A. adult education was the chance to meet students who had been in the game; students who were in the trade unions or in local politics and who had some experience of it all; students who knew how human nature functioned, who knew how political institutions affected people and therefore had something to go on: that part of quaternary education which all of us get at the appropriate age. We, as Members of your Lordships' House, get education from attending this House, some of which we should have got differently or not have got at all 40 years ago. Education has always depended upon age; people who do not remember that have forgotten one of the most fundamental things about education.
If the Russell Report is correct, and if I understand it rightly, the functions as between the universities with their own provision and the provision of the W.E.A., which is partly together with the universities and partly not, have settled down. The W.E.A. has a great tradition: it is one of the most famous educational institutions, even comparable in fame round the world with the public schools and with Oxford and Cambridge. It is one of the great educational institutions of the world. The world at large thinks

1267
that a high proportion of the Members of another place as well as probably the whole of some sections of the membership of your Lordships' House and a very considerable number of leading people in the trade unions, have been in the W.E.A. at one time or another and owe a great deal to the W.E.A. It is a leading and distinguished institution. It went through difficult times, along the lines mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as to how it should adjust itself to the changing of the classes, and so on, but clearly it has picked up. One should not read too much into figures, but on the figures it has slightly passed the universities again whereas a few years ago the universities passed it on the total figures. It seems clear that it is again well on the up and up; it seems clear that it is doing the job in the traditional way and that the education really is education. Those in the classes play a very high part in the educational activity of the classes, as well as the tutor.
So if the Russell Committee is right—and I have little doubt that it is—we are doing quite well. The Committee says that the work is increasing, and it is vital. It is of course perfectly clear, and nobody knows this as well as the W.E.A. with its high standards and its stress on the hard work to be put into things by students, that not everybody is converted to higher education by reading the daily Press and looking at the "tele"; that to get people to see the satisfaction and value that they will get out of higher education is quite a problem. But it is going on well and the Russell Committee expresses the hope that it will continue to do so.
The recommendations are most important. I take it that the Russell Committee muted the sound of the trumpet and kept the recommendations comparatively small because it thought that the present Government might accept something like this. There is the Development Council for Adult Education. I know that Departments of State do not like these things, and therefore that probably will not come off; but if the Government turn it down I think that will be taken with a degree of alarm and despondency as an indication that the Government are not going to do very much about anything. The amount of money is comparatively small.
1268
The local authorities and the voluntary bodies together only take the figure from the present £18 million to about £38 million or £40 million. These are minimum requirements.
The other point which should be mentioned clearly and firmly is that the Russell Report is fairly rude about the Department with regard to adult education. Previous speakers have mentioned this. It says that although no doubt this is not what is meant, and it is not what Ministers meant or what the Department meant, their public image has been of somebody who rarely says anything about anything except student fees, and the gathering together of little bits and pieces of money in the corner of the programme. But I feel that its important recommendation was that the Department should recognise the importance of leadership from the Department.
I do not interpret the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I do not read the situation quite in the same way as the noble Earl, Lord Longford. After all, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, went out of her way to say that the £2 million to-day would be £3¼ million by 1980, and while the Russell Report says that they should rise to £38 million in five to seven years, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that the figure would be £40 million in 1980. I think these are promising signs, and whatever we feel about the trumpet call from the Russell Committee, that Committee may have been right. The Government may produce this money. I believe the thing to do to-day is to emphasise that it is a good bet and that it is absolutely vital.
If the Government believe in the new life, by which you do not worry only about wage earning but about life, about social life, about the capacity of people to participate, and you rely on the free institutions of this country being capable of continuing to be run, then adult education is vital and these recommendations are minimal and absolutely necessary. I hope your Lordships will do everything you can to impress upon the Government that the recommendations really must be accepted.
6.19 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should also like to add my thanks to my

1269
noble friend Lady White for the opportunity to debate the Russell Committee's Report and for the interesting and delightful way in which she introduced this debate.
This document seems to me to be eminently workmanlike, and to point to short-term advances, at any rate. Indeed, I have had the opportunity of speaking to two of the distinguished members of the Committee, one of whom rather emphasised this aspect. Mr. Clifford Barclay's own view was that another committee would need to be set up in seven years' time. Since I understand that 50 years have elapsed since the last one was set up, another one in seven years would clearly be an advance.
As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, outlined the existing structure of adult education, but I will make my comments on the existing structure of adult education from the report of the Department of Education and Science. I feel it sad that it merits only one page. Indeed, the total amount of grants given here to the outside bodies is so small that it seems to indicate to me the attitude that is often taken to adult education. I cannot claim to have spent 50 years in adult education, as some of your Lordships can, but I am actively engaged in adult education. I am the general secretary of a women's organisation that has 1,100 branches and 55,000 members. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is listening, because I can tell him that we have no difficulty in getting customers because we know how to set about it. We must ask why we need adult education. I also had this splendid quotation which the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, chose, so I shall not go over it again. I felt that that personified what we in the adult education world are searching for.
We recognise that within our community there exists an enormous reservoir of human and material resources—with the emphasis particularly on the human. But in addition I selected from the Russell Report the very alarming fact that almost three-quarters of the adult population to-day left school at the minimum school-leaving age, and three-fifths of to-day's adults received their schooling before the leaving age was raised even to 15. That is the background against which the Russell Report made their deliberations.
1270
The value of adult education is not to be measured solely by the direct increase in earning power or productive capacity. My own belief, strengthened over years of working in adult education is that far too many people never have their true talents discovered. The noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, I believe, said their "potential". I do not mind what it is called, but I am convinced that so many people die and their true talents have never been brought to light. They have been second-best all their life. Last weekend I had a group of 70 ladies in a training course where we had discussion groups, drama, poetry, dancing and craft. Your Lordships will gather from that that we did not give them a moment's rest from the time they arrived until they left. But I should like to tell Her Majesty's Government that this was the kind of adult education where they all paid for themselves. These courses are totally self-funding, and we receive nothing from either local education authorities or from the Government.
The needs of those in adult education must be met in various ways. The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to the residential adult education colleges. I should like to pick up the one for which I have a particular affection—a nonresidential one, which nobody has so far mentioned: the Working Men's College in Camden. Here, they have for many years carried out the tenets which are now very fashionable, the value of the intermingling of members, the people taking the vocational and non-vocational courses; the space for social contact; the learning process continuing outside in informal situations; and indeed, the whole atmosphere of a college. They have many voluntary tutors, very able people, highly qualified in their own sphere, who give their time for this sort of college; and participation in the governing body.
The role of the W.E.A. has been emphasised over and over again. I remember that my early occupation as a voluntary tutor was in another now defunct group—I am not suggesting that the W.E.A. is defunct—the National Council of Labour Colleges, which did a very special and particular job in the field of adult education. I see the role of the W.E.A. as providing the special groups, the classes in prisons, classes in

1271
hospitals and work with the informal groups. But if we want a participating democracy we have to bring much more into our adult education sections the real action groups, the pressure groups and the interest groups. These have to be picked up in area organisation.
I am also interested in preparation for retirement, which was discussed yesterday under the Social Security Bill. We believe that this will come earlier, that people will have an opportunity to do something for themselves, and that it must be prepared for. It is really only a preparation for leisure. But, here again, this is a vastly expanding field of adult education and the more we have dull repetitive work—and that again, as I see it, cannot fail to be a feature of our society—the more we need not only rewarding leisure but recreation of our energies. That can come through adult education.
One section of the Russell Report refers to the direct provision given by the local education authorities, and I should like to emphasise the need to broaden their work. I believe that in the classes there is still too much registration, too much atmosphere of school. That is probably one of the reasons why there are not the numbers that we should like to have. I do not think we can be very satisfied with these numbers. We may have a higher number than in other countries but it is not a very good number if one compares it with the number of people going to the average bingo hall every night of the week. We cannot be complacent in any way. I do not find, unfortunately, that local education authorities are as imaginative as they might be. And, if one is a voluntary adult education body the difficulties involved in booking meeting places have to be experienced to be believed. I could write a report on that subject myself which I believe would be nearly as long as the Russell Report. First, one moves from the Director of Education, through the divisional officers, the further education officers, the youth and community officers, the head teachers and, finally, and most formidable of all, to the caretakers. If the caretaker does not want you to go into that school, you do not get the use of the school. There are a number of people with petty power who
1272
will stop the most enlivening and exciting aspects of adult education. If you are lucky enough to get into the school, you will be given a treatise on not scratching the walls or the floors, not using the canteen, not smoking, nor dancing. I sometimes wonder whether it would not be easier for the caretakers if the schools were not used at all; they could then be preserved as museums.
Having got in, you will be subjected to abrupt cancellations for parent-teacher meetings, for election meetings; and of course you have to conform to the holiday period. I say in all seriousness that our schools and college buildings, and, indeed, our parks and recreation fields, are closed for as many days as they are open, and until we recognise the fact that we must have much more flexibility, much more encouragement and much more elasticity, true adult education will not be able to carry out its full role. If I speak with some feeling, it is because I have constantly to battle with these people. I sometimes think that there are too many empire builders. Perhaps the system encourages that. If you ask adult education officers to produce results and figures, perhaps the voluntary organisation will not appear in their report. I endorse the Report in its plea that area centres should be part of the accommodation in local schools.
I should like to endorse other noble Lords' observations regarding a development council for further education. If that is to be an advisory body one hopes that the Minister will take note of the advice given by the advisory body and that this advice will sometimes be a nudging of the elbow for action. I hope that this body will not be used as what I can call a "fall-back", so that in the event of the Minister not wishing to do anything, he or she can say, "I am referring it to the advisory body for adult education". That must be an action body, a body whose advice is taken note of.
I should like to add my plea to that of the noble Baroness who introduced the debate, and to those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate, for the acceptance of adult education in its own right. If the well-to-do are to have the privilege of paying for continuing education, then those less well provided

1273
for in our society are entitled to have it too. Upon education depends the wealth of our society and the true and ultimate happiness of all human beings. I hope that the simple and straightforward recommendations of this Report will be very soon implemented.
6.30 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, it was right, I think, that my noble friend Lady Young should say that the noble Baroness, Lady White, had placed us all in her debt by raising the important issue of this Report this afternoon. In addition, I would thank those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, on an earlier occasion in his career, I confess that I feel myself somewhat unfitted to answer the points made by the concentration of experience and of interest which has been brought to bear on this subject in this debate and which will be, I assure your Lordships, of very considerable help in the Governments' study of this Report.
Naturally, your Lordships would wish me to comment on the acceptability of the Report's many recommendations, but the noble Earl, Lord Longford, got it right. As my noble friend explained at the beginning of the debate, I cannot at this point in time give your Lordships answers to the recommendations in the Report; and I am bound to say that I am not entirely convinced that it would be desirable. Soon my right honourable friend will set in train a process of consultations with those involved in the work of adult education, and it may well be that, in the light of this wide-ranging Report, some of the organisations concerned will wish, at any rate marginally, to add to or place a different emphasis on their original evidence. In addition to that, I am sure that it is essential to consider carefully the line of action on the first Report concerned with adult education for fifty years, a Report which itself consumed four years of close study and careful deliberation, and which of course has covered such an incredibly wide field. But the Government are indebted to Sir Lionel and his Committee for their comprehensive survey, and I give the House this undertaking. We wish to know what are the reactions of those involved in adult education to the Report, and I have taken note of, and am going to report
1274
to my right honourable friend the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, that to see what we could do would be, in his words, '" a good bet".
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in another place has recently attended the National Institute of Adult Education conference at Bangor and is shortly to attend the Association for Adult Education annual conference dinner for teachers at Buxton. If I may reply to one of the noble Baroness's questions right away at this point, the one based on paragraph 160, the House may also be assured that the Department's administrative structure for adult education will be ready to cope fully with the requirements of the situation, and indeed the interests of adult education were one of the factors taken into account in the recent reorganisation of those branches of my right honourable friend's Department which deal with further and higher education. Similarly, we shall ensure that Her Majesty's Inspectorate working in the field of adult education have the opportunity and the time to provide a fully adequate flow of information and advice.
May I just add this to what my noble friend said at the beginning of the debate? The Committee, I think it is fair to say, had some difficulty in collecting statistics about non-vocational adult education, because the area covered so many types of provision in so many different types of institution. For example, the figure of 2 million students includes those attending courses in a wide array of establishments, including colleges of further education, evening institutes, village halls and community centres. Of course, we have had Members of the House, not least noble Baronesses, who have spoken of the contribution made by the voluntary bodies. It is fair to say that not all local education authorities were able to provide figures for courses in these and similar establishments, and as the Report itself says at page 186:
"It was evident…that many local education authorities had had to make estimates of the numbers enrolled".
There were difficulties, too, in collecting other statistical information, not least that relating to expenditure. In those circumstances all I am saying is that, while the figures in the Report are certainly the best available, they should be treated, I am

1275
sure the Committee will not mind my saying, with a certain amount of circumspection.
My noble friend, in her speech, gave estimates of student numbers, and I think that these show the considerable expansion which has, we estimate, occurred since 1968–69. And if we are correct in envisaging that some 3¼ million students will be involved in adult education by 1978, then so far as numbers are concerned we shall be making at any rate good progress towards the Russell Committee's target of 4 million students to be achieved in a development period of five to seven years. May I say to your Lordships that I am not using that as an argument to say that therefore the Government need not do anything. I am simply trying to give you the estimates which we have quite genuinely and conscientiously been trying to make in the Department over the past few weeks. The noble Baroness, Lady White, has asked me if I can up-date the statistics given in paragraph 4 of the general statement at the front of the Report. I am afraid that this is not possible. The statistics in the Report were compiled by a special exercise, specially for the Report. But the bases for my noble friend's estimates are projections of some of the statistics collected by the Committee, supplemented and strengthened by those which we also collect, such as numbers in evening institutes and evening students in part-time further education. That is how we have arrived at our estimations. Having said all that, I therefore fully appreciate the reasons that led Sir Lionel and his colleagues to make recommendation 114, to the effect that the Department should review the information which ought to be available. We are now considering how the quality and flow of statistical information can be improved.
If the Committee's objectives for student numbers are to be achieved, then it is essential to have the necessary buildings in some form or another. I use that rather offhand expression because the Report itself asks the Secretary of State to make it plain that,
"public educational facilities need not always be provided separately whatever the age group."
It is not reasonable to have the expensive capital facilities of secondary schools and colleges lying idle at times when they
1276
could be used by adults. Just as throughout the ages children have looked with longing through the windows of the sweetshops of the world, so to-day do many adults, and adult organisations in particular, view the new buildings of the schools and colleges which are the products of massive school and further education building programmes since the war. I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, had to say about trying to make bookings for buildings. This, of course, is a responsibility of the local education authorities and not mine; but may I say this? I should like to pay tribute to the local education authorities who have grasped this very difficult nettle—because many of them have. At the same time, what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said also has truth in it; otherwise, of course, she would not have said it to the House. I remember very well, going back four or five years in my own part of the world in England, that a report was produced for my local sports council by a committee headed by a chief education officer on dual use, and one of the recommendations of that report was that authorities should try to get a drill so that it was quite clear how an interested organisation or individual could make a booking of an educational building. And whereas it would be deeply resented if my right honourable friend brought this sort of information to the notice of local education authorities, I hope that if the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has trouble perhaps she will try this line of argument.
The Report, however, recognises that an increasing number of classes are being arranged during the day time, and I should be the first to admit that for these activities adult education needs accommodation of its own. The noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, has called for an identifiable building for adult education in every area. Many local education authorities have converted redundant premises to adult education use, while others which have lacked substantial cultural centres have, in building these, included provision for adult education. I noticed in this month's County Councils Gazette that there is an interesting article about a new community college which has been built in Leicestershire; and, as your Lordships will know, there have been some projects where facilities educational, medical and social have all been

1277
gathered together into one complex of buildings, which makes the concept of adult education more convenient, more practical and, therefore, more attractive.
The Report refers to the vital position in adult education of a healthy library service. This is something to which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred when he spoke about libraries, museums and other matters. I believe that the reorganisation of that service under the Local Government Act will make it easier for the needs of background reading to be met, and reorganisation should certainly make it easier to borrow without the restrictions on circulation imposed by the old library boundaries. Equally, museums should make an important contribution at all stages of education. I share my noble friend's feelings on this matter, although I do not think he fully reported what the Committee said about museums, and I, also, was rather surprised that a little more was not said about museums in the Report. This demand for the facilities of museums arises not only from school-children and students but from adult education bodies in connection with the courses which they are running—a demand which sometimes extends to the use of museum premises for organised classes in the evenings and at weekends. There is little doubt that recent television programmes have aroused a considerable interest in a number of subjects—for example, archæology and art history—and an increasing number of adult education courses are being provided in these and other subjects, in which museums can play a valuable part.
I could mention a number of examples of the practical co-operation between museums and adult education authorities, but I shall not because my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has already done so from his part of the world, which is also mine. My noble friend raised an entirely different subject. He drew attention to the diversity of providers in the field of adult education. As he perhaps implied there is for that reason a danger that sometimes the fullest possible co-operation is not attained in the interests of the students concerned. I cannot find myself, representing the Department of my right honourable friend, going along with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook to his conclusion, but I am sure there is a place
1278
for more thought over this matter, and it is something which I assure him we shall think over carefully. But the local education authorities are in a very good position to assess local needs and initiatives which need to be taken. This is a point which was put by my noble friend Lady Young at the beginning of the debate.
Having said something about the plant and resources needed in adult education, may I say a few words about those who are to use them? I think I am echoing the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, when I say that I was particularly grateful to the Russell Committee for setting out so clearly in paragraph 58.1 the different ways in which adult education can offer equality of opportunity so that each individual can benefit from a continuing education. The noble Baroness, Lady White, and my noble friend Lady Young have both mentioned remedial education, what the Committee called balancing and second chance education—to which the noble Baroness referred in speaking about her father's work and Coleg Harlech—updating, counselling and, indeed, education about education. These are all different aspects of adult education listed by the Committee in that paragraph. Perhaps they ought to have added mutual education, which was referred to so vividly by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Then the Report went on in the next two paragraphs to discuss these aspects of adult education in relation to the constant development of individuals and to the place of the person in society. I should like to reply to points made by your Lordships in this context.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, both mentioned retirement and pre-retirement. The effects of improved medical care and the tendency towards earlier retirement are certainly two factors which must be borne in mind very much to-day. There is a growing appreciation of the need for preparation for the conclusion of a working career, and a significant start has been made by a number of agencies providing pre-retirement education. A recent survey has identified about 100 courses provided by such bodies as the W.E.A. districts and by colleges of further education. There are also possibilities of experimental pre-retirement courses

1279
being conducted by some of the local radio stations. In pre-retirement education, co-operation between industry and adult education agencies is growing, and I think we should all agree could well be further extended. In an age when industrial reorganisation and industrial relations are becoming increasingly complex, it is vitally important that the resultant problems are studied carefully by both sides of industry. At universities, business schools and colleges of further education, post-experience courses in management education have been developed rapidly in recent years. Trade union education, both through the T.U.C.'s educational work and as a result of initiatives taken by the W.E.A. and university departments of extra-mural studies, have seen significant expansion in the last decade.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others mentioned the special claims of women on adult education. Although nearly 70 per cent. of the provision is used by women, both my noble friend Lady Young and I cordially agree that we need new initiatives always to be kept in mind as to how the provision for women can be put forward, because for many the combination of job and home leaves little time for extended studies; but, obviously, there is a need for a mother to maintain and enlarge her educational experience, both for herself and for her family. It is because a married woman has so many calls on her time that she may feel unable or unwilling to respond to any publicity for adult education courses, and I notice that the Report observes that, whatever the providing body may be, its approach to people must be "imaginative and flexible".
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I really do not think it is true that young married women with children would not respond to advertising. They have a real hunger, as soon as their children are old enough, to have education which stretches their mind, and I personally know dozens of them.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has put that point of view, because, obviously,
1280
if she says that, knowing the adult education field for so long through her husband, she knows that it is true. What I was going to say was that last Saturday evening I met the development officer of a large rural authority in East Anglia which has a lot of new town development. There he found that one of the dangers was that if mothers whom he was trying to interest in the running of play groups were approached with the usual approach that they were being asked to join a course, then he might get a "No", from many of them. But if he approached them informally and asked them to participate with him in discussions about how they could get a play group going he was successful. I shall not disagree with the noble Baroness. I shall just say that sometimes, according to the individuals concerned, there may be two ways of approaching the same problem.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I am just trying to be helpful. If his Department would like a specimen of some of my very successful propaganda in new and expanding towns for bringing in young wives, I shall be happy to let him have a copy.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I shall be grateful to the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, led a whole list of your Lordships who spoke of the special claims of those who are disadvantaged in this field. Sir Lionel Russell and his Committee made the point very strongly that when they spoke of a comprehensive service they meant one which caters for all people, including those who are handicapped or disadvantaged in various ways, and they included those who are totally unaware of the cultural disadvantages from which they may suffer because of their inability to take part in any form of continuing education. As the Report says, many are reluctant to venture into
"experiences of which they have felt little need and for which because of their truncated education they have developed scant respect".
I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Longford—and it was certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell—who pointed out that to bring adult education to this disadvantaged group is a much more difficult and long-term task than to bring

1281
it to disadvantaged groups such as the old or the physically handicapped, whose problems certainly relate to timing, location and facilities but not to lack of incentive and understanding of any educational need or want.
However, my Lords, following recent research into the problems identified with educating those who can be said to suffer disadvantage in this way, new techniques are being devised and some experimental projects have already been undertaken. The Liverpool Local Education Authority and Liverpool University, for example, in association with the North-West District of the W.E.A., are making an attempt to interest a number of adults for whom education appears to have no attraction in undertaking various forms of outgoing activity. At Southampton University a project entitled "Adult Education in Areas of Urban Overspill" has now been completed; a further grant is to be given by my right honourable friend's Department; and the Inner London Education Authority has recently recruited staff specifically to explore new techniques in the teaching of adults. May I add here that the noble Baroness, Lady White, drew my attention to grants in the context of development work—the noble Earl also referred to this—and later on we shall certainly be considering what the noble Earl and the noble Baroness said.
Some of your Lordships may have read very recently in the newspapers—and this is only a newspaper report—that one in every six adult women will suffer a breakdown leading to hospital treatment, and that this applies to one in nine of men. It would be trespassing on a subject which lies outside my competence if I claimed that adult education provided an answer to the report of this distressing state of affairs, if it is accurate; but I think that anyone who has read the Russell Report will be grateful to the Committee for stating in paragraph 182 that tile good teacher is one who will try to ensure that the informal activities, such as clubs and societies, that often grow out of classroom, can mitigate the loneliness of many people and create opportunities for social contact which are important subsidiary functions of adult education.
1282
My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, and my noble friend Lady Elliot said about the physically handicapped. I remember meeting not so long ago a deputation of people who were involved in providing music for people who are physically handicapped. One of the deputation was a girl who was in a wheelchair. She was, in fact, the secretary of the organisation which had come to see my Department. I should like to say that I entirely support my noble friend's desire to see the physically handicapped and other disadvantaged persons attend ordinary classes; and, like her and Lady Loudoun, I look forward to the day when the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 are able to relate to the modification of buildings so that the Act comes fully into force. It is perfectly clear from all the speeches this afternoon that the Report's proposals for the establishment of national and local development councils have aroused widespread interest, and I assure the House that we shall look very carefully at that proposal and at those proposals in the light of our discussions, to which I have already referred; but for the reasons I have given, I can go no further this afternoon.
There is one last field of adult education development to which the Committee referred where I believe that action which the Government have already taken is certainly in line with what the Report recommended. A wide range of audiovisual material and equipment is needed in adult education whenever possible. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, perhaps the leading example of the systematic application of combinations of media in course materials is the work which is done by the Open University. In January, 1971, my right honourable friend appointed a Committee to recommend new arrangements for promoting educational technology in the United Kingdom under the chairmanship of Mr. J. A. Hudson, Deputy Secretary at my right honourable friend's Department. Following the recommendations of this Report, it is proposed to establish a new organisation to replace the existing National Council for Educational Technology. It is hoped that the new organisation will come into being in

1283
October, 1973, and I would expect that its more representative nature will enable the needs of adult education in the field of educational technology to be better understood.
My Lords, I do not want to sound in any way complacent, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that what is important in many ways is the range of opportunities which actually exist and people can use; and while no one would deny that there is room for improvement, I really do not think we ought to be overmodest in this country about what we have already achieved—and I say this when it is the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, who has indicated that we have a record which compares with the record of other countries. There is day release, there is the scheme for retraining in occupational skills, there is the Open University, there is Birkbeck College—not exactly adult education, I appreciate, but unique so far as I know—there are long-term and short-term residential colleges; there is the W.E.A. itself; there are university extra-mural courses and a whole spectrum of courses available at day and evening classes in a wide range of institutions such as schools, F.E. colleges and adult education establishments, not to mention, of course, the voluntary organisations, which include work with women's organisations, work with the handicapped and work specifically with the arts—and, of course, it is the voluntary movement which we have to thank for the concept and the development of community associations. The variety of adult education in this country has, I think, been admirably portrayed and studied by Sir Lionel Russell's Committee, and this afternoon, if I may say so, your Lordships have developed many of the points dealt with in the Report. I repeat my assurance that the Government will be studying with great care all the views put forward, and I should like to thank once again the noble Baroness, Lady White, for initiating this debate to-day.
6.57 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sure that the number of noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and their experience and distinction, will have given some comfort and encouragement to the members of the Russell Com-
1284
mittee, one or two of whom have in fact been most patiently listening to our deliberations. I should like most sincerely to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I am certain will be of great use to the Department. I think it will encourage the various organisations concerned in the consultations which I understand are about to take place. I was very glad to have confirmation, both from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the Department is not going to waste time in starting these consultations, and we look forward very much to their outcome.
My Lords, there are so many things that I should like to comment upon, but it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that my noble friend Lord Beswick has an Unstarred Question on the Paper, and long experience in political life has led me to the belief that it is unwise to stand in the way of one's Chief Whip if one can help it. So I am sure that all noble Lords will accept my collective thanks. Perhaps, if I may be allowed to single out one noble Lord for particular thanks, it is the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, who I would suppose is the only Member of this House who is a full-time tutor in adult education. So we are particularly glad that he was able to take part in this debate. My Lords, with my gratitude to everyone who has taken part, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BAHAMAS INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read a;a, and to be printed.

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INQUIRIES
7.0 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider amending the regulations governing inquiries into air accidents to provide for adequate protection of public interest without the immediate publicity which can cause unnecessary pain to individuals; and to provide for deeper technical investigation into causes without

1285
expensive time-consuming legalistic presentations. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I first express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for sparing time out of his extremely busy life to reply to my Unstarred Question. I am putting the Question because I want to change the regulations governing aircraft accident inquiries. I want, equally with the rest, to establish causes and get at the truth; but I believe that we ought to be able to achieve these objectives without causing unnecessary pain to persons involved in accidents or to the relatives of those killed. We need to work towards a form of inquiry which will protect proper public interests without the kind of damaging, hurtful publicity which we saw following last year's Trident tragedy. We want the first concern of any inquiry to identify causes rather than to allocate blame. That is the declared purpose of the 1969 regulations (No. 833), but, as I hope to show, they do not always work out that way.
We are not dealing with a simple problem, or a recent one. To consider accident inquiries as aviation developed there was the Shelmardine Committee of 1943; then we had the Newton Committee of 1948; then there was the great controversy arising from the Prestwick accident, when my noble friend Lord Longford was the relevant Minister. I joined him as Parliamentary Secretary soon afterwards. We have now solved the problem which arose then of the Minister being judge and jury in his own case. The Chief Inspector of Accidents is now quite separate from the regulatory authority and is, to a point, independent of the Secretary of State.
Nothing that I say to-day is in any sense a criticism of the Accidents Investigation Branch. I know the Chief Inspector and his staff to be of unquestionable skill, experience and integrity; but as events have developed new difficulties have emerged. I believe that we can develop still further to meet those difficulties. They arise when an accident investigation moves from the direct responsibility of the Chief Inspector and his professional technical team to the court of inquiry established by the Lord Chancellor, remitted to the Attorney General and conducted by the Treasury Solicitor according to the 1969 regula-
1286
tions. It is then that the carefully assembled technical evidence and the scientific method is overshadowed by the advocates' speculations—and the raw material which they provide for the popular Press headlines. I am here not criticising the Law Officers, but counsel appearing for other parties and, especially I might say, counsel who are not members of the Bar of this country.
I know that it can be said that in the Trident case the headlines started before the public inquiry began. The Minister for Aerospace made a Statement the day afterwards about the crash and gave premature droop retraction as the cause. I understand the wish of the Minister to establish confidence and to eleminate any fear of unknown defects in the aircraft or its operation, but I still wonder whether that Statement was altogether advisable. In any event, one newspaper covered half its front page with the four words: "One Man's Fatal Error" and there were photographs of two young men, two killed co-pilots, one of whom it was said, must—and I emphasise "must"—have made "the fatal mistake"—and I emphasise the singular "mistake". The truth is that an airline accident—and I speak with some little experience—is very seldom the result of a single, simple cause. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said the other day, secondary causes are often also important. He has much experience in these matters of accident inquiries; and he is right. However, it is sometimes difficult to say which are primary and which are secondary causes.
My Lords, there are two major advantages claimed for the legalistic approach. One is the capacity of counsel to probe areas which otherwise might be inadequately examined, and the other is their skill in presenting a complicated case in simple terms. The trouble is that these two undoubted attributes carry certain penalties. This ability to probe and to suggest possibilities means that an alleged sensational cause can be given full treatment by the Press, and the sober technical evidence which next day shows that the speculation is unfounded goes quite unreported. As to the gifts of simplification, as I have said already, simple, straightforward causes are seldom to be found.
In this particular Trident tragedy we had an aircraft which was overloaded—only slightly so, but still over rather than under the limit of, I believe, 28 kilogrammes. There had been a frustrating delay due to load readjustment on take-off, the centre of gravity was still outside the operator's limit—not outside the manual limit but beyond rather than within the limit laid down by the operators. The aircraft went into "eight-eighths" cloud and there was considerable turbulence. In these turbulent conditions, regulations required the noise abatement procedure to be followed. Add to all this the fact that there was no physical impediment to the premature retraction of that critical droop.
In these complex and difficult circumstances one newspaper headed its report of one day's proceedings of the inquiry that one of the co-pilots had once been reported as "slow". He was a young man about whom it was said in the Commission's eventual report that he dealt satisfactorily with one real emergency in his line training. It also said that he was desperately keen to succeed in his chosen profession and that he undoubtedly would have so succeeded had he lived. But to the readers of one mass circulation newspaper, that pilot was "slow". The report of the court of inquiry was eminently fair about the part played by those young co-pilots. It commended both their skill and character; but in the meantime the headlines had been written and the pain had been caused.
It may be said that in the interests of truth and of air safety a penalty must be paid, and that these speculations by counsel representing interested parties are an essential element of any effective inquiry. But I put it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor: Are these speculations an essential element? Flight International, in a most interesting leading article in last week's issue, said that the present inquiry procedure enables lawyers to trap witnesses into self-incrimination. Some counsel, they said, play to the Press table with tomorrow's headlines in mind. It is difficult to dissent from that criticism. Most observers—and some of us followed that inquiry with great care—would agree with it. But is this the way to the truth?
1288
Might it not hinder the search for truth if great play is made of incidents which suit a particular legal case but have no significance as to causes?
Take, for instance, the part played by weather in that Trident accident. No reference was made to it in the court's findings as a contributory cause; no counsel pressed the essential importance of the weather. Yet the evidence before that court and, surely, all pilot experience, points to the difficulty of maintaining forward speed in serious turbulence. Much of what happened in those critical seconds in the cockpit could be explained by severe gusting.
My Lords, I have re-read the closing speech by one counsel who probably had made most impact at the inquiry and I wondered whether he had mentioned turbulence. Not a word. Why was this? Could it be, my Lords, that the chances of getting compensation from the Clerk of the Weather are distinctly limited? Is it not a fact, an understandable fact, that much of the probing and speculation and cross-questioning by counsel are designed to establish a basis for subsequent claims for compensation for their clients? The American counsel who appeared at the Trident inquiry for certain of the passengers' representatives, in his closing speech—which incidentally he was apparently allowed to make before all the evidence had been heard because he had another accident case in hand in the States—said he would like to see the British inquiry system copied in the United States. I am not surprised. It is tailor-made for his purpose. But the question is whether we can improve upon it.
I believe that Ministers responsible for and all who care for aviation would agree that we should, if we could, improve the present system. Flight International, in the leader from which I have already quoted, suggested that the answer was to change the reporting rules at inquiries; that everything that is said, including speeches by counsel, should go on the record but that the transcript should not be released until after the publication of the court's findings. I believe that this is a proposal which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, also was indicating the other day. That is one possible solution and it could inhibit premature publicity or hurtful

1289
speculation, but I am not so certain myself that the inhibition would be complete. There is such a thing as "leaks".
My Lords, I do not pretend to have a complete cut and dried solution, but from experience here and elsewhere we can learn. For example, from the United States National Transportation Safety Board rules in Part 431 there is much from which we could learn. I believe that the German system is worth studying; and soon, unhappily, we shall sec how the Swiss Bureau of Accident Investigation and the Swiss Accidents Board deal with an air tragedy. Certain constructive possibilities emerge, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will assure us that he and his colleagues will carefully consider them.
We should all agree that in certain straightforward cases the investigation can be conducted to a conclusion by the Chief Inspector of accidents. He would make his report to the Minister. Where, however, there is a major tragedy with obvious wide public interest, I suggest that the Chief Inspector's report could go to a board or commission; either a permanent body or one established by the Secretary of State or by the Lord Chancellor. In Switzerland there is a permanent body with a president, vice-president and three other members. In the United States a public hearing is ordered by the Director of the Bureau of Aviation Safety and is organised by a Hearing Officer. Under Part 431—and I stress this—at that public hearing no formal pleadings, private issues, objections or adverse parties are authorised. Could we not have the Chief Inspector's report in this country put before a similar board? The proceedings would be in public. The evidence and the technical facts and the complete report of the Chief Inspector would be tested. Interested parties could ask questions, clarify issues, seek additional information—but all through the chairman of the board. There could be no grand speeches, either opening or closing. Nobody would be placed metaphorically in the dock for grilling. The final report would be the responsibility of the board. If questions of negligence or compensation arose—and I stress this to the noble and learned Lord—they would be a matter for the customary court proceedings. Frivolous
1290
or extreme complainants would face the discipline of possible costs.
It has been pointed out to me that the Newton Committee recommended something similar in 1948 and their recommendations were turned down. The fact that such an authoritative body came to these conclusions strengthens my view. I recall the circumstances in which they were turned down and I say what my memory suggests are the circumstances in the presence of my noble friend who was Minister shortly afterwards. It was largely due to the immense influence of the Lord Chancellor of that day. But these proposals could be simplified and improved, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord who now sits on the Woolsack would not allow an understandable disposition to favour court proceedings to override other considerations. The increasingly complicated technical character of modern aircraft strengthens the case for the changes I suggest. Something along these lines is possible. There would be no chance of sweeping anything under the carpet. Causes could be established at least as effectively, and probably more expeditiously, than under the present system and we could minimise the quite unforgivable pain and offence such as was caused at a public hearing which followed the Papa India accident.
My Lords, we have a duty to do everything humanly possible to avoid other accidents, and an improved inquiry system would discharge that duty. But if there is an accident we also have a duty to do everything possible to avoid causing additional grief to those who suffer loss in the accident, and an improved system is absolutely essential for that.
7.8 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I think that we are all much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for having raised an issue coupled with a request that the Government should overhaul the regulations for inquiries into air accidents and that they be so amended as to avoid a repetition of what happened at the inquiry into the accident to the B.E.A. Trident last year. The extent of the publicity given by the media and other interested parties amounted to a prejudiced trial by opinion long before the inquiry itself had had time to formulate

1291
its own findings. In addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has already said so well, I would stress that under the present regulations there is a situation where dedicated and fully qualified people—pilots, engineers—are called to face as technical witnesses (their own position is not in question) a barrage of needle-sharp questions and cross-examination, sometimes by a "smart Alec" lawyer busily engaged in attempting to establish blame so that he may chisel the last new penny of compensation for his client. There are, in addition, all kinds of questions which sometimes have little to do with the official inquiry. The publication of all these questions by the media, coupled with irresponsible comment which very likely would be brushed aside by the inquiry itself when it came to publish its findings, causes great distress and also professional damage which can prejudice, even ruin, a man's career.
The problem is to turn to a procedure which would eliminate the damage and prejudice created by the uncontrolled publicity given to all these opinions and theories. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has already said, this presents a really formidable problem. especially as all such inquiries must be public—there can be no two views about that. Might not some partial solution lie in a regulation to prohibit the publication of all testimony elicited from and given by witnesses until the inquiry itself publishes its final report? Does not something of the sort govern Parliamentary Select Committees?
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has covered the ground so well as to leave me with almost nothing further to add, other than to say that we on these Benches thoroughly support everything he said. But there are two aspects that arise from the recommendations made by the inquiry, to which I should like to take the opportunity of drawing your Lordships' attention. The first is the recommendation to install cockpit voice recorders in all commercial aircraft of over 27,000 kilos all-up weight. Why this should not apply also to smaller commercial aircraft is not stated. I understand that B.E.A. is at the moment discussing with the Civil Aviation Authority what is the most efficient type of equipment now available for this purpose. Can
1292
we assume that the result of their discussions will be passed on to other commercial operations? The object is, of course, to have a full and proper record of all that is spoken on the flight deck and not just the exchange of messages between the aircrew and the ground controls. Such records must, of course, be of paramount importance to any subsequent inquiry.
Subject to correction, I would hazard the guess that the most critical periods when such monitoring is vitally required are those from the time when an aircraft has started to taxi out to the take-off point, during and after take-off, until it has reached its allotted cruising height and proceeds to fly on its pre-determined course, and then again when it starts to enter the controlled pattern of descent and until it has landed, taxied to its unloading point and the engines have been switched off. One remembers that in the patterns of descent can come those agonising moments when several aircraft are stacked one above another, seeing nothing in total cloud, waiting to be given a turn to land. I think it is true to say that the majority of accidents have occurred during these periods. It is therefore of the greatest importance to have a full record of all that is said at those times on the flight deck. But I am wondering whether it would be wise to insist on a complete monitoring for the whole flight, especially long flights involving many hours between take-off and landing. Could not this tend to build up some sort of neurosis among the aircrew, something of the nature of "Keep guard on what you say; Big Brother is for ever listening to you"? I do not know whether this aspect has been considered, but I suggest that if it has not it might be worth while drawing the attention of the Civil Aviation Authority to it.
My second point is the reviewing of the present medical aspects, with special reference to the stress test electrocardiograms. This is a field in which I know nothing and am certainly not qualified to discuss, but I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority is already initiating a long-term research programme on the prediction of coronary diseases in healthy pilots. Can the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, say when the result of this research can be expected? And when it is received, will it be made public?
7.24 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for initiating this debate. He has had long experience as a practical aviator and Minister and I must say that I agree with almost everything he said. If I may, I should like to amplify some of the points. The Regulations governing the investigation of accidents are laid down in Statutory Instrument 1969 No. 833, the Civil Aviation Authority Investigation of Accidents Regulations 1969. The main purpose of investigating accidents as set out in these Regulations is,
"To determine the circumstances and causes of the accident with a view to avoiding accidents in the future rather than to ascribe blame to any person".
My Lords, I have a small interest to declare in that I am honorary Vice-President of the Airline Pilots Association, as is the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. He and I spend a fair amount of time doing what we can for the welfare and the future of air crews. They have their problems, and I think the views I put forward broadly represent BALPA'S point of view on this. BALPA recognises that public inquiries are instrumental in providing an effective demonstration of public accountability and may at times be necessary in the public interest. The Association is nevertheless concerned that under the present system it creates an atmosphere similar to a court of law, with prosecution, defence and the accused. This arises largely out of the procedure of opening and closing addresses, the cross-questioning of witnesses and the objective in some cases of counsel to establish legal grounds for subsequent action for damages. The noble Lord referred to the American lawyers. If what we read is correct, ambulance lawyers, as I believe they are known—though I do not want to be disrespectful to them—when accidents take place are in on it and share out the spoils. That does not lead to good methods of law and inquiry into these matters, particularly in a sad case like the Trident accident.
It follows that there will always be a certain amount of speculation and conjecture in such a form of investigation, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said, the television, radio and the Press
1294
will make the most of any sensationally newsworthy items arising from day to day. Unfortunately, none of the mass media gives the same coverage to the correction of speculative and misleading statements arising from the evidence on subsequent days. The damage is done. Such treatment of evidence is liable to mislead the public rather than allay their concern on any particular matter.
It follows, furthermore, that the nature of British public inquiries, with all their legal ramifications, is an extremely heavy expense to the public. That is not really so very important when dealing with the Trident accident, the worst in British history. Nevertheless, to other concerns and to individuals involved, for example BALPA, this inquiry cost something over £16,000. That is a great deal of money to a small set-up such as BALPA with comparatively few members. No consideration is given to the protection of the names of the crew members and others against speculative imputation; and in the case of deceased crew members it is left entirely to the next of kin and relatives to fend for themselves in protecting the good name and professional integrity of the crew members. Were it not for the support given by such organisations as BALPA, in these cases next of kin would not always be adequately represented because the legal expenses would be beyond many people's financial means. I would say, my Lords, that in my experience over many years in our country the Accidents Investigation Branch has a very creditable record. It is second to none. One saw how they pieced the Trident together at Farnborough, built it up from a lot of wreckage which must have helped enormously in some of the findings that they made. But they are completely fair and we can trust them 100 per cent. Inquiries or hearings can be and are held in public without the disadvantages seen in the British system.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has given examples of inquiries in other countries, and I should like to refer to Switzerland. My Lords, this might be the right time to say that, after the unfortunate Vanguard accident a few weeks ago at Basle, the City of Basle raised £55,000 from public subscription for the dependents. We have heard much criticism about the Swiss in other respects,

1295
but perhaps we should express our thanks from this House to that great city for what they have done. In Switzerland, it appears that an accident is investigated, as it would be in the United Kingdom, by members of the Accident Investigation Branch and that the chief investigator of the Bureau of Accident Investigation submits his report to the President of the Swiss Accident Board. Before doing so, however, interested parties are given the opportunity to make a submission or representation on the content of the Report, and this is submitted to the Accidents Board along with the Report. The Swiss Accidents Board is a permanent body comprising, as has already been said by the noble Lord, a President, a Vice President and three other members. In the case of a major accident a public hearing is conducted by the Board during which witnesses are taken through their evidence and questioned by the President. There are evidently no opening or closing addresses by counsel, and there is no cross-questioning of witnesses. All the proceedings are conducted through the President, and any questions related to the evidence are addressed to him.
The situation in the United States is somewhat similar, in that an inquiry is much more a review of the accident investigators' findings than a de novo inquiry in which the court starts from scratch. The emphasis is technical rather than legal, although proper attention is paid to legal aspects, and there is no cross-examination. In the case of a public hearing, the facts determined in the investigation are presented as sworn testimony. Opponents of change in the British system cite the L.1011 public hearing as an example of worse treatment by the American news media than by the British in the case of the Trident or the Vanguard accident at Heathrow in October, 1965. Possibly the answer to this is that mishandling of the proceedings is encouraged by the full television coverage given by American TV, as also in many other inquiries, To summarise, my Lords, BALPA has not advocated that proceedings should be held in camera when a public investigation into an accident is called for. The Association, however, maintains that the aims of accident investigation are not well served by permitting inquiries to be unduly influenced
1296
by legal considerations, which are not always directed at the determination of the causes of the accident.
I should like to make one reference to the condition of Captain Key's health at the time of the Trident accident. We have read the report, and we understand that the poor wretched man had heart trouble. I want to put this point to the Government. I understand that the medical boards carried out on pilots and aircrew every six months for the renewal of their commercial licence vary enormously in different parts of the country. Some boards are much more stringent than others. I recall when I was flying on a commercial licence in Hong Kong some years ago I had quite a bad accident, and I was sent before the doctor. He took my pulse and my blood pressure, but did very little else. I thought that I had got away with it very lightly, but I discovered afterwards that he was examining me as a harbour pilot, not as an air pilot. I hope that this question of medical examinations can be looked into carefully, because when men get to a certain age their health can deteriorate rapidly. May we perhaps be told by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether a committee could be set up to look into the whole matter of the investigation of these accidents. We have a real problem on our hands in this country. Unfortunately, as was said a few years ago, in the nations' league of safety Britain stands only ninth. The Dutch, KLM, are top. This is something that has to be remedied, and with all our technological know-how in this country, I am sure that that position can be improved upon. I hope that this can be done in the fairly near future.
7.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—I think it is quite a rare thing for him to introduce an Unstarred Question—for raising a very sensitive issue, and one which I believe has been the cause of mounting criticism over the years and, as other noble Lords have said, has come somewhat to a head with the proceedings over the recent Trident disaster. If I may say so, the subject could not have been diagnosed with more clarity than it has been by the noble Lord, whose authority in aviation I believe takes precedence over the many other subjects that he covers:

1297
indeed, his experience in the air and on the ground is, I believe, unrivalled in this House, save perhaps for the pioneering exploits during his career of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. The noble Lord's Question, in my view, expresses in a nutshell the two facets of the crux of the criticism of the present proceedings; namely, the sensational and often irresponsible Press reports surrounding air disasters, with all the accompanying speculative innuendoes that go with them; and secondly, the manner, as other noble Lords have said, of the cross-examination at the inquiry of the expert technical witnesses by astute counsel, often it appears more anxious to promote a subsequent claim for their clients than to assist the tribunal.
The wording of the noble Lord's Question seems to suggest that on publicity, he would favour a ban on any immediate publicity surrounding an inquiry in the hope that it would restrict or eliminate the sensational element of the Press coverage. Although this is perhaps the best alternative to any direct Press control, I find myself disagreeing with the noble Lord here, because I feel that at the very time of an accident, as in the case of the "Papa India" tragedy, there is instantly a feeling of shock, uncertainty and worry among a great number of air travellers, and the sooner confidence can be restored, obviously the better. The element of irresponsible reporting at this stage is, I believe, far more preferable than no reporting at all, particularly since in many of these tragedies many lives are lost. I also hold the view, which I believe the noble Lord shares, that it would be quite impossible, if the overriding public interest is to be fully protected, either to ban reporting on proceedings altogether, or to delay publication until the end of the inquiry. Both alternatives, in my view, could lead, however wrongly, to the thought that some cover-up operation was going on, and nothing could be more harmful to aviation or to public confidence in it.
My Lords, the solution that I would put forward to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—I hope it may be a practical solution, although probably it is not—is that the Press Council should be asked to consider introducing a stricter code of reporting in cases of accident inquiries. It would
1298
not be difficult, I think, to demonstrate to the Council the example of the Trident disaster coverage and some of the wholly irresponsible and deplorable reports published, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred.
Taking the other side of the coin, again in the case of the "Papa India" tragedy, the value of the informed and factual reporting of the inquiry that went on, and the swift publication of the findings, followed by B.E.A.'s immediate announcement of certain remedial action that was to be put in hand to correct certain aspects that came to light, undoubtedly helped to restore public confidence in what must have appeared to be a rather disturbing set of circumstances surrounding B.E.A.'s own management. In that sort of case, to have banned immediate responsible Press reports would, in my view, have been very harmful in the public interest.
Turning to the present procedure of accident inquiries, I would very much support Lord Beswick's argument. The current procedure appears to offer quite unnecessary scope for a skilful barrister, set on achieving, as other noble Lords have said, something outside the main purpose of the inquiry. At the same time—and I do not think this has been sufficiently emphasised—it inhibits evidence given by professional witnesses, because so often they are worried about exposing themselves unnecessarily. I say this with no personal knowledge, but from having sought the views of those professionally employed in flight accident investigations. The noble Lord's suggestion of adopting the American, German or Swiss procedure is, I am sure, well worth looking into. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to say that at least this will be done.
My Lords, I support the general theme of the noble Lord's Question. I hope that the suggestion of referring the matter to the Press Council may be considered. I hope that the procedures also may be looked at, and possibly altered, to encourage and not inhibit the expert technical evidence being given in an atmosphere that will be to the benefit of what is, after all, a highly complicated and technical investigation—an investigation which so often is vital to the future safety of flying and the travelling public.
7.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on raising this very important point; and he has done so on what I would describe as a first class, a very well documented and very well presented report. I should also like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, said about the Accident Investigation Branch which we have had in this country and which has long performed a task of the first order. I do think it is very dangerous to allow what the media inevitably want to do, namely to present simple, sensational facts to their readers. This is the way it is done and we cannot complain about it. I am afraid I have very little doubt, on what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, says, whether the Press Council could exercise a great deal of influence on this aspect. I think that if there are sensational facts the Press will use them, and we really cannot complain too much about this. It may be regrettable, but it will simply go on happening and it will lead inevitably to certain rather serious effects, for instance, in regard to the quality of the aeroplane, whether the aeroplane failed, quite apart from the question of pain which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has mentioned. Not only is that so, but the quality of the final report is undermined. The final report may indicate something different, but the rumours which have gone out have given an entirely different picture. I had occasion once in my life to look at a very large number of accident cases, I am afraid running into thousands rather than hundreds. I was not, however, concerned with the subject of compensation which is mentioned here; but every one of those cases is delicate to a degree and terribly difficult to assess. We were primarily of course concerned with avoiding future accidents and with what common link there lay through accidents of one kind and another.
I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did not go far enough in saying that most accidents have more than one cause. Every accident, practically without exception, is a coincidence of factors; each one of those factors may well be an effective cause of the accident, and if one of those factors had not taken place the accident would not have happened. I looked through this report and it seemed to me that there were at
1300
least six factors listed and if any one of those had not been there, there would not have been an accident. If anyone were to take a short account of what happened and to emphasise one of those factors he would be quite wrong. May I give a very small example of what I have in mind? When the blackout was introduced in the war, we had a number of accidents with pupil pilots who had to move straight from the flarepath on to their instruments. It was quite a difficult manoeuvre and many of the pilots were killed. A very simple answer was that they tumbled their instruments. But that was not the answer; the answer was having a better system of lighting, which in fact was invented by Air Marshal Sir Richard Atcherley at Drem and has now become more or less the standard system. In other words, the immediate cause had nothing at all to do with the basic cause. This is where I think it is so important that little bits of information should not emerge.
My Lords, if I may mention this, the Lord Chancellor, knows very well that in divorce actions it has long been the case that the reporting of evidence is not permitted, and that the only reporting is of what is said by the judge from the Bench. I think that is still the practice, though I cannot remember the exact details. I see no reason why that should not happen in a public inquiry of this character. I see no reason why it should not be just as effective and why no sort of covering should in fact be considered at all. I think it is really important that these cases should be examined thoroughly, possibly with the initial safeguards which have been mentioned already, and should not be reported with glaring publicity before a full and careful decision is come to.
7.44 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor answers, I apologise for the fact that I did not expect to be here to-day and therefore do not intend to make a full speech. But I should like to say that I think the system of public inquiry into these accidents is in general a good system, particularly in the case of accidents to large transport aircraft involving many people, and also in the case of accidents to aircraft operated by the State corporations, which after all

1301
have in the main been financed from the public purse.
Having said that, there are three possible reservations which I have, particularly about the "Papa India" accident. First, I think it might be wise to consider whether we could prohibit from appearing before the council those who have only a financial interest in the outcome of the inquiry. I do not think that the spectacle of the American lawyers with their so-called expert heart specialists, flown in specially from America, was very edifying; and the evidence that I have read in Mr. Justice Lane's report suggested that the evidence put forward by those witnesses was not very reliable and was intended only to increase their clients' claims to compensation. The second point I make is that it might be wise to prohibit publication of the names of the crew of the aircraft until the publication of the report itself. That would go some way to answering the very real grounds of Lord Beswick's complaint about the pain that was caused to the pilots in this particular accident. Finally, my Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Kinnoull in his suggestion that the Press Council might be asked to apply a more stringent code of conduct to the reporting of these accident inquiries. With that I look forward to listening to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
7.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I were to reply fully to the several speeches which have been made from all corners of the House, I think I should detain your Lordships rather longer than the House would desire. I had come armed with a considerable bundle of material which I had intended to use. If I added that to the detailed reply I could then give I should detain your Lordships longer still. I will, however, attempt to reply in general to the debate, and in particular only to some of the points which have been raised. But let me say by way of preface that I have taken careful note, and I know others more skilled in note-taking than I have taken careful note, of various suggestions which have been made by noble Lords. They will be carefully considered by the Department
1302
for which I in part speak this evening, and I will see whether letters cannot be written dealing with the several points raised, including the suggestions that came from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I think I am right in saying that it is not possible to give a direct answer to the noble Earl Lord Amherst, about the state which the research has reached into the heart matter. I had an answer about that almost as he sat down, and I am told that nothing sufficiently reliable has yet emerged to give him the answer to that matter but I will check on that again after I have resumed my seat.
My Lords, that brings me back to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for which I should like to thank him as I think every speaker has done. It is a Question I have found intensely interesting and intensely difficult, for reasons which I will attempt to give. I think I ought to explain why, in principle, I thought it right that the Lord Chancellor should answer this debate on behalf of the Government. Every speaker, I think without exception, who has posed the question or supported it has been primarily interested in the "Papa India" inquiry in particular, and in the aviation accident problem in general. I do not view it in quite the same light. I think this is an important part of the administration of public justice in this country, and I think it raises questions of importance covering a much wider range than noble Lords have indicated.
By a curious coincidence—and it was only coincidence—it was only yesterday that the Government issued a White Paper on Public Inquiries, giving their considered view of the Salmon Report of 1966 on public inquiries. It happened, therefore, that in addition to having read every word of the Lane Report on the "Papa India" disaster for the purposes of this Question, I also had very freshly in my mind the findings of Lord Salmon's Report and of the White Paper, commenting upon it. I should like to say to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate that literally not one of the criticisms they have made about this type of public inquiry into air accidents was not canvassed in relation to the wider canvas by the noble Lord, Lord Salmon, in his Report and in the White Paper just issued. It is because I think this is part

1303
of the administration of public justice in this country that I felt it proper that the Lord Chancellor should reply. I believe much wider questions of public policy are involved than simply inquiries into air accidents.
On the accident report itself I would only say in brief that, having read it, I think it is an absolutely masterly document of its kind. I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would refer to it again he would find that he is wrong in saying that the Report contains no reference to the weather. I can give him the reference if need be.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I say it is not necessary: I have the reference. I said carefully that it made no mention of the weather in its conclusions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There again, my Lords, I do not quite agree with the noble Lord. All the factors which he mentioned—the overloading, the weather and the turbulence—were all evaluated in the report. The overloading was expressly discounted as a contributing factor to the accident; and the weather and turbulence were, by implication, also discounted quite clearly as contributory factors in the accident. Although I would absolutely agree, both with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and with my noble friend Lord Selkirk, in saying that accidents always have complicated causes and a background of human contributory factors, my own reading of this report was that this accident had fewer than most. If you took three factors only—premature retraction of the droops, the overriding of the stick-shake and stick push mechanism by one of the pilots and the cardiac condition of Captain Key—you would find that those were factors quite disproportionately large as causes of the accident, compared with any others that could be mentioned; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, rightly observed, a number of other factors emerged as factors which ought to be taken into consideration.
May I now come to the composition of this particular inquiry, because it is relevant to the way in which the Question has been presented by noble Lords who have spoken. The Question itself suggests, and I think that each speaker in different ways has suggested, with the
1304
possible exception of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, first, that this public inquiry was open to criticism in various ways and, secondly, that the criticisms could be met in the future by alterations in the regulations, either restricting or inhibiting altogether the activities of counsel or the activities of the media—by which I mean the Press, television and sound radio.
It is these two propositions which I want to examine rather carefully, because I think it is these two propositions—inherent in the way in which the Question has been presented—which raise the question of principle concerning public reports and which ought to be considered rather carefully before being accepted uncritically. Therefore I return to the composition of the board. It consisted of a High Court Judge, Sir Geoffrey Lane, in the Chair. This was unusual. Normally a Queen's Counsel takes the chair in these inquiries. I was asked for a High Court Judge because of the extreme importance of the inquiry. I thought it right to accede to the request of my right honourable friend in that respect, and it was on my recommendation that that particular Judge was chosen—because, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be aware, he was himself a pilot and had been decorated during the war in 1943 for his gallantry in that capacity. The other two members were Sir Morien Morgan, who is a Fellow of the Royal Society, and Captain Jessop, whose technical expertise speaks for itself. I mention these facts not in order to pay empty compliments to the persons concerned, but because of the criticisms that have been made. I should have thought that if it was possible to find three people in the country who were less inclined to listen to wild allegations by counsel, or less unable to control cross-examination by counsel within reasonable limits, it would be a High Court Judge with Common Law Bar experience who had express experience of flying, a Fellow of the Royal Society who gained his distinction very largely in aeronautics and Captain Jessop. In fact, I would say with respect, bearing in mind what my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said, that not only does the report not bear the smallest trace of their having been influenced by such allegations but, as my noble friend also pointed out, where those

1305
allegations have come under particular scrutiny from your Lordships this evening, they have been expressly rejected in the most uncompromising way.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would permit me to say that I have on an earlier occasion paid my tribute to the composition of the board. Nothing I said was a criticism either of the President or of the two assessors, and I am glad to be able to make that clear. My criticism was directed to what was said and done in that court, not by the Commission, nor indeed in their findings.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was quite aware of that, though I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for having re-emphasised it. I was not in any way imputing to him anything in the way of improper criticism. The point I was on was a slightly different one. I was replying to the criticism which was made as to what took place in the court. I am saying only two things: first, that there is nobody who can control counsel better than a High Court Judge; and, secondly, that this particular board was slightly higher-powered in the way I have described than perhaps others have been. All such boards are, in general, designed to counter any ill-effects which may come from the use of advocacy—and it is their business to control advocates—and although the noble Lord quite rightly said that he did not intend it as a criticism, I would regard it as a serious criticism of a High Court Judge or of anybody in charge of an inquiry, with any kind of expertise, if counsel had been allowed to go too far. I said that in relation to bankruptcy law when I was answering another of these Unstarred Questions some time ago, and I say it now in relation to these inquiries.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can help me. Is it possible in this kind of court for the chairman of the board to control counsel in the same way as a judge can control the behaviour of a counsel in an English court, where counsel are themselves bound by certain codes laid down by the Bar of which they are members?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is perfectly possible, and I should consider it a very serious criticism of such a chairman if he did not succeed in doing it. That leads me on to the next thing that I wanted to say about these inquiries—I am sorry to be so slow, but I am trying to take this extremely seriously because I consider it seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury talked about legalism and legalistic approaches. Please do not talk about the law or legalistic approaches in relation to these inquiries; there is no such thing. The only expertise which has been used, either by the chairman or by counsel during the whole of these inquiries has been expertise in probing facts, in knowing how to frame questions and how to present evidence. Those were factors to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, quite rightly, drew attention. There is no legalism about this. This is an expertise acquired in the hurly-burly, the rough and tumble of life at the common law Bar and on the Bench with accident cases of one kind or another, varying from the motor to the airliner, being the bread and butter of the common law barrister's background and experience. So that is a false line of approach to take.
That brings me to the second point to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has just reverted. It is true that all members of the English Bar are bound by professional rules and by a strict code of behaviour. I do not want to expatiate on this—the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that he was making no specific complaint of the members of the English Bar—but it is right that I should re-emphasise it from my side. The extreme jealousy with which the profession regards its honour in matters of this kind is something which we have all known and lived with, with pride, over a whole lifetime. Noble Lords can be quite certain that this code is rigorously enforced by more sanctions than one. One of my noble friends referred to "ambulance lawyers". They do not exist at the English Bar. Although there may have been a small number of them before the war, before legal aid, they were universally condemned, and nowadays that practice is wholly divorced from the realities of those with professional qualifications.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I believe my noble and learned friend is referring to me. If that is so, I should say that I was referring to American lawyers and not to British lawyers at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I want to be extremely careful what I say about a foreign profession which contains very many able and learned men. It does not play to the same rules as we do. I am perfectly sure, from having read the report, that whatever rules they may have been playing to—and I make no kind of imputation against them—there was nothing improper which influenced, or could have influenced, a court of that calibre; and it is clear that a number of the arguments and expert witnesses, to one of whom my noble friend referred, were expressly rejected by the court after considering them. In my opinion, if you do not want pain, suffering and distress to people who may be influenced or interested in the result of an inquiry, I am perfectly sure that the right and best course is to allow a man to say his say within the limits of propriety and then to reject what he says if it is not wholly persuasive.
I must say, in passing, to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that when you get an air disaster in which over 100 people are killed it is not contemptible in the relatives either to want compensation, if they are legally entitled to it, or to employ a lawyer at the public inquiry which results, strictly to cross-examine witnesses with a view to ensuring, if it is possible, that the causes of the accident and the degree of negligence involved, if any, are properly ascertained. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred to the view of Flight International, to which I will revert in a moment. Having read their leading article, I thought it gave a superb example of exactly the thing which a public inquiry of this kind does elicit and which probably could be elicited in no other way. I refer in particular to the "Foxtrot Hotel" episode, as I think it was called, and the "Orly" episode, both of which were buried in the files of of B.E.A. and were extracted by counsel in the course of the inquiry. I should have thought it extremely improbable that these facts, which were extremely
1308
suggestive and might lead to a prevention of similar accidents in the future as a result of what the board found out about them, would have been elicited by any other means, or dragged out by any other means, than the particular method adopted.
Of course in all these cases the Press, media and counsel are the whipping boys. I want to look at this squarely in the face: it was the subject of two extremely wise paragraphs by Lord Justice Salmon (as he then was) in his Report on the Tribunals of Inquiry in 1966, every word of which I should have thought applied to an inquiry of this kind. He said—and I share his view—that attempts to inhibit or restrict publicity in a matter which gave rise to the extent of public disquiet which was felt at the appalling nature of the disaster always rebounded on the heads of those who attempted them. He said that rumour, distorted reports; leaks—I think my noble friend referred to them—and sensational gossip were far more damaging than anything that the most sensational banner headlines could do, and that these things were only encouraged by attempts to inhibit or postpone publicity.
I took particular notice on both occasions when my noble friend Lord Selkirk suggested that there might be an analogy between the procedure adopted in 1926 as a result of statutory interference in divorce cases and the present kind of situation. I venture, with respect, to think that the analogy is a misleading one. I think that though in a divorce case the public must be interested in the result, because marriage and divorce, being questions of status, are matters of public law which ought to be publicly known, the intimacies of the marriage bed in cases where parties have lost their marital happiness are something the privacy of which the public are willing to accept. I do not believe they would apply the same kind of criteria to a case where what was in examination was not marital cruelty or infidelity but a question of a public airline using an aircraft which was the glory of a nation's aviation and which has, I believe, as a result of this report, been fully vindicated.
The accident resulted in the loss of 118 lives—I think it was 118, but certainly over 100 lives—of passengers and

1309
crew coming from a number of different nationalities. I am bound to say to my noble friends that, even if we tried to inhibit the Press here, which we could do, I suppose, by legislation but could only enforce by something analogous to the law of contempt, what could we do about the American Press? The American lawyer came here. He was allowed to cross-examine witnesses; he was treated with courtesy. He went back, many of his arguments having been rejected, but at least he claimed to be—and as I believe he was—full of admiration for our system. Supposing he had been refused admission. Supposing he had been compelled to keep silence. Supposing that his arguments had been stifled. What would the American Press have said and what would he have said to the American Press?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is it not possible, may I put to the noble and learned Lord, that the American Press would say he was being treated here exactly as he would be treated in the United States of America?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think probably not, my Lords; I think they would have said something very different. What I am suggesting is that he would have told the United States Press—I was not thinking so much of comment as of sensational headlines—exactly what he was going to have put to the witnesses if he had been allowed to put it, with the added point and the added sensationalism that he had been inhibited by law from doing so. That is what I think would have happened, and I do not think they would have said at all that in the United States it would have been much the same, because I do not think it would. There are other features of United States' practice which I think he could have made use of.
I was, I confess, a little surprised at the praise, or the muted praise, which was given to the German and Continental systems. The object of those inquiries is different from ours. Whether we proceed under what is still, in theory at any rate, the normal procedure of a private inquiry by an inspector, which is still regarded in the regulations as the normal procedure, or whether we proceed by the public inquiry, which is the procedure under discussion here, our object is—and this is laid down in the regulations—
1310
to inquire into the cause of the accident with a view to preventing similar accidents in the future. Unlike ours, the express purpose of the Continental systems—I think without exception, but I may be wrong, but certainly of the German system—is to attribute blame. Now if that were the purpose of our inquiry here, I should be the first to say that it must be held in private. This is almost always right where you are about to attribute blame, because if the ultimate purpose and the main purpose of your inquiry is to put somebody on trial in a civil court perhaps, but in a criminal court possibly, then it is essential that the preliminary hearing at which he is compellable as a witness should be held in private, in my view, except in the most exceptional circumstances. But our object was not to do this, and in this case none of the people, I think, who could have been blamed for the accident were still alive.
I would say only this in addition with regard to the German method. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did not recollect the Munich air disaster of some years ago which was tried by the German method. It resulted in total ruin to the British pilot involved, who was piloting the Manchester United football team, and it took him about seven years of public campaigning to reverse the result, at the end of which he proved his total innocence. I venture to believe that if we had been allowed to conduct an inquiry into that disaster by our system it would have been very much more effective from the point of view of a man whose professional reputation was, at least for seven years, totally shattered than the system which was perforce followed according to the German code.
So far as regards the United States code, they do not in fact do more than publish, under the glare of television lights, the results of the technical investigation up to date. I am bound to say that I do not think that that would have allayed much disquiet in the present case. I am quite sure that those who suggested that there was something wrong with the aircraft would have gone on spilling their poisonous liquor into the fruitful field (I am getting mixed in my metaphors now) of international competition. I am perfectly sure that the people who attached importance to the graffiti on the pilot's desk would have

1311
gone on suggesting innumerable (and I use the word in quotes) "rows" among the air crew. I do not believe myself that by inhibiting publicity, or trying to control advocates except by those whose business it is to control them, you ultimately allay public anxiety; nor do I believe that you save relatives and other persons from distress.
May I say in conclusion—I have gone on a great deal too long but I hope the noble Lord will feel that I am taking this matter extremely seriously; and I began my speech by saying that all the suggestions will of course be examined—that we are never perfect and we can always improve. But I have I think studied more or less in depth every public inquiry in most fields, and particularly under the Tribunal of Inquiry Evidence Act, that has taken place since the Budget leak of, I think, 1936 which ruined Sir Alfred Butt and Mr. Jimmy Thomas. I do not think that many of them could have been avoided. I do not remember one of them which did not give rise to criticism of the kind we have heard to-night: the cross-examination of counsel, sometimes of the Attorney General in question; the banner headlines which come out when only part of the evidence has been given, or sometimes before any of it has been given, simply based on the opening of counsel; the distress caused to relatives and persons who may be subjected, without any fault as it subsequently turns out, to the strict discipline of cross-examination in a public court by experienced counsel. All of these criticisms have been made I believe every time. No one who heard the discussion of the V. and G. inquiry earlier this year could have failed to notice that it was made there. We remember the "Bloody Sunday"; we remember the bank rate leak, which permanently embittered, although it was found to be no leak, the relations between a particular member of the Bar, whom I will not mention, and the City of London, who never forgave him. These things have happened every time.
I must say, with candour, that I think these things are inherent in an inquisitorial method of inquiry. We have tried many models. Until the Marconi scandal discredited it, we used to have
1312
trial by Select Committee, as they are doing at the moment in the United States. Until we abolished it in 1932 we held secret trials by Grand Jury as a preliminary to an indictment. One wonders how secret the Watergate Grand Jury are being at the moment, although they are sworn to secrecy, as our grand juries were. In the aircraft field, we have tried the system of the inspector putting questions, rather in the manner suggested by some speakers this evening. It led to the Newton Report, which found that system wholly unsatisfactory. We have tried the tribunal of inquiry, only to discover that every single case as it emerges requires slightly different treatment, sometimes on fundamentals, as it varies between a shooting incident in Londonderry to an alleged breach of security, and so forth.
There was the horrible experience of the Denning Inquiry during, the Profumo affair, as to which Lord Salmon said that nothing of the sort ought ever to be held again. There has been one attempt after another. My conviction, after studying this matter deeply, is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, was right. I wish that people who ask for public inquiries and wide-ranging inquiries would read the Salmon Report and would agree with him that such inquiries are to be avoided where possible. They are only to be used where the degree of shock to public confidence requires an inquiry of this kind. I wish they would also realise the heartbreak, the distress, and sometimes the injustice to inexperienced people who may also be involved, that these inquiries inevitably produce.
At the same time, I say in all seriousness to the House that I do not believe that in the last resort a disaster of this magnitude, with casualties of this order and scale, to an aircraft belonging to one of our national airlines of which we are justly proud could have been investigated otherwise than broadly in accordance with this method. I ask noble Lords whose interest in the matter I fully acknowledge and whose sincerity does not need acknowledgement because it was obvious, to reflect upon the more general aspects of the matter, which I have sought to bring to their attention. I know that they want publicity; so do I. I know that they want to save people

1313
distress; so do I. But in each case I believe we have to balance what are really divergent and occasionally inconsistent objectives and that where public confidence is badly shaken, strict investigation before professional people, conducted by professional advocates responsible to an English profession and with the full light of publicity upon them, is the only method of progression.
The last thing I should like to say is whether or not the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull about the Press Council be accepted, I am sure that the Press of this country will have read Lord Salmon's plea to them, which is reiterated in the Government White Paper of yesterday, that the greatest care should be exercised in reporting inquiries of this kind, because the premature sensationalising of bits of evidence is seldom borne out by the ultimate result and that infinite pain can be caused by sometimes quite innocent distortion. They should always say, "This has not been sifted to the bottom". I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for raising this subject and I can only apologise for taking so long in reply.

STATUTE LAW REPEALS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
  CIVIL SERVANTS' RETIREMENT APPOINTMENTS
  CIVIL SERVANTS' RETIREMENT APPOINTMENTS
  FOREIGN SECURITIES: 25 PERCENT. SURRENDER RULE
  FOREIGN SECURITIES: 25 PERCENT. SURRENDER RULE
  PROBATION OFFICERS' SALARIES
  PROBATION OFFICERS' SALARIES
  PRISON VISITS: FINANCIAL AID FOR WIVES
  PRISON VISITS: FINANCIAL AID FOR WIVES
  MALAWI: TREATMENT OF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS
  MALAWI: TREATMENT OF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS
  CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY ACCOUNTS
  CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY ACCOUNTS