Sitting of 15 January 1974

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

    Trade Union Leaders (Meetings)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the leaders of trade unions he has met officially since taking up his present office.
    Mr. Tom Kingasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many meetings he has had with leaders of trade unions since taking office.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have already had a large number of meetings with trade union leaders but I do not think it would be right to detail them all.
    Mr. Cox: I s the right hon. Gentleman aware from these meetings that many trade union leaders and members find it unbelievable that men have to work seven days a week to get a decent wage and that the moment they stop doing so industry grinds to a halt? Is he further aware that the Government cling like drowning men to the remnants of stage 3, as a result of which the worsening industrial relations are costing the country hundreds of millions of pounds a year? How much more destruction will the Government cause?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. On his second point, I ask him and the House to reflect on the offer which has already been made to the National Union of Mineworkers, to which he refers. That offer in itself shows that the miners are recognised as a special case. It gives them a position which cannot be eroded under the proposals by
    340
    other unions seeking to catch up. This is a very important position and one which Labour Members should recognise.
    Mr. King: I welcome the number of meetings which my right hon. Friend has already had with trade union leaders. May I urge him to meet the widest possible cross-section of union leadership, not merely of unions at present in dispute but of all unions, and particularly the officers of unions throughout the country, at different levels?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have met leaders of unions which are not involved in disputes, and I will continue to do so. I am only too pleased to discuss all the problems which those unions face. It is perfectly proper and right for me to do so. But I maintain the position which I put to the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox).
    Mr. Prentice: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government had a historic opportunity yesterday? It is a great tragedy that they threw it away. What was the point of meeting trade union leaders except to seek their co-operation, particularly towards a constructive and restrained atmosphere for finding a way out of the present crisis? After the TUC leaders had gone as far as they constitutionally could in order to meet the Government, why were they turned down? Does not that leave the impression in the country that all those meetings were nothing more than a public relations exercise? [An HON. MEMBER: "By whom?"]
    Mr. Whitelaw: Not at all. There is no question of anyone being turned down as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Nor is there any question of not considering very carefully what was said. I hope I made it very clear to the Press and to the country, on television last night, that I regarded the offer made by the TUC as a genuine offer and as an effort from its point of view to seek to solve a difficult problem. Equally, the Government must state the facts for the nation, namely, that they are standing by a counter-inflation policy which, in the current circumstances facing the country, is of vital importance to us all. To take any action that would go back on that, unless one was very sure about it, would be a disaster, because it would inflict grave hardship on our country and on

    341
    jobs for our people in the longer term. These are problems which we must face and examine carefully in considering all the proposals. The Government realised that the TUC had put forward a genuine offer, but we did not believe that it would in itself meet the requirements of a successful counter-inflation policy.
    Mr. Prentice: I f that is so, what was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the House in the debate just before Christmas, when he asked that the TUC should make it clear that if the miners were treated as a special case it would not be used as a precedent for other cases? Has not the TUC met the right hon. Gentleman's point? If the right hon. Gentleman meant something more in December, will he say what it was and what else he expects from the TUC?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who is always fair in these matters, read the whole of what I said? He has referred to only one part of my statement. I do not have the statement before me, but I said in another part that, if there were to be more for one group of workers, leaders of other groups would have to accept that their members would need to take substantially less. That was what I said before I made the other comment to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Disgraceful, Willie!
    Mr. Whitelaw: I f the hon. Gentleman thinks it is disgraceful he had better read the full quotation, which I quoted again last Thursday. I did say that. The hon. Gentleman can check it.
    Sir P. Bryan: Last night's meeting was obviously particularly important. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was only one of a very long succession of meetings between the Government and the trade unions and that no Government, and in particular no Prime Minister, have made such efforts to keep in touch with and consult trade unions as have the present Government and Prime Minister?
    Mr. Whitelaw: No one can deny the facts my hon. Friend has stated. They are absolutely true and are much to the credit of the Government.

    Disabled Persons (Leicester)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will take steps to promote employment in the Leicester area for disabled young people.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Careers officers of the youth employment service in Leicester, as in other areas, are responsible for helping disabled young people to secure employment and can call on a wide range of facilities and support.
    Mr. Janner: I s the Minister aware that, despite the ability of the disablement officers to call on others for help, it remains extremely difficult to place disabled people in work, particularly if they are suffering from multiple disablements? Is he also aware that happily, thanks to medical science, many more seriously disabled people are living longer? What do the Government propose to do to help such people to have a dignified and useful life?
    Mr. Scott: Perhaps I should make it clear that the latest statistics show that there are no registered disabled young people unemployed in the Leicester area. In spite of that, however, representatives of the local authority and Remploy have recently co-operated in a survey of sheltered facilities in the Leicester area, and meetings will be taking place to consider the results of that investigation.

    Industrial Relations Act
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he now proposes to seek to repeal the Industrial Relations Act.
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now seek to repeal the Industrial Relations Act.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir, but I repeat that I am willing to examine carefully any constructive suggestions for improving the operation of the Act.
    Mr. Skinner: I am not so sure that the trade union movement would want to

    343
    make any further constructive suggestions about amendments in view of what happened last night and the way in which the Government were not satisfied with the pound of flesh, which is more than I would give. They wanted blood instead. [An hon. Member: "Get on with the question".] I will get around to it.
    There is plenty of time—until July 1975. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Act was introduced, according to the Government, to create industrial harmony and to bring sweetness and light into relations between management and unions? If that is so, why have not the Government used the Act to solve the present industrial impasse?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has not been the foremost in producing sweetness and light into the proceedings of the House. However that may be, one must face the facts about the Act. The hon. Gentleman and others who take his view regard everything to do with the Act as wrong. One must consider some of the things that are not wrong and that he would not think were wrong. For example, there are the provisions about unfair dismissal. The hon. Gentleman must accept how much they have been used to the benefit of many union members.
    Mr. Fell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that time after time my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited the trade unions—[An Hon. Member: "Question."] This is a question. Has not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister time after time invited the trade unions—the TUC—to put forward suggestions for improving the Act? Exactly how has the TUC reacted? What suggestions has it made?
    Mr. Russell Kerr: They are on the record. Why does not the hon. Gentleman read the documents?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There has been a widespread demand from both the Labour Party and the TUC that the Act should be totally repealed. That is their position, and I understand it. But I do not believe that in the long run it is a tenable position, because there are many parts of the Act that all hon. Members want to see preserved.
    Mr. Golding: Why does the right hon. Gentleman speak with so little conviction on this subject? Why are the Government being so pig-headed? Why do they persist in their policy of confrontation, which is bringing us all to disaster?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not see how those comments arise from the Question. The hon. Gentleman says that I have been pig-headed. Many other things are attributed to me, but I have very seldom heard that said of me. I do not believe that these questions arise on the Industrial Relations Act. We have adopted a thoroughly reasonable, fair and sensible position as regards particularly the miners' industrial dispute and all the other matters, and we stand by it.
    Mr. Tebbit: Would my right hon Friend need something more than a solemn and binding undertaking or statement of intent before the Government withdrew the Act?
    Mr. Whitelaw: We have made it perfectly clear that we have no intention of withdrawing the Act. We have said plainly that we are prepared to amend those parts of it which the results of their working have shown it would be right to amend. The Labour Party says that it wishes to repeal the whole Act. It would throw out many things that it specifically wants if it did so.
    Mr. Ashton: As the Government and their supporters consistently make statements that the miners are led by a small group of mindless militants and Communists, why have not the Government used the Act to conduct a ballot of miners to see whether they would accept phase 3?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman impugns my motives in a totally unfair way.
    Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman keeps repeating what other Ministers have kept repeating: that there is a contradiction in our position. Therefore, I wish to make it clear to him that appeals against unfair dismissal were the policy of the Labour Government and always have been our policy. We will continue with those appeals and improve the provisions. Otherwise, we intend the total repeal of the Act. We have made

    345
    it clear over and over again that the choice before the people in the General Election, when it comes, is therefore either the repeal of the Act and a new deal under a Labour Government or continuing with the Act and other policies which have produced the worst system of industrial relations since the 1920s.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept all that the right hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that he, like everyone else, will wish to be very careful. If he says that the only parts of the Act he would retain are the unfair dismissal provisions, I wonder whether that is the position his party would take.
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now review the working of the Industrial Relations Act with particular reference to the income tax position of those unions which have deregistered under the Act and to the fact that such unions are not permitted to negotiate union shop agreements.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I will take these and other suggestions into account in considering possible amendments to the Act.
    Mr. Johnson: I s the Minister aware that to make this suggested amendment to the Industrial Relations Act would at once improve the relationship between the Government and the unions? Surely that is a small price to pay. Will he look again at the matter? The unions regard this aspect of the Act as being mean, petty and spiteful.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am perfectly prepared to consider this proposal. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is correct because there are those who, understandably from their point of view, still demand the total repeal of the Act. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Member's point and I shall consider it carefully.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When my right hon. Friend considers any amendments will he consider making compulsory a secret ballot for the election of union officers to be conducted in the same impartial way as the elections conducted by the electricians' trade union?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Obviously it is correct to consider all these proposals when examining possible amendments to the Act.
    Mr. English: I s the Secretary of State aware that large firms in industry make no use of the Act and that they, as well as the trade unions, would seek its amendment? When does he propose to bring firm proposals before the House?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I note the hon. Member's comment, but he must remember that a great deal of use is being made of the Act. Many cases have been settled by voluntary agreement before coming to the Industrial Relations Court and a great deal of work has been done on industrial relations which is of considerable value. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends cannot get away from that fact.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent talks he has had with representatives of the TUC on proposed amendments to the Industrial Relations Act.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have had discussions with representatives of the TUC on a number of economic and industrial matters. The Industrial Relations Act has been touched on in our talks, but I have not discussed particular proposals for amendment.
    Mr. Hamilton: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman take an initiative in this matter, particularly since Sir John Donaldson has said that the Act needs amending? Surely that would be a step in the process towards reconciliation, about which the Government are particularly fond of speaking. Is it not the case that the Government themselves are not using the Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman say which will come first, repeal of the Act or a General Election?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have never proposed, nor has any of my right hon. Friends, that we should repeal the Act. We have consistently said that there are many parts of the Act, large portions of it, which are accepted to be of value by large numbers of people. The hon. Member asked what talks I have had on this matter. In the talks that I have held many people have said they want the Act repealed. Therefore, I have said that I am considering various amendments and proposals for amendments which have been put to me.
    Sir P. Bryan: Why does not the hon Member for Fife, West (Mr. William

    347
    Hamilton) take an initiative and make his own specific suggestions? Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Question No. 5 today was the first specific suggestion we have had from the Labour side for an amendment to the Industrial Relations Act?
    Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) has considerable experience in these matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was sacked."] A great many demands have been made for total repeal of the Act. I regard them as unrealistic and I agree that few constructive amendments have ever been put forward.
    Mr. Heffer: I s it not the case that, during the passage of the Bill, the Opposition put forward a whole series of amendments, including those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson)? During the course of the Bill the Government on no occasion accepted any of the arguments in spite of being warned that, if the legislation went through unamended, it would create more industrial relations problems and would prove to be a great albatross round the Government's neck. Is it not time that the Government learned from the experience of hon. Members who have worked in industry for a long time and who know that the Act must be got rid of at the earliest possible moment, but that in the meantime it should be amended to ease the position?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member speaks in contradictory terms. He says that those with experience believe that the Act should be got rid of altogether. I do not believe that that is the hon. Member's position. He says that there should be amendments in the short term. The Government have said that they are prepared to consider and, indeed, are considering amendments. It cannot be consistent to speak on the one hand about total repeal and on the other hand about amendments.

    Motor Industry
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about short-time working in the motor industry.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): The motor industry is operating a threeday
    348
    working week except where continuous process operations are involved or a firm has reached some special arrangement with the Department of Trade and Industry and the appropriate electricity board for a full working week but with electricity usage restricted to 65 per cent. of normal requirements.
    Mr. Dalyell: What do the Government propose to do about the shortage of steel in the motor industry? Is the Minister aware that at the huge Leyland plant at Bathgate in West Lothian there are many, not only ex-miners, now working in the motor industry who think that, in not following the line offered by the TUC, the Government, in dealing with the miners, must be off their collective nut?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: The serious steel situation was discussed over and over again in the House last week. I understand that the British Leyland truck factory in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is operating a three-day week from Monday to Wednesday and that about 3,500 workers are on short time and are receiving lay-off pay for the remaining days under an agreement with the firm. The guaranteed week provisions will operate when lay-off pay expires.
    Mr. Buchan: I s not the Minister aware that one of the problems facing the motor car industry is in assembly? A hold-up in any other sector throughout Britain can hold up the entire industry. Does he not agree that that is extremely serious to our whole export position? Will he take it from me that the members of the two main unions involved in the industry in Scotland, as elsewhere in Britain—the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and the Transport and General Workers Union—cannot understand the Government's refusal of the offer made by Hugh Scanlon and others, except by putting it down to the incredible rigidity, stupidity and vicious-ness of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not accept a single word of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He knows, as does everyone in the House who has listened to the debates and observed all that has gone on over the past few weeks, why the three-day week came about. I do not propose to add to that.

    Immigrants (Birmingham)
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the proportion of those currently registered as unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area who are immigrants ; and how this compares with the proportion of immigrants in the total working population in the same area.
    Mr. Scott: On 12th November 1973, 10 per cent. of the registered unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area were coloured immigrants. I regret that up-to-date information about the proportion of immigrants in the working population in local areas is not available.
    Mr. Chapman: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment? I welcome the fact that these figures do not seem disproportionate to the total immigrant working population, but will he look carefully at the matter and watch the situation? I am sure he will agree, as did his predecessor, that it is of vital importance to good relations in a city such as Birmingham.
    Mr. Scott: The national picture over the last 12 months up to last November was that, in general, coloured unemployment as a percentage of total unemployment was falling but I share my hon. Friend's concern to see that real equality of opportunity is achieved.
    Mr. Harold Walker: May I, too, join in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box? I hope he will accept it in the right spirit if I say that I do not think he will be occupying that position for very long.
    I think I have today heard the phrase "coloured immigrant" used for the first time at the Dispatch Box by a Minister from the hon. Gentleman's Department. Will he say by what criteria his Department determines whether an immigrant is coloured or otherwise?
    Mr. Scott: This is an assessment made by the Department of the circumstances at each of the local offices.

    Small Firms
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Employment what advice is being issued, from his Department to
    350
    small firms which are being forced to lay off workers due to the present economic situation.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: My Department stands ready to advise small firms and their employees in the present emergency situation, and any employer consulting one of the small firms centres set up by the Department of Trade and Industry to advise small firms on sources of information will be referred to us on matters for which my Department is responsible.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Minister accept that, while the three-day working week is drastic for the whole of industry, its effects are particularly serious for small businesses? For some of these businesses the effects may be permanent. What steps is his Department or any other Department prepared to take to protect small businesses which may not survive?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: The best way to protect the interests of small businesses is for the overtime ban in the mines to come to an end. [Interruption.] That is the case and it is widely recognised on both sides of the House. In the meantime, if my Department can assist the hon. Member in any way with a particular problem which exists in his constituency, we shall be only too glad to do so.
    Sir J. Rodgers: Short of common sense prevailing and the overtime ban being lifted, are the Government considering any mechanism for a court of appeal for changing the three days allocated for working, either to rotate them or switch them to other days?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: This matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the Minister inform his right hon. Friend that he should take more notice of the small businesses than of the CBI, which is not particularly representative in that direction? Will he pay more attention to what is to happen to small businesses which find their cash flow seriously affected? How much longer does he expect they will be able to manage without going bust in wholesale numbers?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the difficulties of the small business men in these matters. I understand today that he has had three meetings with representatives of small business men.

    Pay Settlements
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many pay settlements within phase 3 have been settled up to the latest convenient date ; and how many workers have been covered by such settlements.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: At December 31st, 1973, 657 settlements covering nearly 4 million employees had been received by the Pay Board under the provisions of stage 3.
    Mr. Finsberg: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, in the light of these figures, it would be monstrously unfair to those millions of workers who have accepted an agreement under phase 3 to permit the miners to settle outside phase 3?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Yes.
    Mr. Ewing: I s the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the settlements within phase 3 have been achieved in a peculiar manner? Is he aware of the settlements that have been reached in the contract cleaning industry, where many of the women employees are widows? Is he aware that their wage settlement is geared to the wage restrictions relating to national insurance contributions rather than to the need for an increase even within phase 3? Will the hon. Gentleman consider that?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I f the hon. Gentleman cares to table a Question on that matter, I shall do everything within my power to seek to answer it. There is no evidence to suggest that there has been any serious evasion of the code.

    Sheltered Employment
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on his consultative document "Sheltered Employment for Disabled People".
    Mr. Scott: The consultative document was published on 12th December. My right hon. Friend has already begun to receive some comments of interest.
    Mr. Tebbit: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his new position. Will he guide the House on how soon we might expect any action as a result of these proposals in the consultations which are now taking place?
    Mr. Scott: As my hon. Friend knows, this is part of a review of our whole policy and approach to the treatment of the disabled. I cannot yet give a firm date, but we are giving high priority to the review.
    Mr. Pavitt: Has the hon. Gentleman gone further with representations made about this document by the National League of the Blind? If he has, will he write in due course to let me know whether such representations have been acceded to?
    Mr. Scott: We are considering all the representations which have been made. I shall keep the hon. Gentleman informed.
    Mr. Harold Walker: May I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I reminded his predecessor on many occasions, that according to the figures of his Department nearly 9,000 firms are in flagrant and deliberate breach of the law? What action will his Department take regarding the firms which ignore the quota system?
    Mr. Scott: I think the hon. Gentleman will know from his experience in this Department that the interpretation of the quota arrangements has always been a matter of judgment. There have been few prosecutions. We are reviewing the whole question of our policies towards the disabled. It would be inappropriate now to alter present practice.

    Wage Claims
    Mr. Loveridgeasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now encourage the TUC and the CBI, and representatives of the nationalised industries, to hold discussions with a view to fixing an annual date for all major wage claims.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Such a proposal would present considerable practical difficulties.
    Mr. Loveridge: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. Does he not agree that the leapfrogging of wage claims, which sometimes happens within the same industry, is a contributory cause of rising

    353
    prices, and that it is at least worth working towards an annual date for each industry?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I understand my hon. Friend's point about leapfrogging. I am not sure that the synchonisation of terminal dates would necessarily bring an end to leapfrogging. There would undoubtedly be a high once-and-for-all cost in getting negotiators to accept differing lengths of agreement to bring all terminal dates into line.
    Mr. Molloy: I f the hon. Gentleman finds difficulty in raising the points enumerated by the TUC and the CBI, may I ask whether he is prepared to discuss with those bodies what should be done to prohibit the actions of asset strippers such as Slater Walker, which has threatened firms in my constituency with take-over bids to such an extent that factories have been closed and hundreds of men have been thrown out of work? Does he realise that the land has been sold so as to ward off take-over bids? Is he aware that this has happened in the glass container industry, which is overloaded with orders and cannot meet either its domestic or export orders? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consider that example of industrial behaviour?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not comment on the example given by the hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say that few hon. Members could accuse the Government of being unwilling to discuss any matter with the TUC or the CBI. Neither the TUC nor the CBI has expressed any interest in the idea of a common date.
    Mr. Fell: I s my hon. Friend aware that it utterly impossible for the country to evisage with any equanimity an annual rise of approximately 10 per cent? Will he kindly consider when it became the fashion for all wage-earners to demand an annual rise as opposed to a rise when they really need one?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: That question might provide me with some interesting historical research. I am not sure whether I am prepared to carry it out at this moment.

    County Durham
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will pay an official visit to County Durham.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Dormand: That is a pity. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in County Durham is now nearly twice the national average? Is he further aware of the continuing emigration of people from the county and the limited job opportunities which are available for school leavers? Has he seen the recently-published report of Durham County Council which warns that all these things are likely to continue? Is it not time that the Government did something about the failure of their policies for the North-East?
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a Member for the North of England, although I represent a Northwest constituency rather than a constituency in the North-East. However, I still have close conections with the North-East and I have frequently been there. I understand its problems. Let us not forget what was achieved following the plans which were laid by my right hon. and noble Friend the present Lord Chancellor when he visited the North-East. The North-East has benefited to a considerable extent ever since.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I f my right hon. Friend has not the time to at present to visit County Durham, will he visit the assisted area of Yorkshire and Humberside, where he will find that the Government's regional policies have been a marked success, and where in the West Riding, and especially Bradford, unemployment before the present go-slow in the mining industry was below the national average? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the textile industry the co-operation between management and employees was outstanding and was recognised since special provisions have been made for the firms which work seven days a week?
    Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend states facts which no one can dispute and which are to the credit of the area concerned.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown.: When the right hon. Gentleman finally decides to pay a visit to Durham, will he travel via Newcastle airport and Brandling Park, where he will see a monstrous three-level junction on the urban motorway with two spurs which will go nowhere unless he can persuade his right hon. and learned

    355
    Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to give the necessary loan sanction for the North-West radial route and the coast road extension?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I travelled to Newcastle airport on purely private affairs on New Year's Eve. I did not at that time visit the junction to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall consider what he says.

    Temporarily Unemployed Persons
    Sir P. Bryanasked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he has made to provide special training courses for those who may become temporarily unemployed due to fuel shortage in the coming year.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: None. Temporary unemployment does not lend itself easily to use for training.
    Sir P. Bryan: Will my hon. Friend tell us to what extent Government training centres have been affected by the three-day week?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I can tell my hon. Friend that the expansion of the training opportunity scheme is not seriously affected by the cuts announced by my right hon. Friend on 17th December. There will be a slight slowing-down in the expansion of training places for GTCs. The expansion in colleges of further education remains unaffected. I am glad to say that that applies to the target of 50,000 to 55,000 trainees for 1974, which I know my hon. Friend will agree is a massive increase.
    Mr. Leonard: As the hon. Gentleman and all his ministerial colleagues are among those who will shortly be unemployed, will he make provisions for increasing the retraining facilities for unskilled workers?
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I shall always do everything within my power to help the hon. Gentleman when he needs it.

    East Midlands and Kettering
    Sir G. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Employment approximately how many workers were without full-time employment in the East Midlands and in the Kettering parliamentary constituency, respectively, on the most recent date in 1974 for which he has figures ; and what proportion of these he
    356
    estimates can be attributed to the three-day week.
    Mr. Scott: No figures of unemployment are yet available for any date in 1974. It is estimated that on Friday 11th January 1974 there were 88,000 in the East Midlands temporarily laid off and registered for unemployment benefit ; 5,000 were so registered at Kettering and Corby local offices, which cover most of the right hon. Member's constituency.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Should there be a General Election, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee to do everything he possibly can to publish the latest figures showing the effect of the three-day week on my constituents who, until the three-day week was introduced, had been enjoying full employment?
    Mr. Scott: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be better advised to address that advice elsewhere.

    Three-Day Week
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on compulsory short-time working in industry and the three-day week.
    Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained the need for measures to restrict the supply of electricity to industry on 9th January and the three-day week was fully debated on the following day. At present I have nothing to add to what was said during those debates.
    Mr. Allaun: Do not the Government's fuel figures show that the three-day week is unnecessary and a "con" trick aimed at putting people against the miners? Do not the figures show that there are eight or nine weeks' supplies of coal even before the safety margin is reached? Is not that position revealed today by reports from the men working in the power stations to the effect that those power stations are bulging with oil and coal? If the right hon. Gentleman says that there is a shortage of oil, can he say why no crude oil is being refined for the power stations but is going to motorists instead?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to the hon. Gentleman has been given consistently and frequently in all the debates that

    357
    have taken place on this subject. The answer is simple and easy. The measures that were taken were acts of common prudence to preserve our energy supplies during the particular problems we are facing this winter. There was nothing else beyond that. I believe that the majority of people who are not seeking to make some form of political capital understand that. I have no doubt that these facts are perfectly clear to all who seek to understand the situation.
    Mr. Eadie: I s the right hon. Gentleman aware that our information in Scotland is that there is no embarrassing shortage of coal stocks at power stations and that there are more coal stocks at one of the power stations than there have been for many years, yet it has not turned a wheel for three or four days? Would he not agree, as there has been some talk from the Government Front Bench this afternoon about ballot votes, that he should consider holding a ballot vote among some of the small firms which employ half the workers of the country, asking them whether they agree with the Government's policy over the three-day week and fuel rationing?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There cannot be any doubt in anyone's mind that, if it is possible to conserve our energy supplies so that we continue to preserve the life of our country and its business on a three-day week basis, it is better to do that than to advance into total chaos, which would be a negation of government and a disastrous thing for any Government to do.

    Hotel Industry
    Sir C. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has been informed about the shortage of staff in the hotel industry ; and whether he will increase the quota of trained, temporary foreign workers into this country.
    Mr. Scott: The industry has made plain its concern about shortages of staff and my right hon. Friend has the needs of the industry in mind. I hope soon to discuss with the industry the allocation of the quota for this year.
    Sir C. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend realise that my constituents provide holidays for the people who have been working
    358
    hard during the year? How are we to do this with present staff shortages in the industry?
    Mr. Scott: A quota has to be seen as a total system of immigration control and not just as a means of labour supply. Efforts are being made to recruit and train British workers for the hotel industry. My Department will do all that it can to assist.

  ASLEF
  Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with members of the executive committee of ASLEF.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I met the executive of ASLEF on 11th December and made a full statement to the House on that day.
  Mr. Goodhart: In any future contact with ASLEF, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely plain that tens of thousands of frustrated rail passengers will be enraged if the Railways Board ever again pays engine drivers who refuse to drive trains?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to add anything to the present situation except to say that the British Railways Board has made a proposal that there should be a meeting of the railways national tribunal next week. This is to take place. I hope that it will yield results and that there will be an end to the present extremely unfortunate and, as I believe, totally unnecessary action.
  Mr. John Grant: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to use his good offices to try to bring that meeting forward a little? Does he realise that the travelling public will find it difficult to understand why there should be such a long delay? If the reason is that people have prior commitments, ought they not to revise their priorities?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I do not know what the arrangements were between the British Railways Board and the unions concerned. I sincerely hope that the industrial action of all sorts will be called off. That surely would be a right and proper action and one which would suit rail passengers.

  GLC LEADER (MEETING)
  Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official meeting with the Leader of the GLC.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I met Sir Reginald Goodwin, who was accompanied by the Director-General of the GLC, at 10 Downing Street on 11th January. We had a useful and constructive discussion about the causes of the problems facing London and about ways of dealing with them. Sir Reginald Goodwin suggested that the Government and the GLC should undertake a joint assessment of the future staffing requirements of London's services. I welcomed this suggestion and said that I would consider how the GLC could collaborate with the work which is in progress within the Government.
  Mr. Cox: While I note that reply, may I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the recent action by the Chancellor, whether he is aware that unless very generous help is given to the GLC and to other authorities throughout the country, the position will worsen? Is he aware that while in 1970 he pranced round the country claiming that he would create a one-nation society, the action which he and the Chancellor have been taking has divided the country more than anything else? Now, when the going is getting tough, does he intend to run away from the problems?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Those are not views which were put forward by Sir Reginald Goodwin. We discussed particular aspects of these problems, such as housing and ways in which the GLC and the Government were already acting to meet them. We also discussed some of the causes of the present difficulties, in particular the change in movement of the population in the Greater London area from the inner area to the outer area. This makes it extremely difficult for those who normally would be working in the public services to live close enough to their work. Neither of us thought that these were easy problems to solve, but we are to carry out a joint assessment of London's total requirements. Then we can see what further can be done to help.
  Mr. William Clark: When my right hon. Friend met the Leader of the GLC, did he suggest that it would be much better for the GLC not to waste money buying rented properties around London? Did he suggest that it would be much better advised to spend money on developing the dockland so that we can produce new houses rather than gain extra utilisation from existing houses?
  The Prime Minister: We discussed both of those things in some detail. My hon. Friend will realise that a different time phasing is connected with any action taken by the GLC, on, for example, rented property. I know that the present GLC administration—as was its predecessor—is keen to see dockland development going ahead as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Spearing: The Prime Minister has rightly said that one of the problems is the provision of housing for those who provide London's services. Does he recall that a year ago his Minister of Housing refused to initiate an inquiry into the effects of the free market in land and property which flourishes in London, causing over 100 evictions in my constituency? If he now puts a shackle on the miners, preventing them from using their bargaining power, why will he not shackle those who exploit the land and property market in London?
  The Prime Minister: This was not a question raised with me by Sir Reginald Goodwin. It was not an aspect to which he was asking the Government to address themselves. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular constituency problem, my right hon. Friend will of course be prepared to look at it.

  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  Mr. Ewingasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further meetings with the TUC and CBI.
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister what further meetings he has planned with the CBI and TUC.
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the TUC and CBI.
  Mr. Strangasked the Prime Minister if he has any plans for further talks with representatives of the TUC and CBI.
  The Prime Minister: I met representatives of the TUC on 10th January and again yesterday ; and representatives of the CBI on 11th January. At these meetings we discussed the industrial situation and the proposal which the TUC put forward at the NEDC meeting on 9th January. We agreed that the Government should continue to keep closely in touch with both the CBI and the TUC and further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
  Mr. Ewing: Will the Prime Minister say what purpose he considers those further meetings will have, since on the most important economic decision that the Government have taken—namely, the three-day week—he did not even have the decency to consult the CBI or the TUC? Does not that confirm the view of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that the Prime Minister and his Government are politically immoral?
  The Prime Minister: The purpose of any further meetings can be to make a further attempt to find a solution to the present industrial problems, which both the CBI and the TUC as well as the Government wish to do. I explained at NEDC the reason why there was not consultation over the three-day week and I have explained to the House. The Government did not wish to be in the position of being accused of threatening the National Union of Mineworkers' meeting on the Thursday morning.
  Sir Gilbert Longden: I s not part of the trouble that many people do not appreciate the real danger which threatens the pounds and the pence in our pockets? Would it help if, instead of always referring to our "counter-inflation" policy, we were to remind the nation that the present Government are the first Government since the war to make a determined effort to prevent the arrival of the day when we shall need a suitcase instead of a notecase to carry our money?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that this Government have made a determined attempt, in conjunction with the CBI and the TUC, to find an orderly way of settling differences which arise over incomes and in particular over wages. During stages 1 and 2 the work we did was very successful. As I have already said, in stage 3 nearly
  362
  4 million workers have already agreed settlements and to that extent stage 3 also is successful. My desire is that the miners should find themselves able to accept stage 3, in which they are being treated as a special case, and that they should accept the invitation open to them immediately stage 3 is settled to have a complete and detailed discussion with the National Coal Board—and the Government if they wish—about the future pay structure of the whole industry.
  Mr. Skinner: Why did not the Prime Minister use his meeting with the TUC last night to end all the silly speculation about a February election? As he did not tell the TUC, will he tell me now?
  The Prime Minister: Because in the five and a half hours of intensive discussion between the TUC and the Government both sides were trying to find a solution to this problem, and the question of an election was never mentioned.
  Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the TUC has lifted its ban on members of the Communist Party holding office in unions affiliated to the TUC? Will he ask the TUC what was its object in so doing and whether it feels that this action has made a significant contribution to the improvement of industrial relations?
  The Prime Minister: That has always been a matter for decision by individual unions through their own rule books. Therefore, if changes have been made in rule books they have been done by individual unions on their own decisions.
  Mr. Meacher: As the alleged objective of the three-day week is to prevent wage inflation, is the Prime Minister aware that, on even the most absurdly pessimistic assumptions, a 50 per cent. increase in the rate of current pay settlements immediately for everyone for the whole of the next year would cost less than £2 billion, whereas the three-day working week, if it goes on until the spring, on the most conservative official NEDC assumptions, must cost at least £5 billion? Is not the imposition of the three-day week, therefore, a criminally irresponsible action?
  The Prime Minister: As is so often the case, the hon. Gentleman has not realised what is at stake. The three-day week is

  363
  brought about by the shortage of coal for power stations.
  Mr. Jennings: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that this is a friendly question which contains a warm invitation? Does he know that my birthday is 10th February? In his future programme of meetings, will he consider visiting one of the breweries in Burton to celebrate my birthday with me during the first half of February? If he cannot manage 10th February, can he manage either of two dates on which I am completely free—7th and 14th February?
  The Prime Minister: I shall certainly try to oblige my hon. Friend. It is not very often that a Prime Minister has such an opportunity, and I would welcome it.
  Mr. Strang: I s the Prime Minister aware that the farcical machinations of the Pay Board and the National Coal Board during the Christmas Recess regarding waiting time payments to miners and, now, the studied and prolonged so-called deliberation of the Government on the current TUC initiative are serving to convince more and more people that three-day working and industrial bitterness are being deliberately orchestrated by the Government in an attempt to create a political climate in which they can fight an election without defending their own disastrous economic record?
  The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on any of those points. The use of words such as "machinations" about the National Coal Board or the Pay Board will not help to find a solution. The Pay Board has been carrying out its duty under statute, and the National Coal Board is anxious to avoid industrial disruption and to find a settlement, as are the Government. On the three-day week, perhaps the hon. Gentleman—who treats these matters seriously—will address himself to the published figures which show the position of coal stocks in the past weeks.
  Mr. Maude: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while everyone in the country would like to be able to move towards a voluntary incomes policy, recent events and the discussions with the TUC seem to indicate that it is only within the safeguards of a statutory
  364
  incomes policy that we can hope to get a safe agreement on a voluntary basis?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I agree that my hon. Friend is right in present circumstances. I also think that it is right to continue to try to develop a voluntary policy. All sides recognise—the CBI, the TUC and the Government, who have taken part in the talks over the last 18 months—that there must be very clear assurances and undertakings with a voluntary policy, whether on the side of wages or on the side of prices, and that the two go together to form a completely voluntary policy. All those—now nearly 4 million—who have made agreements under stage 3 have done so in the genuine belief that this is a fair and orderly process with which others will comply. That is the basis on which they have made their agreements, and rightly so.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a fair interpretation of what he said this afternoon and of what the Secretary of State for Employment said in his public Press briefings last night that the outcome of the meeting yesterday between the Government and the TUC is still a matter for consideration by both sides and that the ball is still in play? Does he agree that no one who is in a position to have a determinate effect on this grave situation should at this time make the situation more difficult on the eve of this important all-union/TUC conference? In that spirit, will the right hon. Gentleman agree, after that conference is held, to meet the TUC committee that he has been meeting?
  The Prime Minister: As I said in my statement, further meetings will be arranged as necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made plain last night in the conference to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, we regarded the meeting as adjourned, and that also is the view of the General Secretary of the TUC. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman receives the assurance for which he asks.
  Sir P. Bryan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be just as irresponsible for the Government to accept at once and without deep consideration the TUC assurance as a short cut out of our industrial trouble as it would be to reject it out of hand?
  The Prime Minister: That is the reason why we have been having the three sets of talks, two with the TUC and one with the CBI. Everybody agrees that one must be clear about the assurance. The assurance so far quoted means that if the miners are to be considered as a special case—and the Government already consider them to be a special case and have shown so in stage 3—the other unions will not quote that in any wage negotiations. But the assurance does not say that other unions would be prepared to accept stage 3, nor does it say that other unions would refuse to use industrial action—which in some cases would be just as serious as that which is being suffered by the country at the moment.
  Mr. Barnes: I s it not the case, despite what the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition say, that the five and a half hours of talks were a sort of pre-election ballet, and a rather long one? Is it not the case that anybody who knows anything about politics knows that the Prime Minister is seeking an election now only to avoid fighting on his record? Why do we have to wait until Thursday?
  The Prime Minister: I s not the hon. Gentleman doing less than credit to the intelligence and integrity of the six members of the TUC who took part in the talks? Is he suggesting that they would be prepared to take part in a ballet for the purposes he describes? The fact is that these talks were genuine and were acknowledged by both sides to be so.
  Mr. Fell: May I again raise with my right hon. Friend a bone of contention, which has been raised several times this afternoon, concerning the Industrial Relations Act? Does he recall that on many occasions he has invited the TUC specifically to put forward proposals for changing the Industrial Relations Act which would help the unions? Will he say what recommendations, if any, have been put forward by the TUC for amendment of the Act?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct to say that I have constantly said at meetings with employers as well as trade unionists that the Government will consider any recommendations which they wish to make for amendment of the Act. I have always added that these recommendations would carry much greater weight if they came from people
  366
  who have been genuinely working the Act. Nevertheless, I said that we would consider any suggested amendments to the Act, and I believe that there is sufficient confidence within the three sides to recognise that this is a genuine offer. It is true to say, however, that neither employers nor trade unionists have put forword in the talks any proposals for amendment of the Act. But the offer still remains open.
  Mr. Palmer: On the three-day working week, will the Prime Minister answer a question which has not been put to him before: how far was properly organised load-shedding considered as an alternative to the three-day working week?
  The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) has very specialised knowledge of these matters, and I can tell him that this was considered very fully indeed. Although there was no direct consultation the day before the decision was announced in Parliament, there has been consultation with industry over a considerable time on the best way to handle industry when, for one reason or another, complete power supplies are not available. We based our decisions on the general knowledge we had of its views.
  Mr. Thorpe: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government attach importance to the report of the Pay Board on relativities which is expected at the end of the month? Does he agree that the recognition by the TUC that the miners were a special case is in itself a useful contribution to the discussion on relativities? On the basis that we assume the Prime Minister is more anxious to get an agreed incomes policy than a General Election, will he agree that any Government which failed to do everything they could to conciliate and which preferred confrontation at the polls would deserve the contempt of the electorate?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that everything possible should be done to conciliate, and this is the case. This has been done within the context of the counter-inflation policy in stage 3. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the number of meetings which have been held and the generosity of the offer to the miners—because they are a special case and there has been widespread approval throughout the country

  367
  that they are a special case—he will agree that we have proved that point. On relativities, as I said last week to the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), it is not the fault of the Government that the report has been delayed because of the complexity of the matter and also the large amount of information provided by the unions to the Pay Board. I undertake that, when the report is provided, we shall carry out our undertaking to discuss with the TUC and CBI their views on its implementation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day, as soon as the House has entered upon the Business of Supply, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Questions which under the provisions of paragraph 11 of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) he is directed to put at Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order (Statutory Instruments).
That the Local Government Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 1973 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Prior.]
Question agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.37 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Acts.
In seeking leave to introduce my Bill, I wish to mention that the nation owes an immense debt of gratitude to the late Lewis Silkin—Lord Silkin—who, by introducing his Town and Country Planning Acts, did so much to protect our countryside, towns and people from the ravages of ill-considered development and at the same time introduced a vital element of civilised behaviour in planning matters.
The Bill will cover three essential features. Ever since 1968 it has been accepted by successive Governments that planning control, to be effective, requires the active participation of those who live in the area affected by the planning decision. Legislation by both Labour and Conservative Governments in planning matters has made for greater participation—and indirectly the Local Government Act 1972, by increasing the publicity given to the proceedings of local authorities, has also assisted in this aim. Nevertheless, while participation continues to be regarded as desirable, and I would say vital, in the making of local authority planning decisions, participation—particularly in working-class and lower-middle-class areas—has all too often been defeated by the sheer volume and technicalities involved in the consideration of applications. The purpose of the proposed Bill is not to affect the principles of planning law but to strengthen the element of participation in the procedures which now exist.
In general there are three major areas in our planning procedures which need to be dealt with before we can begin to have a universally effective participation These involve questions of information expertise and timing.
As to information, the position at the moment is that where a planning application has been received a local authority may—and many, though not all. do—attempt to bring it to the notice of local residents by advertisement in the local Press and by putting a notice upon the

369
site itself. However, in many cases these notices are in technical language and are virtually meaningless to those most affected by them. Even the likelihood of such notices being seen is all too remote.
My Bill would make it obligatory for a local authority to notify every household which would be affected by a planning application that the application had been received. In addition, a short explanation would have to be made of what the effect would be if such an application were granted.
Again, information is more likely to be widespread if associations of householders as well as individual householders are aware of the situation. In many areas, but mainly in upper-middle-class areas, residents' associations or amenity associations have been created which play a commendable part in acting as the community's watchdog against undesirable planning applications. The growth of such associations should be encouraged.
My Bill would make provision for information to be made available to all residents' associations provided that their existence had been notified to the local authority.
Here a word should be said about residents' associations. As I have said, they tend to flourish in middle-class areas. The reason for this is that among their numbers such associations invariably have solicitors, architects, town planners and so on who readily give their services and who have at least a comparable expertise with the officials of the local authority. This expertise is lacking in working-class areas, as are the resources needed to acquire such expertise.
My Bill would enable grants to be made to resident's associations to enable them to act on behalf of the local community
370
in all planning applications which they wished to oppose.
The third change that the Bill would make concerns the question of timing. As I have said, one of the major difficulties about participation is the volume of planning applications and therefore the speed with which such decisions are made by the local authority. All too often an application has been approved even before residents are aware of its existence.
The Bill would ensure that residents' associations had the right within 28 days of an application being approved by the local authority to appeal to the Minister against the decision of the local authority and for the costs to the association to be met out of public funds.
By these three means, local residents would be brought more actively within the scope of those planning applications that affected them, and they would have the knowledge, time and expertise with which to put their case as strongly as it could be put.
I contend that my Bill would widen the frontiers of our democracy, humanise an element of our administration and benefit all our people.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Molloy, Mr. Ronald Brown, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. James Wellbeloved, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Eric Heffer, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. Neil McBride, Mr. Denzil Davies, Mr. S. C. Silkin and Mr. John Silkin.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Acts, presented accordingly and read the First time ; to be read a Second time upon Friday 22nd February and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1974–75 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Question,
  That a sum, not exceeding £6,724,384,300, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the Civil Departments, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 44 for the year ending on 31st March 1975.
  Question agreed to.

  CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1973–74
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Question,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £883,885,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1974, for expenditure on Civil Defence Services as set out in House of Commons Papers No. 46 and 45.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions and upon the resolution of the House of 12th December 1973 relating to the Defence Estimates, 1974–5 (Vote on Account), by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Tom Boardman, Mr. Terence Higgins and Mr. John Nott.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND
  Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1974 and 1975, presented accordingly and read the First time ; to be a read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND TRAINING
3.45 p.m.
Mrs. Renée Short: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Reports from the Expenditure Committee in the last Session of Parliament.
We have the opportunity today to debate some of the reports from the Expenditure Committee. I am sorry to see so few hon. Members present since the reports before the House today are the result of a year's consolidated energetic work on the part of the Expenditure Committee and its sub-committees. Some of the reports have been published in time for the Government to produce their documents and their proposals on certain aspects of policy.
I am grateful to the members of my Committee for their support, to our Clerk, Mrs. Sharpe, and to the expert witnesses who sent in memoranda and appeared before us to give oral evidence.
As a result of our comprehensive inquiries into the employment services three reports were published, one on the youth employment services, one on the employment of women, and one on the Government's proposal for reorganising and improving the public image of the Department's responsibilities. We applaud many of these proposals, and we welcome the determination of the Department to turn the dreary old labour exchanges into modern, well-equipped job centres using up-to-date methods of assessing and fulfilling customers' needs, training staff to approach customers in a more capable and friendly way, separating job placement and vocational guidance from the payment of unemployment benefit, and the reorganisation of the professional and executive register. All this we welcome, and we shall be looking with great interest to see how it develops.
Our inquiry provided useful material for the debates on the proposals to reorganise the youth employment service and for a private Member who introduced a Bill to control private employment agencies. Our recommendations were published well in advance of the publication of the Government's White Paper "Education: A

373
Framework for Expansion", and had considerable relevance to the areas covered by that White Paper.
However, it is on the report dealing with the employment of women that I wish to concentrate. Again, our recommendations were available to the Government many months before their discussion document "Equal Opportunities for Men and Women" was published last September.
This is an opportune time to talk about women in this House because, in the difficult economic climate created by the Government's decision to introduce three-day working, women are bearing a considerable amount of the brunt of the problem. There is a great deal of ignorance about the way that we treat women. We pay much lip service to equality, but progress comes very slowly.
To illustrate that, one has only to look at the position on equal pay. The Act is on the statute book and must be implemented in less than two years. But how much progress has been made? If a recent survey by the Office of Manpower Economics is to be believed, many firms do not know their obligations under the Equal Pay Act, and the Secretary of State for Employment seems not to be too bothered about that either. When we have pressed him in the House to require firms to achieve 90 per cent. of equal pay by 1973, as the Act allows him to do, he has refused. Stage 2 has deliberately slowed down progress towards equal pay. The law has been broken, with Government connivance, and women have suffered as a result.
The TUC, at a special conference that it called last February to discuss the economic situation of the nation, said:
"The stage 2 formula has made it impossible for women whose rates are less than 85 per cent. to achieve 90 per cent. The fact that the Government has delayed phased increases under existing equal pay agreements, that there was delay under phase 2, and a reduction of such increases and then the Minister's refusal to make the order providing for 90 per cent. at least by the end of 1973, all adds up to a negative approach to the problem."
As long as women are prepared to be second-class citizens receiving poor wages while doing essential jobs in industry, so long will they remain undervalued economically, sexually, and in every other way.
374
It is not just a matter of pay. How many girls take up apprenticeships after leaving school? How many girls go into dead-end jobs without training or prospects? Women constitute 40 per cent. of the work force, but their skills are undervalued.
When the Expenditure Committee took evidence on this matter it discovered that only 7 per cent. of girls, or three out of 40, entered apprenticeships and that three-quarters of those are in hairdressing, where, let us face it, unregistered hairdressers regard apprentices as cheap labour and are not interested in their training on the job or in day release as a preliminary to the City and Guilds examinations. A leading article of The Times of 13th April 1973 called this a "shocking" state of affairs. Indeed it is.
On the other hand, almost 40 per cent. of boys leaving school entered apprenticeships. But 36 per cent. of girls went into clerical work, where they are expected to acquire basic skills by themselves, and 38 per cent. of girls went into other jobs in shops, in showrooms, in restaurants and in cafés where no training is given.
Only 10 per cent. of young women, compared with 40 per cent. of young men, get day release. It is a scandalous situation that the lowest numbers of women granted day release are in those industries, such as clothing and footwear, the distributive trades, insurance and banking, and the textile industry, where the highest proportion of women is employed. We recommend that it should be a statutory requirement that all young workers should have day release and that there should be commercial apprenticeships for young people, both boys and girls. I had an opportunity to look at the departmental reply, which was published only yesterday, from which I see that our proposals for day release have not been accepted by the Minister.
Few women are admitted into Government training centres: first, because the vocational training scheme is geared to industries that are traditionally interesting and regarded as important to men, such as the engineering and construction trades, offering women only commercial subjects ; secondly, because it is practically impossible for a woman with a family to leave them while she takes a course

375
at a Government training centre which may be far from her home ; and, thirdly, because of the blatant discrimination in the training allowances paid to men and women.
Although the Expenditure Committee highlighted this in 1972, drawing attention to the allowance of £11·75 for a single man compared with £10·75 for a woman, married or single, no action has so far been taken by the Minister to improve this situation. In fact, a recent Department of Employment News publicises the inequality. A married man with two children gets £17·70 a week during training, but a married woman, whatever her family commitments, gets only £10·75. It would appear that the boast to do away with sex discrimination, which appeared on the back page of the same newspaper, was a little premature. The Government would do well to put their own house in order. We recommended that inequality in training grants between men and women should be removed.
Many firms and institutions have progressive policies on paper, but they do not work out in practice. The BBC is a good example. Few women get promotion to top jobs in the BBC. Women are not considered these days to be suitable as news readers on any scale at all.
Teachers achieved equal pay 13 years ago. But how many women heads are there? Although they represent about 75 per cent. of primary school teachers, there are fewer and fewer women heads in primary schools. In 1961, when equal pay was won, there were 12,350 women primary heads. In 1970 there were only 10,242 women primary heads, and there had been an increase of 91 more headships. That means that there were over 2,000 fewer women heads than in 1961. One has the nasty suspicion that more women were promoted to the headships of primary schools before 1961 because it was more economic for LEAs to appoint them.
There are 44 Vice-Chancellors. None is a woman. There are 42 heads of university education departments and institutes. None is a woman. There are 44 registrars. None is a woman. It is a little monotonous, is it not? The Secretary of State, the statutory woman in the Cabinet responsible for education and science, ought to feel pretty outraged by
376
this dismal story. I should be if I were in her shoes. But then I should not have allowed this situation to continue.
The Civil Service, too, is full of anomalies and prejudice against women. Even though the industrial Civil Service has achieved a woman's rate of 92½ per cent., which is obviously better than private industry, women cleaners in the Civil Service get less than men. They do the same jobs as men, but they get about £2 a week less. Indeed, Government Departments are not averse to using contract cleaners whose rates for women are nothing short of a scandal.
In the higher echelons the story is the same. The opportunities for women to be promoted to the ambassadorial ranks and the higher posts in our embassies abroad, even to permanent secretaries in Departments, are very few and far between. The Government, as employer, should do better and provide an example for private industry to follow.
The fault does not lie all on the side of the Government. I wonder what the trades unions have been doing about it? The leading TUC witness told the Expenditure Committee that he did not approve of married women working. Clearly much needs to be done to educate trade unionists who, again, pay lip service to the theme of equality but who are content to see women remain underpaid for doing unskilled routine work. However, I am glad that the TUC has a strong women's advisory committee that has been bringing a good deal of pressure to bear on its male colleagues.
Flexible hours would help women who have dual responsibilities. Working women have responsibilities at home to their families and to their jobs. Flexible hours to fit in with the time that a woman with a family has to offer is a sensible arrangement, and firms that have tried this idea are pleased with the response. I hope that the Department and the Minister will discuss this matter with the unions and the employers.
If women are to play their full part it must be possible for them to have time away from their families. This places great responsibility on both the Government and local authorities to provide the facilities which will make it possible for women to do just that.
More nursery schools are essential from the child's point of view in a firm

377
foundation for his future educational and emotional progress is to be laid. But, here again, a more flexible and courageous attitude is needed. Mornings or afternoons at a nursery school do not meet the needs of the child whose mother has to work full time, as many women do, even when there is not this present situation burdening women. They have to do it either because their husband's pay is insufficient to meet the needs of the family and provide them with a decent standard of living, or because they are unsupported mothers who have to work and for whom social security is totally inadequate.
We also have to accept that women should be free to take a job if they wish to do so. All too often we adopt an ambivalent attitude towards working women and make them feel guilty if they want to take a job and not just stay at home to look after their families all the time.
We have proposed—and so have many organisations, including the TUC—that pressure should be put on the Secretary of State for Education and Science to provide more nursery places. We make that recommendation because we need more many more full-time places than are indicated in the White Paper on the expansion of the education services.
After the publication of the White Paper last December, the TUC published a document in which it supported the case for more nursery schools and more nursery centres, combining the day nursery with the nursery school, and also supporting our recommendation that there should be more after-school and holiday care for those children whose mothers cannot afford to take four, five or six weeks off work during the summer when the schools are on holiday. That is an opportunity for women's organisations to provide the kind of care and supervision that is needed at these times.
With the short working week, now imposed, some women have to work on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Those who have to work on Saturday when their husbands are also at work are placed in a difficult position in finding someone to look after their children. The restricted hours of the nursery class never meet the needs of the working mother, and there is a need for nursery education to be provided on a much more flexible
378
basis than the Minister has indicated in her White Paper.
We also considered discussing with employers the possibility of their providing facilities at their premises for nursery education. This is usual in many countries abroad. Some hospitals in this country have tried it, some Civil Service Departments are adopting this practice, and I gather that they are satisfied with the response.
When I asked the TUC witnesses why the TUC was not pressing for such provision, they asked why they should relieve the Secretary of State for Education and Science of her responsibility to provide nursery education. It may be that there will now be second thoughts on the matter, because the women members of the TUC are more open minded about this, as women generally are. I hope that the TUC will regard this as something that might be discussed with employers when times are more conducive to it. The ideal would be for firms to provide the accommodation, and thus relieve the Minister of the capital cost of providing it, and then hand the whole thing over to the Minister to staff and run the scheme. In that way there would be more nursery education for more children, and it is that in which I am primarily interested.
The inescapable conclusion to which we all came as a result of our investigations into the employment services was that we need a revolution in our attitude to women and girls at work and in training. Parents, employers, unions and, above all, schools need to adopt a much more flexible and less hidebound attitude. The brainwashing of girls starts at an early age. It starts when they are very young, when their picture books tell them that their rôle in life is to play with prams and dolls. It is the little girl who helps mummy to bake a cake, but it is the little boy who helps daddy to mend the car. That sort of think starts at an early age and continues throughout a girl's life.
Careers guidance in schools leaves a great deal to be desired. Why not suggest less conventional careers and less conventional training for girls? Why not end segregation of the sexes? Even in mixed schools boys and girls are taught separate crafts so that they grow up thinking that housecraft is for girls and metalwork is for boys. There is no law

379
of the Medes and Persians which says that girls should not be taught metal and woodwork, and the boys should not do domestic work and cookery. This is done in some secondary modern and comprehensive schools, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
Mathematics and science teaching for girls should be considerably improved, because without it how shall we get our women engineers—civil, mechanical and electrical—our women bridge builders and' road designers, and our women aeronautical engineers and pilots? Serious concern is felt over inexpert careers teaching. We found from our inquiries that in many schools the career teachers are seldom properly trained. Few of them have the opportunity of following a worthwhile career structure, with the result that the usual pattern of advice is given to girls. Those who do not obtain O-level passes go into shops, offices, factories and hairdressing, while the O-and A-level girls go into nursing and teaching.
We were struck by the fact that the witness of one teachers' organisation, when asked how careers guidance in schools was organised, said that the headmaster usually called into his study a teacher who had two or three free periods a week and said "You're doing careers!" The person concerned had to undertake the job without any training, without any opportunity for a career structure within the school, and with no knowledge of the courses available for students other than those set out in leaflets issued by the Department—and one requires considerable knowledge on how to use those documents. No knowledge about training facilities is provided by the Minister's Department. The system is a half-cocked affair, and the Departments of Employment and Education and Science should take the situation on board.
Some months after the publication of our report there was published the document "Equal Opportunities for Men and Women". I find it a disappointing document. It is a rather flabby and puny affair. Perhaps the Minister would tell us how many organisations and individuals have sent comments to his Department, because the closing date for receiving them was 30th November.
380
I say that that document is rather a puny affair because we know that some employers have been working like beavers to exploit loopholes in the Equal Pay Act. There is still discrimination in industry and training, in certain social security benefits, in credit facilities, in housing, and in a whole range of activities.
It is only with regard to employment that the Government propose to take any action at all. Two Select Committees, one from this House and one from the other place, have considered this matter. In addition, a mass of information has been collected by the Expenditure Committee. There is no shortage of information on this subject, yet it is only with regard to employment that the Government have felt it necessary to take action.
Speaking about the need for anti-discrimination legislation in connection with education, the Select Committee said:
"The view that differences exist in the opportunities and facilities available and in the assumptions about future careers for boys and girls is strongly held. We believe that the DES have been complacent in their reaction to these criticisms. We recommend that the Secretary of State should establish machinery to keep these areas of concern under review.
"We find from the document that the Minister is only going to ask HMIs to undertake a study of unequal opportunities for boys and girls."
The studies have been done and it is action that we want.
As for careers guidance, the Secretary of State will simply discuss with careers teachers what rôle they can play, but that is not enough. The right hon. Lady should take steps to act on the recommendations that have been made. Discussions with the NUT should be held so that the right kind of opportunities and career structures can be provided for these people. Although there has been much evidence about discrimination over the entry of girls to certain departments of universities, there has been no determination to act on it. Therefore, one can conclude only that the evidence is not being taken seriously.
The revolution that we need seems slow in coming, but if we are to use the skill and ability of our population—and the most important part is our women—more has to be done. I believe that our recommendations are the minimum that need to be acted upon in order to create

381
a new climate to encourage women to play their part in many areas of society, because they have a considerable rôle to play. But because of the lack of opportunity and because of prejudice among many employers and unions in some areas, women are denied their opportunity of competing on equal terms and of making their contribution to the better world that we all want.
However, I am delighted that the TUC has accepted most of our recommendations. I expect that the Minister has had a copy of its replies to our report dated 8th August 1973. The TUC was quicker off the mark than the Department in letting us have its views. The unions have not been slow to make criticisms of the proposals which are contained in the discussion paper, "Equal Opportunities for Men and Women". I shall be interested in the departmental reply to see how many of our recommendations are accepted. Many of them have been accepted, but certain crucial ones, such as those on day release and education, need to be considered again by the Minister.
I have pleasure in presenting these reports. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House, should they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will be able to make contributions on the other two reports which I have not had time to discuss.
4.14 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I am a member of the Expenditure Committee and take a great interest in it as well as serving on some of its important subcommittees. I did not intend to speak this afternoon but I have listened with great interest to the comments and occasionally one feels that one must make a contribution. I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) but there are occasions when I do. One such occasion is this afternoon, when she made an informative speech on the reports.
A great deal of work and effort is put into preparing these reports by the Civil Service and much expenditure comes from public funds to maintain the services, but it worries me that the Government, whom I support with great pleasure, should not take more notice of
382
this all-party committee. Even the membership of its sub-committees is balanced roughly between the Opposition and the Government. As far as I know, the reports have the support of the whole Committee and that of our distinguished Chairman.
It is inexplicable that the Government should not have gone into greater detail and should not have said that they were determined to act on some of the Committee's recommendations. I have heard that the Government are not certain whether they want to wind up the debate. It is not the Government's business whether they want to wind it up. If I want to make a speech, I shall not ask the Government whether I can do so. I will make my own speech as I wish.
I wish to make it clear that I am not a member of women's lib.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) does not think that I was wishing that she should not make a speech. I rose to speak just now because I did not see any of my hon. Friends rising to speak. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is taking part in the debate. I share her views about the small attendance.
Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), who is a great friend of mine and who comes from my area, went round asking hon. Members whether they wanted to speak ; but he did not bother to come to me. I always try to be present on these all-party committee occasions when we discuss general interests, and it is absolutely right that Committee members should let the Government know what they think about their replies to the various reports.
The Government have declared themselves—I am delighted and proud of them—to be in favour of equality between men and women. I do not mind whether women take full advantage of what may be offered, but it is sometimes difficult for women to find equal training opportunities. It is understandable that

383
employers are cautious about spending money on training female employees because, quite naturally, many of them leave their profession or industrial undertaking when they fall in love and want to get married. However, this should not interfere with the Government's decision to try to ensure that there is equality for women in training, jobs and promotion.
For about two years I have been suggesting to the Minister for Transport Industries that there should be a woman on the British Railways Board. I like men very much indeed. On the whole, they have a much wider experience than women in matters of trade, diplomacy and defence. But I think that women are much better than men at detail. If the Government were better at matters of detail their policies might be much more effective.
There does not seem to be anybody on the British Railways Board who can point out, for instance, the difficulties of elderly and disabled people and women with children in struggling at stations to get on trains because the Government have decided that porters should do two jobs. The board does not seem to mind tuppence whether the disabled have anybody to help them, although I know that the authorities are very good if people ring up and ask for a chair to carry a disabled person.
The Minister for Transport Industries has said to me "As soon as I can find a suitable woman to put on the board I shall appoint her", but he has not the foggiest idea how to find one. I wrote to the Prime Minister—I always believe in writing to my right hon. Friend ; it is very good to get him on our side in matters of detail—pointing out that it was peculiar that the Minister for Transport Industries did not seem to know how to find a woman suitable for appointment to the British Railways Board. The Prime Minister agreed that there should be a woman on the board. I think that he had a word with the Minister for Transport Industries about it. But what has happened? Nothing.
The National Council of Women—a very distinguished women's organisation which gives very useful advice on many subjects—put forward the name of a woman who would be suitable for
384
appointment to the board. She was not appointed. After I had written I do not know how many letters to the Minister for Transport Industries, my right hon. Friend indicated, very politely, that perhaps the lady whose name had been put forward was slightly old for appointment to the board. Apparently, he would prefer to appoint someone who was younger but had the sort of experience which a woman appointed to serve on the board should have. But again he used the phrase "When I can find a suitable woman".
I wrote to the National Council of Women saying that I would help the Minister because either he did not know much about women or he did not know how to find a suitable woman for appointment. I accepted the Minister's view that it would perhaps be better to appoint a younger person. I asked the council whether there were any other women whom it would care to recommend. Some time ago it gave me the name of a woman and all her details. I sent the information to the Minister for Transport Industries. I received a postcard saying that my letter had been received, but nothing has happened since.
I do not accept the criticisms of the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. We are very lucky to have such a distinguished Secretary of State. She is the tops.
Mr. William Hamilton: She is a disaster.
Dame Irene Ward: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view, but his party is not in office. I support the Government. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is the tops, and the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet are very lucky to have her in the Cabinet. That is the opinion—it has not always been so—of many people in the teaching profession. It is no good hon. Members opposite laughing. If my constituents did not like what the Government were doing, they would have thrown me out. I represent the Government's point of view, and I think I am entitled to speak for the Government.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science is Co-Chairman of the

385
Women's National Commission, which is an all-party body with very distinguished women on it. I tried to find whether there was anyone in the commission who might be recommended to the Minister for Transport Industries to serve on the British Railways Board. I discovered that the commission has a register of women suitable for such appointments. I propose to send a copy of it to the Minister for Transport Industries, who does not seem to know how to find a woman suitable for appointment to the British Railways Board.
I have again written to the Minister for Transport Industries asking whether he would like me to ascertain whether the Secretary of State for Education and Science would care to recommend a woman for appointment. Again I have had no reply. He keeps on using the phrase "When I find a suitable woman". It is both humorous and deplorable that even when the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, have said that they would welcome the appointment of a woman to the board no woman has been appointed. If that is the Government's policy—and I am glad that it is—I should like it to be implemented. It is absolutely ridiculous that the Minister for Transport Industries has not found a woman suitable for appointment to the board. I am sure that he has some suitable women in his own Department.
I have waited a long time to get these views into the OFFICIAL REPORT. I shall probably need to take a few more kicks at Ministers but I hope that before long there will be a suitable woman on the board.
I agree with many of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, yet almost nobody is here to take part in this debate. This is very bad when the Committee concerned is so important. The Committee on which I sat made a report on improvement grants and another on transport, and at the moment we are discussing the new towns, all of which have tremendous problems. I am glad that, up to a point, my Government have accepted many more of our proposals than they are apparently prepared to accept in the report to which the hon. Member referred.
386
Another point which is perpetually made by knowledgeable and effective women is that when only so many places are available at medical schools and we want as many trained doctors as possible the bias is against women and in favour of men. Many women, and I expect many men, are aware of this discrimination. I think that I can foresee the Government's answer. When we need more fully trained doctors as quickly as possible, we have to bear in mind that women often train for two years and then suddenly throw it up because love overtakes them and they want to get married. I am in favour of women getting married if they choose the right husband, and I acknowledge the argument that women falling out to get married reduce the number of trained doctors. I do not support the argument against discrimination because I can see a reason for it.
I should like now to go back to the training of people in the ancillary professions. There has been a long fight for training for speech therapists and physiotherapists. That important section of our society never seem to get enough support from my Government. I do not blame the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is very helpful, but he has to make a case to the Treasury. Devoted though I am to the present Chancellor—I think that he is absolutely a top person, too—with all that he has to do he does not always have time to examine whether physiotherapists have proper salary and career structures. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said, we do have male nurses, and the great thing is to see that male and female receive equal pay.
I have had great pleasure in supporting this Government because they have human souls—much better than some other Governments, even of my own party, in the past—but they sometimes do not seem to realise the problems of the widow or the mother of the illegitimate child. They say that the law takes care of all these matters. It does not. Nervous people do not always know what legal action they can take. I call them the "fragile people". When husbands fall down on paying maintenance awarded by courts, I often say "Why have you not gone back to the court?" They are terrified of even the nicest clerks of courts.

387
I understand that. It is the necessity for this human touch that women could bring home to even the highest in the land.
For example, after the Chancellor's broadcast about the mini-Budget, I wrote to tell him how much I had enjoyed it. What he had said had made it simple for many people, and he had also included many endearing human touches. If we can get to the present Chancellor—and as Members of Parliament we can—we can achieve a great deal.
We were all so proud of the Expenditure Committee when it was set up. It has done a good deal of work, but some hon. Members do not think that some of the things are worth while. But they should express their views in language that one understands, considering that it is an all-party Committee. The views on this report have come from all parties, and no Government have a right to reject some of these proposals without giving adequate reasons.
I have often been told that women do not study languages, for example, as a means of entering the Diplomatic Service. But hon. Members, even in the Government, should take more trouble to find out the advantages that women can offer over a wide field.
The opposition of the Department of Health and Social Security to the provision of domiciliary physiotherapists on Tyneside was incredible. The then Chairman of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board, who unfortunately died recently, agreed with the requests of the domiciliary physiotherapists. He said "I have only one fund that I can spend as I like without the permission of the Minister."—he did not mean the present one, who is very co-operative— "As this is the only fund, I will help the physiotherapists". Yet the Government paid no attention to that, although he was a distinguished man.
Some of the things that ordinary backbenchers find out about the workings of Government Departments make one wonder how one lives at all. I support many of the views of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, and I should like a real explanation of how the appropriate Minister dared to turn down the recommendations of this report when there are so many committees concerned
388
with women. We have a committee under the Department of Employment which meets two or three times a year. It is an all-party committee, in which we have to fight tremendously hard. In the old days the Minister responsible had to get the message through to the Cabinet. I can never find out whether the message ever reaches the Cabinet. That is part of the problem of parliamentary life. Some Ministers are most co-operative and helpful. But if there is anything which will be critical of their Department, they close up like clams. Men do that much more than women. Women are much more outspoken.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to say what I have said. I hope that I shall have a satisfactory answer and that the Minister will reconsider the report about the employment of women, to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East has referred. I hope that we shall get some more action.
4.41 p.m.
Mr. W. E. Garrett: This may be a historic occasion. I am speaking immediately after the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who happens to be one of my constituents. She is not standing for election to the next Parliament, so she may have made her last speech in this Chamber. But one can never tell ; the present Parliament may last for another year or so.
I hope to follow my normal practice of being brief and to the point. It was a pleasure to be a member of the subcommittee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short). She deserves a great deal of credit for getting out the report on the employment of women. Credit should also be given to those who gave evidence and, above all, to the staff, who worked so assiduously behind the scenes to supply members of the sub-committee with the information that they required.
It is regrettable that a report such as this should be debated before such a thin House. It is more regrettable that lady Members of Parliament are not in attendance today in the numbers that they should be. Before the House accuses me of being anti-feminist, let me say that those who know me will probably have a different view.

389
The report analyses the job prospects and promotion prospects of women in employment. Much of the evidence that we gathered we knew in our hearts was true. Job prospects are not as wide as they should be. My hon. Friend dealt adequately with that point in her speech. Promotion prospects for women are virtually non-existent in many industries. Employers, particularly employers of female labour, should read this report and see what they can do to widen the promotion prospects of women. I am referring not in general to the professions but to industry. My experience of industry is based on the engineering industry. I have been appalled to see, day after day, particularly during the war years, women playing such an important part in this vital industry, operating lathes, milling machines, drilling machines and so on, producing the same number of units per day as the men, yet receiving less pay. That is distressing.
I am proud to be a member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. That union has been on record for many years as pursuing the principle of equal pay for equal work. Other large unions within the TUC also have a similar principle. But the fact remains that, with one or two honourable exceptions, the situation is that women receive much lower wage rates than they should receive, and little progress has been made.
In some respects we can blame the women themselves. Within the democracy of many trade unions the rules are applied to men as they are to women. The rules are applied equally. But women, unfortunately, do not make full use of the democratic procedures of their trade unions. Indeed, if they did we should see many more women assuming major positions within the trade union movement. I see no reason why women should not be members of the executive bodies of some of the trade unions. The chances and opportunities exist, but regrettably women do not take them.
Critics of my statements will say that other factors are involved. That is so. But that does not apply to all women. Some women have the ability, skill and knowledge required, and an understanding of not only the industry in which they work but the negotiating procedures. They should play a more active part. If they decide to do so, clearly their voice in support
390
of the principle of equal pay for equal work will be enhanced.
Promotion prospects are very important to people in industry in general. People in industry are always working towards an objective, towards getting as much as they can for the product that they produce. But there are also people in industry who have some desire for promotion opportunities. In the engineering industry in particular these are nonexistent. Employers should make the most of the opportunity that is available. But ultimately it looks as though the battle will have to be won by the women playing a much more active part. In spite of the difficulties facing the country at present, the fight could be maintained. We in this Chamber today have done virtually everything possible to help women to maintain their just causes and prospects and their recognition as people who are equal in our society. The battle must be fought outside this Chamber. It must be fought within the trade union movement.
I hope that what I have said will be recognised by the millions of women employed in industry. I hope that they will not give up the fight but will continue to fight with added vigour towards what is a just and legitimate goal.
4.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Robert Chichester-Clark): I must begin by congratulating the members of the Committee on producing the three very powerful, penetrating and timely reports which we are discussing today. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), and sympathise with her, as I do with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), about the sparseness of the attendance today when we are discussing such important matters.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East had the advantage of me in that she spent most of her time dealing with one report in particular, the Sixth Report, that dealing with women. I cannot hope to cover all that ground, as I have to deal with three reports this afternoon in a speech which I hope will not be unduly and tediously long. If I do not go into the same amount of detail on the report about women, I hope, like

391
the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), that I shall not be accused of being anti-feminist or of being a male Chauvinist.
Mr. Garrett: Not in view of recent events.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman—not in view of recent events in particular. I have never quite understood how the expression "male Chauvinist" ever got into the language of Women's Lib. My historical researches reveal that M. Chauvin was a rather mindless adherent of Napoleon and not even an adherent of the Empress Josephine. How his name gets into this language I have never understood, but perhaps some hon. Member will be able to inform me.
However, I have to deal with three reports. The Fourth Report, on the Youth Employment Services, deals with what must be on any long-term view one of the most vital and significant parts of our whole range of manpower services and one whose future had been under continuing discussion for some years before the report appeared. The report came out just before the Second Reading, in which I was involved, of what is now the Employment and Training Act, 1973.
The Sixth Report, which I have just mentioned, covers another immensely important part of this field, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has reminded us. I do not think that she will find, when she has time to read the White Paper on the subject, that as many of the recommendations have been turned down as she might expect. As my hon. Friend reminded us, the Government's consultative document on equal opportunities and the intention to introduce legislation this Session show clearly the weight which we attach to the importance of this matter. However, we shall have many more opportunities to discuss this piece of forthcoming legislation.
I must take up one point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, who asked me about the number of representations which we had received since the closing date of 30th November. There is no implied rebuke when I say to her that she has fallen into the kind of error into which we all fall on these occasions without realising what we are doing.
392
It was not a document called "Equal Opportunities for Women" but a document called "Equal Opportunities for Men and Women". If she left out the male sex by a slip of the tongue I am sure that she did not intend it and that she will not do it again. However, I am sure that I shall be guilty of many faults myself as I speak this afternoon. We received 1,300 representations on the matter, and these will be carefully considered.
The Seventh Report, on Employment Services and Training, deals with a tremendously wide range of subjects, from private employment agencies to the special arrangements to help disabled people and the socially disadvantaged, of which there was some discussion at Question Time today. Just how wide a range it covers can be seen from reading through the 31 subject headings listed at the beginning of the report.
The whole House will agree that members of the Committee have carried out an extremely thorough, comprehensive and valuable review of our manpower services, and that their reports, despite what may have been suggested earlier, have made an important contribution towards the sort of far-reaching debate and discussion which is important to the future of these services. I congratulate the chairman of the sub-committee on leading the sub-committee through this labyrinth.
I am sorry that we did not get the White Paper into print before the debate. We tried to do the next best thing by making duplicated copies available to members of the sub-committee, and there are copies available in the Vote Office for hon. Members. By way of apology for the length of time it has taken to produce the White Paper, I should point out that in this case it was a reply to three reports, not just one, covering an enormous amount of ground and touching on the responsibilities of at least eight Government Departments.
That fact does not make my speech any easier. Nevertheless, we hoped that it might be possible to get the White Paper printed in time for the debate, but the times and circumstances are not exactly propitious for getting documents printed in a hurry.
On many of these matters the Government's reply did not have to wait for the formal White Paper in response to the reports. It was thrashed out to a

393
considerable degree and fully discussed—as I know from the part I took in them—in debates on the Employment and Training Bill in all its stages in the House and in another place, which is all to the good.
The reports of Committees of the House have an immensely important part to play in improving the amount of information available on issues which are currently the subject of parliamentary discussion. These were no exception. As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have recognised, many parts of these reports were reflected in the legislation. They made a major contribution to the Employment and Training Act, and I like to think that that Act is the better for them.
I want to mention, in particular, the Manpower Services Commission, because it was one of the main fruits of the Act. One of the most important innovations of the Act is the establishment of the commission to take over the management and development of the public employment services. The members of the commission were announced on 4th December. As the House knows, they include representatives of the TUC, the CBI, local government and the education service.
The commission is intended to be a new kind of organisation. We have plenty of committees composed of representatives of various interests, but these committees advise Ministers and are not responsible for the operation of the services. We also have plenty of bodies on which individual industrialists and trades unionists sit and which are responsible for the running of important activities. But in these cases they are there purely in a personal capacity.
The commission came into formal existence on 1st January and held its first meeting as a commission last week. Some hon. Members will have seen the Press notice which was issued from the meeting. The members of the commission are just getting to grips with their task, which, in present circumstances, is just about as important and as challenging as it could be. They agreed at the first meeting on an initial work programme of four points.
The first was to have presentations from the chief executives of the Employment Service Agency and the Training
394
Service Agency on their present operations and long-term plans. The second was to analyse the present information available on manpower forecasting with a view to improving manpower intelligence and information. The third was to hold meetings in different parts of the country to discuss with employers and trade unions how the commission can best serve them. The fourth was to see at first hand the work of the agencies throughout the country.
With the commission we are giving responsibility for running the manpower services to those who actually use them and who must, therefore, be vitally interested in their operation—obviously employers and workers, but also other interests, such as education. The commission's job is to provide a manpower service to the community as a whole—to individuals seeking new jobs, or training for new jobs, and to employers seeking staff across the whole range of occupations, skills and responsibilities. By involving employers, trade unions and other interests directly in the management of these services, the new arrangements will make the services more responsive to the needs of individuals and employers. This in itself will be a major step forward towards securing many of the improvements which the Committee wanted to see.
The structure of the commission shows the great importance which we as a Government attach to getting those concerned fully involved in the services, which are so important to the country's economic and social life—in other words, what has become known as the tripartite approach, though I admit that in this case it goes a little further than tripartite, because there are interests other than those which we in the House think of as tripartite involved in the commission.
The commission will have two basic tasks—to help people obtain jobs which satisfy their aptitudes and abilities, and to help employers find suitable workers. If we look at some of the ways in which it will do that, it will be clear how big a contribution it has to make on many of the matters covered by the Committee's recommendations.
I begin with the employment services. First, it will be modernising and developing the public employment service and encouraging all workers and employers

395
to make more use of it, something on which we have been working for a long time, as the hon. Lady realises. To do that, it is necessary to create a service which can offer much more to both employers and job-seekers, and to persuade them to take advantage of it. One of the main ways of doing that will be by improving the employment offices. The Jobcentre programme was launched last year, and it is planned to have more than 800 Jobcentres which will cover the whole of Great Britain by the end of the decade.
Jobcentres will be attractive places, sited in busy shopping centres—the sort of places which many potential customers will see and which will attract them to come in and have a look round and see what is there for them. The Committee commented in its 7th Report on the contrast between some of the old employment exchanges, with their rather depressing premises—some that I saw for myself had an almost Dickensian air of depression—and the much more pleasant and inviting offices which it visited in Sweden.
All that will change. The Jobcentre programme will mark a complete break with the past in this respect. The Jobcentres will not only be better located but will also have a standard form of quality design, lay-out, furnishings and so on which will create a quite different atmosphere. I am sure the Committee was right in thinking that this sort of change will be particularly important in attracting more women to use the public employment service.
Inside the Jobcentres the first tier will be a self-service section, offering job-seekers the opportunity to come and go as they please and to browse through the job display cards setting out details of specific vacancies. When a person finds a vacancy which interests him or her, the receptionist will be ready to telephone the employer and try to fix the person up with an interview there and then.
The next tier will be the employment advisers—staff who are trained to give advice and who know the local manpower scene very well. If the job-seeker cannot find what he wants among the job cards, or would like to discuss other prospects or opportunities, he can ask to see an employment adviser.
396
At the third tier there is a range of special schemes available through the employment adviser. The job-seeker can be introduced to an occupational guidance specialist, to help those who are uncertain about a career or who think they would benefit from a sympathetic and expert analysis of their employment problem, or he can be recommended for training under the Training Opportunities Scheme ; he has access to the Employment Transfer Scheme which encourages mobility, the careers officer, the special services for disabled people, and so on.
The aim is to have an employment service which will concentrate on the job of helping people to choose and to get the right jobs, and helping employers to get the right staff, as quickly as possible. Unemployment benefit, which can stand in the way of effective employment work, will be managed and organised separately. I am sure that will be an advance. At the same time there is a complete reorganisation of the employment services, to introduce a new style of management with defined objectives at all levels.
I want to come to another aspect of the work of the commission, in regard to the training opportunities scheme. It will be setting about its task by expanding training opportunities and improving training policies throughout industry and commerce.
The inauguration of the Training Opportunities Scheme in August 1972 marked a big step forward in the expansion of Government-sponsored training, both in the number of people trained and in the range of training provided. In 1971 fewer than 15,500 people were trained under the old Vocational Training Scheme. In 1972 we almost doubled that to 29,000. Although we do not yet have the full figures for 1973, I expect to find that about 40,000 people completed the training opportunities courses. The aim for this year is 50,000–55,000. We should be able to achieve that.
The Training Opportunities Scheme now offers not only the traditional courses in skilled trades at the Government training centres but also a broad range of courses, involving vocational education as well as training, at colleges of further education throughout Great Britain.
The coming into existence of the commission was a turning point in the development of the industrial training boards.

397
I am sure we would all agree that the boards have had a considerable impact on training in their industries over the past eight years. The outlook on training in many companies is very different now from what it was a few years ago.
What about the future? When the commission takes on its new functions, the boards will be looking to the commission and its Training Services Agency to co-ordinate their activities. But it is the boards which will remain responsible for identifying the training needs and priorities of their industries, and for developing the best methods to promote the necessary training. That is a vitally important rôle.
I hope the commission will strengthen the boards by giving them more effective support from the centre. As from 1st April 1975, the commission will have substantial funds—up to £35 million a year—to meet the boards' operating expenses, to help them encourage key training activities in their industries and to enable the Training Services Agency to promote training in sectors of employment not covered by the boards—the gaps to which we have often referred. That is a real improvement on the resources which the Exchequer has made available for this sort of purpose in the past, and it is wholly unaffected by the recently announced cuts in public expenditure, since these only apply for the financial year 1974–75.
Over the next two years the boards will also be moving into the era of exemption schemes, which will take firms which are carrying out training adequate for their own needs outside the complications of the levy system. The Committee was anxious that the impact on training of the limitation on board's levies to 1 per cent. should be closely monitored, and I am sure the commission will wish to do just that. I think that that is one of the interests of the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. Harold Walker), who I am glad to see has joined us.
The new system is in no way a dramatic break with the past. What it means is that in the future the boards will be placing more and more emphasis on their rôle in helping firms to solve their training problems and carrying out schemes which are needed by the industry as a whole. At the same time the commission
398
will be able to take a national view of training needs, and feed in to the boards information about the overall situation which will help them in studying the problems of their own industries.
I hope that the end result of these changes will be to increase the ability of the boards to win the support of their industries and to promote the training that their industries need. I have no doubt at all that they have a crucial part to play in the new set-up, in collaboration with the commission.
I want to come now to the subject of women, which I hope I shall not be accused of having neglected. The commission will be tackling its responsibilities by encouraging increases in the opportunities available to women and girls for employment and training. Parliament wrote a special reference to this into the Employment and Training Act. I have described some of the steps which are already being taken to improve the employment and training services for women, in particular the substantial expansion of training under the Training Opportunities Scheme for women and our hope that the Jobcentre programme will make these offices much more attractive. But the commission may well have further ideas about all this themselves.
Looking at the problem on a wider scale, there are very real problems of attitudes to be overcome here. The committee in its report on the employment of women drew attention to the unconscious acceptance of traditional views about which rôles and occupations are appropriate to women, which can be found at all sorts of levels and in all sorts of places. I have no doubt that if we have an Equal Opportunities Commission, as is proposed in the consultative document on equal opportunities, its work will have an impact on these built-in attitudes and help to change them as time goes on.
Mrs. Renée Short: Will the Minister say what he intends to do about an inequality which I mentioned and for which the Government are directly responsible, namely the inequality between training grants for men and women?
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I intended to cover that and I also wanted to tell the hon. Member about an extension of facilities for women under the training opportunities scheme. Here the number

399
has risen very dramatically indeed. In March 1970 only about 300 women were in training—less than 4 per cent. of the total. Although the figures are not yet available I estimate that towards the end of last year over 9,000 women were being trained, which is about 36 per cent. of the total. This is much the same as the proportion of women in the labour force, though I think the hon. Lady in her speech put that proportion just a little bit higher. I should like to see many more women receiving training over a much wider range of skills and occupations, but at least things are moving in the right direction.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East and, I think, the hon. Member for Wallsend spoke about GTCs and women. Before the training opportunities scheme was introduced in August 1972 most official training was given in GTCs with the main emphasis on skilled craft occupations, mainly in construction and engineering. These courses have been and will continue to be open to women, but because most of them lead into traditionally male fields of employment very few women apply. The advertisements will, however, emphasise that women have equal access and one point which may be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Wallsend is that there is to be an experiment to offer part-time training in engineering for women who will later want part-time employment.
In colleges of further education and other educational institutions, clerical and commercial courses are the most popular, as one would imagine, but the range at colleges is widening and there is an encouraging trend that the number of women being accepted for training at higher-level occupations such as statistics, personnel management, nurses, training officers and so on is moving up. There are about 150 on these courses.
Training allowances were increased last October when the differential between rates for women and men was again narrowed in progress towards parity at the end of 1975. The rates for both sexes under the age of 20 and without dependants are already equal. I think the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East strayed a little from the path of virtue when she referred to the whole subject of equal pay. If she studies the somewhat
400
truncated Adjournment debate which took place just before Christmas between myself and the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) she will find that I refuted then a good many of the points she made this afternoon. I have since refuted by letter other points for which there was not time for refutation in the debate and I am sure this letter will be made available to her.
The most recent statistics I can give from the Pay Board between April and November 1973 show that about 1,500 settlements covering more than 2,800,000 women included a movement towards equal pay. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East must remember that the OME report goes back as far as August 1972. We have not been idle on that. Since then about 30 agreements have reached 90 per cent. of male rates, including engineering, and if the hon. Member cares to look at HANSARD for 14th December she will see the various other figures which I hope will comfort her.
I was speaking about public expenditure cuts during Question Time and I assure the House once again that the expansion of the training opportunities scheme will not be seriously affected by the cuts in Government spending announced on 17th December. There will be a slight slowing down in the expansion of training places at Government training centres, but the expansion in colleges of further education remains unaffected as does the target for the Training Opportunities Scheme. As I said earlier, this stands at 50,000 to 55,000. The hon. Lady will be glad to hear that the cuts will not have any substantial effect on the rehousing programme for Jobcentres.
Yet another important field of activity for the commission will be developing the services for groups such as disabled people who need special help. As the House knows well, we are engaged at present in a thorough-going review of the services for disabled people. No doubt the commission will have views on this, and naturally these will be taken very fully into account. Finally, the commission will also administer schemes of assistance to workers moving to new jobs in other districts.
In all these activities, the commission's executive arms will be the Employment

401
Service Agency and the Training Services Agency. In fact, we expect that the commission will operate in much the same way as the board of directors of a holding company in that the agencies will be rather like operating subsidiaries. The commission will concentrate on the major issues and in particular on the forward programme of work and budgets which will have to be prepared each year. It will be the commission's job to consider the programmes of the two agencies together and to ensure that they add up to a coherent whole.
Employment services and training are obviously closely connected and interdependent in many ways. Naturally the two agencies will have to work closely together as they do now. It will be the commission which has the overall responsibility for making arrangements to help people to select employment, to train and to retain suitable employment, and to help employers to obtain suitable employees. We shall be looking to the commission to ensure that the programme provides the full range of services which are needed to cope with our changing manpower needs.
I am conscious that I cannot cover everything which is in all the reports. However, I am certain that a careful reading of the White Paper will answer many of the points which are in the minds of hon. Members. I end as I began, by congratulating the Committee on its penetrating and extremely useful service to the House.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. J. D. Dormand: I congratulate the Expenditure Committee on its Fourth Report. I do so not only because it chose Youth Employment Services as its subject but for the recommendations that it has made. I dissent from none of those recommendations. I understand that the Government's reply to the report has been published today. I, like other hon. Members, have not had the opportunity of considering it.
I am not sure whether the Minister was expected to deal with or refer to all of the reports. I hope it is not of any significance that he has not mentioned the Fourth Report. Perhaps I should delay any criticism which I may have until I have had the opportunity ot read the Government's reply. We must accept
402
the Minister's explanation for the extremely short notice which hon. Members have had to study the reply.
I shall speak mainly about careers officers and careers teachers. Before doing so I refer to Recommendation 7, which states:
"Specialisation in school should be delayed as long as possible."
There is nothing new in that. Educationists have been saying that for years. The significant thing is that it comes from the Committee. I respectfully suggest that the Committee does not pretend to be one which is mainly concerned with education. It demonstrates that there is continuing pressure for early specialisation so that the education of young people can be fitted into job pigeon holes. That should be resisted by everybody concerned with education from the Secretary of State for Education and Science down to the teacher in the classroom.
To delay specialisation causes organisational difficulties in schools, but those difficulties can be overcome. In any case, they do not warrant introducing specialised courses early in school life. There is not one youngster in 100 who knows absolutely what he or she wants to do at the age of 16, let alone the earlier age at which some schools regrettably tend to specialise.
The report quotes one example in giving the size of the university and college drop-out problem. It is also well known that only a small percentage of school leavers stay in their first job. The school is an educational establishment and not a vocational institute. It must remain so in order that children can be given not only a broad-based all-round education but, at the same time, the widest possible spectrum of job options.
It can be said that at least there is the beginning of a realisation of the need for careers officers and careers teachers. It seems that some local authorities have been much more progressive than others. It was a step forward when youth employment officers had their names changed to careers officers. That was not merely a change of name. The change signified a more positive and constructive approach to their work in that it should be concerned with guidance rather than just having young people "signing on" for a job. I pay tribute to the work done by the officers over many years.

403
I have known many of them personally. I am sure that they would be the first to admit that much remains to be done. There is no compulsory training for careers officers. Provision for such training is limited to five centres, and at present only 75 per cent. of entrants receive training. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) said that a person could be in one job on a Wednesday and a careers officer on a Thursday. That is intolerable. Professional training in careers is more important than ever.
I am delighted that the report recommends that training should be mandatory. However, I say that there should be a two-year training course. One year is totally inadequate for people who have no other training. Apart from the intrinsic value of longer training, it would provide the status which the career requires. In addition, there should at all times be highly organised in-service training schemes.
One further plea I should like to make concerning careers officers is that the Government should make it mandatory for local authorities to appoint a specialist officer who has special responsibility for handicapped children. Most of the larger authorities now have such specialist officers, including my own local authority, Durham County Council, an authority which sets the pace in most local government matters.
There is sufficient experience now to show that specialist advice is absolutely necessary if handicapped children are to make the most of their abilities. It is logical, if the provision of trained careers officers is to be mandatory, that trained careers teachers in secondary schools should be a compulsory requirement. I am glad that the report recognises that that should be done.
For some time there has been a growing awareness in schools of the need for careers advice. Some local education authorities have been conscious of that need. If anyone has any doubts about the general situation, however, the recent report of the Department of Education and Science—namely, "Careers Education in Secondary Schools" —will put the record straight. The report deals with a sample of 87 schools. It is sufficient to show that
404
the position is totally inadequate. A general finding—and I could give many similar depressing examples—is that only 15 of the 87 schools realise in some important aspects the importance of careers education. That is a devastating comment which indicates the need for a fundamental change of attitude by everyone concerned.
Careers teachers must be recognised in schools as important and essential members of the staff. I can assure the House that at the moment that is not so. Careers teachers must be given time from other teaching duties. There should be supporting staff to deal with matters such as routine clerical work. The report highlights the inadequacy of facilities for careers work in schools.
If this work is to be carried out effectively there must be space set aside for it. I know that the Department of Education and Science, in its building bulletins, recommends that new schools should make provision for this but in practice the careers teacher is often stuck in some hole in a corner which a head teacher finds for him. However laudable the Expenditure Committee recommendation on this subject is it will not be as valuable as it ought to be if attention is not given to some of these bread-and-butter matters.
The Committee recommends the mandatory provision of trained careers teachers, and I fully support that. Unfortunately, the remarks I made about untrained careers officers can also apply to careers teachers. The untrained enthusiast in this work is not good enough ; indeed, when such important decisions have to be made it could be a positive danger. I see no reason why some colleges of education cannot include basic courses in careers work. In addition there should be specialist courses of one year, full-time, for practising teachers, together with a full programme of in-service refresher courses.
The most important question on this subject of training careers teachers is, where will the initiative come from? I doubt whether it will come from the schools, on their record. I also doubt whether it will come from the local authorities, although, as I have said, their record is patchy. I am driven to the conclusion that the responsibility must be placed fairly and squarely at the

405
door of the Department of Education and Science which has a reasonable record in careers education. I hope that it will do something to implement its own report.
In a reply given as recently as 11th December the Secretary of State for Education and Science said:
"we are anxious that careers education in schools should receive high priority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Commons, 11th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 177.]
She said that when referring to the Department's report. We shall watch carefully to see just how high that priority is. I hope that she will also take note of this valuable report by the Expenditure Committee.
It is a happy coincidence that a DES report showing such wide gaps in this area should be published at the same time as the report of a major House of Commons Committee saying what should be done to fill those gaps. It provides yet another good reason for prompt action. The Department's report, I am glad to say, pays special attention to the needs of the handicapped in special schools.
It is important that a member of staff, enthusiastic, and with training and experience, should be responsible for careers work for the handicapped in every special school. Co-ordination with the careers officer in such schools is even more important than in what I might describe as ordinary schools. Much remains to be done in special schools. This is an aspect to which the local education authorities and the Department should pay particular attention.
I wish to draw attention to a recommendation of the Expenditure Committee which the Government have already found unacceptable. I refer to the recommendation that the workers' benefit should remain with the LEAs. The Government have decided that the payment of unemployment and supplementary benefits for young people under the age of 18 should be undertaken by the Department of Employment. That is a retrograde step. I noted in reading the evidence given to the Committee that there was a mixed reception to this proposal from the witnesses.
406
I have had letters from two trades councils in the North-East objecting to this new proposal. Like the Expenditure Committee I consider that the importance of retaining this connection with the Youth Employment Service cannot be over-estimated. The Government's action will cause—I understand is causing—confusion among young people. It will also remove the biggest incentive there is for youngsters to return to the place where this expert guidance can be given. There is no reason why staff cannot be recruited specifically for benefit work. That presents no problems.
I hope that the Government will have another look at this. The Expenditure Committee has drawn attention to a neglected area of education and the social services. It has produced an excellent report and I hope that its labour will not be in vain.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: I should declare my interest immediately as a sponsored member of the General and Municipal Workers Union.
I want to deal with that part of the Sixth Report of the Expenditure Committee which deals with the employment of women. Since my union has over 25,000 women members I am acutely aware of the employment problems facing women. I am glad that the Government seem to be interested in tackling the question of sex discrimination but I think that the barren nature of what they intend must disappoint a great many working women.
Equal pay of itself will not give women equal treatment at work. The attainment of equality and the movement towards equal earnings as distinct from equal basic rates depend on many other factors such as the equalisation of fringe benefits, equal job opportunities, equal protection against lay-off and short-time working, equal facilities for training and more flexible job and career structures to cater for the special circumstances of working mothers. We must give serious consideration to these things. My union is on record as wishing to extend collective bargaining into all areas of working life. It is undeniable that attainment of more equal treatment for women is part of the process.

407
I wish to say a word about maternity leave. The Government's proposal for 26 weeks of unpaid leave is a step forward. It is not good enough, however, Even with the help of present State benefits, many working mothers would find this a luxury they cannot afford. Paid leave should be a right. We could well take a leaf from the book of some of our Common Market partners. They have a variety of methods for paying maternity leave. This should be a high priority reference to the proposed Equal Opportunities Commission.
More than that, we would also need statutory guarantees of reinstatement without loss of seniority, fringe benefits and so on. That is why I look forward to 25th January and to there being no interruption to the Session through an election. It is then that my Private Member's Bill—the Rights of Women Bill—which includes provisions of this sort, will come up for a Second Reading. Assuming that we do not have any unseemly interruptions, the Government would be ill advised to block that Bill or the Second Reading of the Bill being introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) which comes up on the same day and deals with occupational pensions.
I am extremely concerned that the Government have continued to regard the question of occupational pensions for women as being outside the scope of the principle of equality. It is monstrous that in 1974 the Government should be so completely oblivious to modern thinking. This is another example of the selectivity in application which undermines the declared intention of the Government's document and shows the ambivalence of the Government's attitude towards women generally.
Pensions are deferred pay, and if women are excluded from an occupational pension scheme they are denied access to potential benefits. It has been estimated that one-third of the manual working women are not allowed to join their employers' scheme—a situation which the Government apparently are prepared to support. Exclusion from such schemes means that by 1975 these women will have to join the State scheme, paying ½ per cent. of their earnings, for which they will receive neither tax relief nor the benefit of their employer's contributions
408
to their retirement provision. I urge the Government to review their whole attitude to women's pension rights, and I expect them to correct this inconsistency in their present proposals.
Training opportunities are still denied to womenfolk, young or old, in industry. Of boys between 15 and 17, 40 per cent. get apprenticeships as against 7 per cent. of girls, who are in the main apprentice hairdressers. They represent a large source of cheap labour in the hairdressing trade. Forty per cent. of boys as against 10 per cent. of girls in industry get day release. Fifty per cent. of men receive in-training on the job as against 20 per cent. of women.
If the Equal Opportunities Commission is to be worth anything it must have enforcement powers. If it is to function in a worthwhile manner as an investigative and educative body it must have a free hand in deciding the areas into which it will inquire.
I pay tribute to the Select Committee for its report. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), I do not demur from any of the recommendations put forward. I congratulate the Select Committee on several of its recommendations. One recommendation is:
"That the provision of day release for young workers should be made a statutory requirement on all employers."
The recommendation refers to "young workers" with no reference to their sex. The recommendation:
"That commercial apprenticeships should be provided for young workers in clerical work"
is long overdue. We tend to think of sweat shops being back-street clothing factories, but many youngsters are trapped in dead-end clerical jobs. That is evidenced by the rapid turnover in the headquarters of the Department of Health and Social Security at Longbenton, Newcastle. I suspect that one reason for that rapid turnover is the salary that the Government pay their public servants.
Recommendation No. 5:
"That the inequality in the training grants paid to women should be removed"
is long overdue. I am sorry that the Minister said nothing positive on this matter.
Day nursery and nursery school provision is years behind, and I sincerely hope

409
that the Government will accept Recommendation No. 7. I hope that the increase in the disregard of £2 for working mothers which involves only £3 million will be carried out as rapidly as possible.
It is regrettable that more women Members of Parliament are not taking part in the debate. Rather than two, there should have been 20. Although we in the North-East are often stereotyped by the poplar Press as "Andy Capp", three hon. Members representing North-Eastern constituencies on the Opposition benches and one on the Government benches have taken part in the debate, and three of us have spoken for women's rights.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I make the fourth Member from the North-East to speak because, although I represent a Scottish constituency, I was born and bred, I am happy to say, in Durham. This probably ensures an entry in the "Guinness Book of Records".
Before getting on to the subject matter of the debate, particularly the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), I wish to comment on how these debates are conducted. Some time the House will have to get down to the way in which it deals with the enormous amount of work that goes on in Select Committees. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), who chairs the Public Expenditure Committee, has a thankless chore on his hands. My experience as the Chairman of the Estimates Committee was the same. He and I well know the enormous amount of unpublicised work that goes on in Select Committees, which sit for hour after hour taking oral evidence and preparing reports.
When in due course, after an inordinate delay, those reports are debated on the Floor of the House, there is usually only a small attendance. In this debate on the employment of women not one Conservative member of the sub-committee has bothered to attend. One would think that when an hon. Member has sat on a Committee and attended even occasionally and listened to the oral evidence he would at least wish to make a speech on what he had heard and say what he
410
thought about the report which he and the all-party Committee had produced.
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Gentleman has a long experience of these matters, and I have commented before on the skill he showed as Chairman of the Estimates Committee. We do our Committee system no service by emphasising the sparse-ness of attendance by Selection Committee reports are debated in the House, because more people read our debates than attend them. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that this is the first day after the recess, a day when there is no Whipping procedure and a day when there is a railway disturbance. These three elements militate against attendance. The value of the debate is that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) has presented her report, which has stimulated the Department to a great deal of activity, and the Department has replied. We therefore have something for which to be grateful.
Mr. Hamilton: We are never short of excuses to offer for the sparseness of attendance at this House, and never more so when we are debating reports from Select Committees. I agree that there is something in what the hon. Member for Walsall, South says, but he knows that when the Prime Minister was answering a Question a little earlier today the House was full. Where are those hon. Members now? He knows as well as I do where they are. Yet we are now discussing matters of fundamental national importance.
We all know that the standard of living of everybody depends on the maximum use of all our labour resources. The Sixth Report from the Expenditure Committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-east and her colleagues on that Committee produced, deals with how best to use more than half of our total potential labour force—namely, women. At the moment about 38 per cent. of the total labour force consists of women, the large majority of whom are married. But many more of them would go out to work—even in a three-day week forced upon us by the present Government—if they had the opportunity to do so.
The report simply underlines evidence given by various organisations showing

411
why women, although they wish to exercise the right to go out to work, are to some extent inhibited by the discrimination and prejudice that exists against them in the trade unions, among employers and others. This evidence also points to the discrimination that undoubtedly exists in the educational services and in terms of back-up facilities, such as the provision of day nurseries, nursery schools and similar facilities.
These problems have exercised the minds of hon. Members in this House and Members of the other place for a very long time. The hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), the elderly windbag, did not know what she was talking about. She said she had not even read the report. However, she went on to laud both the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—both of whom are now engaged in massive cuts in public expenditure, designed to cut back and retard the provision of those very back-up facilities that are required to enable women to get out and contribute to the national wealth, on which our standard of living depends.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science has already told a Select Committee that she does not believe that discrimination exists against girls in education. She simply does not know. The consultative document "Equal Opportunities For Men and Women" explains that education will not be dealt with because the Secretary of State alleges that she already has sufficient power to deal with any discrimination in education.
A clear conflict of opinion exists among the three Cabinet Ministers who gave evidence to the Select Committee. I refer to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the Secretary of State for Employment. The Secretary of State for Education and Science said that there was no provable discrimination in education, whereas the other two Secretaries of State said that there was discrimination in employment and in other areas. The Secretary of State for Education and Science is on record as saying that she wants nothing to do with any legislation in this sense. Therefore the proposed legislation, as
412
foreshadowed in "Equal Opportunities For Men and Women", is in many ways more restrictive than was the legislation which I myself proposed ; and the same can be said of the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) and that introduced in the other place by Baroness Seear.
The Government through their spokesman have said that legislation to deal with discrimination against women is neither practicable nor desirable. But they have now been forced to engage in what I can only term a whitewashing exercise. There is no intentioin by the Government to introduce legislation on this matter in this Parliament. We might well have an election within three weeks. The chances are that the Prime Minister will now make a run for it because he has got the country into such a mess—and we have not seen the last of it by a long way. There is not a hope in hell of getting legislation to deal with discrimination against women before we have an election. But the Government will then go to the country and say, "Ladies and gentlemen, we have plans…". They have been forced to produce their document because of the overwhelming evidence produced by Select Committees of this House and also by the body of all-party opinion across the board—except the Liberal Party.
It is interesting that no member of the Liberal Party has attended this debate. When I introduced my Bill dealing with anti-discrimination I invited the Liberal Whip, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), to take part. I received a short, curt note from him saying, "It is not my cup of tea". But now, having seen the bandwagon rolling, they are quick to jump on it. I leave them to their own consciences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East today asked the Minister how many replies he had had to the consultative document "Equal Opportunities For Men and Women". The reply given to my hon. Friend was 1,300. I would make a guess that the vast majority of those replies are to the effect that the document is grossly inadequate in scope. The Bill which I introduced was narrow in scope, and indeed any Bill introduced by a private

413
Member must be narrow because he has not the Civil Service machine behind him ; he is not allowed to spend public money. All kinds of shortcomings inhibit a private Member from introducing a Bill. The Government have no such inhibitions. However, they have not covered an enormous area in which women are discriminated against—in social insurance, in pensions, in credit facilities and in all kinds of areas in which some cases the Government are attempting to intervene.
But not only is it inadequate in scope. The enforcement procedures are grossly inadequate. In any event, they are objected to by the trade union movement and will not be accepted by the trade unions. There are far too many loopholes and exceptions. There is no doubt that even if the legislation proposed in the consultative document were enacted, there would still be enormous areas of discrimination uncovered.
There are some people—there are some in the Cabinet and certainly there are some on the Government back benches—who, like the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), have said that the Government's proposals are a nonsense, that there is no room for legislation, and that if women are in low-paid unskilled jobs it is their own fault since the laws of the market determine that women shall be low paid and unskilled, and that we should not interfere. The Government will be in trouble with their own supporters, because the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is not alone in expressing that sentiment. There are many political skinheads on the Tory benches who are opposed to legislation of this kind. They argue that the market forces will determine the rôle of women in employment and that in any event we have to proceed to change prejudices and attitudes by means of persuasion and education. But we have been at that game for 100 years or more and we are no further forward.
The differentials between the wages paid to men and women doing comparable jobs have remained almost unchanged for 100 years. It required a Labour Government to pass the Equal Pay Act, which comes into effect in 1975. But that will be useless unless at the same time we get on the statute book legislation dealing with discrimination in
414
employment, education, promotion and the rest.
I do not know how many hon. Members watched the "Panorama" programme last night. There was a discussion of the worth in terms of pay of a number of different people. There are many hon. Friends of mine who could and should have attended today's debate to make these points. The Government are now engaged in the battle against inflation. Whatever Government comes to power after the next election will have to have some kind of incomes policy and there will have to be some machinery to decide on relativities of pay as between one person and another. That was the problem being discussed on the "Panorama" programme last night.
Who appeared in the programme? There was a merchant banker—a man. There was a production consultant—a man. There was a car worker—a man. There was a miner—a man. There was a postman—a man. There was a ward sister, a nurse—
Mrs. Renée Short: The statutory woman.
Mr. Hamilton: The statutory woman, even on "Panorama". We were told in captions the weekly gross pay of each of them. The merchant banker was getting more than £288 a week, and he justified it. The production consultant was getting more than £96 a week. The car worker was getting £50 a week. The miner was getting £36·79 a week. The postman was getting £25·16 a week. The ward sister one of the most highly skilled and dedicated public servants in the country, was getting £30·11. The woman was next to bottom. But the postman, at the bottom with £25·16, thought that the merchant banker should be at the top. Heaven knows, we can do without merchant bankers. There are not many fatalities or much pneumoconiosis amongst merchant bankers.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: There is the odd caviare poisoning.
Mr. Hamilton: The odd caviare poisoning or case of gout. But it is this kind of relativity that has to be challenged, and only Government intervention can alter that.
The Government talk about 4 million workers who have settled within the terms

415
of phase 3. However, it is not because they liked to settle. It is because they are so weak they have to settle. They have no bargaining power. What bargaining power has the little ward sister who appeared in "Panorama" last night? She would not strike. The nurses will not strike, and all Governments know that. Therefore they can be exploited.
In the debate last week I reminded the House that when the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was a member of a Tory Government he believed, although he does not any more, in an incomes policy. When he was at the Treasury or the Ministry of Health he told the nurses, "You will be the first to suffer. You will have to accept a 2½ per cent. increase."
If we are to have a fair society and if we are to give this half of our work force a fair deal, those who cannot protect themselves and whom the unions seem to be unwilling to protect will have to be protected by the Government. To that extent there must be more Government intervention rather than less.
It was only yesterday that we received the Government's replies to the report which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East introduced today. In my view they are very wishy-washy. When my hon. Friend read them she must have thought, "Why have we bothered?" They are non-committal. There are 15 recommendations in the report. Some are accepted in principle, but with safeguards and qualifications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East referred to the remarks of the TUC on the recommendations. The TUC is a bit chary. It is quite condemnatory of what the report says about the protective legislation passed in the 19th century and subsequently to prevent women going into certain industries and to protect them from working excessive hours and from night work. The TUC objected to the words in the report describing this protective legislation as "ridiculous" and "antiquated".
I believe in complete equality of opportunity in employment. If women want that, they cannot opt out of anything. What woman wants to be a coalminer? If the coal board were to say that women could apply to work in a seam 18 in.
416
high, I doubt whether there would be many applicants. There are not many men applicants. Indeed, there would not be many dog applicants if dogs could apply. I would not send a dog down a coalmine, let alone a woman.
If we are to have complete equality of opportunity, it ought to be across the board. It ought to be complete freedom of choice with no exceptions anywhere. I agree with the Government's White Paper to the extent that the exceptions must be extremely limited, and where there is a doubt it should fall on the side of liberality rather than the other way.
The Government had paid belated lip service to equality of opportunity. It is clearly in the national interest that facilities should be made available to enable women to go out to work, if they wish. There is no compulsion about it.
No woman has yet been appointed to the European Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East is very much anti-Common Market, but I think that we shall stay in. That being so, the Government should take the opportunity of appointing one or two women to the Commission. There has been a recent British resignation. The Prime Minister should take the opportunity of sending my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East to take up that post. That is the kind of opportunity that is available to the Government. They have many ways, short of legislation, to show that they are practising what they are now belatedly preaching.
I hope that the Procedure Committee will look carefully at the way that we handle these debates. We ought to have more opportunities in the House to debate Select Committee reports. Otherwise, the valuable information that is available to the House will not be used to full advantage.
Technically, we have three days each session to debate Select Committee reports. That was decided by the former right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, now Lord Butler, at a time when there were fewer Select Committees than today. I think that the Leader of the House should consider the possibility of morning sittings to debate Select Committee reports, because it is clear from attendance at these debates—I have attended

417
many—that hon. Members who attend are extremely interested. It might be worth trying the experiment of morning sittings for debates on Select Committee reports. At any rate, the attendance would be no worse than it is today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Reports from the Expenditure Committee in the last Session of Parliament.

EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE (ROLE)
6.13 p.m.
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the rôle of the Expenditure Committee, with particular reference to staff, broadcasting of proceedings, reporting by Sub-Committees, and other matters contained in the Second Special Report on Session 1970–71, the Sixth Special Report of Session 1971–72, the Second and Fourth Special Reports of the last Session of Parliamentand in the Minutes of Evidence taken on 9th April 1973.
It is appropriate that I should begin by thanking the Opposition for putting a Supply day at the disposal of the Expenditure Committee for these debates.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who is an assiduous attendant at Expenditure Committee debates, should be here today to liven up our proceedings, although he did go a bit wide, even for him. I shall not follow him up all those attractive byways. I recall the days when he was Chairman of the Estimates Committee and the very good work that he did.
Although we have a sparse attendance we need not underline it. The mere fact of having a debate has produced a remarkable degree of alacrity from the Department of Employment. Until the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) produced her report and the Expenditure Committee chose it for debate, I think that these papers were well buried. I do not know how much dust they were gathering or how busy the Department was—I am sure that it was intensely busy—but it managed to produce the papers in time and get the reply in. Therefore, we should be glad that the debate has produced a reply from the Government.
418
The hon. Member for Fife, West referred to the pressure on the time of the House, a matter of which we are all aware. It seems extraordinary that we should have a week like this when nothing seems to go on and then days when there is debate after debate and Committee proceedings and it is difficult for any conscientious hon. Member to get to bed at a reasonable time. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be an inquiry by the Leader of the House and his staff into the way that time on the Floor is divided. However, I am not yet convinced that the Expenditure Committee as such deserves or requires many extra days.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is Chairman of the General Sub-Committee, is bound to get at least one day, if not two days—one on the Budget and another on expenditure forecasts.
The day that we have been allotted is not what would be called fashionable, being the first day after the House returns from the Christmas Recess. The timing was unfortunate in some ways. For instance, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers), who, with his industrious sub-committee, has completed one report on regional development incentives, which has been through the main committee, has another one which I understand is on its way to the main committee. Had the debate been postponed by a fortnight I believe that we could easily have had a day on the report on regional development incentives, which would have been a very good subject. But it is asking too much, even of a Government as gifted as ours, to suggest that we should debate a report that has not yet reached their hands.
Therefore, although the timing is not too happy, with the agreement of the members of my Committee I thought that we might use half of this day for an inquest on the Expenditure Committee which has existed for three years. We have had sufficient time and experience to draw some useful conclusions, and, with the permission of the House, I should like to begin by going into a little history, most of which is contained in the Green Paper of October 1970, Command 4507.

419
We owe a great deal to the inventive brain and activity of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who was concerned that many hon. Members seemed to have so little to do. Accepting that there are about 600 Members, of whom 100 are engaged on Government business and another 50 on Opposition Front Bench business, 450 Members are left with nothing to do except to vote. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Coventry, East thought, probably with a measure of reason, that if he could find them some harmless activity it would be conducive to building up a contented tempo in this House.
The Select Committee on Procedure, which started in 1965, no doubt at the right hon. Gentleman's prompting, recommended that there should be a new Select Committee to examine how the Departments of State carried out their responsibilities, to consider the estimates of expenditure, and to report. However, that recommendation was not accepted.
We then go to December 1966, when once again this went to the Procedure Committee and it recommended that there should be a number of Select Committees—science and technology, race relations, immigration, Scottish affairs, education and science, agriculture and overseas aid. In the main, those suggestions were adopted.
In December 1968, the Select Committee on Procedure was invited to make further inquiries into the examination by the House of Commons of public expenditure and the choice of priorities. The Committee published a report in July 1969 in which it recommended a procedure for considering public expenditure and examining the form of paper presented to the House. The Committee recommended a general subcommittee of 16 members, and eight sub-committees each of nine members, which might be a total of anything up to 80 members.
I should like to state what the Committee considered to be the rôle of the General Sub-Committee. It was to scrutinise the projection of public sector expenditure as a whole after the annual debate on the Expenditure White Paper, to consider the adequacy of the material provided and to give an account to the House of the working of sub-committees. It would guide the work of the Committee
420
as a whole and co-ordinate the inquiries undertaken with the work of other Select Committees.
That was a fairly rigorous directive, and when there was a change of Government responsibility for the leadership of the House fell to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment who, having graduated to that post from the job of Patronage Secretary, cast a rather cooler eye on the activities of these committees. Anyway, he dwelt upon these matters and produced a Green Paper to which I have already referred—Cmnd. 4507 of October 1970—and that was debated on 12th November 1970.
I should like to go back to that debate for a while, because my right hon. Friend who was then Leader of the House said
"that, as a result, a major Select Committee on Expenditure with a comprehensive set of functional sub-committees was not a feasible proposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1970; Vol. 806, c. 620.]
That was his conclusion, and accordingly the Green Paper suggested that alongside the Select Committee which I have mentioned there should be a more modest form of Select Committee on Expenditure which might have about 45 members, which is the number that we have now.
It would have a wider rôle than the old Estimates Committee and would keep under examination the projections of public expenditure made available to the House. It would be free to consider the policy behind the figures, and therefore might sometimes wish to examine Ministers on them. That, basically, is the directive on which the Expenditure Committee has been functioning.
During that debate the former Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, now Lord Boyd-Carpenter, complimented the then Leader of the House and said:
"As one would expect of the late captain of the Royal and Ancient, my right hon. Friend has gone pretty well straight down the middle of fairway and has avoided all but perhaps one or two of the bunkers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1970; Vol. 806, c. 630.]
Not being very cognisant with golf, it seems to me that that is an odd shot to play—one that goes into one or two bunkers but ends up on the fairway. But that probably is what he did, and my criticism of my right hon. Friend's conclusion is that he underclubbed himself.

421
He did not hit the ball as far as it could have been hit at the time. My right hon. Friend's native caution reasserted itself. Because of his experience as Patronage Secretary, he felt unwilling to commit large numbers of Members of the House to a form of activity, which I should almost describe as Stakhanovite.
On 22nd January 1971 the Committee was set up with its sub-committees and a steering sub-committee, and the Committee had the wisdom to elect as its chairman my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). I think one can say that my right hon. Friend played an important part in getting the Committee off the ground, and as his successor I should like to express my gratitude to him for all the work that he did then. No doubt his labours on the Expenditure Committee were all too much for him. He retired in the autumn of 1971 and I was invited to succeed him.
This debate deals with a number of points which hon. Members have raised from time to time and I do not propose, as it were, to get in their way. The subjects mentioned on the Order Paper are staff, broadcasting of proceedings and reporting by sub-committees. I shall make only a brief reference to each of those matters, except staff, because I know that hon. Members have important contributions on these subjects on which they have strong views. They had the opportunity of expressing most of their views to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, who is with us today, when my right hon. Friend visited the Committee in April 1972. A number of points were put to him, all of which he dealt with to his own satisfaction, if not to that of members of the committee.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) made the most original contribution to that discussion, because he is on record as saying that although he voted against the televising of the proceedings of the House he would like to see the proceedings of the sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee televised. That is almost a unique view, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will take it into account when he replies to the debate.
422
I should now like to say something about reporting by sub-committees. My right hon. Friend the Lord President has expressed the view that the present situation is satisfactory. That is not the view of members of the Committee, so we have arrived at what I call a working compromise. That means that I try to ensure that there is no delay by the main Committee in dealing with the draft reports from the sub-committees, and where draft reports are agreed unanimously by the members of the sub-committee I try to discourage members of the main Committee from seeking to alter them. Members have regarded that as a reasonable arrangement, but it does not seem to be logical or sensible, and that again is something which some of my colleagues may wish to raise.
The subject of staff is an old Expenditure Committee red herring. In his speech, to which I have referred, my noble Friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, speaking from his experience as former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said,
"If the new committee is to work efficiently, this is not just a question of giving it one or two extra clerks on the establishment of the department of the learned Clerk of the House. It involves equipping it with a real investigatory staff of its own. We are kidding ourselves if we think that an assembly of very busy Members of this House with, as we know, many other commitments and obligations, sitting perhaps twice a week for a couple of hours can possibly get at what is referred to in the Green Paper as…' the reasons and policies behind figures…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1970; Vol. 806, c. 632.]
In general this line was also taken up by the Expenditure Committee in its Second Report of 1970–71, paragraphs 24–32. It is an argument that can be overdone. We are not a committee of audit—I am glad to see the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee present and probably he would agree—but a committee of inquiry.
I do not believe that our task would be immensely facilitated if we had 10 times as many staff. At present we have learned Clerks of the House and the inestimable advantage of the help of our specialist advisers. Every sub-committee has such advice. The specialist advisers have rendered valuable service to us.

423
I do not see how it would be feasible, unless we were prepared to keep them unemployed indefinitely, to employ a vast staff of specialist advisers unless they knew on what topics they were to give advice. In my experience, the specialist advisers from whose services we have benefited, have been up to their work and have made an enormous contribution to the work of the sub-committees, mainly because they were especially the best people for the job. We are able to call upon these high-class specialist advisers and they do the job not for the remuneration, which is not important to them, but because they think their work is appreciated and published.
There is also the problem of accommodation. There is not room for a large new department. What would we do with all the people involved? A number of hon. Members who take an interest in this work are present today. They would agree that their work would not be greatly facilitated if they had four times as many clerks. There are times when an additional clerk is useful. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees acquired the use of an additional clerk and used him to the best advantage with great zeal when he took on the South African inquiry before completing his report on regional development incentives.
I am not ashamed to say that I have had advice of the Clerk to the Committee who said,
"Where Sub-Committees stick mainly to general principles of expenditure, or overall monitoring, there may be scope for long-term specialist staff."
This is especially the case in connection with the General Sub-Committee where the services of Mr. Wynne Godley of the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics have been invaluable. I do not wish to belittle the extremely good work of that sub-committee and its Chairman, but Mr. Wynne Godley's contribution has been admirable. In the sub-committee we had Brigadier Kenneth Hunt of the Institute of Strategic Studies. It is called the Defence and Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee, but if it should switch its interest from defence to foreign affairs then Brigadier Hunt's use value would be reduced. In that event some other adviser would be more appropriate.
Mr. George Cunningham: The answer to that problem
424
is to have two committees, one for defence and one for foreign affairs.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I shall mention other specialist advisers who have done us well. There is Mr. Murray Stewart of the University of Kent who has worked on the new towns for the Environment Sub-Committee. We have not yet seen its report but I understand that it is going well. There is Mr. Gareth Williams of Lancaster University who has worked with the Education Sub-Committee on higher education. Lastly, Mr. John Knight of the Oxford Institute of Economics and Statistics has worked on the South African inquiry with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. It is a satisfactory marriage between a highly skilled specialist adviser and a chairman who takes trouble, who is productive and who is liable to produce the sort of results that this committee should be able to show to the House.
I do not sympathise with the usual complaints that the committees are understaffed. It is true that the sub-committee clerks have to work very hard, especially as they have other duties in the House, I wonder sometimes how they manage to do them, but they do. I have not been aware over the past two years that the quality of the reports which the committee has produced has been less than satisfactory to the House. They have been extremely good, and they are the work of individual clerks.
What conclusions can we come to from three years' experience of this Committee? First, I suggest to the Lord President—and I believe that all my colleagues on the Committee agree with me—that it should be appointed for a Parliament and not on a sessional basis. We have known already in my chairmanship two long interruptions in work which were unnecessary. A formula has been devised for me by the clerk by which my suggestion could be adopted. I am advised that the form of resolution to keen the Committee in existence during a Parliament would be:
"(a) That the Members of the Expenditure Committee nominated by the Order made on"
the appropriate date
"shall continue to be Members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
(b) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House".

425
I hope that my colleagues who agree with me will make that point because I should like to leave this as a legacy to our successors so that they may operate on a more permanent basis.
The other problem is the selection of members of sub-committees. The work of sub-committees is, mainly, carried on by the chairmen with a handful of colleagues as well as the professional assistance which they receive. Much inconvenience is caused by the fact that hon. Members are invited to join the Expenditure Committee and then find that there is no vacancy on the sub-committee on which they want to serve.
Human nature being what it is, the Defence and Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee is always over-subscribed. I do not suggest that that is because it is the sub-committee whose members do the most travelling. That would be a quite unworthy suggestion to make, and I should not put it forward. The General Sub-Committee is also over-subscribed. The result is that equally valuable and important sub-committees, such as that dealing with environmental questions, have a number of Members who attend very rarely because they are not genuinely interested in environmental problems and because basically they joined the Expenditure Committee hoping to serve on a subcommittee dealing with a topic in which they were interested.
When a new Expenditure Committee is recruited in the next Parliament, I suggest that hon. Members should be asked which sub-committee they wish to join and that before any appointments are made the usual channels should sort out the matter and produce the right mix. That would prevent much frustration.
We talk about these committees being all-party committees, but there are no Liberal Party representatives, although the Expenditure Committee consists of 45 people, and therefore on a proportional basis there would be room for a Liberal or two. One of the best chairmen of a sub-committee we had was the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne). I should have thought that nothing in his life would do anything but enhance his value as a member of a specialist sub-committee. We act a little narrowly by confining membership of the
426
committee to the Government and to the Opposition.
Mr. Michael English: The hon. Member is perhaps forgetting that the Liberal Party is not very assiduous in seeking committee places, and it is the second largest opposition party.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am obliged.
My conclusion is that the Expenditure Committee has justified its progress from being just another Estimates Committee. I think that we can be satisfied—and this is not an exercise in self-praise—with the results of three years' work. It is not outstandingly good, but the system is going about right and I am sure that that will continue as long as we can contrive to get Members interested in the work and to find them employment in the work in which they are interested—which are two different questions. The Expenditure Committee should be a permanent Committee and should not have to be chosen every Session.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. William Rodgers: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) has said. I shall deal later with his remarks about which I disagree.
I support the idea of appointing the Expenditure Committee not for a Session but for a Parliament, and I agree that the question of selecting Members to serve on the Committee should be given much more serious consideration. The hon. Member for Walsall, South referred mainly to the question of the membership of the sub-committee, but the appointment of Members to the Committee is still too much in the hands of the Whips. There is reason to believe that the Chief Whip or Deputy-Chief Whip says to one of his colleagues "I am sorry that I cannot send you to Strasbourg and about the CPA delegation to Barbados, but what about the sub-committee?" The Whips see the Committee as being on the fringes of patronage for the dull, dutiful, elderly and academic. That is not good enough, and I hope that experience of the Committee in the last Session and the comments of hon. Members today will

427
persuade the Lord President and his successors that this is an important Committee to which Members should be appointed on merit and not simply because there is nowhere else for a troublesome or boring and persistent Member to go.
Three years is a very short time in the life of a Parliament in which to judge a new institution like a Select Committee. Therefore, I agree that it is far too soon to form a conclusive view of its record and likely achievement or to decide the question of its permanence within the institutions of the House. However, this may be the last chance we shall have in this Parliament to pass an interim judgment and to make comments of which a successive Lord President and hon. Members may take account when making a decision. It is therefore reasonable that we should use this occasion to make our own rather personal assessments.
I have been fortunate enough to be a member of the Expenditure Committee from its inception. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), as a result of whose urging I tentatively put my name forward to the Whips, believing that I was not dull, dutiful, elderly or academic but simply someone who thought that it might be a vehicle by which he could serve the House. During that time I have been Chairman of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee and inevitably my views are coloured by that experience, although what I say will not necessarily reflect even the views of the individual members of the subcommittee. Others will see the matter differently.
However, the important fact—this bears on what the hon. Member for Walsall, South said—is that in a sense the Expenditure Committee barely has a life of its own. We are all essentially members of mini Expenditure Committees. That is where we make our contributions and achieve our satisfaction. It is a measure of how far the Whips have been out of touch that they have tended to judge the performance of Members by the frequency of their attendance at the rather formal and, happily, brief meetings of the Expenditure Committee rather than in terms of their contributions to the subcommittee. It is in the sub-committees that the real work is done.
428
Being chairman of a sub-committee has been a thoroughly rewarding experience for me, even exhilarating at times, though that may surprise Members who have not served on sub-committees, and totally worth while. I shall continue to feel in retrospect that the past three years have been one of the best or most satisfying periods I will have served in my parliamentary life. Whether we have wholly fulfilled the expectations of our sponsors—those who first thought that the Expenditure Committee would have a rôle—is a different matter. On balance, almost certainly we have not. We have in some respects evolved rather differently from the way they intended.
For that reason, I am not sure that any hon. Member who served on the Select Committee on Procedure and was responsible for the report of 1968–69 from which the Expenditure Committee stems will necessarily feel that we have moved always in the right direction. But this is not true of the General Sub-Committee under the leadership first of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), to whose contribution I should like to pay tribute, and now of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has been devoted to his rôle as chairman.
The General Sub-Committee has largely fulfilled the expectations that people held for the Committee as a whole, but I am not sure that other sub-committees have followed the course then charted for them. We have been feeling our way, evolving our respective rôles, and if we have fallen short there is no obstacle to our redeeming ourselves in the future.
I have two broad observations to make. First, to be a strong supporter of an increased rôle for Select Committees does not mean a denial of the central rôle of the Chamber as the heart of Parliament's work. There used to be arguments that one was for one or the other and that those who chose to serve on Select Committees did not feel entirely at home in the atmosphere of the Chamber. That is not the case. Second, it should be noted that, for a Select Committee to be a success, it must lean some way in its choice of inquiry and methods of work to satisfy the natural vanity of Members of Parliament.

429
On the first point, at a time when, by common consent, the public are disillusioned by what they see as the excuses of party politics, which will become more excessive shortly, it is a good thing that Members should be seen to be working harmoniously together without striking attitudes. If, as a result, the debate in the Chamber is better informed, we shall not be criticised for this either. This is why I see the work of the Chamber and that of the Select Committees essentially in parallel.
Second, it is unrealistic to expect MPs as a whole to be enthusiastic to serve in only a dull background routine, but there is no need for Select Committees to be engaged only in the dull and the routine. In practice it will be seen that many of these sub-committees have had an excellent attendance. During the first inquiry of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, we had 52 meetings and an average attendance of seven out of eight members. You would be surprised, Mr. Speaker, and probably rather bothered, by such a high percentage attendance in debates in the Chamber. You would be equally surprised to find that number of Members sitting down for two hours at a stretch without always themselves joining in the debate. We have never had a problem of getting a quorum in our sub-committee.
I have summed this up before—perhaps it is appropriate, although the phrase may sound odd—by saying that our inquiries must have some "sex appeal". In other words, they must deal with live and interesting issues upon which it is possible to take evidence from influential and significant people in public life and produce a report to which people pay attention. It is unrealistic for the Expenditure Committee and its six sub-committees or any successor arrangement of Select Committees to proceed without bearing that in mind.
I am delighted to see present tonight my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), and I therefore mention the Public Accounts Committee at this point. We may need to define more clearly the boundaries between the Committee of which he is a distinguished chairman and the Expenditure Committee and its sub-committees. I should like to see a concordat between the two which in due course was endorsed by the
430
House. It is not the job of either Committee to do what the other can do better. We should avoid straying into areas with which the other is more competent to deal.
I should like to feel that it is the Expenditure Committee's task to deal with future policy and to review the Public Expenditure White Paper in all its policy implications, while the Public Accounts Committee continues its scrutiny, as it has done over the years, of expenditure incurred. I agree, however, that this may not be a satisfactory line of demarcation and I hope that, under the auspices of the Lord President, when the successor Committees are set up an arrangement will be reached which makes good sense.
What is the overwhelming characteristic of the evolution of the Expenditure Committee over the last three years? It is the extent to which the sub-committees have asserted their own independence. More and more the Expenditure Committee has been an umbrella, held with kindly tolerance by the hon. Member for Walsall, South. He said just now that he has been happy to see the subcommittees evolving in their own way and to see the convention established that the Expenditure Committee does not amend reports from sub-committees when they are unanimous.
There is a strong body of opinion, as the hon. Member said, which feels that sub-committees should in effect report straight to the House. I am in favour of the maximum freedom for sub-committees to achieve their own purpose in their own way.
The logic of this may be that we should have, not six sub-committees of an Expenditure Committee but six principal Select Committees which would deal with the areas with which the sub-committees now deal. This deserves serious examination. My instinct is that the General Sub-Committee now chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne should increasingly take over the rôle which would flow from the course that it has pursued, envisaged for the original Expenditure Committee—that of examining the Public Expenditure White Paper, seeking to improve it and looking into different areas in which money is spent. Perhaps also, if not all, at least some of the other sub-committees should

431
be constituted with 10 to 16 members as Select Committees.
It is categorically impossible for the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee—I refer to it only because of my familiarity with it—of eight Members to produce more than one substantial report in a year. With luck, we shall have produced three reports by the end of this Parliament, but large areas are inevitably neglected. My sub-committee has been responsible among other things for agriculture, but by the end of this Parliament, after three or more years of life, we will never have examined a question related to this important sector of public expenditure, simply because there is not enough time.
Equally—here I accept the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—we have not scrutinised the Estimates or given enough time to the annual Public Expenditure White Paper. Sub-committees of the Expenditure Committee or successor Committees of 12 to 16 members should be able to do three things: conduct a major inquiry, take evidence on and examine the Estimates and the Public Expenditure White Paper and conduct short sharp ad hoc inquiries as they arise. It is not possible for any sub-committee of eight Members to carry out all these responsibilities. It is unrealistic, if we visualise Select Committees working in parallel with the Chamber, for Members to give more than two half-days to a Select Committee in addition to all the reading and, in some cases, the travel which may be involved.
For example, why should not the Select Committee dealing with trade and industry matters—a sub-committee now ; a full Committee, perhaps, later—examine the secondary banking system, or aspects of public policy in relation to industry which are now dealt with by the Companies Bill? These are proper subjects of scrutiny. It may well be that many matters which appear in the Companies Bill, the Second Reading of which we are to debate on Thursday, would have benefited by the scrutiny of an appropriate all-party Select Committee of the House before they reached the form that the Bill now takes.
On the question of staff, I place the emphasis in a rather different way than did the hon. Member for Walsall, South.
432
I am certainly not in favour of a sudden and massive recruitment of staff in order to say that we have as many people working for us as work for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead on the Public Accounts Committee. That would be a very silly way to proceed. It flows from what I have said earlier, however, that it is essential that, if Committees are to be free to proceed and if they are in due course to fulfil the three rôles that I have indicated, there should be no impediment, whether in terms of the Clerks who do such excellent work for us now, of the specialist advisers or of a supporting staff of considerable size. Even if the Committees are larger, it will make a very great demand on the time of Members unless we have the sort of staff who can examine the Estimates for us and can look at the Public Expenditure White Paper and discuss the detailed implications of both with officials responsible for Government Departments. We ought to be moving in that direction.
As Members of Parliament are not experts, we should not try to be experts. Members of Parliament are people who ought to know how to use experts. That is why there should be no obstacle to the recruitment of either specialist staff or a permanent body of experts who can help the Expenditure Committee as a whole.
We should also review our facilities. There are times when I am amazed by how far the basic facilities of this House fall behind those available to a modest business of any kind outside. Problems such as the rapid dispatch of a large number of letters are normally beyond the resources of the House. In this respect it is true that we have still not moved from the quill pen age. There is also room for a more relaxed approach to the question of the travel of members of the Expenditure Committee. I think I am right in saying that until lately it has been the case that a sub-committee had to travel as a whole, and there was no question of one, two or three members of a sub-committee having permission to travel on its behalf. I hope that that will be changed and that, here again, there will be a high degree of flexibility.
On the subject of broadcasting, I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, South. He referred to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) as unique, implying

433
that there was, perhaps, something rather odd—if I did not misunderstand the hon. Member—in Select Committees being televised before the House itself. I do not share that view. There may be a serious case, given proper safeguards, for televising or at least broadcasting the proceedings of Select Committees before the House itself feels that it is in a position to make a decision. I would not like the fact that one holds a view on one of these matters to rule out the possibility of holding a different view on the other. Although this evening we probably cannot examine that at length, I hope that the new Select Committee, when it is appointed in the next Parliament, will be able to discuss this matter sympathetically with the Lord President of the time.
Mr. Edmund Dell: My hon. Friend mentioned the need for safeguards if the proceedings of Select Committees were televised. Does he include within the idea of safeguards the possibility of safeguards for non-ministerial witnesses at Select Committees?
Mr. Rodgers: Indeed, I was including that. When I said "safeguards" I had in mind not that the present proceedings of sub-committees of the Select Committees were behind closed doors. On the contrary, the openness of our proceedings is one of our advantages. Certainly the Committee dealing with trade and industry has made clear at all times that the only evidence it was prepared to receive was evidence given to it in public. But we must recognise that the intrusion—I use that word guardedly—of television may make it more difficult at some times for witnesses to provide the information wanted by a sub-committee, in an atmosphere which must be strange to them in the first place. When I used the word "safeguards" I was thinking not necessarily in a legal way but in terms of not interfering with the proper procedures of sub-committees. These are matters to be examined. The problems can be overcome. The plea that I was making, however, was that the question of broadcasting or televising the proceedings of Select Committees should be examined on its merits and not simply dismissed as something that ought to be considered in relation to any decision to televise or broadcast proceedings of the House.
434
The Expenditure Committee has earned the right to be regarded as an institution which has a great prospect for development. I should like to believe that we have been pushing the frontiers forward and helping in the evolution of Parliament in a way which is essential to Parliament's survival. I am not as impatient as some of my hon. Friends with the speed of progress, but I believe that the momentum of the Committee must be kept up, otherwise it could become ineffective and an experiment which should become permanent could in the end fail.
7.7 p.m.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The House will have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) with great interest when he spoke about the importance of the work of the Procedure Committee from which the Expenditure Committee finally emerged. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) also referred to that important work. He put the view that the outline scheme suggested by the Procedure Committee was a vigorous view of the rôle of the Expenditure Committee. This is right. It was expected when these things were first debated that the Expenditure Committee would come to play a part in the discussion and the survey of public expenditure rather greater than I believe it has so far played. I do not believe that we have anywhere near fulfilled the hopes and expectations of that Procedure Committee. That is a matter to which I shall return later.
On the question of staff, we have very great difficulty in obtaining from Government Departments the kind of information we require. That is not necessarily due to their lack of will in giving us the information. It is because we are extending, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees said, the area of information, and this will obviously be a matter of some difficulty to us. What we really require, however, is our own system of information gathering. It is not enough to have the specialist advisers other than in those areas in which the Expenditure Committee is behaving as the old Estimates Committee.
Clearly, if the Expenditure Committee behaves in the same way as the old

435
Estimates Committee behaved—that is, looking just at one particular expert field—we must have specialist advisers because we are dealing with only a narrow subject on which the Expenditure Committee is considering action. But if we look at the continuing work of each of the sub-committees, the work in comparing forecasts with outturn, monitoring the outputs of each of the Departments, making sure that they understand and accept the reasons for changes in the priorities and making sure that the subcommittees act as part of the great pressure groups of opinion in these matters, we see that clearly there will be a need for the continuous advice that can be obtained by a permanent technical staff gathering strength year by year in finding its way through the maze of public expenditure.
It was that point that was referred to in the Second Special Report of the Expenditure Committee, which was printed on 10th June 1971. It is significant to note the date because it was at a time when we were still talking about an Expenditure Committee as an Expenditure Committee, before we had started to descend into the old Estimates Committee form. At that time we were talking about the rôle of staff in monitoring expenditure, to be able to see the way in which the Government were directing and redirecting their expenditure, to take account of the different priorities which they established, but which did not necessarily reflect the priorities of the particular sub-committees.
It is that kind of staff that will bring to the attention of each of the members of the sub-committee what the Government are actually doing in public expenditure—for instance, whether they are spending more on nursery schools than on other forms of education ; whether this is a good thing, and where resources are being directed—and ask the sub-committee for its view on these matters. That kind of continuing work will require an increase in specialist staff.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South is right in saying that if a Committee proceeds as an Estimates Committee it does not require much increase in staff because it will obtain the specialist advisers required.
436
I turn now to the relatively small matter of the direct reports of subcommittees. It is quite absurd that the whole Expenditure Committee, each time a report comes before it, should take responsibility for that report. None of us has time—I certainly have not—to go through a report in detail, let alone weigh up all the mountains of evidence. It should be enough for the report to represent the views of those members who took evidence and who weighed up the information which came before them.
We need to introduce the convention of the minority report. It need not necessarily be an appendix to each report, nor do I believe that we need to stress as much in the future as we do now the need for unanimity in reports of this kind. If we are ever to play an important rôle in decisions on public expenditure, it is clear that there will be divisions of opinion. The matter is what fundamentally divides the House. A large part of Parliament's job is considering where we raise the money, from which section of the community we raise it, to which section of the community we give it and how we spend our money on goods and services on behalf of each member of the community.
It is clear that in such a situation there will be divisions of opinion. This does not mean that we necessarily need to have a House of Commons type debate in that sub-committee. It means that in the report of the sub-committee it can be stated that Messrs. A, B and C believe so-and-so and that Messrs. D, E, F and G believe something else. The report could then revert to the unanimity that is usual in these matters. After all, Royal Commissions are beginning to act in this way, realising that unanimity on broad areas can reflect spurious unanimity. The Fulton Committee had many such provisos, on minor matters in the main, whereby people were able to express differences of opinion. If those differences can be expressed in such a report, it is even easier in expenditure reports.
Mr. English: When my hon. Friend suggests introducing a convention, I take it that he is merely saying that Members should make a minority report if they wish. As I am sure he realises, all that a Member has to do in order to have a

437
minority report—if that is what it is—printed with a majority report is simply to table it. Even if it is defeated, it will be printed in the same book. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) did that in the Privileges Committee. Rather surprisingly, what he intended to table as a minority report became a majority report, because he won his case. But whether a Member wins or loses, it will still be printed with the report.
Mr. Sheldon: I am aware of that. I have done such a thing with my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) in the Select Committee on Tax Credits, but it is an artificial way of operating and it is so much easier to see it in the context of the report itself, so that it follows as one reads the text.
There is no need to avoid party political subjects in these matters. If the Committee is to play an important rôle, these are areas in which we must engage. If the Expenditure Committee is to be a body which examines priorities and the way in which Governments make their choices, we must enter these areas, as was foreseen so long ago. I agree with much that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees said about broadcasting. I believe in the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House. I accept that broadcasting the proceedings of Select Committees is a quite different matter. An explanation would be needed of much of what was broadcast to enable the public to understand many of our complex problems in Select Committees. If the work of the Expenditure Committee is fundamentally to reflect the kind of expenditure which people require so that it can bring its own pressure to bear on the Government, there must be that educative process. That works back to the public, from which all impetus is derived. I do not believe that there would be anything like the distorting effect which could arise if proceedings of the House were televised.
The main argument against televising the House has always been that certain people may take advantage of it in ways which we know. It cannot be said that the same would apply in the televising or broadcasting of Select Committees, which can be looked at separately. In any case, before it was decided to broadcast
438
the proceedings of Select Committees on a regular basis there would have to be an experiment. That would be the first step.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): When the hon. Gentleman speaks of televising Select Committees, does he mean televising the whole of the proceedings or an edited version? In the United States the whole of the proceedings are often televised. Is he considering that, or has he in mind an edited programme such as "Tonight in Parliament"? Is he thinking of '' Tonight in Committee "?
Mr. Sheldon: My view is that the television cameras should be switched on and that the broadcasting companies would be able to use whatever version they wished. In the main it would be an edited version, but at certain times it would be a live version. The broadcasting companies would be able to decide what they needed, but in the main it would be only a few items arising from the day's business.
Therefore, the case for an experiment in televising or broadcasting the proceedings of Select Committees is that much stronger than the case for broadcasting the proceedings of the House, because the disadvantages are nowhere near as evident. It would enable Members to become more familiar with such disadvantages as there may be as well as with the advantages.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the matter was discussed in Committee. Although a majority of Members were in favour of the proposal, quite a substantial minority were opposed to it. I believe that those present today represent those who were in favour of broadcasting the proceedings, but it was not a unanimous view of the Committee.
Mr. Sheldon: I do not think anyone wished to say that it was unanimous ; it was obviously the majority view, and that is all one would wish to claim.
Dame Irene Ward: I was opposed to the proposal, and I am here tonight.
Mr. Sheldon: The House will take note of that observation.

439
I came on to the Expenditure Committee at the beginning of 1971. when it was set up. I came from the Public Accounts Committee, of which I had been a member for nearly six years, because I believed it to be the most important Select Committee. I am reluctant to say it, but I now doubt whether that was necessarily the wisest move I made at that time. My reasons for the move derived from the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which gave what the Committee felt were the advantages for setting up the Expenditure Committee. It showed what might be possible and it gave what came to be, if not a blueprint for, at least a fairly close approximation to the kind of examination of expenditure that we grew to understand.
If we consider the work over the past three years, I do not think any of us can deny that, other than the work of the General Sub-Committee, which has a special brief, almost everything that has been done could have been done under the Estimates Committee. Although so much of the work is excellent—I pay tribute to the excellent reports—I am also aware of the excellence of so many reports published under the aegis of the old Estimates Committee. If this were all that was required, nobody could say that we had been the success that had been expected.
I believe that the success of the Expenditure Committee will be determined by how far we shape our choices, how the priorities of expenditure are determined. I should like to quote from paragraph 75 of the Plowden Committee, which was quoted in its turn by the Procedure Committee. The Plowden Committee said in 1961:
"Unless the issues of long-term expenditure priorities and policies can be discussed in Parliament and become the subject of public controversy it will be difficult for Governments to carry public opinion with them."
It felt then that the necessary ingredient of choice was to be public opinion, but I do not believe we can say that we have succeeded in mobilising it. If the Expenditure Committee is to perform its rôle, it must speak on behalf of certain sectional interests. It must find a way of dealing with those sectional interests so that it can bring their views to bear upon Government changes and choices.
440
I should like to see the situation, which arises all too rarely, of individuals and organisations writing to sub-committees and individual Members on the subcommittees of the Expenditure Committee to seek their support, to persuade them of the rightness of the views of the interests involved. It is when we come to the division between those who want more schools and those who want more housing, with Members of Parliament devising ways of reconciling their claims, that we can see the kind of success that many of us hoped to achieve from the setting up of the Committee.
We are very grateful for the work of the Departments that we interview. We unquestionably take a great deal of their time, but we understand that they accept the necessity. I must tell the Treasury, which has been the recipient of so much questioning from me, that although we may sometimes appear as opponents it is only through direct and vigorous questioning that we can discover the quality of administration. By getting Departments to defend themselves, we can find out the true situation.
Here I should like to say something about the main aim of the Committee. In paragraph 35 at page xvi of its First Report, the Select Committee on Procedure gives the basic object of the subcommittees. It is useful to compare what was expected from them with what has been achieved. The report said:
"The task…would be threefold.
(a) It should, first, study the expenditure projections for the Department or Departments in its field, compare them with those of previous years "—
that is not done—
"and report on any major variations or important changes of policy "—
that is not done—
"and on the progress made by the Departments towards clarifying their general objectives and priorities."
That is not done.
"(b) It should examine in as much detail as possible the implications in terms of public expenditure of the policy objectives "—
that is not done—
"chosen by Ministers and assess the success of the Departments in attaining them."
That is done frequently, but not invariably.
Mr. J. Grimond: I am wholly in sympathy with what the

441
hon. Gentleman has been saying. I suppose the objection to his view and mine would be that if the Committee goes much further in that direction it will be encroaching on the ground of the executive. Has the hon. Gentleman any answer to that? We have an extremely thin House—1 plead guilty myself—examining the reports of the Committee. If it is to take an active part in important policy decisions and compare housing and, say, schools, which I should like to see it do, we must somehow or other enable Parliament to be more fully aware of what the Committee is doing.
Mr. Sheldon: That was the whole purpose of the establishment of the Expenditure Committee. The comparison of Government expenditure was not being done by the Cabinet pre-Plowden. Post-Plowden it was done by the Cabinet, but it was done inadequately. That was realised, and the suggestion was made that it was the task of Members of Parliament, but that Members, interested only in sectional choices, could not look at the situation as a whole. Therefore, the idea put forward by the Procedure Committee was that a Committee could do part of the work.
There are a number of sceptics. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), who in the past has rightly pointed out the difficulty of achieving the objective. There have been people who have said that it cannot be done. I still believe that, if we are to bring pressure to bear on the executive, this is the only way of doing it. It will not be possible for Parliament as a whole to act in this way. It might be possible if a Committee—the Expenditure Committee—were to act in this way.
I return to the task of the subcommittee as outlined in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in 1968–69. It said:
"(c) It should enquire, on the lines of the present Estimates Sub-Committees, into Departmental administration, including effectiveness of management."
That is the work of the Estimates Committee, and it is the work that has continued unchanged. It is the concentration on the old and the reluctance, or almost total failure, of sub-committees other than the General Sub-Committee to take account of the new that has been the
442
most serious fact of the first three years of the work of the Expenditure Committee.
Following conversations and discussions that we have had recently in the Expenditure Committee, I know it is hoped that each of the sub-committees will now take account of the White Paper on the changes in policy and the variations in decisions of Government concerning public expenditure. As a result of the work of our specialist advisers, each of the sub-committees will be given some small account of the main changes in expenditure in the areas of Government spending covered by each of the subcommittees. That I welcome. However, we are still at a very early stage in obtaining from the Government the information we require, let alone the concentration of our understanding as to what each of the members of the subcommittees wants to see done in his own particular area.
I should like to deal with the question of secrecy, and if I am a little "hobby-horsical" in this matter I hope I may be forgiven. This important aspect of assistance from Government Departments must be dealt with. There is so much that Government Departments could give to the sub-committees were it not for the obsession with secrecy which still prevails. Of course I understand the question of the economic forecasts which are a particular bone of contention with the General Sub-Committee. However, I believe that the Civil Service must bear a great deal of the responsibility for the failure to give information to the subcommittees and to hon. Members generally.
I am not surprised that each new administration devotes itself publicly to claiming that there will be greater openness with Government secrets and Government information. Each time this lofty thought tends to be dissipated during the period of office. The main reason for the lack of information is the civil servants to whom openness would present great problems. It is much easier for them to make their decisions unhurried and to consult quietly. They are able to come to a better quality of decision without the interference or interruptions of democratic views. I recall many Ministers making the claim that there would be greater openness in Government

443
but under pressure of events they submitted to arguments that allowed them little scope for extending this openness in Government.
If there were much greater openness, much of the work of the subcommittees would be very much easier. If Government Departments were to take sub-committees more fully into their confidence, I do not doubt that it would be easier to examine what Governments were deciding.
The Expenditure Committee was set up on 22nd January 1971. It was established on the understanding that the essence of public expenditure concerned choice. The Plowden Report of 1961 stated in paragraph 105:
"Our proposals are designed to lead gradually to greater public interest in the priorities of expenditure, to the stimulation of academic thought about it, and to greater awareness of the implications and choices involved in policies as they come forward."
We have achieved some small success and I do not regard it as being very much. Changes of the kind I have mentioned would help to improve the position a little.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. Norman Fowler: I shall intervene briefly in the debate. I am not a member of the Expenditure Committee but I wish to lend my support to the proposal that the Expenditure Committee should authorise the broadcasting of its public proceedings, particularly since such support from the Tory side did not seem particularly evident in the vote that was held on the matter.
The proposal raises an important question of principle in this House. The Expenditure Committee considers important areas of policy. Employment services, which were debated earlier today, are an example. The public often take a keen interest in these and they have a vital interest in seeing debate upon them. These proceedings, however, are closed to two of the most important media—radio and television. In other words, although the Committee decides—this applies to other Committees than the Expenditure Committee—that its proceedings should be in public, only a small number of the public can have the opportunity of hearing with their own ears
444
and seeing with their own eyes what is taking place. They are allowed only the privilege of reading an account in a newspaper, an account which may be brief and in some cases unbalanced.
That is an extraordinary anomaly to which the House at some stage must address itself. Newspapers are allowed to report the public proceedings of the Committee, but broadcasting is excluded from doing exactly the same job and from playing exactly the same kind of rôle. It is that exclusion which seems to me to make no sense whatever. It is illogical. If there is a case for reporting the proceedings of the Committee, and presumably that case is accepted, there must also be a case for not distinguishing between the media and how they report. If that is so, two of the most powerful and most popular of the media—radio and television—should not be excluded.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. That Committee takes evidence in public and visits cities and areas of immigrant concentration. It permits the national and local Press to hear the evidence which is given but the most extraordinary performance has to be undergone if it tries in any way to have its proceedings covered by radio or television. Members of the Committee or the chairman may comment either before the evidence has been given or afterwards, but never are the public given the chance of hearing and seeing for themselves the atmosphere of cross-questioning in which that evidence is given.
Again, it seems that the report and the proposal raise an important challenge for the House. It is important because the proposal asks the House to come to terms with broadcasting. It is important also because it asks the House to recognise that the demands of the 1970s are here and that we are not living in the 1940s or even earlier. It presents a real challenge to the House in the sense that many politicians complain—I suppose that we all do at some stage—about the gap between Parliament and the public. At the same time, we persist in excluding two of the major media from reporting directly on matters which are of vital concern to the public. In short, it is an obstinate refusal and one which is not in any sense based on logic.

445
I should like to see all the proceedings of the House broadcast. I should like to see our proceedings televised and put on radio. I hope that the next Parliament will take that step. Meanwhile, I think that the step which is proposed by the Committee should be given the full support of the House.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: I am grateful to be called to speak immediately after my colleague, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). He is my next-door neighbour in that we are constituency neighbours. I must describe him as my benefactor as he is departing from his seat to one with a substantial Conservative majority. He is leaving behind the most Conservative portion of his constituency for the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke), who is now sitting on the Front Bench as a Whip for the Conservative Party. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South is leaving behind the most desirable Labour portions of his constituency for me. He is a benefactor to at least two others here.
Mr. Fowler: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to count his chickens before they are hatched.
Mr. English: I sincerely trust that the hon. Gentleman will take the same advice about his new constituency.
I now turn to the Sixth Special Report of 1971–72. It is one of the easier problems with which the Leader of the House will be dealing. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) rightly went back to the earlier history of the Procedure Committee's consideration of how to reform the Estimates Committee. He may recollect that I was a member of the Procedure Committee when the discussions started and when some of the reports were published.
There were a number of advocates of specialist committees. I was such an advocate and I still am. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and his colleagues on the old Estimates Committee had a not unnatural reluctance to be abolished. That is what would have happened had a set of specialist committees been created. If that had been done, the old Estimates Committee would have had no function, nor indeed
446
would there have been any function for the Expenditure Committee if there had been set up specialist committees dealing with, for example, defence and foreign affairs or other issues. The compromise was reached of setting up the Expenditure Committee which, unlike the old Estimates Committee, could, if it wished, consider policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ash-ton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has detailed what the Procedure Committee said in one of its reports. Sub-committees were created which were specialist committees. That is what they are, although I agree with my hon. Friend that they proved in practice to be more limited than was envisaged. It was then said that it was a reasonable compromise because the Expenditure Committee, with experience of of its own working, could say after a time whether it wished to continue to work in the way in which it was set up or whether, in the light of experience, it had recommendations to make to the House.
The first thing to be said about the Sixth Report is that it does exactly what the Expenditure Committee was set up to do. One of the purposes for which it was set up was to recommend how the problem should be resolved. The Committee is now putting forward a modest suggestion—namely, that a sub-committee should report directly to the House as if it were a full committee. There is a need for co-ordination between the sub-committees. For example, there could be a committee of the chairmen. There must be something to ensure that the sub-committees do not cross each other's boundaries as regards their function.
It is almost the unanimous view of the Expenditure Committee that it does not want to interfere with a sub-committee which has heard all the evidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) said, after, for example, 52 meetings, and which has produced a report which in the overwhelming number of cases is unanimous. It is the sub-committee which sees the witnessses. It is possible to read the evidence, but it is the members of the subcommittee who see the witnesses' demeanour. It is even true that the Expenditure Committee does not see a large part of the evidence of the sub-committee dealing with defence and foreign affairs because of the confidential nature of the evidence.

447
The Expenditure Committee does not wish to interfere with that position, but it is in an unsatisfactory position in that the principle which the chairman has been trying to inculcate cannot be adhered to under the rules of the House.
Under those rules we are responsible for something for which we do not feel we are responsible. Under the rules of the House, whether the chairman tries to discourage it or not, he cannot stop a member of his Committee tabling an amendment. For example, if I sought to table an amendment relating to the report of the sub-committee of which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees is a member, the other 40-odd members, however daft they thought I was, could not stop me from doing so. They could not stop me from tabling an amendment and wasting their time. No doubt they would defeat it but they could not stop me.
That is what we wish to alter. I refer the Leader of the House to his answer to a question which I raised in the Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Expenditure on Monday 9th April 1973. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, after going through the history which I have detailed, to give his views on the report. It was a good answer which he gave at the time. He said:
"In the light of what has been said this afternoon, I shall have to have another look at this. One of the points made by Dr. Owen—that certainly unanimous reports by a Sub-Committee should be able to be reported direct to the House—is something that I would like to consider again and see whether or not it is possible. One wanted to build up the strength of the whole Committee and one wanted reports to have the stamp of the Expenditure Committee as a whole behind them."
They are the Lord President's views and not the views of the Expenditure Committee. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
"For this reason we thought that it was right that the Committee itself only should report ; but perhaps I can consider this again. The recommendation of the Committee does not of itself have to be debated in this case but there are ways and means by which the Committee could get it debated, and I shall have to consider with my colleagues and the usual channels what the next step is to take. I would not want to go further than that."
We understood that he would not want to do so off the cuff.
448
When he said
"We thought it was right that the Committee itself only should report."
the right hon. Gentleman was then referring to the Government memorandum on the report. Frankly, I do not think that that was ever considered. I say that as one who was concerned with the setting up of the organisation. There was created a committee and sub-committees to which the normal rules of the House applied. We said specifically that the Committee, when it was set up, could decide how it wanted to operate. We did not decide, just because there is a rule of the House which says that a sub-committee has to report to the Expenditure Committee, that that was the only way to proceed. We thought that that is how the matter should start but that afterwards the Expenditure Committee should decide all the details.
I hope that after considering this the Lord President will look favourably upon the suggestion. It seems a small thing which in no way interferes with the normal practice of the House. It is justifiable to ask, if the Expenditure Committee wishes to work in this way, why should the House or the Government wish to stop it?
I turn now to broadcasting. I voted in favour of the Second Special Report on broadcasting to come out in the 1972–73 Session. I did so on the general principle that, like the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, I have been in favour of this proposal for as long as I have been in this House—since 1964. I did it only for that reason, because I believe the Committee did not fully discuss the problems that arise from it. The Second Special Report of the Committee is simply one sentence, to the effect that the Expenditure Committee asked the House to authorise the broadcasting of the Committee's public proceedings.
I would not wish to lay much stress on that. The Committee was aware at the time that it put this forward that it did so simply to get the subject aired. Technically, if such a resolution were passed by the House, it would have no effect whatever because the Committee does not have any public proceedings. With the exception of our discussion with the Lord President the Committee hardly ever

449
interviews witnesses. It leaves that to its sub-committees and it deliberates in private.
In consequence the number of public meetings of the Expenditure Committee is practically nil. It would have to be the proceedings of the sub-committees that would be broadcast. We sought to raise the principle. Much as I am in favour of that principle I feel that we must consider the implications and the difficulties. There are no difficulties of substance with radio broadcasting with one exception. It is not possible to do it in the way recommended by the Select Committee which considered broadcasting the proceedings of the House—that is, by producing a feed from the House from which the broadcasting authorities could select what they wanted. That is because Committees are discontinuous bodies.
it might be that to provide enough work for the unit preparing the feed we would literally have to distribute the Select Committees of the House in such a way that one met on Monday, another on Tuesday and so on. Otherwise we would have the extraordinary situation of the personnel producing the feed trying to cover the meetings of two or three Select Committees at the same time on a Wednesday and having no work on a Monday or Tuesday.
There is, however, no significant problem with radio broadcasting. With televising the proceedings there comes the problem of the excessive heat generated by the lights required for colour television. Technologically it is possible to produce cameras which do not require excessive light, but no one is doing that development work because there is no motivation for it. Until the House decides that it wants this work done, it will never get done.
There is much to be said for us agreeing to radio broadcasting and then developing the necessary camera for televison work. I do not think that hon. Members would want to sit for hours in the heat and light required for present-day colour television. We would certainly need to spend a considerable amount of money upon air-conditioning in the appropriate Committee Room otherwise hon. Members would be collapsing in the heat.
450
Nevertheless, I agree with previous speakers who have said that there is no earthly reason why, even if the House does not want its proceedings broadcast, its Committees should not be broadcast. The obvious example is the United States. Many people do not realise that the Senate has consistently rejected television and radio broadcasting of its proceedings but has said, "It is nothing to do with us if our committees want to be broadcast." It has said that although it does not wish its proceedings as a chamber to be broadcast, it is willing to leave it to its committees to decide whether they will permit broadcasting. Sometimes they do not permit it, for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees. They feel that it would be better not to do so. Sometimes the committees are simply not newsworthy. It is only in certain cases that broadcasting is permitted by the individual committee.
There is no reason why the House should not be as tolerant as the Senate and say that it does not want its proceedings broadcast—which is what it says at the moment—but that it sees no reason why facilities should not be established to make it possible for the proceedings of the Committee to be broadcast.
Mr. Dell: The trouble is that the Expenditure Committee does not seem to have considered some of the difficulties before placing this motion before the House. My hon. Friend mentioned the United States Senate. Has he seen the proceedings of the Watergate Committee? Without commenting on the rights and wrongs of the situation, does he not think, with his high standards, that the Watergate Committee is conducting its proceedings in an adversary atmosphere and without due regard to the rights of witnesses? Would it not be necessary for the Expenditure Committee, in making this sort of suggestion, seriously to consider that point? There is a difference between the proceedings of the House and those of a Select Committee. A Select Committee hears evidence from persons who are not Members of this House.
Mr. English: My right hon. Friend has a point. I accept that it should be considered. I was trying to explain that the Committee was considering the principle and not detailed problems. I accept that

451
the proceedings of a Committee taking evidence are quite different from proceedings in the House or elsewhere. I see no reason why court proceedings should not be broadcast, as they are in the United States, but if a Committee were inquiring into matters of a possibly criminal nature there is plainly a difference between that and the sort of thing we are normally doing in the Expenditure Committee. Incidentally I have seen portions of the Watergate Committee hearings.
In the Expenditure Committee we are normally inquiring into policy alternatives. There is no shame in a man coming along and saying "I believe in X although someone else believes in Y". That is something the average witness is prepared to do in public, and does.
I should like the hon. Member for Nottingham, South to consider that as a member of the Expenditure Committee I find that the parliamentary Press does not cover its proceedings. He says that broadcasting a Committee's proceedings would give it the same facilities as the Press has. Unfortunately the Press does not have in Parliament the facilities which it has in relation to Departments of State. One of the things this House needs is a series of information officers such as Departments of State have. The Department of the Environment has an information section comprising 160 persons.
This House has none. It is not possible for the Press to cover every Committee. It might be possible for the Press to cover a particular Committee if it were known that that Committee was where the news was, but the parliamentary Press is limited in number and has no facilities for finding out which are the newsworthy Committees, so the parliamentary Press simply does not go to any Committees.
Sometimes the Press Association covers Committees, but Select Committees meet at the busiest time in the afternoon and often no representative of the parliamentary Press is present at all. Occasionally the economics correspondents of newspapers will attend meetings of the General Sub-Committee, and as a result they often write articles. I imagine that diplomatic correspondents might come to the Foreign Affairs and Defence Sub-Committee if it were discussing something of relevance to them, but they have to be informed that such discussions are
452
taking place. That is done on an amateur basis by the House because it has not an information section as has a Department of State. More is involved than broadcasting procedures. The House needs to brush up its relations with the Press, not least with the foreign and Commonwealth Press who are treated almost as if they were lepers compared with our home Press.
I do not want to go into questions of staff, which have been discussed ably by my colleagues, but the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said was not being done by the Expenditure Committee will never be done unless it has an adequate staff. For the final audit of the same Government expenditure the Comptroller and Auditor-General, as an Officer of Parliament, has a staff approaching 500. The Ombudsman who investigates complaints has a staff of about 90. The staff of the Expenditure Committee consists of one Clerk per sub-committee, one specialist adviser per sub-committee, and that is it.
That is not good enough. Sooner or later the Lord President will have to consider whether he wants an effective Expenditure Committee. We have long suspected that Governments do not want an effective Expenditure Committee. To be effective it needs a staff that could look at each item of the Public Expenditure White Paper and say, "The average increase this year is 10 per cent. but that item has gone up by 25 per cent ; why is that?" That is what is needed if the committees are to work as was originally intended. Without such a staff that cannot be done and that is why it has not been done. In my view it should be done, but it would need a substantial increase in the staff of the committee.
8.3 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: To me, as a member of both the Procedure Committee and the Expenditure Committee, this has been an interesting debate. It is difficult to take one's mind back to the time when the Procedure Committee discussed the setting up of the Expenditure Committee, but I wonder whether at that time we asked the Government for an undertaking that time would be available in the House to discuss and carry out all the obligations which the Expenditure Committee was intended to carry out.

453
My guess is that, although members of the Expenditure Committee, who do a great deal of work—and could do a great deal more—are interested in it, the whole House is not necessarily so interested in it. I think I am right in saying that we never had a decision from the Government that there would be sufficient parliamentary time to discuss the work of the Expenditure Committee as it should be discussed.
To give one example, I was present during the discussions in the Expenditure Committee on whether each sub-committee should be allowed to report direct to the House. I can see the advantage of that to those hon. Members who are working on the committees, but on the other hand, having been in the House of Commons for much of my life, I know that many reports have emerged from various committees which, sometimes regrettably, have never been discussed in the House. If every sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee reported direct to the House, what chance would there be of all those reports—even the most brilliant of them—being discussed on the Floor of the House? Who would decide which reports should be discussed in the House? Although that is an attractive procedure, it is not practicable. Will the Leader of the House say how much time these reports would be allowed to occupy on the Floor of the House?
If we had many debates on the reports of sub-committees hon. Members on both sides of the House would be getting up in a fury and asking why all those reports should occupy the time of the House when other matters of greater interest and political necessity should be debated. There would be rows in the House, and we should achieve nothing.
The Lord President might say that we are having this debate today yet very few hon. Members have taken the trouble to attend. The next thing would be for the Press to ask why we go on debating these matters when the House of Commons as a whole is not interested. If the Lord President said that there was to be a debate on whether taxpayers' money should be spent on putting up more schools or more houses, that might create an interest and controversy, but that is not a practicable proposition. As a member many years ago of a sub-committee dealing with education Estimates, with
454
other members I investigated a large number of bad schools in England, Wales and Scotland and the sub-committee made a most interesting report. That report was never discussed in the House and no action was ever taken on it, which is a great pity.
We must decide whether to disband the Expenditure Committee and return to the Estimates Committee, as some hon. Members favour, but if the Government have a crowded legislative programme in any Session I cannot see any Lord President allocating many parliamentary days either for discussion of reports by sub-committees reporting direct to the House or of the report of the Expenditure Committee which carries out the obligations outlined by the Procedure Committee.
Although I feel that the Expenditure Committee could do a great deal more which could be of value because of all the trouble everybody takes over its activities—and I have found that even when great efforts are made by back benchers it takes nearly ten years to win any battle against the executive—I cannot see how we can make the Expenditure Committee's reports more effective or even provide for a proper discussion of its reports.
I am sorry that I feel this way, because I strongly believe that the Select Committees could have done their work even more effectively. However, I do not see any Lord President agreeing to have a great many debates on Expenditure Committee reports in each parliamentary Session. Therefore, we must make up our minds whether it would be better to return to the Estimates Committee set-up, even though we were able to have fewer discussions on those reports, or whether we want to go on, as we are now, hoping for genuine and unanimous Expenditure Committee reports. Unless Expenditure Committee Members are present to take part in debates in the House on their reports, I do not see how we can exercise very much pressure on the Lord President to give us more time for discussion.
It is a little disappointing that we have reached this situation. However, since we have been called upon to discuss these reports today, the first day after the Christmas Recess, apart from the emergency recall last week, I cannot help wondering whether this has been done

455
deliberately to give the Lord President an opportunity to say, "You have made all sorts of suggestions—those of you who have come to the House to take part in the debate—but you do not seem to have much support either from your own Committee or from the House as a whole". However, if we lay down that each subcommittee must report direct to the House, that in turn would put us in a ridiculous position. I enjoy being a member of the Expenditure Committee, and I am only sorry that it has not operated more effectively and efficiently.
8.13 p.m.
Dr. David Owen: The democratic process represented through the parliamentary system has traditionally focused on the control of expenditure. It is worth looking at what we are discussing.
Government spending, central and local, now amounts to 40 per cent. of total national output. The proportion of Supply expenditure in terms of gross national product was 4 per cent. in 1870, 6 per cent. in 1910, 12 per cent. in 1930, 22 per cent. in 1960 and 27 per cent. in 1972. Although we have exercised our so-called control by the democratic process, over the century it must be observed that, give or take a few alterations, the situation has remained remarkably unchanged. This is the central problem which we should be discussing. As Government involvement in expenditure has become ever greater, I believe that Parliament's involvement in the control of that expenditure has been progressively reduced.
I have been struck by the feeling of complacency in this debate—the attitude that all is well with the way in which Parliament exercises its democratic control. I do not share that complacency. When I entered the House my frustrations were the obvious ones that flow from youth and impetuousness. I was told that after a few years I would forget these frustrations. However, I must confess that I now feel even more impatient with the processes of Parliament.
This Parliament, which spends a great deal of time discussing reform of industrial relations, reform of local government and reform of the constitution, does absolutely nothing substantial to reform the House of Commons. This is the great dilemma.
456
Therefore, we must look at the question of what is Government and what is Parliament.
Constitutional historians make great play of the fact that in the United States there is a separation of powers between the executive and the legislature and that in the British Parliament there is a fusion of powers. From that statement people conclude that, because there is a fusion of powers, there is also to some extent a sharing of powers between the Government and Parliament. I believe that this power-sharing is a façade. What little sharing there once was has been eroded by a combination of powerful government and equally powerful party machines. I believe that we shall never regain any control over the executive until we are prepared to challenge the growth of government and party machines and assert the independence of Members of Parliament. The Select Committee procedure, and potentially the Expenditure Committee machinery, could be a vehicle for the exercise of independence by Members of Parliament in forming a judgment across a fairly wide range of Government decision-making, and this is where I see the most hopeful line of reform.
The first myth that needs to be examined is that a multitude of decisions are made by the Government under the authority of Ministers. Many of these are decisions which Ministers never see and in which they never have any involvement. When we talk of ministerial responsibility, we are increasingly talking about decisions made almost without the knowledge of Ministers. It is in this area, more perhaps than in major policy decisions which come to the Cabinet, that government is completely unchecked by any form of democratic process. This is the area that comprises the most fertile territory for Members of Parliament to exercise some control ; it is a most important area for parliamentary activity.
When I have not been in government I have always, either as an Opposition or Government back bencher, been a member of a Select Committee. I served on the first Select Committee on Science and Technology. Looking back over a period of eight years, I cannot imagine what it is like to be a Member of Parliament who is not also a member of a Select Committee. I often wonder what other non-Select Committee Members must do.

457
Service on a committee takes a great deal of my time, but I spend some of my most worthwhile hours sitting in Select Committees. I do not think that I have devoted enough time to it, and if I had more effective assistance I feel that my work in the Select Committees would have been more effective. I have gained a great deal of knowledge from Select Committee activities. Over the years my colleagues and I have looked into Britain's nuclear power programme, defence matters and other important subjects. This has been educative for me and has helped to close the knowledge gap.
The knowledge gap can be a serious problem between back-bench Members and the Government. This knowledge gap allows Oppositions to adopt ridiculous postures which they have to undo when they find themselves in government. It is the weakness of the system that causes Opposition to do entirely different things when in government. The public tend to judge Parliament in terms of the contradictions that flow from this situation. They do not understand why Opposition act differently when in government. This is true in defence and in many other matters. When in opposition it is difficult to hold back-bench Members of Parliament to sensible policies with all the limitations that exist in a complex, interdependent world.
It is much easier to sloganise our way through difficult and complex policies, to trivialise issues and to make them appear simple. It is that which is undermining democracy. We shall restore people's faith in democracy only when they see the real Parliament and if we bring to the forefront of parliamentary activity the work which goes on upstairs in Select Committees where Members of Parliament discuss serious issues. We need not be ashamed of the fact that it is often difficult to discover the parties to which various Members belong because we all know that, of the complex decisions we make, a large number are questions of balance and judgment made by individuals, whether they be Ministers or Members of Parliament.
If we look at how we can make the Expenditure Committee effective, we come rapidly to the conclusion that it will be effective only if it is seen to have powers. One of those powers stems from its unanimity, and we should not scoff at
458
that. The fact that a report has been endorsed by hon. Members on both sides of the House is an important aspect of the Committee's influence.
Then we have to decide how we can reinforce that power, that unanimity and that influence. First, the general public have to know more about our activities. More important, at times the Government have to fear Committees of this kind. Until we use the power of the vote on the Floor of the House to reinforce Committee decisions, I do not believe that we shall effectively regain respect and power from Government Departments.
We need a situation in which a Minister says to his Department "If we go down this path and the Expenditure Committee has come down against it, I am not sure that I can get it through on the Floor of the House." It is as naked as that. Of course, I do not advocate that the Expenditure Committee should vote against the Government day in and day out. It should be a rare event occurring perhaps five or six times a year. But that is what must occur if we are to regain and assert our authority and influence.
It is an essential part of British entry into the Common Market that the executive should be subjected in this House to far more criticism and should be capable of losing a vote, if necessary on a bi-party basis, having compromised late into the night at Brussels, and having to come back to this House and, if necessary to go back to Brussels again. That was an aspect of democracy mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) in his Godkin lectures in 1969. At the time he was Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, but he spoke with considerable experience as a former Leader of the House who had set up a number of Select Committees, and he envisaged this separation taking place. I do not think we should fear that. If we wish to restore authority and respect for this House, we shall have to adopt this kind of separation.
This is a major reform and it will take time. We have to consider how we can do it in the short term. The Expenditure Committee has not been a success. It lacks cohesion. Essentially

459
it needs a central core, the General Sub-Committee, or something emerging between the PAC and the Expenditure Committee which I am inclined to favour—to monitor expenditure across the board, both prospective and retrospective. It needs to be staffed effectively.
There are problems in allowing the PAC to go into government and to look not only at retrospective decisions, as it does at the moment, but also at the same time to have a mandate to look forward at policy decisions actively being discussed in the Ministries. The Civil Service and the Government machine would find it very difficult to adjust to the rôle of PAC investigators looking forward as well as backwards. But it is inevitable and it has to come. However, there are difficulties for the Government machine when one starts looking forward into policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has already moved the PAC significantly into policy, as was inevitable. Apart from anything else, hon. Members want to be involved in policy. That is why they come here. They are not auditors or tax specialists. Looking purely backwards is not enough for them. That rôle will have to be performed, of course, but it lends itself to being performed by officials buttressed by Members of Parliament exercising their judgment. But clearly the Expenditure Committee needs some central monitoring rôle.
As for its sub-committees, inevitably if they are small they will not perform that monitoring rôle effectively. They should do, but, having tried desperately to see the Defence Sub-Committee monitor the complex expenditure with which it is involved, I am forced to the conclusion that it is essential to become involved in detailed policy decisions. However, it has not been a total failure. In one small way the capability of the Defence Sub-Committee to look at our nuclear weapons programme in the 1980s was a significant expansion of democratic control inconceivable even five years ago. It discussed complicated issues of policy and the expenditure implications. It brought them together in a unanimous report producing a solution which many Ministers and senior civil servants did not like since it did not reinforce all their beliefs and also the sub-committee sought
460
the advice of outside experts, predominantly in the United States. The total exercise was a significant advance in democratic control.
The sub-committee would be helped greatly if it had more staff. At present it has two people on secondment from the PAC. I believe that that is the way it will have to go if it is to move forward. The practice of having people who already have worked in Government Departments and who have seen through their PAC rôle how the Government machine works is already showing benefits, providing that they continue to divorce themselves from their past PAC rôle and use their experience.
It may be that initially we shall always have to insist that the staff make a distinction between their PAC retrospective investigatory rôle and their coming on to a policy committee. They can no longer expect the same access to departmental information. They can no longer expect to operate on that information and on the valuable material obtained from outside. One of their essential rôles is to challenge Government views and to bring in a wider range of people. For example, there is a need for various pressure groups in the country to think of the Expenditure Sub-Committees as bodies to which they can make representations.
It is high time that Parliament was seen as a focus for representation from pressure groups. We should cease the endless creation of Royal Commissions or interdepartmental committees—a succession of ad hoc bodies answerable to no one, usually as an excuse for delay—when the Government and Parliament have available on their own doorstep an excellent investigatory machine that can make reports more quickly and represent the views of the democratically-elected Members culling in the experts and their knowledge. This is how Parliament will regain its power and control.
We are believed to be now arguing about what is democracy. We will no doubt go through a period of four weeks in which all the major issues of a democracy are sloganised and trivialised. I doubt whether the British parliamentary or democratic system will be strengthened in the next four weeks if, as we are led to believe, there is to be a General Election. Indeed, I suggest that it will be

461
looked upon as irresponsible and damaging to Parliament.
Be that as it may, this House is deluding itself if it does not face the fact that outside there is considerable concern about the way we conduct our business. Most of us recognise this situation. If we want to get something across, we try to arrange to speak on television or to write an article in one of the national newspapers. Very few hon. Members believe that any serious note will be taken of this kind of debate. One has only co look at the Press Gallery. Those great protectors of democracy are not interested in the serious discussion that goes on in this House. They do not write about it. They could not care less. They will pontificate in their editorials, but they will not bother to listen to a debate like this.
One problem is that, when Members of Parliament do hard work on an all-party basis and produce detailed unanimous recommendations, they see not only Parliament but the Press taking precious little notice of them. Some of the fault is ours. We should seriously consider allowing television into Select Committee proceedings. I have often wondered why we do not broadcast debates on radio by linking up the microphones in the House. It could be a first step towards the eventual televising of proceedings.
We would be making a great mistake if we did not accept that all is not well. We should start with expenditure, because that is the only effective way to have any democratic safeguards. This is the way that we shall be able to vote against the executive and control the growing machine of government. Let us be under no illusion. It means that those who expect to be in government must say in government the same as they said in opposition. That means being prepared to give power to the Opposition across the Floor of the House to criticise the Government. It is difficult for Governments to do this. Procedure in this House is controlled not by the House but by the Government. We all know that to be a fact of life.
Very few Leaders of the House have seen their rôle as protecting the House. They talk about it, but they are primarily servants of the Government. They serve in the Cabinet and have rarely been prepared to fight for the rights of this House. One party will have to take office with,
462
as a major part of what they as the Government will do, the reform of this House in a way which will make life uncomfortable for them. That is asking a lot of politicians. It is easy to be in favour of Select Committees when in opposition, but it is much harder to be in favour of them when in government. To some extent the present Government have moved quite a long way in that direction and deserve some credit for it. The amount of information that the Defence Committee has been given has been a breakthrough. But it is not enough and it is not public enough, because it is given only to the eight members of the Committee.
We are building very slowly. It is not adequate to continue in an ad hoc way. We must move towards a definite decision to separate some of the powers of Parliament from the executive. I do not suggest that we should go the whole way, as in the American system, because there are many powers that I wish to have retained by the executive. But that is the way that the decision should be made. From that, many other things would logically follow. I hope that the next Government will put reforms of that kind high on their list of priorities, because time will not be on their side.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. George Cunningham: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) will allow me to say that his speech was packed with common sense which only in the British House of Commons would be regarded as revolutionary. In most places it would be regarded just as common sense, and what he said would have been brought into effect long ago. In this place it is unusual to have so many obvious truths stated so clearly.
I disagree with what my hon. Friend said about prescriptions, for reasons to which I shall come later, but I am sure he is right in saying that we need to move to a situation in which it is far more common, both upstairs and on the Floor of the House, for Members to vote against their own side without that being regarded as a reflection upon them—in fact, just the opposite.
My hon. Friend suggested that the reform of the House would have to be

463
carried out by a disinterested Government. My hon. Friend is being unrealistic, because I do not think that there will ever be a Government, this side of paradise, who will be prepared to limit their freedom by increasing the powers of other Members of the House ; but the Government represent approximately only 100 votes out of 630, and if other Members of the House, those on the Opposition and on the Government side wish to do so they can change the House, whether the Lord President likes it or not, and that is a situation that we should encourage.
In accordance with that feeling I apologise to the Lord President of the Council for having to fix my beady eye upon him in making my remarks. I should much prefer to address other Members, but the trouble is there are no others present.
In a slightly less imperfect situation I should be addressing my remarks to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and I say that in no criticism of the Father of the House who is the Chairman of that Committee. It is the habit of the House that a debate such as this takes place without the Chairman of the Procedure Committee having any rôle to play. No self-respecting legislature would for an instant support that situation.
If this House of Commons were competent in running its own affairs the matters we are discussing tonight would have gone to the Procedure Committee and the House would have had a report from that Committee on what it thought of these matters before itself discussing them.
With that apology to the Leader of the House I shall continue to fix my beady eye upon him.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) wondered how we could change the situation in which important debates such as this are thought to be important by only a handful of Members and by hardly anyone else except a few cognoscenti amongst the academics outside the House. This is one issue on which I have changed my mind since being elected to Parliament.
When I came here, I felt that change could be brought about by an initiative inside the House only. Clearly, any change will have to be implemented by Members of Parliament, but if one
464
is realistic one realises that the initiative will have to come from outside the House ; or at least it will have to be a joint operation by interested Members and an outside campaigning body. I am thinking of something that would do for parliamentary affairs what Chatham House does for foreign affairs. It would be somebody between the academics and Government Departments in its approach. It would be extremely practical. It would see its function as that of campaigning to expose and ridicule this place till it gave up its manifestly bad ways in favour of more competent and democratic processes.
I wanted to say that in the presence of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, because he is not unconnected with about the only source of funds which might conceivably finance such an organisation—I do not refer to the Liberal Party—and which is not limited to providing funds for charitable purposes, because the improvement of the House of Commons could hardly be regarded as that.
It is right, after three years of operation of the Expenditure Committee and the way it had discharged its rôle, that it should be subjected to review. I agree entirely with those of my colleagues who have said that to all intents and purposes the Expenditure Committee is simply the old Estimates Committee with a change of title. It has produced the same kind of reports in the same kind of way and has done no additional work which the old Estimates Committee could not have done.
From my own experience of the Committee, I can think of only one respect in which there has been an improvement. Because we have continuing sub-committees covering individual areas of policy it is possible for a sub-committee, if it wishes, to pick up again a subject on which it has previously reported. One of the most useful operations of the subcommittee on which I serve, that covering the environment and the Home Office, was to call again before us witnesses from the Home Office on the matter of probation about a year after we had produced a report on that subject and to see what had been done about it. To our surprise we found that a number of things had been done. If that practice were more common, reports would not

465
tend to be put on a shelf in Whitehall and nothing more done.
First, the Expenditure Committee is only the old Estimates Committee with a different title. Secondly, it is not a Committee but a panel too large to be an effective Committee and only as large as it is because we need to draw from it enough people to form six subcommittees. Thirdly, if it is a Committee, it is certainly not an Expenditure Committee because the one thing which it hardly does anything about is public expenditure.
It is intriguing that tomorrow the House will vote on account £6,724 million, and on another Vote £883 million. Let us call that £½ billion. No Committee of this House has looked at those proposals ; no Committee has looked at the detail which is provided to back up that total sum. No one suggests that any Committee ought to look at the detail behind those proposals. We do not look at the Estimates before the Expenditure Committee and we do not, though we should, look at the Public Expenditure White Paper. It is debated on the Floor of the House and no more than noted, but in the Expenditure Committee and in the sub-committees the White Paper is not examined. It may be by choice of the sub-committees that they do not examine it, but the fact remains that they do not. I see the Chairman of the Committee indicating dissent. I take it that his point is that the General Sub-Committee has looked at the White Paper and at the priorities implicit in it. My point is that the subcommittees concerned with individual areas of policy over the last three years have not gone into the three White Papers which have been available to be investigated, with the exception of the operations of the General Sub-Committee on relationships between different programmes. The Public Expenditure White Paper has been as neglected by the Expenditure Committee and subcommittees as have been the Estimates, by which Parliament formally authorises funds.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I do not want to accuse the hon. Gentleman of unfairness, because he is a diligent attender at our Committee, but exactly what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-
466
Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and his Committee do is examine the Public Expenditure White Paper and report on it as promptly as they can with the help of professional advisers. I cannot see how any Committee or sub-committee of the House can do more than what the hon. Member and his sub-committee do. I am not clear whether the hon. Member excludes or includes them in his strictures.
Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful for that intervention. To be more accurate, I should exclude the General Sub-Committee because it has done its job on the White Paper. I was thinking of the subject sub-committees, which cover all but one of the total. It is true of all of them that the investigation of the White Paper has not been what was envisaged for them by the Procedure Committee. The task of the Expenditure Committee has been the same as the task of the Estimates Committee—to pick a subject, produce a report on it and go on to another subject.
The fact that that has been done by a Committee called the Expenditure Committee has been relevant only to the extent that hon. Members felt that there needed to be some expenditure relevance of the subject which they chose before they felt free to adopt it. For example, my sub-committee, although covering Home Office matters, would feel precluded from adopting a legal subject which did not have financial implications. Subject only to that, we pick subjects of policy and deal with them in succession without having regard to the expenditure implications.
Mr. Joel Barnett: The point is that, while the General Sub-Committee has done the job referred to by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), it has done a particular job on the total of public expenditure. What it has not done, and presumably what it has not the capacity to do because of the time available, is to make a comparison between different items of expenditure in the White Paper. For that purpose another sub-committee or an expansion of the General Sub-Committee may be required.
Mr. Cunningham: I agree. I shall leave until later what I think should be the

467
natural and common sense solution to the problem.
Perhaps I can illustrate the carelessness with which the House approaches the business of sub-committees by referring to the question of overseas aid. The House has two sub-committees which theoretically have to do with overseas aid—the Defence and Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, which could examine the aid estimates and aid content of the White Paper if it so wished, and the Select Committee on Overseas Development. Although on this subject we have not one but two committees—
Mr. Dell: Three. My hon. Friend forgets the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. Cunningham: I apologise. I omitted to refer to it perhaps because when the Public Accounts Committee intervened some while ago I thought that its conclusions were ill conceived.
In any event, we have two or three Committees which could oversee and scrutinise expenditure on overseas aid, but not one of them this year has considered or will consider the Government's proposals for expenditure on overseas aid. That causes no surprise to any hon. Member. That is how the House has always proceeded. But if one were to say that was the position to a member of any other legislature which I know, he would not believe it. For instance, when the French Government make expenditure proposals, those proposals are referred not to one but to several commissions of the French National Assembly. The same happens in Germany. It is odd that when seeking means by which the legislature could better control the executive we must look to Bonn or Paris rather than to Westminster.
If we were starting from scratch and thinking of the manner in which a sensible legislature should supervise and scrutinise the executive, we would surely conclude that there are three executive activities which need to be scrutinised—expenditure, legislation and general administrative action. If we were trying to devise a structure of Committees to scrutinise the executive, would we not wish the same one to take an interest in those activities which bore on expenditure, those to do with legislation and
468
those which were mere administration, rather than to seek different Committees dealing with different aspects of Government activity?
I would therefore believe that what we need are subject Committees, each adopting either one Government Department or a prescribed area of policy. They would be separate Select Committees reporting direct to the House, dealing with expenditure and with administration but not taking over the rôle of the Standing Committees on legislation. There would need to be one Committee which fulfilled the rôle of my hon. Friend's Sub-Committee on Public Expenditure generally. That would take away the need for the Expenditure Committee as we have it now.
Such subject Committees would need to be rather larger than the present subcommittees. They would have 12 to 15 members and that would be a positive advantage of separate Committees. As long as they are sub-committees, there is a limit to their size, because there is a limit—let us say 50—beyond which an Expenditure Committee would be foolish. So there is a limit of about eight or nine on the number of members in a subcommittee. The natural number for a subject committee would be larger.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) mentioned the EEC. If we had subject Committees, one of their functions would be to take as much interest in activities in Brussels and Strasbourg as in London. It would be natural for such Committees to supply some of the personnel for subject operations in Strasbourg as well as here.
One could argue for some time the case for subject Committees. It is so manifest that to go on at length only suggests that it is less obvious than it seems. I am sure that they will come. It is only a question of how much we resist them and how reluctant the House is to make the changes required.
The objections are easily dismissed. It is suggested that hon. Members should not become accountants—
Mr. Joel Barnett: Oh.
Mr. Cunningham: I understand that some already are.

469
If that argument were to hold the day, we need never have set up a Public Accounts Committee in the first place. We may be absolutely sure that, if Gladstone had not done it, no one would do it today because it would be too revolutionary.
It is also said that hon. Members should not become experts, that there is no need for them to be expert. It is part of the English disease to believe that a man is positively less competent to be a Minister if he is slightly expert in the subject with which he may be dealing. We have to get rid of that assumption.
We have virtually no control over the executive by the legislature at present. We must move in the direction of having more control. That means that hon. Members must be prepared to do their job in two different forums—in the Chamber, certainly, but also to an increasing extent in Committee. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) seemed to suggest that the affairs of the Committees would achieve nothing unless they were debated on the Floor of the House. But many things are debated on the Floor of the House in relation to which nothing happens on the part of the Government even then. Action by the Government can be brought about as a result of Committee activities which never come to the Floor of the House. That is what happens in many other legislatures and we must get accustomed to that direct dealing between Committees of the House and the Government, without the Floor of the House necessarily being involved.
The matter of staff is touched on in these reports. I do not share the view that hon. Members will become effective only when they have one or half-a-dozen research assistants. That is not the first step to take. The first step is for hon. Members to take some really lousy decisions. If they had taken bad decisions, we should be flooded with assistance in order to stop us doing anything so silly again. The first thing is for Members to decide that they are taking the decisions, and to take them. Then the administration required to ensure that those are good decisions will follow.
470
When it comes to the present staff of a Committee such as the Expenditure Committee, once again it is useful for the House to compare its ways with those of other legislatures. A few months ago I asked an American Congressman how many staff there were in Congress for giving procedural advice. We all know that the Americans have vast staffs for subject advice, but for giving procedural advice, the Congressman said, "I cannot remember the precise number, but it is the responsibility of the Parliamentarian." I think that that is what he called him. When I asked how many staff the Parliamentarian had—the Parliamentarian is the equivalent of our Clerk of the House—the answer was five or six, or something like that.
This House suffers from having too many Clerks who are far too intelligent for the job that needs to be done. The result is that the procedural decisions which should rest with Members are taken by the Clerks because the whole business has been erected into a mystery. There is no need for the mystery. If half of the rules got into the rule book instead of into that useless thing Erskine May, perhaps hon. Members would understand the rules and there would be no need for half a hundred Clerks to tell us what to do. At a time when we are having a change in this respect, I hope that the next Clerk of the House who produces another edition of Erskine May will have the thing wrapped around his neck, both being dropped into the river. We need more in the rules of order of the House and less in Erskine May.
Perhaps I have now condemned myself to complete futility in that no one will take seriously anything that I have said. But I conclude by referring to the matter of direct reporting from subcommittees and the way in which the Leader of the House has handled it or, rather, has not handled it. The Committee was absolutely clear on this matter. We said that we wanted direct reporting to take place. The Government's response, in Cmnd. 5187, was,
"This would be a matter for the House to decide. In the Government's view, however, it is important for the Expenditure Committee to develop an effective co-ordinated approach

471
to the scrutiny of public expenditure ; and they believe that the recommended change would not be helpful in this respect"
The Expenditure Committee as a whole cannot have a co-ordinated approach to anything. Forty-nine people simply cannot have such an approach ; there are too many of them. If the Committee has to have such an approach to public expenditure it must be limited to no more than 20 members. That rôle can be performed and is performed to a great extent by the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. The rôle of the rest of the Expenditure Committee is to look into their subject areas, to reach conclusions within the limits of each area, and to leave it to my hon. Friend and his General Sub-Committee to look at the relationship between them.
Going on from the content of the Government reply, we argued the matter with the Lord President on 9th April. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West quoted some of the Lord President's remarks and I should like to quote some of them. According to page 5 of the minutes he said, when pressed on the matter:
"I do not think I would want to stand out against this"
that is, direct reporting,
"if the Committee felt very strongly that Sub-Committee Reports should come direct to the House."
At a later stage he said:
"Certainly the House cannot decide it unless a Motion goes down. I personally have not been particularly keen on it ; but I must listen to what is said to me today and perhaps take the necessary action."
That was on 9th April 1973, but absolutely no action has been taken. He was to go away and think again.
I do not think it is reasonable for the Committee to place the whole blame on the Lord President. He should have done something in the intervening period, or at least have been in touch with the Committee and said that he stuck to his original view, or that he had amended it, or whatever, but if he did not, we should have chased him. But we all know that Committees are very much in the hands of the Lord President and that we cannot get anything on to the Floor of the House without his good will. I cannot remember whether it was unanimous, but it was certainly the majority view—
Dame Irene Ward: No, I did not vote for it.
Mr. Cunningham: It may not have been the view of the hon. Lady, but it was the majority view of the Committee that there should be direct reporting. For the Lord President to do nothing about the recommendation, after discussing it with us for nine months, is too bad.
I turn now to the need for reform of this place. The House is constantly producing reports about Whitehall Departments, their inefficiency and their follies, and how they should have thought of doing things in a better way before we told them how to do it. It would be nice some time to have Whitehall do a report on this place, because its inefficiencies and managerial incompetence are far greater than anything which the House has discovered in Whitehall. In the not-too-distant future, and hopefully with the assistance of some such outside body as I have mentioned, the public will take an interest not merely in what we say and do in this place but also in how we do it. If such a report were produced we would not come out of it with credit. We need to make these reforms as fast as we can, because they are long overdue.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Edmund Dell: The House seems to be in a reforming mood this evening. That is probably because it is empty. I hope that it will not be considered odd that any hon. Member should sit through the debate on the Expenditure Committee and its reports. I have done so I suppose because it is a brother Committee to my own. Now I take this opportunity of intervening with some remarks which may be affected by the fact that I happen for the time being to be Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I intervene now because I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) may wish to contradict a great deal of what I say, and I therefore give him this opportunity.
I have the impression that some of the problems of the proposal on broadcasting have not been thought through. It is true that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said, we do not often have Watergates in this country. Perhaps one of the reasons is that we do not have separation of powers, although I go a long way with what my

473
hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said.
Nevertheless we do have in the proceedings of our Select Committees very tense situations between the Committees and witnesses. I have the impression, mainly through following in the newspapers, the proceedings of the Expenditure Committee that that Committee has very tough sub-committee chairmen, and that they often fall out with witnesses. One needs to think out what method of protection of witnesses there would be if the proceedings were televised. I think, for example, of the recent investigations of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) into the situation in South Africa. There were many occasions then when it would have been reasonable, if the proceedings were being televised, for a witness to have had at least some protection against the eagerness of the Committee. In developing our procedures we should not depart from fairness with witnesses. It is unnecessary. There are temptations under the gaze of the television camera.
Mr. William Rodgers: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that Committees are unfair now in their dealing with witnesses? If they are not unfair now, why should they be unfair if television cameras were there? If they are unfair now, will my right hon. Friend explain in what way?
Mr. Dell: I cannot judge particular instances that occur in Committees. I say that there is a danger. There is a danger of drawing outside witnesses, who are nothing to do with the House, who are not even civil servants, but people from outside, to give evidence under conditions to which they are totally unaccustomed, possibly in a hostile atmosphere. I am simply saying that that question must be settled before the new procedure is recommended to the House.
I take the opposite view to that evidently taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert). I believe that it would be more acceptable to televise the proceedings of the House than the proceedings of a Select Committee. There are greater dangers in doing it the other way round. However, if my hon. Friends have an answer to the question when they have thought about the matter, which I do not believe they have
474
yet done, they should present it to the House.
I come to the very interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, with which I largely agreed. He mentioned the European Community and the effect our membership might have on the proceedings of the House. I have noticed, and I am sure the Government have noticed, that since we entered the European Community we have defeated the Government more times, not on major issues but on issues of some substance, than for a very long period, and on more occasions the Government have, unwillingly I suspect, accepted the will of the House. If some of my hon. Friends who take a different view of membership of the European Community from mine—there are not many here tonight, but there are some—are looking around for the benefits of our membership, perhaps there is here at any rate one benefit, that we are moving in the direction pointed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton.
My hon. Friend also said, and is obviously right, that there are taken in Departments many decisions of which Ministers are ignorant, for which they are in no real sense responsible, although they are responsible in a constitutional sense which is sometimes rather difficult to understand. I have come to the conclusion that in practice one of the major forms of responsibility within our constitutional system is that of the Accounting Officer to the Public Accounts Committee—the responsibility for all the decisions, many of which Ministers are not aware of.
There is an extraordinary situation in the Public Accounts Committee whenever there is a change of Government and some ex-Minister becomes the Committee's Chairman. He interviews his former civil servants on decisions for which he was constitutionally responsible and of which he probably was unaware, and even criticises the way those civil servants took those decisions. This is a large part of the substance of responsibility which exists within our constitutional system. The trouble is that the Public Accounts Committee does not have the capacity to deal with this problem as it should be dealt with. While hon. Members may be thinking of

475
how to improve the Expenditure Committee I am thinking of how to improve the Public Accounts Committee to shoulder better this important responsibility.
It was disappointing to note how many of my hon. Friends are dissatisfied with the way the Expenditure Committee has been operating. Perhaps I could follow the recent precedent of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees and say "I told you so." He had an interesting letter in The Times yesterday in which he referred to the Government reorganisation and the break up of the DTI, and the implication was "I told you so." I was most sceptical about the Expenditure Committee and I said so in this House. I was sceptical for one reason which lies behind many of the doubts expressed today and which is that, in so far as the remit of the Expenditure Committee has been specific, it has not been performed, and that that part of the remit which has been performed has been the general part which enables sub-committees of the Expenditure Committee to discuss overall policies in general terms. That is an interesting exercise for individuals, and some of the reports which have been produced have been most interesting and of a high standard, but they seem almost unrelated to the job of controlling the executive.
The Expenditure Committee was set up to assist the House in controlling the executive. The Committee has written essays, many of them very good, which have gone to Government Departments and which no doubt have been marked there according to their quality—some alpha, some beta, and some further down the Greek alphabet. That is no way to control the executive. To do that it is necessary to take specific subjects, to give them to Select Committees and to let the committees get on with it.
I shall give some examples. The Public Accounts Committee has a certain reputation in the Civil Service and perhaps sometimes in this House and not only because it has a very large staff in the form of the Exchequer and Audit Department, although that is an important element. The other reason is that it is highly specific in the nature of its inquiries. It is always asking questions such as "Here is your policy. Why do
476
you think these methods will enable you to achieve this policy?" That is the very specific kind of question to which the Public Accounts Committee devotes itself.
This House has developed Select Committees over the last few years. We do not need more general Select Committees such as the Expenditure Committee or the Select Committee on Overseas Aid, but Select Committees dealing with specific subjects. I should like to see Select Committees on legislation. Legislation presents specific problems which the House is charged to consider and which it considers most ineffectively, but which it could consider far more effectively through the process of Select Committees.
I took the view at the time and I repeat it now that the establishment of the Expenditure Committee, with the exception of the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, which has a specific remit, was a mistake. I suspected that the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee was at one time trying to turn itself into a Select Committee on economic affairs. That would have been unfortunate. Recently it has been devoting itself more to its real responsibilities. It has made a great success of presenting the House with information which would not otherwise have been available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees remarked on the relations between the Public Accounts Committee and the Expenditure Committee. That is an important matter which is worthy of consideration. It is undoubtedly true that there has been duplication. There has been duplication in our investigation of Concorde, RB211 and various other projects. If such duplication could be avoided, so much the better. There is always the possibility that the one will entrench on the other. One possibility would be to consider unifying the two Committees, but in that there would be major problems.
We shall certainly have to consider whether there is a clear line of demarcation between the two Committees. One thing which must take place is liaison between the two Committees. I do not like the line of demarcation which has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees, namely, that the Expenditure Committee should deal with the development of policy and

477
should look prospectively forward, and that the Public Accounts Committee should look retrospectively at expenditure already incurred. We must be careful in imagining that the Public Accounts Committee is concerned only with matters retrospective. It is certainly retrospective facts which give rise to that Committee's investigations, but its investigations have definite forward implications—for example, the inquiry into North Sea oil.
There are difficulties about my hon. Friend's suggestion. One is that the Public Accounts Committee has responsibilities to this House. It has responsibilities to investigate the accounts. We cannot allow that responsibility to be put aside. There is not only expenditure but income.
There is a better possible division between the two Committees. The Public Accounts Committee should be responsible for investigating the economy and the administration with which policy is pursued, be it past, present or future. It should be responsible for putting to Government Departments, as it does now, the following question, "Why do you expect these means, this administration and this expenditure to achieve the objective which you say is your objective?"
The Public Accounts Committee, in doing that, would not question the Government's policy. It would accept that policy and consider the means and the administration. It would leave to the Expenditure Committee the area in which it has proved to be most interested—namely, the formation of policy and consideration of priorities among policies, a matter—priorities—which I confess I doubt whether Select Committees have the capacity to undertake. Nevertheless if the Expenditure Committee thinks that it can do so, all well and good. Information about the way in which priority decisions are made could certainly be within the scope of the Expenditure Committee. That would be a better division between the Public Accounts Committee and the Expenditure Committee.
Undoubtedly there is a problem, and it is one worth thinking about. Possibly this could be done by liaison between the two Committees. Or perhaps there
478
might be some other method which the Government might suggest.
9.19 p.m.
Mr. John Roper: I n spite of the earlier remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), I find relatively little in what he had to say with which I must disagree. Like my right hon. Friend, I feel that in the development of the work of the Public Accounts Committee, which is now occurring under his chairmanship, and in the development of the work of the Expenditure Committee it is important that there is discussion and liaison to ensure that both Committees are as effective as possible.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of our membership of the European Economic Community and the work of the Committees. One of the arguments which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have developed against membership of the EEC—it has been an effective argument and one with which I agree—is that it has given greater powers to the executive and that it has taken matters out of the control of this House and, for the time being, of the European Parliament. In this area Select Committees might have an important part to play.
I wish to speak briefly in assessing the first three years' work of the Expenditure Committee with reference to the special reports which we are considering. Three years ago, as a new Member of the House, I was fortunate to be allocated to the General Sub-Committee, which has escaped the criticisms which have been made of some of the other Committees. I am not sure that we deserve to escape all those criticisms because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said, we have at times preferred to consider the macro-economic effects of public expenditure rather than the balances between the various Departments, which is an essential function of our task.
In its first three years of existence the General Sub-Committee has shown the need for a Select Committee on Expenditure, and perhaps the reason why the other sub-committees have not developed as well as was initially hoped lies in the question of staff, to which I shall return.
The question has been raised whether we should have one Select Committee

479
on Expenditure or several subject Committees for different groups of Government Departments. Irrespective of the argument about direct reporting or the way in which we confirm sub-committee reports, my view is that there are probably advantages in keeping a general Expenditure Committee which has much more flexibility to tackle particular problems as they arise. I do not think that a pattern of subject Committees is necessarily the right one, nor do I think that the all-important links between the general monitoring of the expenditure programmes of the Government and the analyses carried out by the various subcommittees would work with a series of subject Committees. It would be a mistake to try to latch on to its structure things which the Expenditure Committee was never intended to do.
For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) referred to the pre-legislative study of the material in the Companies BUI which should be done by a subcommittee, but that is not what a subcommittee of the Expenditure Committee should appropriately do. One might question whether a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee is the right body to investigate British investment in South Africa. In the absence of a Select Committee for that purpose, I am glad that my hon. Friend's sub-committee could do it. I hope that the Lord President will bear in mind that we should not overload the Expenditure Committee and that we should ensure that it tackles its principal job rather than doing things which should be carried out by other parliamentary procedures.
As I was not in the House during the existence of the Estimates Committee, it is difficult for me to assess the relative merits of the Estimates Committee and the Expenditure Committees. Some of the sub-committees seem not to have changed their personnel or their mode of action greatly. I hope that with appropriate staff we shall be able to ensure that this will occur in future.
I was interested in the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) that there is need for investigations into the operation of the House and its Select Committees and the activities of its Clerks. I wonder whether we should persuade the
480
Lord President to arrange for a Select Committee of permanent secretaries or perhaps for the Central Policy Review Staff to carry out a PAR analysis on the Houses of Parliament in the near future. It would make an interesting document for a Select Committee of this House subsequently to review.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has raised some important questions en the effect of the investigatory activities of Select Committees in the event of their being televised. I readily accept that there are problems along the lines to which he referred. This is a matter which I hope the House and the Select Committee on Expenditure can consider further. I am sorry that tonight we are merely taking note of the recommendation and do not have an opportunity to vote upon it. Controlled experiments would be of value. We could then assess whether the problem to which my right hon. Friend referred was serious.
It seems unfortunate that, when the Opposition were prepared to provide a Supply Day for a debate on this subject, they did not ensure that there was the opportunity to vote on some of the Select Committee's recommendations. I can only blame that upon the usual channels.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Gold-smid) has returned to the Chamber because I want to refer to his remarks, as chairman of the Committee, about the question of staffing. We have the Second Special Report from the Expenditure Committee for the Session 1970–71 before us. That report was initiated before the hon. Gentleman became chairman of the Committee. His remarks did not follow the recommendations of paragraphs 30–32 of the report, and, indeed, that was not necessary. It was more than two years ago that the setting up of a unit to carry out the precise monitoring function referred to so much today was recommended.
There are four different types of staff which a Select Committee could have. First there are the specialist advisers for particular and specific inquiries. In some cases it may be that outside specialist advisers could continue operating over a number of inquiries. I add my tribute to those already paid to the work of Wynne Godley, Director of the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge, who

481
has served the General Sub-Committee as an excellent specialist adviser since its inception. That is because he is a gamekeeper turned poacher, having been responsible while in the Treasury for a good deal of the work which resulted in the setting up of the public expenditure system. He was therefore peculiarly well-equipped to advise the General Sub-Committee and has done so excellently. Most of the other sub-committees considering particular areas of policy have inevitably changed their specialist adviser as they have gone along.
Secondly we have the Clerks of the House, who have provided excellent assistance. Inevitably and essentially they are non-specialist advisers. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) has mentioned, he has had the advantage, on the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee, of having two officers from the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General seconded to the sub-committee to work with it. This is a most interesting experiment and I hope that my hon. Friend's sub-committee will in due course report to the House upon how this experiment has gone.
We should have a staff unit of our own along the lines laid down in a rather modest way initially in the Second Special Report of 1970–71. It recommended that there should be a small, full-time, properly-equipped secretariat comprising, say, a head of section and two subordinates. They would have the function of carrying out precise monitoring of public expenditure figures contained in the many documents which come from the Government to the Expenditure Committee and of ensuring that problems which should be considered are put before the various subcommittees. They would perform for the sub-committees of the Expenditure Committee the same rôle as the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff carry out for the Public Accounts Committee in pinpointing problems which should be investigated in more detail.
I differ from the hon. Member for Walsall, South since I regard this as a different task from the job carried out by the specialist adviser who comes in to assist on a particular problem. The
482
rôle of the full-time staff would be to monitor the figures and to spot the things that should be investigated in more detail. It is only when the Expenditure Committee has such a staff carrying out a monitoring function that the development of its work can take place, as I believe was the intention in the Green Paper and in the discussions which took place in this House in 1970. Because we have not had this sort of staff at our disposal, we have not developed in the way which was hoped and, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead can now truly say that he told us so in 1970.
Unless we have a staff such as I have outlined, I believe that the distinction between the Expenditure Committee and the old Estimates Committee will not be as clear as was intended and we shall fail to carry out the essential rôle of a Select Committee of the House in dealing with public expenditure, in controlling the activities of the executive and in ensuring that the House has appropriate reports and information on which to make decisions.
9.32 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): This has been an interesting and very worthwhile debate. I shall not make the obvious remarks but merely say it is a pity that more hon. Members were not present to listen to the various contributions. The debate has ranged widely and has raised a great number of points which I shall try to cover in my speech.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) said he felt that, once Select Committee members got their teeth into an interesting subject, they enjoyed their work and felt that they were doing something worth while. I agree with the hon. Gentleman since I have had similar reports from hon. Members in all parts of the House to that effect. The hon. Gentleman said he thought that three years was too short a time in which to judge whether a Committee was likely to succeed. Whether or not the Expenditure Committee has been a success, I should like at the outset of my remarks to express my personal gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H.

483
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) for all his work and also to all other hon. Members who have played their part in the work of the Select Committee and its sub-committees.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) asked whether the Expenditure Committee was doing its job of inquiring into expenditure. While he was speaking I took a quick glance at the three reports which the House discussed a little earlier. I noted that the Committee has been far more interested in the policy side than in the way money should be spent. I think there is a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman said about the future division of responsibility between the Public Accounts Committee and the Expenditure Committee.
As I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he thought that the PAC should investigate the economy and the administration which governs the economy—
Mr. Dell: Policy.
Mr. Prior: —and that the Expenditure Committee should concern itself much more with policy, the formation of priorities and so on. This will be examined along with all the other suggestions which have been made.
At this point perhaps I might make another general remark. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House consider that a major reform of our procedures and of what might be called our institutions is necessary. The difficulty always is that there are a number of conservatives—with a small "c"—on both sides of the House who would resist any such reforms. It is always very much harder for a Government or even for an Opposition to move on this matter than the mass of hon. Members perhaps realise.
Whatever hon. Members have said about this Parliament drawing to its close, I make no comment. Indeed, I know nothing about it. It may be that before the end of this Parliament or in the next Parliament we shall want to make considerable changes in the way we conduct our affairs. I think that a Select Committee system rather more pointed and rather less diffuse than at the moment will have an important part to play.
We have got into the habit of a few enthusiasts thinking that it would be a
484
good idea if they could investigate something, with the result that suggestions come forward to set up a Select Committee to look at it. That is not a very satisfactory way of running our business. This again is a matter of which we shall need to take account in future.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said that parliamentary control had become less as its expenditure had become greater. In some ways that is true. Even m the time that I have been in the House the voting of Supply has changed. I have been in the House only since 1959 but, when I first came here, quite often on a Supply afternoon there were three or four speeches concerned with the actual granting of Supply before we got on to the Opposition motion for the afternoon. We have got completely away from that habit, and I do not think that the Expenditure Committee has yet taken its place.
I agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton that, if Parliament is to be seen to be relevant to the public outside, it has to reform and has to be seen to be a worthwhile activity. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that Parliament can be effective only if it has more power.
Having said that, I believe that the power and the rôle of the back bencher has increased in the past few years. It showed itself remarkably in the last year or two of the Labour administration, and there have been many occasions in this Parliament when back benchers have told the Government what they had to do if they wanted to get a majority. On many occasions I have found myself having to tell my colleagues that such and such a policy would not be acceptable to back benchers and, therefore, that it had to be modified.
I do not take the view that the rôle of the back benches is constantly diminishing. However, there is a growing frustration among back benchers about their ability to do their job properly when so many of them are either full-time or at least extremely energetic Members of Parliament.
Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman means in the two major parties.
Mr. Prior: Not at this stage. I am trying to be as generous as I reasonably can be to all parties.

485
I turn now to the strictures by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) on the management not only of Parliament but of the Houses of Parliament. Without in any way overstepping the mark on to other people's responsibilities, I hope he will see Sir Edmund Compton and put his views to him because Sir Edmund's rôle in improving the administration of this place could be very important.
The hon. Gentleman accused me of saying to the Committee that I would again consider whether sub-committees should be allowed to report direct to the House and then take no further action. The House should know that I wrote to the chairman of the Committee and expressed the view that it was better for sub-committees to report through the full Expenditure Committee rather than direct as sub-committees. I think that some sub-committees have been more enthusiastic than others. Some have produced much better reports than others. We do not want sub-committees that are too large. I am not in favour of large subcommittees. A large sub-committee tends to be dominated by either the chairman or one or two hon. Members who always want to put their points of view, and the other Members of the Committee get bored and do not turn up. That is not a satisfactory position. Therefore, I do not support large sub-committees.
Mr. George Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prior: Yes, when I have concluded this point. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees asked whether we required sub-committees. Would we be better placed if we had individual committees instead of sub-committees? That is a matter that we could consider, but there is something to be said for having a committee that welds the whole thing together and would do what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton wants done—namely, to speak with real authority on behalf of the Expenditure Committee.
Mr. Cunningham: I want to press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of sub-committees. We know that he is opposed to sub-committees reporting direct to the House. The Government's reply made that clear and the right hon. Gentleman told us that when we examined
486
him before the full Committee. But he also acknowledged on that occasion that it was a matter for the House to decide. In practical terms, that means that a motion must be put down. Is he prepared to put down a motion containing that proposition so that the House can decide whether to accept his view or the view of the Expenditure Committee?
Mr. Prior: I am not by any means certain that it is the view of the Expenditure Committee as a whole. From discussions that I have had with hon. Members who are not on the Committee, I have found quite a bit of opposition to that course. Therefore, I have not thought it right to put down that particular motion. However, there was nothing to stop hon. Gentlemen putting down a motion today if they wished to do so.
Mr. Cunningham: The Expenditure Committee has made a special report to the House saying that it wishes to have direct reporting. How can the Leader of the House say that the Expenditure Committee thinks this or that? It is not for him to go behind a special report of the Committee to the House.
Mr. Prior: I have heard one member of the Expenditure Committee this afternoon say that he is not in favour of direct reporting by sub-committees. I am not saying that the Expenditure Committee did not want it, but I know of other hon. Members who have strongly objected to this course. Therefore, for that reason and because the Government have not so far approved of it, I have not put down that motion. There is no reason why the hon. Gentleman could not have put down such a motion. It could have been taken with today's business if that had been thought necessary.
I now come to the question of the time available for debates. We have given the usual three days. One was taken by the Public Accounts Committee early in the Session, one is being used today and generally a third day is made available. In addition, we are making one day available for a debate on the White Paper on Public Expenditure, and during the debate on the Budget, although one cannot guarantee that other subjects will not be raised by hon. Members, a day is being provided for a debate on public expenditure. Time is available for debates, and

487
it is a great shame that hon. Members other than members of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) have not taken part in today's debate.
On the question of televising Committee proceedings. I made my view clear when I gave evidence to the Committee. The House had passed a resolution that proceedings should not be televised. I felt that no further action could be taken and that, as that view was likely to last for this Parliament, I saw no other opportunity of putting it to the House.
My own view—it is a personal view—is that the film concerning a Standing Committee by Grenada last summer, and some of the discussions which took place in the policy formation in the Department of Trade and Industry, which I think hon. Members will have seen, represent a process which we ought to consider carefully and, wherever possible, expand. It is a practice which I think could only enhance the reputation of Parliament and enable the public to have a better idea of what goes on in this building.
There are divided views on whether it is right that the Chamber should be televised or whether we should start with Committees. Again expressing a personal view, I think that it would be right to start with radio. That would be an easy way, and I have never understood why the House does not do the daily parliamentary report not as a report by an outsider but by using extracts from what hon. Members say. I think that we might discuss that further on a suitable occasion. I could not agree to any change in the decision not to televise the House until the House had had time to debate the matter again, and I doubt whether it will find time to do so this year.
The Government are anxious to do all they can to help the Committee by means of specialist assistance. At present, apart from typing and secretarial services, there are 16 supporting staff to the Committee, including four part-time specialist advisers. The Committee has a permanent adviser, who has already been mentioned, and I think the House will recognise that that is a marked increase in support in the last two years. I rather agree with the view that specialist assistance is probably best taken on for a
488
particular inquiry and not employed on a full-time basis, but the Government will continue to consider any request from the Committee for further specialist help to assist in its inquiries.
Therefore, I emphasise that the Government's concern is that the Expenditure Committee should be able to develop in a way which will provide a stronger, more effective and more co-ordinated instrument of parliamentary scrutiny. I am concerned to stress this co-ordination aspect because of the risk, as we see it, that the Committee may lower its sights and go along the more limited paths of the old Estimates Committee. If it did, much of the advantage of the change made in 1971 would be lost. However, I wish to study the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.
The wide-ranging and detailed nature of the Committee's inquiries involves, as the House will appreciate, a considerable volume of work not only for members of the Committee but also for Ministers and Departments who are required to give oral and written evidence. This obligation was fully recognised when the Committee was established and I think that it is fair to say that, with the help of the Committee and its Clerk, generally good working contacts have been established with the Departments involved. I hope that that will continue to be so. Certainly the Government's intention will remain to do all they can to assist the Committee to fulfil its extremely important parliamentary rôle and I shall hope, after looking carefully at what has been said in the debate, to be able to improve matters as time passes.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: My right hon. Friend has made no reply to my suggestion, with which I think all my colleagues agree, that the Committee should be appointed for a Parliament and not on a sessional basis.
Mr. Prior: I am sorry. That matter is dealt with at the start of my prepared speech.
The Committee is now set up under a Standing Order. My hon. Friend suggests that its members should be appointed for a whole Parliament. I do not know whether the House would think that that was too restrictive, but I see no major objection to it, and if it is hon.

489
Members' wish I will see that that happens. Generally, however, we reappoint the Committee for each Session and hon. Members who do not wish to serve on it can come off and others can go on. That is a practice which other Select Committees will probably want to follow. In that case, I hope that if we do what is suggested it will not be treated as a precedent.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: Not the least reason for doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) suggested is that it would save weeks of time in the work of the Select Committee at the beginning of each Session, because there is always an unaccountable delay between setting up the Committee and its getting down to work. It knocks a considerable proportion off the working Session. If my right hon. Friend applies his remarks more widely, he will find that it is welcomed by the chairmen and members of other Select Committees.
Mr. Prior: That is what I thought, and that is why I thought that I should qualify what I said. However, I will consider the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). The Committee on Science and Technology has already put the point to me and I have promised to consider it further. We do not set up some Select Committees for each Session ; we set them up only for a period. It is reasonable that this suggestion should apply to a number of main standard Committees, such as the Expenditure Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. My right hon. Friend's Race Relations Committee has established itself as a regular Committee, but whether or not it will become a permanent feature of the House, I am not in a position to judge. Could I consider this matter again and report back to the House?
Mr. English: With permission of the House, may I say—I think I am speaking for the majority of the members of the Committee present—how deeply disappointed we are at the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about direct reporting by sub-committees? He said that if we had put down a motion he would have allowed it to go on the Order Paper in Government time today and therefore to be debated—[HON. MEMBERS:
490
"Opposition time."] Very well, Opposition time, but anyway, the normal Front Bench time. But the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us that before. Of course we would have put down such a motion. That is a very weak excuse for it not being agreed today.
Mr. Prior: I will make an opportunity on a future occasion for this motion to be put down so that the House may reach a decision.
Mr. English: We are very grateful.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the rôle of the Expenditure Committee, with particular reference to staff broadcasting of proceedings, reporting by Sub-Committees, and other matters contained in the Second Special Report of Session 1970–71, the Sixth Special Report of Session 1971–72, the Second and Fourth Special Reports of the last Session of Parliament and in the Minutes of Evidence taken on 9th April 1973.

CHARLWOOD AND HORLEY BILL
Order for Third Reading read.
9.57 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill has been well debated in its earlier stages, but perhaps in a rather piecemeal fashion as the debates occurred on amendments. It might be as well if I drew the threads together now.
The Bill, in exceptional circumstances, provides for the alteration of the boundaries between the new counties of Surrey and West Sussex. The exceptional circumstances are that an undertaking was given by the Government during the passage of the Bill which became the Local Government Act 1972 to make this alteration of the boundaries if certain events occurred. Those events did occur, but only after the Local Government Act had received the Royal Assent.
That Act drew the county boundary north of Charlwood and Horley so as to include those areas with Gatwick in West Sussex. This Bill draws the county boundary between Charlwood and Horley

491
to the north and Gatwick to the south, leaving Charlwood and Horley in Surrey apart from some very minor portions of those parishes.
That boundary line has been carefully determined by the local authorities concerned. Charlwood, as now returned to Surrey, will be a new parish within the new district of Mole Valley. Horley, as now returned to Surrey, will be a new parish within the new district of Reigate and Banstead. Under the 1972 Act there was the new parish of Salfords and Sidlow, comprising those parts of Charlwood and Horley left in Surrey by that Act which then could only go into the Mole Valley district. Now, under this Bill, it will join Horley in the Reigate and Banstead district.
As a result of those changes, certain elections will be necessary. To explain those properly, I should first mention that, for parish purposes, Horley comprises three wards. Two are by the Bill moved intact from West Sussex to Surrey, so no new elections there are needed. The third is only partly moved to Surrey, so in that case a new election will be needed.
I should also add that the very small areas of Charlwood and Horley left in West Sussex are added to existing electoral divisions there. They are too small to be separate divisions on their own. The result regarding elections is that there will be parish council elections for Charlwood and for Horley Ward No. 3. There will be district council elections for Horley to the Reigate and Banstead District Council, for Salfords and Sidlow to the Reigate and Banstead District Council—

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

CHARLWOOD AND HORLEY BILL
Question again proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Mr. Page: —and there will be district council elections for Charlwood to the Mole Valley District Council.
There will be county council elections for Horley and Salfords and Sidlow electoral division to the new Surrey County Council, and for Dorking electoral division, that part of Mole Valley which will include Charlwood, to the new Surrey County Council.
That is the contents of the Bill. I shall not stray from the rules of order to discuss any other boundary changes in the country that might have been included in the Bill. At the earlier stages of the Bill hon. Members said, in effect—indeed, I think they said it in so many words— "Good luck to Charlwood and Horley for getting what they wanted, but why could not other boundary changes be included?" At this stage I invite the House to omit that latter query and to say, "Good luck, Charlwood and Horley", and to give the Bill a Third Reading.
10.1 p.m.
Mr. Michael Cocks: We are grateful to the Government for making time available for this Third Reading debate. As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, the Opposition have a history of support for the Bill on principle. That was made clear on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) when he said that basically we welcomed the Bill.
It is true that at earlier stages we said we wished that the Government would give wider application in what they were doing in the Bill to wishes expressed by polls in other areas. But we sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on the success that he has had with the Government in persuading them to bring forward the Bill and on getting it to its present stage.
However, as this is the Third Reading of a Hybrid Bill brought forward by the Government, which I understand is a unique occasion, we should say a little about it. On Second Reading my hon.

493
Friend the Member for Widnes congratulated the Government. He applauded them for bringing forward a Hybrid Bill in order that local issues could be dealt with. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, however, it has been debated only in a piecemeal fashion on amendments. This is a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs in view of the nature of the Bill, because one of the assumptions that we had when we gave the Bill a Second Reading was that there would be very detailed scrutiny by a Select Committee. The rigorous and scruplous examination which we expected by the Select Committee did not take place, so that the House is now being asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill the earlier stages of which have been truncated.
The Bill contains detailed changes of boundaries which affect private interests. That is basically the reason for its hybrid nature. Hon. Members will agree that the Hybrid Bill procedure is complex and is not easy to understand even for Members of Parliament who are supported by not only frequent references to Erskine May but also excellent advice which is freely available from the Clerks of the House.
It is a pity, therefore, that the petitioners to the Select Committee did not have an opportunity to put their case. They did not appreciate that the Secretary of State was waiting or them with a sandbag and that their locus standi could not be established. It was discredited by a QC employed by the Department of the Environment. I am surprised at the answer I have received from the right hon. Gentleman tonight to an inquiry I made about the fee paid to counsel. The Minister said that the fee was inappropriate to the occasion. It is unfortunate that that information has not been given to us and that it should be hushed up at a time when the last penny of the earnings of miners and other people is public knowledge and a subject of public discussion. One wonders what "appropriate" means, whether it means appropriate to a hatchet-man job or simply a representation job.
What was serious about the Select Committee procedure was that, when the locus standi was being discussed and was the subject of a question by a member of the Committee, the Queen's Counsel, Mr. Marnham, said in answer
494
to points as to whether the people concerned had locus standi, as reported at page 19 of the report of the proceedings:
"These … are arguments, I suggest, which should be, and could be, put on the Floor of of the House."
With the best will in the world, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not possible through our procedure to discuss that sort of thing. We have been limited to discussing the Bill on amendments and now on Third Reading. Counsel, no doubt inadvertently, probably misled the Committee about the sort of scrutiny which could take place on Third Reading and in Committee. That was unfortunate.
I welcome the opportunity to place on record our dissatisfaction about the way in which the correct Committee procedure was not allowed to take place.
There is a certain vagueness in Clause 1(2). At one stage the boundary line is said to run
"on or near the general line of Horley Road".
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the speed with which he replied to a query I raised with him very briefly. I apologise if, in my brevity, I did not make the nature of the case clear, so that perhaps he was able to hold out a little more hope than he can now offer. His answer will be forwarded to the person concerned, who will no doubt consider whether to petition in another place if dissatisfied with that answer.
We are a bit concerned about this Hybrid Bill procedure. It is a most unusual thing for the Government to introduce. I certainly ask my hon. Friends to support the Bill's Third Reading, and we have no intention of impeding it, but certain doubts are raised in our minds about the whole matter.
In that connection, I was astonished to have my attention drawn to a letter in the Daily Telegraph of 25th February 1972 written by the Clerk of West Sussex County Council, who made serious allegations about a meeting which was to have been held and which had to be called off because he was told that militant opposition would prevent its taking place. Such a matter draws forth a number of people whose interests are perhaps carried to extremes, and are almost at times idiosyncratic, but for a person of the standing of the Clerk of the West Sussex County Council to write such a letter makes me wish that it had been

495
possible to give the Bill rather closer scrutiny.
Basically we welcome the Bill. We congratulate the hon. Member for Dorking. We congratulate the Minister on the way he has taken a certain amount of punishment about other areas in the country which we must not mention in this Third Reading debate. However, I am sure that he understands our point about this and we hope that the Bill will have equal success when it reaches another place.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: May I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) and also congratulate my hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. His contribution is worthy of congratulation. In his time in the House he has displayed a wealth of knowledge about local government and we are pleased that in what could be the fag end of a Parliament he has at last reached the position he deserves.
My hon. Friend asked us to support the Bill and it is only for that reason that I shall not oppose it tonight. My opposition would have been because I do not believe the end justifies the means. Quite clearly the means used by the Government to get the Bill to this stage have been questionable to say the least. My hon. Friend referred to the QC who was employed for an undisclosed fee. It is scandalous that that fee is not disclosed. The National Coal Board is spending a great deal of money to advertise the wage offer to the miners and it is most odd that a public servant directly employed by the Government should be able to keep his fee secret in this way. I should have been happy if the fee had been disclosed particularly since I have opposed the Bill because I thought Mr. Best had a reasonable case which he was prevented from putting before the Select Committee.
At an earlier stage we put the case of Mr. Best and expressed our discontent. I am sorry that my hon. Friend, having arrived at the Dispatch Box, has advised us to support the Bill and I shall do so only because of what he said.
10.14 p.m.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I rise merely to comment briefly in the customary fashion at the end of reasoned discussion on legislation. I appreciate the Minister's patience and the time he has taken. He is a Minister of some experience. During the long hours of many debates when my party was in power he never displayed any lack of courtesy in the most trying of situations and he has always shown an abundance of patience and care. It is worth taking time to say a few words in that direction. The Minister knows our views because we put them forward forcibly.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) in the comments he made. The time has come, as it often does in the House of Commons, when the Government must have their Bill.
We have reached that time and I rise merely to accord to the Minister the courtesy which I believe he has earned not just for the first time but on many occasions. It is a good feature, when we are dealing with legislation which arouses differences of opinion, that we can always reach a state of agreement on the way in which we conduct our affairs.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: With the leave of the House, may I thank the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) for his kind words. I know how persistent he can be when he wants to make a point. He makes his points very well and very thoroughly. I am grateful to him not only for his kind words but for the brevity of his speech.
It gives me personally great pleasure to see the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) at the Dispatch Box. We have known each other across the Floor for a long time. It is a great delight to see him at that Box. I thank him, too, for the way he has received Third Reading. He said that he had hoped there would be detailed scrutiny by the Select Committee. It turned out, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, that there was not that scrutiny of the merits of the Bill. However, the Bill was throughly discussed on the Floor of the House and amendments were considered in Committee and on Report. The procedure before the Committee was

497
entirely within the Standing Orders of the House.
It would have been wrong for my Department not to have briefed counsel, and the best counsel, to put a case. Having taken the Bill that far, it was our duty to brief counsel. It is not the custom to disclose counsel's fees, but I do not see any good point in that custom or convention. I can tell the House that Mr. Marnham's brief fee was £600. It is not unusual in a case of this sort for counsel's brief to be marked at that figure.
Mr. Golding: Will the Minister tell us how many shifts he worked for £600?
Mr. Page: It is an appropriate brief fee. Of course, what counsel may do before the Committee is not all that he does in preparation of the case.
I was unaware of the letter in the Daily Telegraph which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, South. I am rather surprised at its contents.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) mentioned Mr. Best, who appeared before the Committee. I add my congratulations on the way he put his case on the points of locus standi. It is a pity that Mr. Best was not able, according to Standing Orders, to go on and put the merits of his case. He deserved a brief fee of £600 just as much as Mr. Marnham. He put his case very well.
I am grateful for the way that Third Reading has been received. I hope that the Bill can go on to another place and that it will get through quickly.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (LAND) [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland to acquire land for the service in the United Kingdom of international organisations and institutions, and their offices and agencies, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act ; and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of all sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the said Act of the present Session under the Commissioners of Works Act 1852.—[Mr. Parkinson.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr. John Biggs-Davison and Mrs. Sally Oppenheim be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and that Sir John Langford-Holt and Sir John Rodgers be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Edward Gardner be discharged from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and that Mr. Idris Owen be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

CONSOLIDATION, &c, BILLS
Ordered,
That Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke be discharged from the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c, Bills and that Mr. Ivor Stanbrook be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

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

MEALS ON WHEELS
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Greville Janner: I am happy to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the meals on wheels service. I do so in the knowledge that we have a very brief span in which to deal with a most important topic. At the start I pay tribute to the angels of good cheer who operate the service. Nothing that I say hereafter must be taken in any way as a criticism of those folk. They provide far more than food for the people who are fortunate enough to have the service.
In many cases they provide the only communication that those people have with the outside world, the only communication which is possible for them. They provide life itself and the only means whereby these people are able to remain in their own homes. We have here an arrangement which enables food to be brought by individuals, by those who care, to people who otherwise would be totally isolated. We are accustomed to think of this service as being largely for the elderly but many of its recipients are housebound because they are disabled. For them it is of equal importance.
But for the service, many such people would be institutionalised, would have to go into a home, and that would be a disaster. Many others would die. Those who have need of the service are often people who have lost their spouses and have lost the urge to cook for themselves and who say "What is the difference? A jam sandwich will do for me." In providing food, the meals on wheels service often provides also a desire to live. It gives help, and the help itself provides the means for many of these people to resume a normal life, to resume cooking for themselves and often to give up the need for this service altogether.
So why, if the service is so fine, is it necessary to raise it in the House? Alas, it is limited in its means, in the number of people it reaches, in the days of the
500
week and the weeks of the year in which it operates, and it is limited by virtue of the isolation of the service which it provides.
Let me deal first with the days of the week. An old or disabled person does not cease to need food because it is a weekend. The service stops not only at weekends but often for much longer periods, for example over Christmas. I have seen elderly people in the Leicester area who are well served by the service during the week but who are desperately lonely at weekends and on Christmas Day. It is then that they need help more than ever. The efforts of Age Concern and other voluntary organisations cannot cope with their needs.
I raised this matter in the House a little while ago and the Minister said, in one of his less inspired moments:
"The number of people known to be receiving the service on a seven-days-a-week basis has increased from 1,361 in 1970 to no less than 2,343 in 1971—a rise of nearly 100 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November 1973 ; Vol. 863, c. 785.]
If he had said that out of the thousands who receive the service there had been a rise of perhaps 50 per cent., I would have been impressed. But a rise from one to two is a rise of 100 per cent. and a rise from 1,000 to 2,000, while acceptable as a start, is pathetic.
I am sure that in his reply the Minister will recognise that this is only a beginning. This is a major defect in the scheme. The service does not operate on sufficient days in the week or enough weeks in the year. It should be operating seven days a week for 52 weeks.
We come to the enormous discrepancy of the service in the areas. For example, in the city of Leicester the service operates five days a week. It is operated in the main by the local authority and by people employed by the local authority who are totally devoted to their work. I pay warm tribute to them. My wife and I have been out with them and seen the way in which they are received and the warmth and affection which they give and receive when they bring food, companionship, good will, laughter and life to the people whom they serve. In the county of Leicester the service operates on two days a week only and is staffed almost entirely by volunteers. Again,

501
they are tremendous people doing a fine job, but for only two days a week.
We do not know what will happen under the reorganisation. I should like the Minister's assurance that the Government will take every step in their power to ensure that, under the reorganisation, there will not be a levelling-down process which will result in the city of Leicester's service becoming less when it is amalgamated with the pathetically small service operated by the county. It is important that the county service should be built up and that the city service should not be allowed to decline.
The first assurance I should like to have is that the Minister will take all steps within his power to encourage and enable local authorities to extend the service to further days in the week. Secondly, I ask for an assurance that when the Minister is considering the reorganised service he will take all necessary steps to ensure that those services, which are superb within their limits, will not be cut down when they become part of a larger unit. I appeal to the Minister not to use the old excuse that it is a matter for the local authorities to decide what they do. To an extent that is true, but the local authorities have their hands tied by the resources which are available to them and which are in decline.
Thirdly, it is vital not merely to provide meals on wheels for people in their homes so that they can remain there as long as possible, living contentedly in their own surroundings, but also to remove them from those surroundings for their meals wherever possible and to get them into day care centres where they can eat their meals in company and not in isolation. It is often possible to get people out if there is somewhere for them to go, and to get rid of the "hermit" complex that affects elderly people living on their own who never see anyone else. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Government are aware of this problem and are doing something about it.
I have been told—I hope that the the Minister will be able to deny it—that, as a result of the latest cut-back in expenditure, the first day care centre in the Leicester area is not to be proceeded
502
with but is to be postponed, and that the plans of the local authorities to open a day centre shortly have had to be shelved, so that the hermit complex is to remain a feature of our society for longer than is necesary. Surely there should be no cut-back in the provision of day care centres.
The plan is to have a centre in which meals are served through a hatch to elderly people who are able to get to the centre, and to provide transport to the centre for those who can benefit from the companionship. Those elderly people would thereby be enabled to lead much more normal lives. From the centre would go out meals on wheels to those who could not get there. The idea is to knit together the system in one fabric.
One needs more than a fleet of vehicles delivering meals. Those who deliver them take far more care and time than the law would require of them in doing their job. They know when their clients are unwell, when to call in a doctor and when help is needed. Alas, they also know when a client dies. All too often those not receiving the service may die without anyone knowing of their death, sometimes for weeks. Parliamentary Questions which I have asked have shown that no one knows how many old people die in their homes without anyone knowing of their departure.
We must get a closely knit system. In Leicester we now have a marvellous new scheme being developed whereby an elderly person who needs help puts a cardboard fish in his window so that a street warden may know that help is required. This operates in part of the city. We also have a system of warning lights which, despite all our efforts, the Government have refused to make compulsory. Such warning lights operate in many old people's dwellings. All this is part of a detailed system of concern of which the meals on wheels service is a very important section. But it should not be allowed to operate on its own. We have a start with the system. It must be expanded.
I hope that the Minister will give an indication of the number of people who are now receiving meals and of the number who it is intended will receive them. We should also welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance that the importance of the scheme is appreciated by the Government.

503
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in expressing appreciation to those who operate this scheme—not only those who send out meals but those who cook them, not only those who deal with patients but also those very patient people working at the Hill Crest Hospital in Leicester and in the school meals service who put in a great deal of extra time to see that the meals on wheels services are provided. I hope the hon. Gentleman will indicate that the scheme will be extended and will form part of other schemes.
I hope, too, that the Minister will assure us that in the reorganised service areas such as the city of Leicester will not be levelled down to meet the needs of other areas not so well served and that in the cut-backs ordered by the Government the day care centres will not be allowed to disappear into a sad limbo.
This is a problem involving hundreds of thousands of people who receive the service, others on waiting lists and others still for whom the service is inadequate. I trust that the Government will put their full weight into extending the service as such, both on its own and in conjunction with the other services so badly needed by the elderly and the disabled.
10.33 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, Northwest (Mr. Greville Janner) has given us an opportunity to discuss meals on wheels. As he said, it is a service of great importance to many elderly and handicapped people both in the cities and outside them. I welcome especially the opportunity to pay tribute to the many thousands of volunteers, notably members of the WRVS, who give their time so generously. I cannot overemphasise the debt that we owe to the thousands of volunteers on whom meals on wheels services in most areas of the country continue to rely. Volunteers were entirely responsible for or made a significant contribution towards the provision of nearly 11 million of the 18 million meals on wheels served last
504
year. In most cases they contribute their services free or merely claim out-of-pocket expenses. Without them the cost of meals on wheels would be considerably increased.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken of the need for continuing expansion and improvement of the meals on wheels service. I do not dispute this. For the sake of perspective, however, I make no apology for setting out some brief facts and figures to show what remarkable progress the service has made over the past 20 years.
Surprisingly, interest in a really large-scale expansion of the service is of comparatively recent origin. Until 1961 local authorities had no powers of their own to provide meals to old people, though they were empowered by Section 31 of the National Assistance Act 1948 to contribute to the costs of voluntary organisations which provided such meals. As an indication of the scale of the service, before Section 31 was amended to give local authorities a direct power to provide meals services a survey by Miss Amelia Harris showed that in 1958 some 20,000 people throughout Great Britain were receiving about 1½ million meals on wheels a year. Contrast that with the 18 million to which I referred earlier.
It is interesting to note some of the more detailed findings of the Harris survey. In 1958, for example, more than four out of five recipients received only one or two meals a week and only 4 per cent. received five or more meals. Only 21 individual people—or one in 1,000 recipients—received a meal on all seven days of the week.
While two-thirds of the schemes surveyed by Amelia Harris provided a service throughout the year, one-quarter of schemes closed down entirely for at least five weeks in the year, and sometimes much more. Even at this level of provision, almost two-thirds of the recipients of meals on wheels said that they had at least one good meal every day of the week, and a much higher proportion managed to get satisfactory meals at weekends, particularly Sunday.
Among a random sample of non-recipients the 1958 survey showed that 95 per cent. got at least one good meal a day, with no significant difference

505
between the proportions of men and women or between the different age groups concerned.
The conclusion drawn from the survey at the time was that the overall need was to expand the service to provide 40,000 recipients with some 6 million meals a year.
Not long after that survey report was published, local authorities were first empowered by the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948 (Amendment) Act 1962 to provide meals to old people either directly for the first time themselves or through voluntary agencies as heretofore. Since then the meals on wheels service has grown steadily, and in the past year or so literally spectacularly, so that in England alone in the year ended March 1973 about 135,000 recipients received over 18 million meals in their own homes. I think that was the figure for which the hon. and learned Gentleman was asking.
In addition, a substantial number of people enjoyed a total of about 10 million meals served in clubs or centres. Despite all the difficulties caused by inflation, staff shortages, vehicle shortages and other shortfalls in resources, local authorities, with magnificent support in most cases from voluntary organisations, achieved a remarkable expansion of the service between 1971 and 1972. Not only did the number of recipients of meals on wheels increase by 13 per cent.—no small increase on a figure of over 100,000 recipients—but the average number of meals served per week increased still more. Over the same period there was a 19·4 per cent. increase in the number of meals provided in clubs and centres. The hon. and learned Gentleman, with his special emphasis on the value of these centres, will know the even higher rate of increase of meals provided there.
I recognise, however, that there is no room for complacency. Though the proportion of recipients receiving fewer than three meals on wheels a week has dropped from 67 per cent. in 1968 to 59 per cent. in 1972, there is still a long way to go before we achieve a five-day service in all areas.
In 1972, 18 per cent. of recipients—24,000 people—received five or more meals on wheels a week and 23 per cent. received three or four meals a week. What is not reliably known from available
506
national statistics is the number requiring but not receiving meals on wheels, and the number of meals on wheels recipients who received reliable help with meals from other sources—for example, the home help service, attendance at a day centre or lunch club, family, neighbours, or on their own initiative—on days of the week when meals on wheels are not provided.
A survey of meals on wheels recipients in 1972 in Nottingham, a city not far from Leicester, showed, however, that nearly half the people interviewed did not wish to have any more meals each week even though most received meals only two days a week. A special analysis of those requiring more meals a week suggests that perhaps one-third of existing recipients of a two-days-a-week service in Nottingham might wish to have three or more additional meals a week, though a much smaller proportion—2½ per cent. of all recipients in the city-would have welcomed a six- or seven-day service.
The Department's figures for the country as a whole for a sample week in November 1972 show that just under 4,000 people received six or seven meals on wheels in that week, of whom almost 2,500 lived in Greater London and 1,300 in Liverpool and Manchester. In addition, over 11,000 meals were provided in the sample week in clubs or centres open on six or seven days of the week, including nearly 4,500 in Greater London, 1,500 in Hull, 1,000 in Liverpool and 1,700 in Cheshire. It may be true that reasonably large-scale daily meals services are found only in a few areas of the country at present, but so far the main emphasis has been to seek first to build, as resources allow, towards a regular five-day service for all who need it.
Even this goal is not without its difficulties. It is not easy in all areas to find staff or volunteer helpers who are able or willing to prepare or deliver meals on a shift rota basis which includes regular weekend working. Nor is it always easy to find conveniently sited premises where suitable meals can be prepared every day of the week without a break. In some areas the service can be run only as a paid service, though in other places there are tangible advantages in organising a service of this kind in a

507
way which mobilises all available resources of the local community. No two areas are exactly alike. No single solution is right for all areas, and it is unlikely that a uniform need exists for all areas to expand services at the same uniform rate.
It would also be unrealistic of me if I did not add that for many authorities the resource costs of early implementation of a five-, six- or seven-day meals service wherever it was thought necessary could be met only at the expense of cutting back other services of equal or possibly greater priority. Given the shortfall of resources to meet total demand for local authority services—the hon. and learned Gentleman will know only too vividly from his experience in Leicester how many calls there on the personal social and health services provided by local authorities—there will always be scope for differences between authorities in the assessment of relative priority needs for their area.
Some authorities have clearly wished to give particular priority to ensuring a seven-day meals service, possibly for a limited number of recipients, and perhaps at the expense of other services for which there is a pressing need. Others have preferred to use additional resources for meals services to increase the number of recipients, or provide more club or centre meals, before turning their minds to the possibility of increasing the number of days of service. Yet others have been unable to expand their service more than marginally because of physical limitations of personnel, premises or equipment. In other words, there is a whole range of variations and permutations of the possible ways in which resources can be applied to this need.
I know it is not popular to discuss considerations of hard cash, but we must face the fact that the meals on wheels service costs money—over £3 million in England in 1972–73—and every increase in expenditure on the service must be weighed against the alternatives forgone.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is deeply concerned that this vital domiciliary and community service should grow. With that in view, first he has to ensure that the continuing need to expand meals services in most areas is not overlooked when the total of relevant
508
expenditure used in calculating rate support grant is being considered.
Before last month's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a 10 per cent. reduction of expenditure on goods and services within public expenditure, provisional planning for meals services had been on the basis that local authority expenditure on meals was currently rising at a rate of about 15 per cent. a year. The consequences for local authority social services of the recent announcement on public expenditure are still to be worked out, and, of course, within the agreed total expenditure local authorities will determine their own priorities for local development of particular services. This is an unavoidable and, I believe, proper concomitant of local government reorganisation.
The hon. and learned Gentleman must not overstress the Government's power to direct local authorities, particularly the new and larger authorities, to do exactly as the Government would wish. But there is little doubt that the local authorities will be less willing to effect reductions in expenditure on personal social services than on many others of their services, so that we can reasonably expect them to continue to operate the meals on wheels service at least at the present level.
Second, we have provided local authorities with a tentative guideline figure for long-term indicative planning of the meals on wheels services. This is a power to influence which we have and use. It envisages 200 meals per week per thousand of the population over the age of 65. That is more than twice the existing national average provision but less than existing provision in some parts of London and in one or two other places.
The guideline is based on the evidence of a number of large-scale surveys of need among elderly people but takes no account of the possible development of alternative ways of supplying hot main meals to people who need them or of variations in need between different types of area. For planning purposes no distinction is drawn in the guidelines between home meals and club or centre meals since we would hope that, where-ever it was practicable, local authorities would seek to provide required meals either regularly or occasionally in the social setting of a club or centre.

509
Third, we are trying to assist local authorities by developing a programme of research studies to provide answers to the short-term and longer-term practical problems of providing adequate meals wherever and whenever they may be needed. Thus, a firm of management consultants recently undertook a study of 33 existing meals on wheels services in order to see how existing resources used within the service might be applied more effectively so as to enable bottlenecks to be overcome and expansion sustained whether or not additional resources can be made available. The report of this study was circulated to all social service authorities and relevant voluntary organisations last October and provides a most informative comparative analysis between different kinds of service and some very useful guidance on how time and manpower constraints on the service could be tackled. We are also involved in research
510
into the nutritional needs and situation of elderly people as reflected in the recent report on the last Nutrition Survey of the Elderly.
I hope that what I have said has demonstrated the Government's deep concern to develop organised meals services for elderly and handicapped people within the context of expanding the key domiciliary care services which are so vital to the continuing independence and well-being of these groups. Much has been achieved in a relatively short while. Much remains to be done. But we confidently expect the encouraging trends of the recent past to continue, and indeed improve, as the economic situation improves.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Situation
  Employment Situation
  Industrial Relations Act
  Industrial Relations Act
  Unemployment Benefit (Payment)
  Unemployment Benefit (Payment)
  Job Evaluation Techniques
  Job Evaluation Techniques
  St. Helens
  St. Helens
  Industrial Retraining
  Industrial Retraining
  Capital Projects (Scotland)
  Capital Projects (Scotland)
  Temporarily Unemployed Persons
  Temporarily Unemployed Persons
  Glasgow Firemen
  Glasgow Firemen
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Local Government Manual Workers
  Local Government Manual Workers
  Machine Tools (Noise)
  Machine Tools (Noise)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dental Officers
  Dental Officers
  Unemployment Benefit (Waiting Days)
  Unemployment Benefit (Waiting Days)
  Victoria Memorial Jewish Hospital, Manchester
  Victoria Memorial Jewish Hospital, Manchester
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants
  National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Hospital Beds (Hartlepools)
  Hospital Beds (Hartlepools)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Hospital Waking Lists
  Hospital Waking Lists
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Rugby Local Office
  Rugby Local Office
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Attendance Allowance Board
  Attendance Allowance Board
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Supplementary Professions
  Supplementary Professions
  Multiple Sclerosis Sufferers (Diet)
  Multiple Sclerosis Sufferers (Diet)
  Pensioners (Meals Expenses)
  Pensioners (Meals Expenses)
  Children (Employment)
  Children (Employment)
  General Practitioners (Ancillary Staff)
  General Practitioners (Ancillary Staff)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Students (Parental Income)
  Students (Parental Income)
  St. James' Junior and Infant School, Gorton
  St. James' Junior and Infant School, Gorton
  Agricultural Research Council (Grant)
  Agricultural Research Council (Grant)
  Linden Road Primary School, Denton
  Linden Road Primary School, Denton
  Schools (Weekend Opening)
  Schools (Weekend Opening)
  School Meals and Milk
  School Meals and Milk
DEFENCE
  Armed IRA Terrorists
  Armed IRA Terrorists
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Through-Deck Cruiser
  Through-Deck Cruiser
  Harrier Aircraft
  Harrier Aircraft
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Leading Writer P. F. Bryant
  Leading Writer P. F. Bryant
  Dundonald Camp
  Dundonald Camp
  Aircraft Projects
  Aircraft Projects
  Ex-Service Officers (Private Employment)
  Ex-Service Officers (Private Employment)
  Raglan Barracks
  Raglan Barracks
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Trawler "Ian Fleming" (Loss)
  Trawler "Ian Fleming" (Loss)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Arabian Countries
  Arabian Countries
  Citrus Fruit
  Citrus Fruit
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
  Coal
  Coal
  Linear Motor
  Linear Motor
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Task Forces
  Task Forces
  Steel Prices
  Steel Prices
  Ship Repairing
  Ship Repairing
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Aero-engine Fuel
  Aero-engine Fuel
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee
  Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee
  Weights and Measures Inspectorate
  Weights and Measures Inspectorate
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Power Restriction Exemptions
  Power Restriction Exemptions
  LAND POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  LAND POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  LAND PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL VISITS)
  LAND PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL VISITS)
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  PRIME MINISTER (OVERSEAS VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (OVERSEAS VISITS)
  EEC SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  EEC SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES (CORRESPONDENCE)
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES (CORRESPONDENCE)
  OIL DEVELOPMENT
  OIL DEVELOPMENT
  BUILDING PROJECT PRIORITIES
  BUILDING PROJECT PRIORITIES
  EGYPT
  EGYPT
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Caribbean Sugar
  Caribbean Sugar
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Waste Foods Order
  Waste Foods Order
  Fertiliser Prices
  Fertiliser Prices
  Livestock (Transit)
  Livestock (Transit)
  Rats
  Rats
  Ashton Vale Flood Alleviation Scheme
  Ashton Vale Flood Alleviation Scheme
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Allotments and Piggeries
  Allotments and Piggeries
  Meat Inspection
  Meat Inspection
  EEC Levies
  EEC Levies
  Milk
  Milk
  RHODESIA ("SPECTATOR" ADVERTISEMENT)
  RHODESIA ("SPECTATOR" ADVERTISEMENT)
ENERGY
  Electricity Saving
  Electricity Saving
  Agricultural Equipment and Machinery Contractors
  Agricultural Equipment and Machinery Contractors
  Oil Emergency Committee
  Oil Emergency Committee
  Chemical Industry
  Chemical Industry
  Trade Union Offices
  Trade Union Offices
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Electricity Consumption
  Electricity Consumption
  Domestic Oil Supplies
  Domestic Oil Supplies
  Coal Prices
  Coal Prices
  Electricity Generation (Fuel Costs)
  Electricity Generation (Fuel Costs)
  Three-day Working Week
  Three-day Working Week
  Nuclear Power Programme
  Nuclear Power Programme
  Uranium Enrichment
  Uranium Enrichment
  Oil Stocks
  Oil Stocks
  London Electricity Board
  London Electricity Board
  Coal Miners
  Coal Miners
  Coal and Oil (Statistics)
  Coal and Oil (Statistics)
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Fuel Conservation
  Fuel Conservation
  Coal Exports
  Coal Exports
  Petrol Coupon Offices
  Petrol Coupon Offices
ENVIRONMENT
  Public Expenditure (Scotland)
  Public Expenditure (Scotland)
  Second Homes
  Second Homes
  Vehicle Licence Discs
  Vehicle Licence Discs
  Housing (Under-Occupied Premises)
  Housing (Under-Occupied Premises)
  Owner-Occupied and Rented Homes
  Owner-Occupied and Rented Homes
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Charlwood and Horley Bill (Counsel)
  Charlwood and Horley Bill (Counsel)
  Palace of Westminster (Residences)
  Palace of Westminster (Residences)
  Ports
  Ports
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Avon County (Expenditure)
  Avon County (Expenditure)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Expenditure)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Expenditure)
  Roads (Bristol)
  Roads (Bristol)
  M40 (Oxford)
  M40 (Oxford)
  Reads (Yorkshire)
  Reads (Yorkshire)
  Hampshire
  Hampshire
  Rent Tribunals (London)
  Rent Tribunals (London)
  Rising Cost Subsidy
  Rising Cost Subsidy
  A30 (Roskear)
  A30 (Roskear)
  Landscape Planning
  Landscape Planning
  Trams
  Trams
  Trolley Buses
  Trolley Buses
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  International Sugar Agreement
  International Sugar Agreement
  Non-Patrial Passport Holders
  Non-Patrial Passport Holders
  Saudi Arabia (Lord Aldington's Visit)
  Saudi Arabia (Lord Aldington's Visit)
  Mr. Alex Kitson
  Mr. Alex Kitson
  Middle East Oil Supplies
  Middle East Oil Supplies
  Entry Certificate Applications (Bangladesh)
  Entry Certificate Applications (Bangladesh)
  Research Workers
  Research Workers
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Social Inquiry Reports
  Social Inquiry Reports
  Taxi Trade (Fuel Restrictions)
  Taxi Trade (Fuel Restrictions)
  Offences (Civil and Military Inquiries)
  Offences (Civil and Military Inquiries)
  First Offenders
  First Offenders
  Suspected Persons (Custody)
  Suspected Persons (Custody)
  Aliens and Immigrants
  Aliens and Immigrants
  Non-Payment of Fines
  Non-Payment of Fines
  Imprisonment (Non-Criminal Offences)
  Imprisonment (Non-Criminal Offences)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Accommodation
  Accommodation
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wages (Purchasing Power)
  Wages (Purchasing Power)
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Tax Credit Scheme
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  European Investment Bank
  European Investment Bank
  Dividend and Interest Payments
  Dividend and Interest Payments
  Three-day Working Week
  Three-day Working Week
  Average Income
  Average Income
  European Assembly (Members' Allowances)
  European Assembly (Members' Allowances)
  Foreign Exchange Loans
  Foreign Exchange Loans
  Rateable Valuation Appeals
  Rateable Valuation Appeals
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Investment
  Investment
  Rural Area Services
  Rural Area Services
SCOTLAND
  Health Service Expenditure
  Health Service Expenditure
  Public Expenditure (Ayrshire)
  Public Expenditure (Ayrshire)
  Student Grants (Parental Contributions)
  Student Grants (Parental Contributions)
  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Salmon Netting
  Salmon Netting
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
WALES
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Welsh Language Council
  Welsh Language Council
  Community Health Councils (Powys)
  Community Health Councils (Powys)
  Housing (Report)
  Housing (Report)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

SMOKING AND HEALTH
LORD AIREDALE: 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, since the Commissioners of H.M. Customs and Excise report a continued rise in domestic consumption of tobacco despite a rise in the price of cigarettes, whether they propose to intensify their anti-smoking campaign.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, as soon as the revised list of the tar and nicotine yields of the various brands of cigarettes sold in the United Kingdom is published next month the Health Education Council will launch a further anti-smoking campaign.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged for that encouraging Answer. Are not the Government appalled at the fact that, despite all their efforts up to date, we still have a rising consumption of tobacco in this country?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is interesting, if one looks back a bit, to see that it has fallen to some extent. Cigarette sales, by weight of tobacco, for example, were some 10 per cent. less in 1972 than in 1960.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, have the Government any evidence that the previous publication of the figures about tar and nicotine had any effect on the consumption of cigarettes?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the object of publishing these figures was to encourage people to switch to safer brands of cigarette It is too early to say whether or not this has in fact happened.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government recall the words of the Chief Medical Officer of Health in his report on the state of the public health for the year 1972, when he said:
"It is manifestly not in the public interest that the cigarette should be so constantly presented as a desirable adjunct to sophisticated living"?
Do Her Majesty's Government agree with that statement?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we have taken the view that it would be difficult to ban further advertising of cigarettes because they are still legally sold and there is still competition between brands, and we have no evidence that such a ban would in fact reduce smoking.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether tobacco is an item in the cost-of-living index?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not sure. I cannot answer that question without notice.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is confident that the report on tar and nicotine will be published next month, or is this wishful thinking?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is due to be published next month, but in present conditions one is never quite sure about printing.

HIJACKING OF AIRCRAFT
2.40 p.m.
LORD JANNER: 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 is the present position with regard to the steps they have taken and are taking to deal with the hijacking of aeroplanes, and whether they will join with other civilised nations in refusing air facilities to those nations who harbour the hijackers.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, aviation security measures in the United Kingdom are under constant study in consultation with

829
the National Aviation Security Committee. Following insufficient support for Her Majesty's Government's proposals at the International Civil Aviation Organisation Assembly in Rome in August, we are considering whether further international initiatives can be taken to protect the international community from the menace of hijacking.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, is not the noble Baroness aware of the fact that this is becoming an extremely serious matter? Those who hijacked the plane in Rome are at present being harboured. Is not this part and parcel of the role that those nations harbouring these people are now taking as "Big Brother", when they use every device they can possibly use as accessories both before and after these crimes of terrorism? Is it not time that the civilised nations got together to stop this kind of thing?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that was exactly what Her Majesty's Government were trying to do in Rome. The British delegation co-sponsored a proposal that access to air space should be denied to the aircraft of States which failed to deal with hijackers. This was supported by less than half the States present.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government at Rome was a policy which I think all in this House would accept. Can the noble Baroness now say whether she has succeeded in getting the nine members of the European Economic Community to agree with the policy that Her Majesty's Government put forward in Rome?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, not yet. Some members feel that sanctions of this nature should be imposed only by the United Nations. We are considering whether we can get agreement with our European partners on the standardisation of security arrangements at airports, which we think is of prime importance.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the security arrangements at airports are a completely different matter. We are now talking about something else. Can the noble Baroness say what in fact has been done by Her Majesty's Government to try to persuade the other Governments
830
of the European Economic Community to support us at the next International Conference?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, a great deal has been done through ordinary diplomatic channels and at Rome. As I said earlier, some States consider that the United Nations ought to be the only organisation which has responsibility for sanctions.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us feel that the British Government have given a lead in every conceivable direction in dealing with this difficult problem? Will my noble friend give an assurance that there will be no let-up in inspection and surveillance at British airports?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I believe that the United Kingdom has given a lead on these matters in the international field, and we are certainly doing everything we can so far as security at United Kingdom airports is concerned.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say which countries in the E.E.C. failed to follow our line and did not give us support?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if we take the Hague and Montreal Conventions which the United Kingdom has ratified, Ireland, for example, has neither signed nor ratified either. There are various other countries which I could mention, but it would probably take too long to list them to the House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my supplementary question was about countries within the E.E.C.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, what we were striving to do was to put the Hague and Montreal Conventions inside the Chicago Convention. If the noble Lord is asking specifically about the E.E.C., I have already mentioned Ireland. Then there is France, which has signed and ratified the Hague Convention but not the Montreal Convention; Belgium, which has signed and ratified the Hague Convention but not the Montreal Convention; and

831
Luxembourg and Italy, which have not ratified either the Hague or the Montreal Conventions.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the gravity of the situation, which is part and parcel of the fact that some nations are wanting to act as "Big Brother", is it not extremely important, with time running against us, that a special conference should be called to deal with terrorism, with blackmail and with all the other measures that are being used?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that this is a matter of extreme importance. That is why this conference was brought together in Rome. But it was unable to reach agreement. We therefore consider that until wide international agreement is obtained, the best course is to have the maximum possible security at airports.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there are approximately 130 members of the United Nations, less than half of them having an airline under their control? So is it not much more suitable to proceed either through the E.E.C. or through ICAO, and not wait for a massive and amorphous body like the United Nations to make up its mind?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, But the United Kingdom is not waiting for the United Nations, since we have taken a lead in this matter.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, will the Minister consider putting in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those countries which have not ratified?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords; I will consider that.

FAMILY PLANNING
2.45 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that they have accepted the broad conclusion of the Ross Population Panel that the economic prospects for Britain will be better with a smaller rather than a larger population, they will give urgent consideration to launching a family planning publicity campaign to offset the probable effect on the birthrate of The emergency regulations restricting heating in the home, and the shut-down of television programmes at 10.30 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the Health Education Council will launch a campaign next month, not for the reasons advanced by the noble Baroness, but as a prelude to the provision of family planning within the National Health Service.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he will give some indication of the amount of money to be spent by the Health Education Council? May I also ask him whether he is aware that organisations such as the Health Education Council, the Family Planning Association, the Brook Advisory Centres and the Birth Control Campaign are concerned about the possible effects of this emergency on the birth rate on abortions and on unwanted pregnancies? Further, will the Minister accept that although I have related the Question to the emergency there is a tremendous need for a continuous and on-going programme of propaganda and education, especially in view of the fact that starting in April of this year the Government are to spend £23 million on integrating contraception into the National Health Service? Can be give some figures on what the Government intend to spend?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I cannot give the exact figure which the Health Education Council will devote to this programme. But I can agree with the noble Baroness that it is very important that we should continue with the

833
programme of drawing the family planning services to the notice of the public. The campaign itself will consist of advertisements in national newspapers and in women's and men's magazines. It will not be on television, but a new booklet on contraception is being produced for wide general use and a short film is to be made for cinema advertising later in the year.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, with reference to the Question on the Order Paper, can my noble friend say why having the television on should prevent love-making?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords.
LORD SHIN WELL: My Lords, instead of the Government's coming to a definite conclusion about this matter and its relationship to television being suspended at half-past ten at night, would it not be better to wait until the normal period of gestation has expired and come to a decision nine months hence?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, a certain amount of research was done on this matter in the case of a black-out in New York. The conclusion was that it had no effect on the birth pattern.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, will the Minister agree that as the black-out in New York was for only one night and was only one casual occasion, it is not relevant to the present situation? Although we all hope that the emergency will soon come to an end, will be agree that the propaganda should continue?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, where family planning is concerned one night is very important.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I very respectfully ask the Minister whether he is quite certain about his statement, because I thought—indeed I read—that the black-out in New York had a quite striking and interesting effect.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am quoting from some research done by Mr. J. Richard Udry which was published in Demography in August, 1970, and he concluded that there was no increase in births associated with the black-out. If the noble Lord is interested, I will let him see a copy of the paper.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CUL-Ross): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill. In moving this Motion, I should just mention that the Bill has already been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Viscount Colville of Cuross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Solicitors and counsel]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 13, line 13, leave out ("give advice or assistance or, as the case may be") and insert ("advise, assist or")
The noble Viscount said: I must confess that in moving this Amendment we are really taking advantage of the opportunity which occurs on the last two Amendments, which are of substance, to put right some very minor drafting points indeed. This particular Amendment is pure drafting. The object of it is to make the wording of subsection (6), to which it relates, fit in exactly with similar wording in subsection (5) of Clause 12. It really is just drafting, and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Employment of solicitors by Law Society]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 4, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Amendment and revocation of legal aid orders]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 32, line 8, leave out ("an") and insert ("a legal aid contribution").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, which I now move, in fact goes with the two following Amendments. They are, again, purely drafting, and they tie up with the wording in other Parts of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Means enquiry by Supplementary Benefits Commission]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 43, leave out ("an") and insert ("a legal aid contribution").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 1, leave out ("an") and insert ("a legal aid contribution").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Repeals, revocations and savings]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 40, line 26, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Viscount said: This and the subsequent Amendment are really the point of having these Amendments at all
836
because, of course, we now have a slightly different situation about the application of this Bill to Northern Ireland. This Amendment leaves out subsection (4), which was included in the Bill to make sure that the repeal of the existing enactments relating to legal aid and legal advice and assistance did not affect the power to make Orders in Council under Section 1(3) of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, or the validity of any Order so made. But since the Bill was drafted the Northern Ireland Constitution (Devolution) Order 1973 has appointed January 1 last as the day for the commencement of Part II of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, and, by virtue of Section 2(4) of that Act, Section 1 of the 1972 Act expired on that day. In any event, no Order in Council has been made under Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act for purposes similar to the Bill; so it follows that Clause 42(4) is no longer needed and should be omitted from the Bill. I would only add that when I was chairman of the Committee I always found the Northern Ireland application question very difficult indeed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Short title, construction, commencement and extent]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 9, leave out ("with the exception of section 42(4) above").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Road Traffic Bill, have consented to place their prerogative

837
and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 5 [Provisions supplementary to sections 1 to 4 and Schedule 1]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 17, leave out ("owner of that vehicle") and insert ("person by whom the vehicle was kept and used").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 2 are in fact purely drafting. If any noble Lord wishes me to explain them of course I will gladly do so, but I hope the House will accept my assurance that they make no difference to the sense of the Bill but I think add clarity to it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 18, leave out from ("that") to ("at") in line 19 and insert ("the vehicle was kept and used by some other person").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Extension of type approval scheme to all vehicles and to vehicle parts]:
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("section 47(1)") and insert ("the application of section 47(1) in relation to vehicle parts").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment designed to clarify the interpretation of Section 47(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 as amended in subsection (3) of the clause. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.58 p.m.
LORD HACKING LORD HACKING moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 15 insert the following new clause:
838
". In section 6(1) of the 1972 Act (driving with blood-alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit) the words from "as ascertained" to "Act" shall be omitted and the words "at the time he provides the specimen" shall be omitted."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I intend to speak to all the Amendments in my name in one single speech, although at a later stage I may ask your Lordships' leave to move them in three groups; that is to say, Amendments 4 and 5, Amendment 6 and Amendments 7 and 8.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Hear, hear!
LORD HACKING: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. This was the course I adopted, a little under protest, at Report stage, and it seems to be the most convenient way to deal with my Amendments. I am most conscious of putting down substantive Amendments at the Third Reading of this Bill, and I am most conscious, too, that many of your Lordships may think that this House has better things to do to-day, on this day of crisis, than to consider the breathalyser law. Indeed, there is a substantive matter later in your Lordships' Order Paper; namely, the Committee stage of the Protection of the Environment Bill.
However, I hope to persuade your Lordships that these Amendments are of importance, not only because of the present state of the breathalyser law which, if I may quote the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is "ludicrous, uncertain and unfair" and bringing us "into disrepute", but also because my Amendments focus on a matter which should be of real concern; that is, the efficacy of our laws. Much of our current legislation suffers from the grave malady of being excessively complicated and hence unenforceable (at least within the intention of Parliament) by the user. In my submission, the Road Traffic Bill is no exception, couched as it is in language which few will be able to master, particularly if you take into account the pressures, for example, in the county council office or in a court of law.
Before again being critical about the breathalyser law, I should say that I recognise the climate in which the Roard Safety Act passed through Parliament. Never before in peace time has a law threatened to interfere so much with the

839
personal liberty of so many citizens. Hence Parliament wrapped and wrapped again the Bill with clauses restricting arbitrary action by police and other administrators of the law. It tried, mainly successfully, to protect the liberty of the motorist, although perhaps it did not take sufficiently into account the liberty of such people as a child client of a colleague of mine who, in consequence of injuries inflicted by a drunken motorist, will never be able to enjoy much of the liberty of what remains of her life. What is curious about the stand being taken by the Government, and by other noble Lords, particularly those who were in Government at the time when the Road Safety Act became law, is that those then in Government have recognised the major failings of this Bill, while the present Government have not—at least, not sufficiently to persuade them to amend the law.
Just how bad is the breathalyser law as it was enacted in 1967 may be illustrated by two simple examples. First, if the judges had not from the outset stretched the meaning of the words, "driving or attempting to drive", beyond their natural meaning, hardly any motorist in the land would have been convicted and the breathalyser provisions could never have been enforced. Second, although the Act set out two offences, the offences of driving and of being in charge, it failed altogether to set up the means by which the latter offence could be proved, except by chance of the backdoor through the "unfit to drive" provision.
My Amendments do not attempt to deal with all the problems arising out of the present law, but they do attempt to deal with the three areas of what I believe are major difficulty. At the Report stage, I went through these areas in detail and explained precisely what had gone wrong, and why, and how my Amendment would cure the defects. This afternoon I do not propose to take that course, but shall tell your Lordships what the three areas of difficulty are and, I hope, satisfy you that my Amendments provide the answer.
The first area of difficulty, which is referred to in Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, is Section 6(1) of the Road Traffic Act which confuses the offence with the proof of the offence. The result is that any
840
motorist can bring the whole procedure to a nullity by taking a drink between the time he is stopped and the time of giving a specimen of blood or urine. My Amendments divide the offence from the proof of it and, in doing so, stop up this outrageous escape hole.
The second area, to which Amendment No. 6 refers, is that the Act requires the police to commence the breathalyser procedure while a motorist is still driving or attempting to drive. A moment's thought will enable your Lordships to realise that it is physically impossible to place the first bag of the first breath test into the possession of the motorist while he is driving or attempting to drive, and therefore the courts were faced with a basic difficulty. They therefore attempted to lay down, and did lay down, a test as to when a person is driving or attempting to drive. Not surprisingly, this produced some absurd results. For example, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in his speech in the case of Sakhuja v. A hlen and Others, pointed out that the Law Courts have held that a motorist was still doing something connected with driving when buying a newspaper, and was still held to be driving or attempting to drive. But if he stopped his car to buy groceries he could no longer be held to be driving or attempting to drive.
Even the application of those tests, alas! enables some of the most serious of offenders to escape conviction. For example I cite a case which I quoted during the Report Stage the case of Edkins v. Knowles. In that case, in brief, a motorist was driving at an excessive and dangerous speed. He was seen by detectives who were in a police motor car. They followed him but thought that he was driving far too fast and dangerously for them to overtake him. They followed him to a holiday camp, and when he stopped there they kept him in the driving seat until a uniformed police officer—who of course is the only person who can administer a breath test—arrived.
When the uniformed officer arrived the man had been in the driving seat for fifteen minutes. On being invited by the uniformed officer to undergo a breath test he obliged, and it was found that he was excessively over the limit. But it was held, not unnaturally, that he was no

841
longer driving or attempting to drive, and the procedure came to a nullity. My Amendments recognise the obvious: that the procedure cannot be invoked until a motorist has ceased driving. Hence, if my Amendments are accepted the motorist will no longer be able to drive off at speed with impunity, pursued by detective officers, and then later escape a conviction.
I move to the third area where there is considerable difficulty, and it is referred to in Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. The Act insists at present that a specimen of urine or blood may be taken only from persons arrested under the "unfit to drive" procedure or the "over the limit" procedure. Suppose, for example, a motorist escaping from a crime of grievous bodily harm in a public house is pursued and arrested for that offence and is taken to the police station. If it later transpires that the offender had been drinking excessively, then under the present procedure a police officer is stopped from bringing in the breathalyser procedure. Or take another example from my own experience. An offender was driving a motor car, and, having been stopped by a police officer, proceeded to punch the police officer on the nose. Not unnaturally, the police officer arrested him for that and again the procedure was brought to a nullity. My Amendment ends that nonsense. Above all, my Amendments seek to clarify the law. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are concerned with an exercise in grammar and syntax and the only hurtful thing that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross could say would be that my grammar or syntax is poor.
As well as seeking to clarify the law, my Amendments would relieve the courts of an enormous burden of unmeritorious cases about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, rightly had some harsh things to say. The matter becomes more critical if this Bill is passed because hitherto difficult cases have gone to the Crown Court; and from the Crown Court there is a right of appeal only by the defence to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. One of the consequences of the enactment of this Bill would be that all the breathalyser cases, apart from those where the prosecution elects to go for trial, will be tried before justices, and hence both the prosecution and the de-fence
842
fence will have a right of appeal on law. I am not going to anticipate the reply which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, gives to my Amendment here at Third Reading. I can only express the hope that he has been given better instructions than he received at the Report stage, for those instructions which begin. "We are getting on nicely, thank you", provide no comfort and no answer to the problem.
My Lords, before I sit down I should like to express a word of thanks. I am not lucky enough, speaking from this position in the House, to have a number of wise men to supply me with information and corrections. But I had, before coming to this House, been very lucky to receive the advice and encouragement of members of your Lordships' Judicial Committee, many Judges in the High Court, Lords Justices and puisne judges, as well as members of the Bar, and the result is that my Amendments are the consolidated work of a number of people on both sides of the judicial Bench. I beg to move.
3.11 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, who quite obviously, from the very careful and detailed speech which he has addressed to your Lordships' House, has made a very thorough study of these important problems—problems which are in no sense abstruse. These are matters which affect the safety and conduct of every citizen in the country—if I am right in supposing that at any rate nearly every citizen drives and every citizen is exposed to risk—if a driver has consumed too much alcohol when he drives or attempts to drive. I should be rendering no service to your Lordships' House if I sought to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking has so clearly put before the House, but I would submit that it is clearly quite indefensible to enact laws which will enable a driver who is stopped and takes a breathalyser test and is asked to come to a police station to have the proper test made, to evade the consequences of his misdoing by taking a flask out of his hip pocket and drinking some whisky. That, as I understand it, is the present state of the law as it has been interpreted. It is equally difficult to justify a state of law which proclaims

843
that you are attempting to drive if in a motor car you buy a newspaper, but that you are no longer attempting to drive if your thoughts wander to the subject of groceries. The distinction is so slight that it really must elude the commonsense of citizens who, as I have said, are so directly affected by this legislation. I should have thought that the culmination of absurdity was that you can escape the consequences of your excessive consumption of alcohol by banging a policeman on the nose when he stops you and asks you to take a breathalyser test.
My Lords, that is what the present law has been shown to enact. The courts do their level best to try to make sense of law as it emerges from the two Houses of Parliament. This, of course, is a new field of law, in this country at any rate, and when one in enacting a completely new scheme from time to time, one is bound to find that anomalies crop up and frustrate the intention of the Legislature. That really has happened, I should have thought, to a rather major extent in this pattern of legislation, and I greatly hope that the noble Viscount will be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that he will carefully consider these seven Amendments, the general objective of which has already been fully explained by the noble Lord, and that he really will make an attempt to cure these monstrous absurdities in the wording of the present Act. I hope he will not just out of hand turn down language which in many respects has been shown, when the law is administered, to be inappropriate. I earnestly ask the noble Viscount to go at least as far as that.
3.15 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I should like to add any help I can to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in moving these Amendments. I am not going to re-argue the points he has made, as followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, because I do not think there will be any argument in any part of the House about these anomalies and absurdities in the present law. Indeed, when the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was dealing with this matter at the Report stage he did not seriously argue on the merits of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. He developed a rather different argument. He said that
844
we had had this Statute effectively since 1967, and during the course of the years a body of case law had been built up interpreting and elucidating the enactment, and it would be a pity to disturb that body of case law. His argument, in effect, was, "Do not let us try to alter it now because if you do and try to introduce Amendments to the existing law that will mean that you will only be producing more bones for the lawyers to gnaw upon and you will have the problem of developing a further body of case law to interpret the amended law".
I cannot regard that argument—and I hope I have not misinterpreted it—as being sufficient or satisfactory because, as I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, it is that despite the judicial interpretation and elucidation of the existing law that we have had for the past seven years, these anomalies have been made clear. Indeed, the anomalies have only been underlined and emphasised by the judicial decisions we have had upon the Act. Therefore it does not seem to me to be any answer to say that the Act ought to be left as it is, and that you can leave it to the process of judicial interpretation to put these things right, because they have not been put right by the process of judicial interpretation and we have been left with these glaring anomalies and absurdities upon which I think everyone is agreed; yet the Government are saying to-day as I understand it, that it is too late in this House in this Bill to do anything about it. My Lords, I think that that, too, is unsatisfactory.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in his speech on Report gave three very clear hints that if the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, would leave the matter here in this House there would be time for this matter to be considered, and it would be considered, in the other place. If that is true, and if it is the Government's intention to introduce Amendments to the breathalyser law in the other place if and when this Bill reaches them, then I suggest that it is only right that the Government should give us an undertaking to-day that that will be done. If the Government will give an undertaking that they will introduce the necessary Amendments to cure these absurdities and anomalies in the other place I, for once, shall be content to leave the matter there; but if the

845
Minister is not prepared to give us that undertaking, and if in effect this is just stalling, then, if the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, decides to divide the House I certainly will go into the Lobby with him.
We may not have another opportunity of dealing with the faults in the breathalyser law for a long time to come, whether or not there be an Election. It may be another five years before we get a further amendment of that Act. Are these absurdities to remain for another five years? May I say to the Minister, when he talks about putting this right or having something done about it in the other place, that it is in this House where this kind of thing ought to be put right. The Government introduced the Bill into this House in the first instance. We have much better opportunities here for discussing such matters with less Party political debate than they have in the other place. One of the great virtues of this House—I almost said one of the few virtues—is that decisions about these things are often decided by the arguments put forward rather than by the Whips. I suggest that this is the kind of subject which should certainly be so decided. I would therefore say to the Minister that unless he will give us a clear undertaking that the Government will take steps in the other place to propose Amendments to meet the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has pointed out, then I for one hope that we shall carry this Amendment to a Division, and I hope that we shall be supported by many Members of your Lordships' House who have listened to the argument.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add just a word or two in favour of what has been said about these Amendments. It has always been a puzzle to me that so late in the 20th century a Statute could be as badly drafted as this one in relation to the sections concerned with the breathalyser test. It is no doubt true that the Judicature have done their best to clarify the wording, but it was so bad to start with that it has been almost impossible for them to succeed, whatever the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, may have said about it at earlier stages. Really, it would be very much better to start again and try to put it right. The administration of this section of the law hardly redounds to the credit of the Bench, however hard they have tried to put it right.
846
I should think there is no part of the law which over the past few years has appeared to the man in the street to be so lacking in common sense as these particular sections. I hope that the opportunity will be taken to-day to do something towards putting them right.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, following the contributions made by the distinguished lawyers, and as the only layman so far to speak, unless there is some very good reason which was put forward either on the Report stage or earlier, it seems to me on the basis of common sense and speaking as a magistrate, that the Amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and other noble Lords makes good common sense. We are always being told, when trying to introduce what we think is an improvement, that this is not the right place and that one should wait for the relevant Bill before attempting to make a change. It would seem to me that there is no better place for this matter, and all the other anomalies, to be ironed out than this Bill. I hope the Minister will find himself able to take that view.
3.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, I do not, my Lords. I will try to explain to the noble Baroness and to other noble Lords who have spoken why I take this stand. This is not a precipitate or unpremeditated remark, but it is one that rests upon two fundamentals. Incidentally, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is not going to leave his place for one moment, because I should like to commend him very much for what he said just now. The noble Lord intimated—and I do not wish to go into the question of whether or not the basic drafting of the Act of 1967 was or was not sound—that what we ought to do is to look at the whole question again and reconsider the entire structure of the legislation, which I have no doubt he has had to administer in Westmorland over a period of time and which has caused him difficulty, as it has others. Might I just say to the noble Lord that I entirely agree with him; he is entirely right about this, and we must not underestimate the weight of what he has said, based upon his personal experience.
This Bill would have been an opportunity to deal with I know not how many

847
points arising out of the Road Traffic Acts. We have put in this Bill a number of important measures to deal with road safety. I need not catalogue them because they are familiar to your Lordships; but the Bill has been restricted in its area according to priorities and pressure on Parliamentary time. This has happened on purpose. I am not saying in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that a review of the blood alcohol legislation is never going to be necessary, but I must also tell the noble Lord that whatever the result may be in terms of going through the Division Lobbies, I cannot possibly give any undertaking (in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said) that we are going to be able to get this whole thing completely re-thought in order to put down major Amendments in another place. If said something on the Report stage which led people to believe that that is what I was saying, then I am very sorry. But I must make it quite plain now that I was not making any such promise, and noble Lords will have to act accordingly.
I accept that this legislation is not very easy. It was attacking a problem which is perhaps not very familiar to the criminal law. There was a stage before the courts got at it when it appeared that it might also fail because of errors of drafting. In fact, it has not failed. The number of breath tests and the number of convictions (no doubt partly due to the folly of motorists) has risen fairly steadily year by year in fairly constant proportion to each other. In 1972 there were 120.000 breath tests, of which quite a large number proved negative, and there were 44,000 convictions. So there we have not got a picture of legislation which has failed; and when the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, tries to make out how had this law is, we must remember that large numbers of convictions are being obtained under this law.
I think that against those figures, one has to look at a comparatively small—indeed, probably miniscule—number of anomalies that arise out of one very simple fact. If you get caught by the police with more alcohol in your blood than the prescribed limit automatically you get disqualified. There is nothing that a person who has a motor car dislikes more than being disqualified. Therefore, this law, whether it was drafted well, badly or indifferently,
848
has inevitably been under supreme pressure. Every possible technicality to do with the procedure of the police, the drafting of the Act or with anything else that could be thought of by the ingenuity of those concerned, has been tested and re-tested in the courts. That is why in a comparatively small number of cases only anomalies have occurred. I am not saying that if we were to start again we would do it in the same way. What I am saying is that there is a fairly strong argument for not tinkering with the law at this stage in its development. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that it is not abstruse. The very arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, put forward show that there are matters in it which are by no means easy of interpretation and it is precisely for that reason that he has put down the Amendment. It is not a simple law, but is one that is gradually being understood and worked out by those who have to deal with it.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has rightly dealt with these matters in three parts to which I will come in a moment. We think that although procedures under the present law may be tiresome for the police, the police and the courts are now familiar with them; and, as I have just said, the law is working. Certainly when it comes to the question of driving, one can pick fun out of the difference between stopping to buy a newspaper and stopping to buy one's groceries, but if one reads the opinion of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in Sakhuja v. Allen, it will be seen that that is with respect, perhaps a rather superficial way of looking at what is rather a profound interpretation of the law about when or when you are not driving for the purposes of this Act. We feel that we should gain still more experience of the present law before we start any process that somebody might think right of a practical re-building of the whole thing. I am afraid that no rebuilding from the very start is practicable within the timetable of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, advised I know by a great deal of eminent legal opinion, has taken a great deal of trouble about this matter and he has given ample notice of what he wants to do. He explained it most thoroughly on a previous occasion and he has given me every possible assistance in preparing for

849
it. I am deeply grateful to him. It is the most helpful way of carrying on proceedings in this House, and I earnestly hope that he will accept my thanks. My thanks also go to those who have assisted him.
What I should like to do—and I will try to do this briefly because, as the noble Lord has said, we have important business to follow—is to look at some of the points he has raised and to see whether he has got it right, because I suspect—whatever the noble Lord, Lord Foot, thinks and whatever other noble Lords think about the weaknesses of the law—that if noble Lords are going to divide on these Amendments then they will want to be perfectly certain that they are flawless. Without going into horrid little drafting points, I should like to point out one or two of the difficulties which are quite substantial in the drafting of these Amendments and suggest to your Lordships that, despite the erudition that has gone into their preparation, they may not quite do.
Let us look for a moment at the first two new clauses. We are here involved, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said, with the person who takes a drink either after he has been stopped by the police or after he has had an accident. He may take it out of a hip flask; he may go into a pub; or he may be given a drink by some misguided but kindly person nearby. He may do it dishonestly or he may do it out of the purest of motives. What are we to make of it? It partly depends upon the definition of whether or not he is still driving, and to that the Sakhuja case has made a considerable contribution. If there has been an accident and he has taken a drink in between and there is no way of telling whether or not he has done so with malice or out of pure innocence, it may pause a genuine difficulty. But I suggest to your Lordships that that does not happen very often. What do we find, however, in the tightening up of the law as proposed by these first two Amendments, and in particular by the defence, the new subsection (2A) that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has put down as Amendment No. 5? What we shall then have is this: we shall have an offence deemed to have been committed when the tests prove the prescribed limit or more in the blood unless the contrary be shown, and the proof is
850
upon the defence. How does the defence prove it? That is what one has to work out. First of all, it has been established that you cannot apportion the amount of alcohol that was in a person's blood while he was still driving the car and the amount of alcohol that has been added to that amount in his blood by means of him taking a drink later. That has been established by the Rowlands case, and beyond doubt, as I understand it.
LORD HACKING: My Lords, may I intervene to say that I had very much in mind the case of Rowlands v. Hamilton, but my Amendments would overrule that judgment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: They may overrule the judgment, my Lords, but they do not overrule the fact that you cannot apportion the amount. At any rate, the Amendments do not specifically allow you to do it nor do they say how you can do it. As I understand it, the practical difficulties of this, depending on different people's metabolism, are intense. I may be wrong, but that is the advice I have had, as prepared by the noble Lord and the advance notice that he has given me. If one cannot apportion the amount of alcohol that you had in your blood before you took the extra drink after driving—if your Lordships see what I mean—then this defence can only work if you can establish that you had no alcohol in your blood at the time you were driving the car. That, I suggest, is going a bit far because, after all, you are entitled—for better or for worse—to have up to 80 milligrammes per millilitre without committing a criminal offence. This defence indeed requires a very heavy burden on the defence and one which, I would suggest your Lordships, has not been sufficiently clearly thought through. The mere fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, says that it overrules Rowlands—which is not the advice that I have been given—in itself shows that there is still an area of dispute whether the noble Lord is right or whether I am right on this particular matter.
LORD HACKING: My Lords, it clearly must overrule Rowlands v. Hamilton for the very good reason that it divides the offence from the proof of the offence. The difficulty of Rowlands v. Hamilton was that the previous legislation did not do so, and it became merged

851
into the two; hence their Lordships in the Judicial Committee were forced to make the decision in Rowlands v. Hamilton.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that this becomes another lawyers' paradise and the whole object of the exercise is to avoid such splendid excesses and banquets for lawyers. As we have a laboratory test and a specimen which has been taken after the person has had, first of all, the amount of alcohol in his blood, if any, which he had when he was driving, and secondly, the amount of alcohol in his blood as a result of having taken a drink after he stopped driving, and there is only one laboratory test and you are not allowed to apportion between the two, I still do not understand how the defence works. That shows the complication of this particular matter and we think that it goes too far.
I can see that there is a problem here, but what I cannot at the moment devise is a satisfactory mid-point between something of that sort which goes a very long way to make this a strict offence—to which there is virtually no defence at all—and the present law; and I cannot do it without attempting to construct the whole of the breathalyser offence. For the sort of reasons I have given, I think that this particular Amendment is defective and it would, on its wording, give rise to yet another series of major legal battles.
The noble Lord's third new clause deals with the question of driving. Here again we have a situation where the noble Lord, in his Amendment, has gone a good deal further than the law at present goes. I know that there are anomalies and that where a person is seen to be drunk or thought by a plainclothes C.I.D. man to be drunk, and is stopped and held in the driving seat until the arrival of a uniformed constable (who alone can administer the breathalyser), he is held to have stopped driving by the time the breathalyser is applied, so the law does not catch him. That was the case of Edkins v. Knowles. Equally, if the person is prevented from driving, as in the Bates case, by somebody else, a member of the public, for a period of time until the policeman
852
arrives, he has stopped driving and so he is no longer in a position to be caught under the Act as it stands.
Those cases are one end of the scale. But what about the situation which would arise under the wording of Amendment No. 6? I shall give two examples. If I remember rightly, my noble friend Lord Mansfield suggested to your Lordships the other day the example of a party being attended by a husband and wife who made a pact. The husband was to drive there and the wife was to refrain from alcohol and drive home again—of course, it might be the other way round. Whoever drove to the party drove rather fast and the police were apprised of the situation. They found the couple at the house where they were having dinner. By that time the person who was driving had been released under the pact from abstention from alcohol and had had a considerable amount of drink. There was more than the prescribed minimum amount of alcohol in his blood. But he was not going to drive home; his partner was going to do so. Yet under this legislation, as drafted in the Amendment, there would be a power to arrest the person who had driven perfectly soberly to the party at any time in the course of the evening. This is absurd. I am afraid that that is the effect of the Amendment.
I need not go quite so far as that. Supposing that I, perfectly sober, drive to dinner and drive too fast because, as usual, I am late, and upon arrival, I have several drinks. I can be breathalysed by the police halfway through dinner, by which time they have caught up with me and at which time I have more than the prescribed amount of alcohol in my blood. But I am staying the night, I am not going to drive home. I have committed no offence. The noble Lord's Amendment does not take account of these things, and again it goes too far. I cannot see the midway point between, unless you take what may be a sophisticated but is nevertheless a fairly common-sense attitude about what is and what is not the state of driving, such as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took in the Saklwja case.
Incidently there is not a gap in the law under Section 6(2) and (3), as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking thought. It was specifically provided under Section

853
6(3) that a person who thought he had too much alcohol in his blood should be able to relinquish the effect of driving the car by some means until he had sufficiently sobered up to be able to drive home. It is a fairly complicated procedure; but there is no gap in the law which was created by some mistake. This was put in on purpose. The noble Lord may say that there is no power to enforce Section 6(2), but in fact there is in a rare number of occasions. It follows that it will be rarely used. Those two subsections are there on purpose and they are not, as the noble Lord considers, a gaping hole.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, the only illustration the noble Viscount has given of the way in which Amendment No. 6 might work out wrongly is the illustration of somebody who goes sober to a dinner party and who has a drink after he has arrived there. Has not the noble Lord overlooked the proviso which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is proposing: the requirement that the breath test is taken as soon as is reasonably practicable after that person ceased driving or attempted to drive. Supposing somebody drives perfectly sober to a dinner party, takes drinks and then police officers go into the private house and breathalyse him. If he was brought before the magistrates on this charge is there any magistrates' court in the world that would regard that as taking a sample as soon as was reasonably practicable after he had stopped driving?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords. I have been into this in great detail. I can explain to the noble Lord exactly why. Let me give an illustration. On my way to lunch I was driving fast and badly. My car number was taken by somebody, maybe a policeman, who did not stop me at the time. My car registration number is traced through the registration authority, which will very soon be based in Swansea and computerised. The police, having discovered the name and address of the owner of the car, telephone or visit my house and find that I am out to lunch. They go immediately to the place where I am having lunch and breathalyse me. What could be more than "as soon as reasonably practicable" than that? Nobody could be quicker, more efficient or more off the mark than that.
854
The noble Lord wags his head and the noble Baroness wags her head, too. Very well, if noble Lords wish to avoid a ridiculous situation of that sort, so be it. I do as well. But I say that the proviso does not have that effect. This is the difficulty about law under pressure. This is the point that is going to be taken one way or the other unless we get it right. I suggest that when you have this type of proviso, and it is defended on those grounds, the Amendment is not right.
LORD HACKING: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but I should draw to the noble Viscount's attention the fact that the proviso is in almost identical language to the proviso that has been in the Act from the outset concerning paragraph (b).
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, whether or not my arguments are accepted, I cannot go on for much longer in this matter. I am sorry that I have already done so for so long, but I know that it is an important matter. I have tried to concentrate my arguments.
May I go on to the third group, Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. This is the question of what happens when somebody is arrested. I appreciate—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, mentioned this—that there are circumstances in which if you are drunk when driving a car and a policeman stops you you can punch him on the nose and get arrested, and by the technicality of having been arrested for that offence and not for an offence under the Road Traffic Act, you cannot be breathalysed and disqualified as a result of a conviction. But I think that by this time the police know that, and although it may require a certain presence of mind, if you are a police officer and are punched on the nose, to arrest somebody under the Road Traffic Act before you also arrest him for punching you on the nose, it is something which is capable of being dealt with under police procedure. If the policeman gets it right the person is breathalysed and disqualified. There are practical methods of avoiding that difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, also said that there were circumstances in connection with a theft where somebody who had burgled a house, or something of that sort, had been driving a car with

855
more than the prescribed amount of alcohol in his blood. I grant that these are circumstances that can arise, but we have one or two points about this, one of which is of some substance. First of all, under the Criminal Justice Act if somebody has used a car in the course of a criminal expedition he can be disqualified. Secondly, we have the case of Weir, which was heard in the Liverpool Crown Court, where a man was being questioned regarding stealing a car. After he had been taken to the police station somebody smelt alcohol on his breath and decided that they would also try to get him for driving the car with too much alcohol in his blood. Your Lordships can imagine all sorts of similar circumstances where burglars who come in a car or van are caught red-handed and the police wish to prosecute them also for driving under the influence of too much alcohol.
I suggest that we are getting some way from the direct nexus of driving a motor vehicle and having alcohol in the blood and a subsequent arrest. If you can arrest somebody for anything, and after that say "Incidentally, he came here by car, and I think he has too much alcohol in his blood," we are going a long way from the direct connection between driving and alcohol which is the basis of the present law in the Road Traffic Act. It may be right; perhaps we ought to have less close a nexus between the two. But if we do then we are getting into the area of a much looser application of the whole question of breath testing and alcohol testing in the blood. We are getting into the area of random testing for people who are picked up for any offence, or indeed for no offence, but simply because they are stopped at random. I believe we should consider the principle, and I believe that this House and another place would wish most seriously to consider the principle, because it was very seriously considered when the 1967 Bill was being debated.
When we come to this secondary charge, which arises out of an arrest for some other offence, we are getting into a much wider field altogether, a field which is inevitably entrenched upon by this last group of Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. It is being done—I do not in any way suggest that the noble Lord has done it on purpose,
856
but this is the effect—without anybody being told or given a chance to consider the full consequences of where we are heading when we do it this way.
My Lords, this has been a very long speech; I am sorry. I accept that this is an important subject. I also suggest to your Lordships that it is an extremely difficult one, and it is one that we ought to be very careful to try to take on board this way with the best will, the best drafting, the best endeavour in the world. I am afraid that I think all these Amendments are faulty, and I would still suggest to the House that we must look at the whole matter, keep it permanently under review. This is not the right time, nor the right way, to set about making an amendment.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, and since he has now made it perfectly plain that the Government are not prepared to accept Amendments of this kind to the breathalyser part of this Bill, I wonder whether I might ask him what he meant when on three occasions on Report he said that the matters which have been raised here have been very usefully raised because they provide a basis for discussion in the other place. May I ask him in particular what he meant us to understand when, after asking the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, not to press his Amendments, he said this:
"I hope the noble Lord may think it has been worth while to do it in this way, to make his speech, to produce his erudite comments and allow us more time to consider the matter when the Bill goes to another place in due course."?—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 17/12/73, col. 141.)
What did the noble Viscount intend us to understand by that?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, what I intended the House to understand by that was that before I heard the very careful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I had not had an opportunity fully to analyse this matter and to see what were the implications of what he was putting forward. It may have been an over-promising reply, but my ambition in this House in speaking from the Front Bench is not to turn down, out of hand, helpful and constructive Amendments such as the noble Lord has put forward. I hope that is the right

857
attitude and one that will be supported.
I have now had the opportunity to look at this matter, and I find the prospect most unpromising for the reasons I have attempted to describe. I do not in any way suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking or others who have supported him have been foolish in pursuing this matter, Far from it. It continues to be helpful and to give us ambition. But looking at the implications, as I have attempted to do briefly this afternoon, I am afraid I am now convinced that we have something too difficult to take on board in this Bill, and so I have to be less encouraging than I was previously.
3.54 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I seek eventually to enter paradise, but not into a lawyers' paradise. In any case, I would have no standing there. I have listened with very close interest to all that has taken place on these Amendments, both on Report and to-day. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, to the noble Lords, Lord Stow Hill and Lord Foot, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and certainly to the noble Viscount who argues always so persuasively. I am bound to say that since 1967 we have had six years' experience of what was a new departure. The 1967 Act was introduced by the Government of which I was then a member. That Act was not perfect; nor were the clauses dealing with the breathalyser. I believe that the six years that have passed have given us sufficient time to make up our minds that some Amendment is necessary. I believe that although Lord Hacking's Amendments may not be perfect, they certainly seem to me to be a step in the right direction and would do something to remove some of anomalies which the noble Viscount has said definitely exist.
My Lords, the noble Viscount said that the Act has not failed. I do not think it has failed. He went on to quote figures of convictions to prove that that is the case, that it has not failed. But he was unable to quote any figures to indicate that there may have been very many more prosecutions if it had not been for the gaps in the Act itself. He said that the anomalies have been thrown out. My Lords, ought we not to deal with anomalies in the law as and when we can, and as and when they are brought to our attention? I believe that that, surely,
858
is our position in relation to this matter because the Bill that is now before us seems to me to be a suitable vehicle for just the kind of Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is proposing. The noble Viscount certainly conceded that there were anomalies, and I feel that we ought to deal with them now in the Bill that is now before us. I think I ought to say that we do not regard this in any way as being a Party matter. I would not from this Box ask my noble friends behind me to accompany me into the Lobby in support of these Amendments as though it was something I would urge upon them as a Party matter. I must say that I have no hesitation at all about going into the Lobby in support of these Amendments. If the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, decides to go to a Division, I certainly hope that some of my friends behind me will accompany me.
3.57 p.m.
LORD HACKING: My Lords, may I begin by expressing my gratitude to all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and not least the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for the contributions that he has made. He thanked me for the hard work that I had put into the case. Quite clearly, my learned friend (if I may refer to him as my learned friend) has gone to a great deal of trouble before coming to your Lordships' House to-day. He was kind to me and I am going to be kind to him. Of course, all barristers, whether they be in Government or out of Government, from time to time receive a bad brief; and that is exactly what has happened to the noble Viscount to-day. He has received a thoroughly bad brief from those who advise him. I did not wish my Amendments to result in a debate on legal points between barristers or lawyers. Indeed, I was most grateful to the noble Baroness for intervening and approaching the matter from common sense. That is precisely how I am now inviting your Lordships to approach this matter. I propose to divide the House—and for this reason: the present law does not match up to common sense; more than that, it defies common sense.
In dividing the House I am putting only one question to your Lordships: has the present breathalyser provision efficacy? If it has not, now is the time to start to improve it. In the words of the noble

859
Lord, Lord Champion, let us take a step in the right direction. I do not pretend, and have never pretended, that my Amendments are flawless or perfect. I have never pretended that they cannot be improved. Indeed, at the Second Reading and the Report stage I precisely said that when this Bill goes into the other place improvements can be made. But let us
start the ball rolling. Let us pass these Amendments, whether they are perfect or have imperfections. It is upon that basis that I divide the House.
4.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 84.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

George-Brown, L.

Roberthall, L.

Amulree, L.

Greenway, L.

Rochester, L.

Archibald, L.

Hacking, L. [Teller.]

Saint Edmundsbury and Ips-which, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Henderson, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Balogh, L.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockwuy, L.

Hylton, L.

Shannon, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shepherd, L.

Burntwood, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Simon, V.

Chorley, L.

Kinloss,, Ly.

Stocks, B.

Clwyd, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewclyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Erskine, of Rerrick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Summerskill, B.

Faringdon, L.

Loudoun, C.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fiske, L.

Peddie, L.

Walston, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Rea, L.

White, B.

Garnsworthy, L.

Rhodes, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Aldenham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mersey, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Alport, L.

Effingham, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Amory, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Balerno, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Exeter, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Fortescue, E.

Platt, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gage, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Camoys, L.

Gowrie, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Chesham, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Clancarty, E.

Gridley, L.

St. Helens, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Coleraine, L.

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

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Headfort, M.

Stamp, L.

Courtown, E.

Hill of Luton, L.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

Strathspey, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Craigton, L.

Ironside, L.

Teviot, L.

Crathorne, L.

Jessel, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Daventry, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Vivian, L.

Davidson, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

de Clifford, L.

Limerick, E.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Derwent, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B.

Digby, L.

Mancroft, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
Clause 25 [Authorised insurers required to be members of Motor Insurers' Bureau]:
4.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, may I say that this is another of the Northern Ireland Amendments which results from the change in the law under the Constitution Act. I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 31, leave out subsection (4). —[Viscount Colville of Culross.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Variation of penalties for certain offences]:
4.10 p.m.
LORD JANNER LORD JANNER moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 31, line 35, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of sections 26, 28, 109 and 110 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948, sections 4 and 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, section 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, and sections 60 and 67 of the Mental Health Act 1959, an offence under sections 2, 3, 5(1), 6(1), 9(3), 25(4), 29, 143, 164(1), 167, 169(1), 170 or 171 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, sections 233, 234 or 235 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, or 31(3), 42(4), or 86(2) or (3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 shall be deemed to be an offence punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this Amendment I must frankly admit that I just cannot believe that the Government are really serious about retaining the clause as it stands at present. It would be fantastic, for many reasons. If we look at the Amendment we shall see how many penalties the magistrates' courts can impose to-day, and the clause is designed to take those away from the magistrates' courts in dealing with motor offences leaving the magistrates literally devoid of any possibility of action other than the imposition of a fine. That is sheer nonsense, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the Government did not themselves move this Amendment, which indicates what has
862
been tried out over the past 15 years. Your Lordships will observe that the Acts to which this Amendment refers extend over a period of 15 years. There are eight Acts which have been in operation from various dates during that time, and they have contributed in no small measure towards making the magistrates' courts effective. Now, all that is to be swept aside on the assumption that fewer people would be sent to prison.
Our Judiciary is admired throughout the world. This applies also to our magisterial system, and the fact that it has been operated in accordance with certain rules, which I call the "Westminster rules" and which have been improved from time to time, has indicated that the opportunities which have been given to magistrates to help in the removal of crime, so far as that could be done, have in fact been put into proper practice by reliable persons who, in many instances, have given the greater proportion of their lives to helping in the administration of justice. They have felt that it is a social duty on their part because of their particular abilities. Today, they are being told that all that has been done before is sheer nonsense so far as motoring offences are concerned, and that in future when a motoring offence comes before them all they can do is to impose a fine of £400. Apparently it is thought that that is not serious; it is a triviality, and that it is not necessary to send a person to prison. Obviously, if the prosecution decide that the case is serious they can take it to another court. The magistrates' court itself may impose a fine of £400, and apparently the offence may or may not be considered as serious. This is an absurd state of affairs. There are cases where a fine of £400 could be imposed instead of putting into effect the processes of detention which this House and the other place had thought necessary in order to provide for effective justice.
I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, are convinced that they are right. The question is, how can I persuade them that they are wrong? I am convinced that they are wrong, and that if they persist in their attitude it will deal a serious blow—and I mean a serious blow because this is not a trivial matter—to our judicial

863
system. This is something which is beginning to undermine the whole edifice of the Judiciary in this country and it cannot be treated in a flippant manner. It is in fact the commencement of an operation which is destined to have very serious consequences because it is undermining the powers of the court of first instance—which after all is an important court—and frustrating the magistrates, who are anxious to do their best.
The magistrates are convinced that by the clause as it stands the Government intend to move in a disastrously wrong direction. They are supported in this view by the justices' clerks who serve their courts; and in an humble way may I say that they are supported by myself as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and other noble Baronesses and I have endeavoured to show that the removal of imprisonment as a penalty for motoring offences from the jurisdiction of the magistrates is a grave error. When we come to examine its effects, as I shall endeavour to do in moving the Amendment (and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take somewhat longer than I ought to take, because I feel that one has to explain this, particularly to those who are not themselves magistrates), I hope and believe that your Lordships will give this Amendment your approval.
As I have indicated, this Amendment refers to 38 sections of eight Acts, passed at various times over a period of 15 years, and while I appreciate that the clause refers to road traffic offences only, nevertheless its passage without amendment would certainly be the thin end of the wedge and would remove the methods which the magistrates have been required to use over so many years. I have it from a reliable source that many magistrates, particularly in juvenile courts, are considering resigning from the Bench if the clause is passed in its present form.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Oh!
LORD JANNER: Yes; that is so, my Lords. I would not say it unless I had been told by a reliable source; and the reason is that they feel it would be useless to attempt to deal at all effectively with road offenders. The magistrates would be absolutely frustrated in their work.
864
Is it not ridiculous that fines of as much as £400 may be imposed for some offences where a magistrate is called upon to give a decision where the prosecution is not prepared to consider the case sufficiently serious to be sent to a higher court, and to have no other course open to them? If a fine is imposed it is practically impossible to enforce its payment.
As I have said before, I hold the noble Viscount and the Lord Chancellor in very high esteem but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the speech made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at cols. 568 and 569 of Hansard for December 20, 1973. He said—and this is at the bottom of column 568:
"…the answer to the noble Baroness, who asked what we are to do with a man who has not paid his fines and comes before the court again, is simply to send him to the Crown Court to get a proper sentence."
I do not want to re-fight a battle, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is incorrect if he implies that with drunken or dangerous driving there is a power to commit an offender to the Crown Court for sentence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, the noble Lord is really barking up a wholly wrong tree. I do not want to reiterate what I said in the earlier debate, but it was perfectly plain that my intention throughout that debate was that if a person was charged with an offence which he had repeatedly committed before, he ought to be taken to the Crown Court on indictment. I said nothing at all about committing for sentence.
LORD JANNER: Well, my Lords, I do not want to enter into a long argument. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that is what he intended to say, I can only say, with the greatest respect, that it was not the interpretation put on what he actually said; and if the persons who brought the matter to my notice have misinterpreted it, or if I have, I am sorry. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has now put the matter right because it is obvious, if the clause stands as it is at present, that it cannot mean sending for sentence. I have the wording here, but am quite satisfied with the interpretation that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has

865
given. It helps to prove my case, because obviously all one can do is to say, "Do not be a bad boy in future; pay a fine."—a fine which is not enforceable in fact; it may be in theory, but not in fact. Everyone knows there are a large number of people who have been fined but who cannot possibly be sent to prison in consequence of the fact that they have not paid the fine.
My Lords, may I say why I am concerned about this matter? What are these penalties?—Let me take some examples. Attendance centre orders of 12 to 24 hours for juvenile adults up to 21 years of age, the number of hours to be worked off in two-hourly periods, mostly on Saturday afternoons, usually on alternate Saturdays. This is decided by the warden of the centre. There are only two senior centres for offenders of 17 to 21 years of age, one in Manchester and one in Greenwich. Their use is mainly for persistent road user offences and they are also useful in preventing less serious hooliganism at football matches because they prevent the offenders from going to the matches. There are senior centres, but I do not want to go into great detail on those.
In practice, the two-hour periods are divided into approximately one hour's physical exercise and some cleaning chores, and one hour's constructive tuition. At Greenwich there is a course of car and motor-cycle maintenance, intended to appeal to men who persistently take and drive away cars, so that they can understand and take a proper interest in cars, for which they obviously have some sort of obsession. Then there are lectures in citizenship, and so on. The juvenile centre in London is run by the police. These are centres to which in future the courts will not be able to send an offender for a motor offence. In London the centre is something like a boys' club. There, too, they have physical exercises and are taught useful hobbies, basket work and so on. Experience has shown that several of those who have gone through juvenile attendance centres have now joined local youth clubs. There is opportunity for private talks with the warder and other instructors with whom the boys or men can discuss problems. The attendance centres have been used considerably by juvenile courts as they have the double effect on the youngster of providing an opportunity to do con-
866
structive work, and also some punishment in the necessity to give up some leisure hours at weekend.
I do not want to go into detail about the other penalties, such as the possibility of keeping a man for the day in charge in the magistrates' court, in cases which do not justify harder penalties. Even that is one of the penalties that will be removed; and so are the various other penalties or opportunities which are given by the Acts as they stand. I should imagine that those of your Lordships who are in the Chamber at the moment and are magistrates will understand that what I am saying is correct, and that this is the feeling of the vast majority, if not all, of the magistrates in this country.
My Lords, why should the Government be stubborn about not doing something which they have said they will consider? It is not suggested that the matter is one which does not require or justify consideration. The Government have said to the magistrates in various places—indeed, in this House—that they would consider dealing with these matters at a later stage. The whole idea of the various Amendments that we moved earlier to enable magistrates' courts to imprison was mainly on account of the fact that under the Bill as it stands all these methods would be taken away from magistrates' courts. I think this House will agree that this would create an impossible situation. I hope the Amendment will be carried and that the Government will see to it that in another place the clause is not revived in its present form. I beg to move.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and other Members of the House will forgive me, but I do not propose to go back over all the arguments of principle that have been raised in this House about this subject on the previous stages of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, has made, and is entitled to make on Third Reading, what is in effect a Second Reading speech on this point. I do not object to that in any way. I understand that what lie is saying is largely a plea for, as it were, those powers in magistrates' courts which flow from the fact that the offences carry imprisonment, although they are not only custodial sentences. I do not know

867
whether any one remembers, but at cols. 540 onwards of Hansard on Report stage, I dealt with every single one of these points at considerable length, and argued, with great regret (and I think I made the regret plain at the time), that the Government could not see their way as a matter of principle and as a matter of practice, as it were, to reimport these non-custodial sentences so that magistrates could continue to use them. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, did not refer to the arguments I put forward—I do not blame him for that—but if noble Lords cast back their minds, they will rememeber that I argued this fairly fully. At the end of that particular argument the House divided, and the argument for which I was the proponent held the day.
I do not want to go over all this again, but to deal only with one thing. It is something I did not then cover, so therefore it is novel, and it relates to juvenile courts. I know there is a particular problem here. I do not know where the noble Lord got his information from that certain juvenile courts magistrates propose to resign. I am sorry to hear this and hope that perhaps on second thoughts they will not do so, but I do understand that there are problems for the magistrates who run the juvenile courts when one has to deal with youngsters, usually boys, who are persistent road traffic offenders, particularly in areas where secure community homes are not provided.
I appreciate that there are severe problems. I. wondered, therefore, what was the extent of the problem and what would need to be done about it. I assume that in these cases the juvenile court magistrates do not make much use of the power to bring parents along and bind them over or get recognisances from them, or indeed fine them. I have not got the figure, but I assume that this is not a popular course with the magistrates, although it is available to them under the law. They would rather deal with the juvenile himself. The noble Lord said that fines were not very effective; at any rate he said that they cannot be enforced. I must make it perfectly plain that there are goodness knows how many offences in the criminal calendar which do not carry imprison-
868
ment for which fines are available, for which fines are passed by juvenile courts and other courts, and they are, I assume, enforced, and the mere fact that we are taking away the power to imprison for certain road traffic offences really does not seem to me to make it impossible for fining to take place in cases where the juvenile court wish to impose it simply because of the removal of special powers of warrants to be issued in cases where somebody does not turn up. I am afraid I really cannot accept that argument, because there are certain other cases where imprisonment is not available and yet the magistrates satisfactorily impose fines.
What I really wanted to look at was the detention centre and attendance centre argument. Let me first of all make it plain that I accept that it is a very rare occurrence indeed for a juvenile—that is, someone from 14 to 17 years old—to be committed to the Crown Court for trial, because, as I understand it, it is only where he is tried with somebody else who is older that this happens. Indeed, I observe that in 1972 there was only one finding of guilt for a person of this age brought before the Crown Court for road traffic offences, and that person was fined, so the vast majority have been dealt with by the magistrates. May I look at the statistics. In 1972, there were just over 19,000 findings of guilt for persons between 14 and 17 for road traffic offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, said that attendance centres are widely used. Well, they are not. Out of 19,000 findings of guilt, there were 184 attendance centre orders. I dare say the attendance centres are admirable, but they are not widely used. I do not know what the percentage is, but those are the figures. I look at the detention centre orders, which are at the moment available. Incidentally, I have seen to it that more junior detention centre places were made available recently although I do not think this applied in 1972. Of the 19,000 findings of guilt, there were 344 detention centre orders and 340 committals to borstal. So out of 19,000 juveniles, we have something in the region of 800 people who were dealt with in one way or another custodially. That does not seem to me to be a very large number. Included in that, although I think the numbers are fairly small, are a number where one or

869
other of these custodial orders was made for driving while disqualified. I have just been told that there were 39 orders against parents—fines, damages or compensation—and 8 orders for recognisances to be entered into; that is for road traffic offences. So I assume that that part of the 1969 Act has not been used.
I go back to my argument. There were a few of these custodial sentences where the sentence was imposed for driving while disqualified. That power remains. I want to see what is available to the magistrates and what is a typical case that comes in front of them. Take the road traffic case. First of all, let us remember that what used to be taking and driving away, which was a road traffic offence until the Theft Act, is now dealt with under the Theft Act and therefore is not involved in this. A frequent reason why a juvenile, particularly somebody who is persistently involved in meddling about with motor cars, comes before the juvenile court is for what used to be taking and driving away. That is not affected by the Bill. Power to send him to a detention centre remains; this is in no way taken away. Secondly, I should think that the juvenile courts—I would be surprised to hear to the contrary—are disinclined to send juveniles to detention or attendance centres on the first occasion when they appear for misbehaving in some way with motor vehicles. If the offender is between 14 and 17 there is a very strong probability that if he misbehaves with a motor vehicle he drives it without an adequate licence, and I imagine that on the first occasion he gets disqualified. The next time he misbehaves and comes back to the juvenile court he can be prosecuted—and indeed I would expect him to be—for driving while disqualified. In those circumstances, under this Bill the power to send the person concerned to a detention centre or attendance centre remains.
We are therefore left with the rest. After all, if you have a charge of dangerous driving or careless driving or tampering with vehicles, or whatever it is, and it is accompanied by a charge of driving while disqualified, there is still power to send to a detention centre. What we are taking away is what I should have thought to be a fair and a minimal number of cases for imprisonment. I have set this out time and again. The figures that I
870
have given to-day specifically relate to the juvenile offender, because this is something I am worried about. I do not say that the Government have stopped thinking about this, but I do not believe that we can deem this whole list of offences set out in the Amendment to be imprisonable for the purpose of applying all these non-custodial penalties in the setting of these road traffic offences by themselves.
My Lords, I hope I have been reasonable and that I have tried to argue this matter carefully to show that I have thought about it. I hope that the combination of what I said on Report, together with what I have said to-day indicates to the House that the magistrates are not in practice going to lose powers that they employ with any frequency. I hope also that I have been able to establish that in the case of adults there will still be the possibility in serious cases to indict and send to the Crown Court, where any sentence can be imposed, including imprisonment, and in the case of juveniles there are still powers for commoner sorts of offences. If fines against the persons concerned are considered by the courts to be inadequate, I just draw attention to the fact that parents can be involved. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that we do not do this in any sense, as he tried to put it, as beginning to undermine the whole edifice of the judiciary. I have made it pellucidly clear that we are doing no such thing. There is no onslaught upon the integrity or the power of importance of the magistracy. I have said this over and over again, and so has my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. It comes very much more importantly from him than it does from me. But we have both said it and we both mean it—there is no question of undermining this edifice. Nor is there any question of treating this, as the noble Lord suggested, in a flippant manner. I treat it very seriously. I have attempted to argue it very seriously, and I hope that the House will be convinced by my arguments.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I will not delay the House very long because my noble friend Lord Janner has done so much research on this and has presented the case. But I should not like it to be thought that I have changed my views in any way since the early stages of the Bill.

871
I find the noble Viscount's arguments curious. They are skilful, as he is very practised, and very eloquent. But what he seemed to me to be saying, in essence, was that because the magistrates have not used the powers of imprisonment then they do not need them; so the powers should be taken away and the magistrates should deal with these matters simply through fines.
The mere fact that, from the figures given, magistrates have not necessarily used even the powers relating to attendance centres is not a true reflection of the situation, as I feel sure the noble Viscount knows. I know from sitting in court that there are many things that one would like to do but that in fact the facilities do not exist. I cannot speak for the juvenile court. There are many occasions when one would like to deal with offenders in a particular way, but we all know that many of the services written down on paper do not in fact exist when it comes to the actual carrying out. I do not think that the figures show a completely true reflection of the way these sentences would have been imposed had there been more attendance centres available.
While I have not heard of magistrates proposing to resign, I cannot give the noble Viscount, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor any comfort on this matter. The feeling of the magistrates on this matter is quite strong. I am very proud to be a magistrate. Here is a group of people who work voluntarily to carry out this arduous and not very pleasant service, and if they, as the consumers here, feel that the Government are not handling this in the way that they would like, it is only fair that we should state their case in this House. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place they may be a little more fortunate in this matter.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what the noble Viscount said, but I am bound to say that I
was not convinced. He has overlooked the fact that quite recently the London branch of the Magistrates' Association undertook a survey on this particular subject, and they drew up a report which strongly recommended that there should be more senior attendance centres opened.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I really cannot let the noble Lord get away with that. We argued interminably about this on the Criminal Justice Bill.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, what I am trying to do is to get the noble Viscount to see that there are people who are called upon to give a certain service, and who give that service, and know what they are talking about. The Magistrates' Association and the clerks to the justices feel very strongly on this point, and indeed the Government said to the committee of magistrates studying senior attendance centres that they would hold up the provision of more attendance centres until the community service orders scheme had been fully put into operation. How can he say at this moment that he is going to deprive them of all this? It is a ridiculous position. Is he saying that what has been going on all these years was all useless, that the operating machine has been futile, that it was not working, and that it should have been done away with before? Of course he cannot say that. If he is attempting to do away with it for one set of offences, what is there to prevent other steps from being taken to deal with other kinds of offence in a similar way? I do not think that that is an argument.
My Lords, this is a matter of great public interest, and is regarded as such by the public and by the magistrates. I am certainly going to ask that the House should divide.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 89.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Foot, L.

Janner, L. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Gamsworthy, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Hacking, L.

Longford, E.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Burntwood, L.

Henley, L.

Phillips, B.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Rea, L.

Chorley, L.

Hughes, L.

Rhodes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Stocks, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Shinwell, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Snow, L.

Summerskill, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Aldenham, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mersey, V.

Alport, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Milverton, L.

Amory, V.

Erskine, of Rerrick, L.

Molson, L.

Atholl, D.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Onslow, E.

Berkeley, B.

Gage, V.

Platt, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gowrie, E.

Roberthall, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Greenway, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Caccia, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Clithcroe, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hailes, L.

Sandford, L.

Coleraine, L.

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

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Selsdon, L.

Conesford, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Hawke, L.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Courtown, E.

Headfort, M.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Craigton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sudeley, L.

Crathorne, L.

Killearn, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Davidson, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vivian, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Limerick, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Derwent, L.

Loudoun, C.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Digby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Young, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the privilege Amendment.
Moved, That the privilege Amendment be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, an Amendment (privilege) made.
4.53 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like very briefly to take the opportunity of thanking all of your Lordships who have contributed to the passage of the Bill. We have a considerable number of experts in this House on the matter of road traffic. We have had some extremely useful debates on the subject and have made some very important Amendments, particularly on the subject of road safety. We have included a very significant new clause enabling the wearing of seat belts to be made compulsory, about which we had a wide-ranging debate and on which your Lordships' views will be very useful to
874
the Government when making decisions in the future.
I should like to thank my two noble friends Lord Colville of Culross and Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who have done most of the work on this side of the House; I am very grateful to them. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and his helpers for their co-operation. We have not agreed on all matters that have come before us, but we have conducted our debates amicably, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his co-operation in many of the administrative arrangements that have been made in connection with the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is undoubtedly a useful measure to which we are bidding goodbye today. As I said on Second Reading, it is something of a hotch-potch, but it is none the worse for that. I very much regret that the Government did not accept some of the excellent Amendments that the

875
Opposition moved in an attempt to improve the Bill, but it is always the fate of Oppositions in this House and in the other place that we so seldom manage to persuade the Government that they are wrong. But I was glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London managed to persuade the House that the Government were wrong, and that we passed the new Clause 7 which deals with parking on pavements. Clearly, the Government were not in favour of the Amendment and it will now be interesting to see what they do in another place, when they consider this Bill and, in particular, that Amendment.
The Opposition are very grateful to the Government for starting the consideration of this Bill in this House, and for enabling us to take a first look at it in times when we are not under particularly heavy pressure. We see the Bill on its way, hoping that it will bring about improvements in road safety and in certain other aspects. I cannot let the Bill pass without thanking individual Ministers who have been in charge of this Bill for the care which they have brought to the consideration of all the Amendments and for their unfailing courtesy to the House. This is my first opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, upon the step up which he has taken during the period when this Bill has been going through the House. I cannot imagine that that step up has been made because of anything arising out of this Bill, but we are happy to see it and we certainly congratulate him. I end by hoping that this Bill will prove to be the source of improvement for which the Government hope.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
4.58 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Preparation and revision of waste disposal plans]:
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("(vii) the local planning authority where this is not the disposal authority.")
The noble Lord said: The first Amendment to-day deals again with the question of who shall be consulted by the disposal authorities in making their plans. This is the point at which we left the Bill in December, when I moved an Amendment to the effect that owners and occupiers of sites for disposal were suitable people to be consulted. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was kind enough to say that she thought there was some sense in the Amendment and promised to look into it. She also said that one must be careful not to bring too many people into consultation, as one might well defeat one's end and make matters too complicated, but promised to see what she could do.
The Amendment which I am now moving deals with the consultation of the National Park planning boards. Under the Amendment, it shall be the duty of a disposal authority in preparing the plan and any modification of it, to consult
"(vii) the local planning authority where this is not the disposal authority."
In most cases, the local planning authority and the disposal authority are one and the same thing and we know that they cannot be required to consult themselves. We had this same problem with regard to highway authorities. Nevertheless, provision needs to be made for consulting National Park planning boards about disposal sites in National Parks, and I think that it needs to be said.
The noble Baroness may argue that it is unnecessary because it is covered at some other point in the Bill, possibly in one of the clauses dealing with planning. Nevertheless, I should like to hear what she can say to assure me that in fact there is no question of National Park planning hoards not being consulted about these disposal sites. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said on this Amendment. I must confess that when I first looked at it I assumed that by the words,
"the local planning authority where this is not the disposal authority",
the noble Lord in fact meant the local planning authority where this was the district authority. That being so, I should have thought that the point he was trying to make was in fact met within the terms of the Bill. The local planning authority in England may be the district council or the county council, depending on the planning functions (whether these are development planning or development control) allocated to each. If this were the meaning attached to it, it could create problems of definition to require consultation in the way in which the Amendment is drafted. The district council in England will already be consulted in its capacity as collection authority, and in Wales and Scotland the county council and the council of the region will be consulted respectively by the disposal authority, which is the district council. Subsection (3) provides that all the bodies with planning responsibilities will in any case be consulted on the waste disposal plan, although not explicitly because of their planning functions.
However, having heard the noble Lord's argument, I can see that what he is really concerned about are the National Park planning boards. In this connection, I should like to say that this is a matter I should like to take away and think about. I think there is something in this point, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will accept that I will consider it, and will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, if he is disposed to do so, I should like to say that I am very glad that the noble Baroness has agreed to look at this because I think it is a very real point. Plainly, the wording of the Amendment did not convey its full meaning to the noble Baroness, or presumably to her Department, but this really is a matter of substance in a National Park area and I very much hope that she will come back with an Amendment which will cover the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
LORD MOLSON: I was very glad to hear the sympathetic reply that my noble friend gave to the noble Lord's Amendment. There are, I think, only two National Parks which have planning boards. One is the High Peak, in which my old constituency was located, and that has been extremely successful in acting as a planning authority. I think it would be most unfortunate if by (as I think it would he) an oversight the Peak Park Planning Board were not consulted about the disposal of refuse. I think the same probably applies in the case of the Lake District. They also have a board, although unfortunately they have not a planning officer; they operate through the planning officers of the two county councils. In any case, I was extremely glad to hear my noble friend's sympathetic reply, and I think it might be more intelligible if in any Amendment that she brings forward she referred explicitly to the National Parks and did not use this form of words, because I am not at all surprised that she did not exactly understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was trying to establish.
LORD HENLEY: I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness, and I am very glad that other noble Lords feel, as she does, that there is a point of substance here. May I apologise straight away for having presented your Lordships' Committee with an Amendment which did not make it at all clear on the face of it that it was dealing with National Parks. I agree with the noble Lord that if the noble Baroness does come up with a Government Amendment it should be couched in a form which makes it quite explicit what it is aimed at. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.6 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 22, leave out from second ("modification") to ("to") in line 24 and insert ("which is so insignificant that it would be unreasonable to require publication")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13 which, although it may seem at first sight to deal with a matter which is little more than drafting, does, I submit to your Lordships' Committee, raise a matter of principle. As

879
the Committee know well, Clause 2 imposes on the disposal authority the duty to make a plan and also, if it comes to another conclusion on further investigations, which it is also obliged to carry out, to make modifications to that plan. When one looks at paragraph (b) of subsection (3) one finds that the disposal authority is enjoined by the wording of that paragraph,
"before finally determining the content of the plan or modification",
to take certain steps: first, to give publicity and, secondly, to
"provide persons appearing to the authority to be concerned with the plan or modification with opportunities of making representations to the authority about it".
Then it is obliged, by the succeeding wording of the paragraph, to consider any representations that are made; and "consider" means to consider them bona fide—to give proper attention to them and to give proper weight to the arguments which they contain.
Now the wording which I submit is objectionable in the paragraph as it is at present drawn is the wording in the brackets, which reads:
"excluding a modification as to which the authority considers it unnecessary to comply with the provisions of this paragraph".
I submit to the Committee that it really is highly undesirable that the disposal authority should be, as it were, made a judge in its own cause. For the legislation to say, "You, the disposal authority, must take certain steps unless you choose not to", is surely a rather novel, and certainly undesirable, way to draft the provisions of a Statute. One would have thought that any disposal authority which thought that publicity and listening to representations was necessary would do so even without being told to do so by the Statute; but for the Statute to say, "You are to do so unless you choose not to", is a form of drafting which I should have thought was novel—it may be that I am entirely mistaken about that. but I do not know of any other example—and undesirable.
The way in which those of us who have put our names to this Amendment seek to remedy the situation is to strike out the words to which I have taken objection and substitute:
"which is so insignificant that it would be unreasonable to require publication".
880
The big difference between the wording at present in the paragraph and the wording which it is sought to substitute is that the new words would impose an objective, external test. If the matter came before a court which was considering whether it would impose a prohibition against further proceedings by the disposal authority the court would have objectively to ask itself, Is the modification in question so insignificant that it would be unreasonable to require publication? "That, I submit, is a very much more desirable form of wording than a form of wording that leaves a decision almost to the whim of the disposal authority. Under the existing wording, a disposal authority may say, "In the exercise of our judgment, which is not to be subject to any inquiry or supervision by anybody, we choose not to give persons affected the opportunity of making representations to us."
I submit that this is a change which ought to be made. It is a point not susceptible of great elaboration, and that is the substance of it: that the Government should say they will give consideration to imposing some objective test with which the disposal authority has to comply. I hope that I shall not be told that there are examples in other Statutes because, even if there are, it does not mean that they are good: it means that the other Statutes are bad. Quite often I have been told that when I was Solicitor General a quarter of a century ago I approved something of the sort. I hope the Committee will agree that that simply proves that I was a bad Solicitor General, and not that I was right to give my approval. I hope that there will not be quoted cases when I did. If there are cases, I have quite forgotten them; but if I did I apologise, and I hope the Committee will not think it right to follow the recommendations that I then made, if I made them.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): I do not think that there is a very serious difference of opinion here between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the Government. There are some points of detail between us, I believe. I certainly am not going to try to cite examples against the noble and learned Lord, and in no circumstances

881
would I question his very distinguished tenure of office as Solicitor General.
There is a basic problem which it would be as well to get out of the way because it will crop up again a couple of times later. The Government's basic attitude about waste disposal authorities is that, having set them up and given them powers, we want if possible to trust them and to help them get on with the job without too many unreasonable impediments. I accept that what we are arguing about here is finding the right balance between safeguarding the public interest and allowing a local authority to get on with its job.
The acceptance of the Amendment would mean that the authority could exclude from the stages of public participation set out in subsection (3)(b) only those modifications which were merely insignificant, rather than those which the authority thought did not require publicity. Here there is an aspect which we must welcome; that the Amendment seeks to impose a common measuring stick to determine whether a modification should be publicised, instead of leaving the decision entirely to the discretion of the authority. There are obvious advantages in this proposal, but one must approach it rather carefully. The Government have given some thought to this matter in drafting the Bill, and the Amendment is clearly designed to ensure that the authority does not abuse the present discretionary duty of publicity for modifications by too extensive a reliance on the phrase, "unnecessary to comply".
The suggestion of changing the criterion to "insignificant ", rather than the authority's judgment, raises problems. Here I have to say that our legal advice is somewhat at variance with the noble and learned Lord in that the lawyers are not entirely happy about the definition of "insignificant" or the definition of the word "minor" in this respect. It would bring some loss of freedom of action to the disposal authorities; and as I have said, we are anxious to create a climate of opinion in which the authorities being set up to do a difficult job are trusted to inform the public so far as is compatible with their duties. We hope that these new larger W.D.A.s (I must apologise for using those initials, but I suspect that will be done several times before we are through with our business to-day) will get
882
on with the job and that they will make reasonable use of the powers we give them.
There may be occasions and instances when important modifications may be thought necessary but not of particular interest to the public. For example, there are technical issues involving the siting, or the design of transfer stations and on-site plant or equipment, and therefore we do not think that significance is quite the right test. I think that the way we should deal with this is to reconsider the point with a view to substituting the right words to make clear that the authorities should refuse to publicise modifications only in cases where, in the opinion of the authority, the modifications are of insufficient substance to require it. This is what counsel has been asked to consider already. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord by that explanation that the Government want to help so far as possible.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has done his best with a Departmental brief. As my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill made very plain, the point is that we are not happy about this provision, or the one which is referred to in a later Amendment, whereby the bias is entirely in favour of the disposal authority and against public participation. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that some of these matters might be technical and therefore the public would not be interested; but the public may include persons very knowledgeable about such things. A number of noble Lords are associated with various organisations which include in their membership not only those who take a general interest in environmental matters but also those who have a very close professional knowledge of them. It is precisely persons of that kind who can make the appropriate comments on what is going on, and on whether an authority, for one reason or another, is not likely to observe the best possible practice. I am very much concerned that professional people—scientists, architects and the rest—should have an opportunity, as citizens, of taking a critical interest in what is going on. That is what participation really means. We can go back to Socrates; it is the person who has knowledge who should be asked to comment on these things.

883
I thought it a particularly unfortunate reference when the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, said there might be something rather technical and therefore the public ought not to have any opportunity to hear anything about it. It is precisely in those cases that there may be a member of the public who knows something about the subject and who ought to be put in a position where he can cross-question or query some proposition put forward by the disposal authority. I do not wish to quibble over words. If the Government are prepared to bring forward an Amendment of their own and use an expression like "insufficient substance", instead of "significant", as a form of words, I do not suppose that my noble and learned friend would wish to quibble. But it is a point which should be taken seriously; it is not just a drafting point. I do not know what my noble and learned friend wishes to do. But we have had at least some offer of co-operation from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, and at this stage I think that we ought to see what the Government are able to do.
LORD STOW HILL: If the Committee will allow me I will certainly follow the advice given by my noble friend. Before asking permission to withdraw the Amendment may I make this one point? If I correctly follow what the noble Lord said, he had it in mind, in the changed wording that he was going to consider with his advisers, to leave the judgment about whether or not the sub-paragraph was to be complied with as a judgment of the disposal authority itself. I hope that, when he has considered the matter with his advisers, he will be able to substitute what I describe as an objective test. It should not be for the authority to say whether or not it proposes to comply with the paragraph; the authority, I submit, should have to comply with some objective test. I would ask the noble Lord, when he considers the matter further, to bear that point in mind. Having said that, may I say that I am most grateful to him for his reply which I found extremely helpful, and if the Committee will allow me I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.21 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 28, after ("provide") insert ("the collection authorities or other").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I think it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21, since they all have a common theme in the emphasis which they place on the role of the collection authority in the proposed new system of waste disposal. I think we need at all times to bear in mind that when the term "collection authority" is used it really means the new district councils so far as England is concerned. Every time we mention "collection authority" we really mean the district council. Because the district council has very important functions indeed as the planning authority in its own right, being charged with important environmental health functions, it is surely desirable that it should be informed of the contents of the waste disposal plans before they are finally determined. I appreciate that the clause provides for consultation with the collection authority as laid down in subsection (3)(a)(ii) at the formative stage of the plan. Surely it ought to be similarly named when it comes to the obligation of the disposal authority to provide opportunities to make representations before the final determination of the contents of its plans for waste disposal.
Amendment No. 14 would provide this. A district council is not just another person, and its role should be recognised and given appropriate status and rights. While in normal circumstances it can be expected that co-operation between collection and disposal authorities will be close in the formulation of a waste disposal plan and that mutually acceptable arrangements will be made, nevertheless it is wise at this stage to recognise that there is the possibility of disputes on certain actions. May I give an example? Under the Bill, the plan must include information as to the sites which are to be provided for disposing of controlled waste. I refer to subsection (2)(f) of this clause. It is conceivable that the collection authority might disagree. They might well take the view that the disposal

885
authority, the county council in England, because, they might claim, of operational efficiency, sought to concentrate disposal at one particular point in the country. Further, it is reasonable to anticipate that many changes in disposal arrangements are going to be made.
I am sure that no one imagines that the reorganisation that will follow this Bill will mean that things will continue as they are at the present time when collection authorities are also responsible for disposal. It could well be that a new county council might seek to accelerate the use of a controlled tip which a defunct district council had established and pour in waste from a greatly extended area. I live not too far from a controlled tip that was acquired and is being used by an authority which will become defunct at the end of March. If there was this acceleration, it could mean a tremendous increase of traffic, a dramatic intrusion into the local environment and considerable local resentment. Any proposal to concentrate disposal at one particular location could give rise to acute feelings of dissatisfaction.
I should like to quote from the Consultative Document entitled Waste Disposal Proposals for a New Framework, and I turn to page 16, paragraph 5, which reads:
"Objections to the disposal plan. The waste disposal plan ought not to be a highly controversial document but some aspects of it, particularly the location of tips and treatment plant, may give rise to objections from the public or disagreement with other public bodies and there will need to be procedures for considering these."
Then I go to the last sentence of that paragraph, leaving out what is in between:
"In the special case where two authorities are in substantial disagreement about the objectives of a disposal plan the case might need to come to the Secretary of State or to another arbitrator for adjudication, but the object would be to keep such cases to a minimum."
As to whether such cases can be kept to a minimum, experience will reveal. I have to say that the Urban District Councils Association regards the Bill as being defective in that it fails to provide machinery for the settlement of disputes except as laid down in Clause 2(4) where a disposal authority refuses consent to the taking of waste by another authority into its own area.
Amendment No. 18 is intended to secure that where a collection authority refuses its consent, the Secretary of State is called upon to decide the issue. I hope that the Government will feel they can recognise the anxiety of collection authorities as their concern has been represented to me through the Urban District Councils Association. I trust that the Minister will be able to go a very long way to satisfy that concern. I beg to move.
5.29 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: In the complex society in which we live, one of the "in" words, if not "participation" is certainly "consultation", and quite rightly so. It will be seen I think from studying Clause 2 that very extensive proposals are made within the Bill for consultation between the waste disposal authority—that is the counties in England—and various other authorities. For example, the waste disposal authorities must consult the collection authorities in England—that is, as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said, the districts; the regional councils and county councils in Scotland and Wales respectively where, for reasons already given in relation to local government reorganisation, collection and disposal will be an integrated service at district level; and water authorities throughout and also any other disposal authority where the plan provides for waste to be taken into its area.
There are further provisions. Under subsection (3)(b), the disposal authority must then publicise its proposals and invite and consider any representations from persons that it considers to be concerned. Subsection (4) then goes on to require the specific consent of any other disposal authority consulted before final determination and, in the event of disagreement, the consent of the Secretary of State.
I think it may be helpful to go into some detail about this consultation, because clearly this concerns the other authorities. The collection authorities would need to be consulted on such general matters as location of sites in relation to the nature of wastes, the range and rate of their movement and the nature and size of collection vehicles. There might also need to be consultation on more detailed matters such as the nature, availability, possible separation

887
and suitable collection methods of particular wastes and covering materials. Beyond this, the collection authorities might have some local environmental health issues to raise, but there would be no need for a collection authority to consider itself as a mouthpiece for local opinion. Subsection (3)(b) makes provision for direct public participation and in such a flexible manner that a disposal authority may approach any persons particularly representative of public interest in its area and consult them. Similarly, serious pollution risks would be matters for the disposal and water authorities to assess together.
Provision for the specific consent of any other disposal authority consulted over the "export" of wastes to its own area before final determination is necessary to ensure that there is harmonisation of related disposal plans wherever necessary. Final recourse to the Secretary of State is then necessary to avoid any danger of deadlock which would either prevent final determination of a plan or make slim its chances of successful implementation. But the issues with which the collection authorities will be concerned do not appear likely to give rise to such differences of opinion as to prevent successful implementation of the plan, and there appears no reason for preventing the disposal authority from being the final arbiter on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said that he felt there would be very few instances in which a dispute between the disposal and collection authorities would be such that it could not be resolved. He said he was concerned to keep the number of such cases to a minimum. We believe that by making the consultative procedures as we have, this is precisely what we shall be doing, so that in effect if by Statute a further power is given to the collection authorities to be consulted on any alteration of the plan, and in the end to take the dispute to the Secretary of State, this could well have the reverse effect of the one hoped for by the noble Lord. I myself, like the noble Lord, was in local government for a very king time, and on many occasions I used to argue for more power and responsibility for local authorities. In this Bill new powers are conferred on county councils, who become the waste disposal
888
authorities in England, and these are powers which they have not had before. The question of refuse disposal was closely argued when the House was debating the Local Government Bill.
If this Amendment were carried as proposed, county councils would have to secure the consent of the districts, having already consulted them, before being able to determine their plans. Then, if they were unable to reach agreement, the matter would go to the Secretary of State and we should have a situation in which, far from the counties having more power, decisions would be taken by the Secretary of State on what I believe to be local matters. I find it very difficult to believe that this is really what local government would want. It would inevitably mean more interference from the centre. It would mean the Secretary of State intervening in these local disputes. I should have thought there must be continual consultation between the disposal authority (the county council) and the collection authority. If the scheme is going to work, it would be most unfortunate to have to bring in the Secretary of State, and I would hope local government would be able to resolve its own problems.
I hope I have said enough to convince the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that this is a matter to which we have given a great deal of thought. We believe the Bill represents the right and proper thing to do in this relationship between central and local government, and I must therefore resist the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the care she has taken and for the length of her reply. Let me say right away that I think this difference pinpoints the difficulties caused by not having unitary authorities. If we had unitary authorities we should not now have to face these difficulties. We may—although I hope we do not—have a situation of tension between the two tiers of local government, so that we shall have to have further reorganisation before many years have passed. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, if it is acknowledged that there should be consultation with the collection authority at the formative stage of the plan, there should not also be consultation with the collection authority

889
at the final stages of determination. The noble Baroness, as I say, has replied at length and I think perhaps she may well have made one or two points that I did not fully grasp. I shall read with great interest what she has said. At this stage I would not wish to press my Amendment this evening. I shall read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said and shall take advice as to whether the interpretation she has placed on the position is agreeable to those who are vitally concerned with this matter.
I, too, hope that local government will be able to resolve its problems, but I feel there is going to be continuing concern if the collection authorities are not conceded the right, if they cannot agree with the disposal authority, to take the matter to the Secretary of State. I should not have thought the possibility would involve a great many authorities—the number would probably be minimal—but there is a case for providing for such a situation rather than allowing a situation to develop which would bring with it a feeling of frustration. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 28, leave out from ("provide") to end of line 29.
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in my name which reflects the same attitude of mind as Amendment No. 13; in other words, we are somewhat disturbed by the way in which it is suggested that only the authority itself should decide upon the persons who might be allowed to make representations to it. We regard this as too autocratic. After all, there may well be individuals or organisations with very valid points to make on the proposed plan, but the authority for one reason or another might think that it was perhaps beneath them to pay any attention to such people.
Again, we have no idea of the criterion which would be adopted to decide whether the persons involved are concerned with the plan. What does this mean? Does it mean that they must have some property in the vicinity of places
890
where it may be suggested that rubbish may be disposed of, or not? It seems to us much more satisfactory if it is put quite simply in the Bill that the authority, having given adequate publicity in its area to the plan or modification, should then provide opportunities for making representations to the authority about it without suggesting that it is the authority which should have some exclusive right as to who should or should not be permitted to comment upon the plan. This seems to me to be a perfectly straightforward matter and I hope very much that the Government may be disposed to accept our Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: I feel that this Amendment would be an improvement in the drafting of the Bill. If these words
" … persons appearing to the authority to be concerned with the plan…"
are retained, we are introducing into this matter something analogous to the locus standi which obtains in this Palace when Private Bills or Special Orders are considered by Committees both of the House of Commons and of this House. I do not want to go into that matter beyond saying that this has been a difficult problem and there has been in the past a difference between the practice of the other place and that of this House as to what bodies were entitled to be heard in Petitions against a Bill. In the other place the Examiners held that amenity societies had no locus standi for petitioning against a Bill. It was considered to be necessary that individuals should be personally affected if they were to be heard in opposition to a Private Bill.
I do not want to press this analogy too far, but if one looks at the Amendment as it has been moved by the noble Baroness it does not in any way alter the sense of this paragraph; it merely provides that representations may be made to the authority, and it excludes the limitation relating to Persons appearing to the authority to be concerned. I hope very much therefore that the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment because I cannot see that it would be in any way disadvantageous, and it would prevent the problem arising as to whether local amenity societies or persons who were interested in the preservation of amenities but did not happen to own land in the district or to be living exactly in that vicinity, might be held not to

891
have a locus standi for making representations.
BARONESS YOUNG: I have listened very carefully to the points that have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and I should like to begin by assuring the Committee that there is nothing at all sinister in the framing of this particular part of this clause. It is accepted, as will be seen, that the waste disposal plan will be of interest and concern to other bodies besides those specifically listed—obviously to the district councils, the regional water authorities and to the public. Clause 2(3)(a) requires the waste disposal authority to consult these bodies in the course of the preparation of its plan, and goes on to require adequate publicity for it. Some of the difficulty that arises for those who have been concerned about whether or not other people can make representations to the plan is that this is something which is quite new—a waste disposal plan—and clearly what will be contained in it will vary from county to county. For example, in a highly industrialised area obviously the kind of things that the waste disposal authority has to deal with will be quite different from those of a predominantly rural county, and therefore the kinds of disposal problem will vary. It may well be that, for instance, tipping could be regarded as a very bad neighbour in one place but perhaps a modern incinerator might be viewed differently. I cannot say. That too might be regarded as a bad neighbour, or indeed any other kind of disposal arrangement that may be thought of.
My understanding of this clause is that it would be the duty of the waste disposal authority to consult those persons who would be concerned, and that would vary from area to area. It would be very difficult, therefore, to lay down precisely, and in detail, just who those particular persons in each place might be. But may I go on to say that, having gone through the waste disposal plan, there will, of course, be the second stage where planning permission will have to be given in regard to the individual incinerators—or whatever there may be—and at that stage all the procedures for consultation on planning will apply once again. So that to feel that at no stage
892
could those who had something to say, say it, would be to misunderstand what is the purpose of the Bill. It seems to me, therefore, that it is quite reasonable to accept that, given that we wish to see this freedom of local government to determine its plan, it should naturally consult the statutory authorities and, depending on the circumstances of its case and the situation that arises, consult those other people who it thinks will be affected by it. That is the reason why this clause has been drafted as it has.
LORD SHINWELL: Before this matter is finally disposed of I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question. Could she define more accurately, more specifically, what is meant by "provide persons appearing to the authority to be concerned with the plan or modification", and so on? Could it be defined in this fashion: could it mean a body known as a—I must be very careful not to bring in any political allusion—conservation trust? The reason I ask that is because, strangely enough, I have had instructions from some persons associated with these matters in my old constituency. Whether they have got the idea that I am still a Member of another place, I do not know, or whether they think the mere fact that I am a Member of your Lordships' House would justify me making representations to Her Majesty's Government, I do not know; but in any case they are rather concerned about it.
In my old constituency of Easington there happens to be a place called Castle Dene. It is a wonderful beauty spot and the flora and fauna abound in great variety. I do not want to become lyrical about it, although I have seen the place myself; but I do not suggest that lyrics are of very great value in your Lordships' House, your Lordships are more concerned about the facts. If the noble Baroness could satisfy me that bodies concerned with—again I must get the right term—conservation are included in this clause, then I shall be satisfied, and I shall be able to inform my old constituents that I have justified my existence in your Lordships' House.
LORD MOLSON: I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will forgive me for being a little persistent about this. I am not quite sure that she has followed the

893
point I was seeking to make. If this Amendment were to be accepted, this paragraph would read:
"…provide opportunities of making representations to the authority about it".
The wording, as it is at present, limits the right of making representations to persons appearing to the authority to be concerned with the plan or modifications.
The analogy I sought to draw was this. In the case of Private Bills in another place they have strict rules of locus standi, and in the Melden Reservoir case, for example, it was held that the Dartmoor Preservation Association had no locus standi for objecting to the Melden Reservoir scheme. In your Lordships' House the question of whether or not Petitioners have locus standi is determined by the Committee itself and they had always taken a much more generous view of who had locus standi. In the case of the Melden Order the Labour Government of the time had made representations on the subject and, quoting promises made by the late Arthur Greenwood, withdrew the Order. The rules of the locus standi in another place were modified in order to enable people and bodies who had previously been held to have no right to petition against a Bill or a special Parliamentary Order, an opportunity of being heard. I ask the Government to drop these limiting words and leave it so that representations may be made and not limit the right of making representations to persons appearing to the authority to be concerned.
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like to support what my noble friend and others have said. I am sure it is right to make it clear beyond a shadow of doubt that those interested in conservation can have a say at this stage rather than wait far too long and spend a great deal of money in making objections at the later stage. I am sure that that is right and I hope that the noble Baroness will take this matter away and think about it again.
LORD HUGHES: I should like briefly to support my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Amendment. The noble Baroness referred to the way in which the local authority would act in providing persons concerned with opportunities of making representations. I was a member of a local authority for more than 25 years
894
and I found—and I am sure the noble Baroness has had the same experience—it most extraordinary the way in which a local authority, believing it has given the opportunity for every person or authority that might be concerned to make representations, then discovers there is a body with a close interest in the matter who can be helpful and has a strong point of view to express. They have not excluded them deliberately but because it did not occur to them that the body might be interested. I cannot see why these words should be in the Bill. In fact, a previous paragraph requires the giving of adequate publicity. It is obvious that such a body or person as I have indicated will come to know of it. There is nothing in the Bill which will stop that individual or body making representations. All they have to do is write in and express their point of view.
But having regard to the matters about which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has spoken, and the rather peculiar way in which legal advisers to local authorities sometimes operate, it might well be said: "You have these representations, but you must not do anything about them because the section goes on to say that you will only consider representations made in pursuance of sub-paragraph (ii), and sub-paragraph (ii) limits your consideration to those parties that you have provided with opportunities of making representations. You have not provided these people with an opportunity and therefore it would be wrong for you to consider it."
It may seem to the lay person that it is most unlikely that a reasonable authority would do such a thing; and I agree that it is most unlikely. But even the most reasonable authority sometimes get the most extraordinary advice from legal advisers and they feel it is unsafe not to accept that advice. I cannot therefore see what would be lost to any reasonable authority by doing what my noble friend and others have proposed, because if people are sufficiently interested to make representations about a plan or modification then most reasonable authorities will wish to have the opportunity of considering these representations.
LORD SHINWELL: May I put a further point on this matter? I am a little confused, probably because I have no great knowledge of the subject. Let us

895
suppose that a waste disposal authority prepares a plan that is involved in the clause under review concerning some beauty spot or a foreshore, or any particular piece of land which is regarded as sacrosanct to some people. Suppose they find that the plan prepared by the waste disposal authority is likely to be ineffective and does not go far enough to satisfy those persons who want to retain the original nature of the location, surely a body of people in any particular area concerned have a right to express an opinion. If that is so, I should prefer to leave the clause as it is; but perhaps we could have further enlightenment on the subject.
LORD HYLTON: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to express support for the Amendment and ask my noble friend whether, within paragraph (a)(vi), amenity societies and voluntary conservation bodies will be prescribed persons. If she can give that assurance we shall all be very much happier.
5.57 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to take this opportunity of explaining further what it is we have in mind. I thought I said in my original remarks that it depends on the circumstances of each particular area; each county will be different. In a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has answered one of the points I made because he referred to what a waste disposal authority would do in particular circumstances in an area of outstanding natural beauty or perhaps of special scientific interest because there were particular plants in that place. Obviously, if that is the case, the particular people with whom the waste disposal authority would consult would undoubtedly be the local naturalist society or amenity societies that were involved. I hope that meets the point of my noble friend Lord Craigton who asked about the conservation societies. There is no intention whatever to preclude amenity societies or conservation societies from consultation in the course of this plan.
In a metropolitan county however the circumstances might be entirely different because we are not obviously concerned with an area of special scientific interest, and the people to be consulted might well be the local residents' association. They might have very strong views on some-
896
thing which is being done precisely next to them. To give another example, if it is decided to use a worked out gravel pit or a tip in order to reclaim the land and use it for something, another, different group of people would need to be consulted.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that there was no intention to preclude public consultation on all these points, but it is left to the disposal authority to exercise its judgment. It would be a pity if we believed that they were not capable of doing it in the particular circumstances of the case.
My noble friend Lord Molson said that I had not understood the point he raised and had not answered it in my reply. If that is so, I apologise. I cannot accept that there is a complete analogy between a Private Bill and a waste disposal plan. Obviously, a Private Bill is going to concern all sorts of quite specific interests and, when it becomes law, it is a law of the land likely to affect all sorts of people. We are talking about a waste disposal plan which has, in any event, to go through the normal planning procedures, and each particular site has then to be licensed. So the whole of the circumstances of the case are, I think, completely different in that not only is there consultation at the stage of the waste disposal plan but there would be consultation at the stage of planning permission, and further consultation on the question of the site licence. I hope, therefore, I have said enough to assure the Committee that there is no intention whatever not to meet what I think is a completely justifiable claim today, to have consultation with all the appropriate bodies.
6.1 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I am so very sorry that the noble Baroness on this occasion has not even offered to have a further look at this matter. She must have realised that there is considerable feeling in all quarters of the House about it, for those of us who have great experience in these matters are not always in such enlightened areas as Oxford. There are other local authorities who are by no means so forthcoming in their consultations. I have an example in mind, not of course of disposal, because we have not as yet got disposal authorities, but of another sort in a certain area in Wales, one of the most sensitive landscape areas, with a greater concentration of nature

897
reserves perhaps than any other part of the world other than Snowdonia, where the people concerned did not consult the Nature Conservancy, which is a statutory body, the Countryside Commission, which is a statutory body, the Tourist Board, and, far less, any amenities society, with absolutely disastrous results. I mean, they were utterly beyond the pale. Therefore, I am afraid I do not share the complete and utter faith of the noble Baroness in the willingness of local authorities to consult people who have a point of view which is not necessarily constant with that of the local authority and who should be heard.
We are not for one moment asking that there should be a complete catalogue of those who should be consulted. I entirely agree that that would be most unreasonable because, as she very properly said, circumstances vary and what would be appropriate in one area would be quite inappropriate in another area. All we are saying is that if you are going to have adequate publicity in the area, it is, by definition, publicity to the public at large; it is not consultation with particular persons or bodies on a sort of quasi-private basis, but is publicity at large. This is what we understand by subsection (3)(b)(i). If one is giving publicity at large, as I think one should, then the public at large, if they are sufficiently interested, should be allowed to make representations. I am, of course, quite well aware, as the noble Baroness has quite properly reminded us, that there may be later opportunities, when it comes to planning permission and so on. But again, one does not need to have vast experience in public administration to know that the sooner you can get in the better; that once a matter has really been decided effectively by the officials it is very difficult indeed to get it altered. Therefore, in pursuing a particular plan rather than another, it is at this formative stage that so often some type of consultation may be far more valuable than at a much later stage, when things may be more hardened and crystalised and various interests have developed. We all know this, we are all experienced in these things.
I had not meant to make a mountain out of what I thought was no more than a molehill, but the fact is that the noble Baroness does not seem fully to have taken on board the feeling of people with
898
very great experience on her own side of the Committee as well, that it would be much better to leave an open door. We are not insisting that any particular body should be consulted or anything of that sort, but that if they show sufficient interest then at least they should have the opportunity to do so. That is really all that we are asking. I would ask the noble Baroness to think about it again. I do not want to divide the Committee, but the point is being reached where one feels most unhappy at the situation.
LORD CRAIGTON: Of course I accept what the noble Baroness says and what my noble friend has said. We are concerned only with what the Bill says. For the life of me I cannot see every local authority reading the interests of the conservation society in the words "…persons appearing to the local authority to be concerned…". The decision is that of the authority. I hope my noble friend will look at this again.
BARONESS YOUNG: I feel I ought to say just one more thing in defence of local government. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady White, thinks that Oxford is an enlightened authority. Certainly we used to have a lot of public consultation with a highly articulate population. I think it is true to say, and I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that in fact local government has moved very far in the direction of consultation. This is a relatively new thing. I think each year local government in fact accepts the need for this on an ever increasing scale. I am sure we should all agree on that.
I have listened with great care to what has been said, and in the circumstances I feel that I ought to offer to look at this matter again. This I will do, to see whether we can meet these points. But in doing so I should like to say that it has never been the intention that those interested bodies should not have the opportunity to make representations.
BARONESS WHITE: I am extremely grateful that the noble Baroness has taken the feeling of the Committee in this matter. I hope she will look again at this matter constructively. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.6 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert—
("Provided that before making any such change the authority shall consult any water authority who was previously consulted under paragraph (a) of this subsection.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is another with the intention of trying to prevent any slip-up in the process of consultation, and in this case to try to strengthen the position of the water authorities. Under the Bill it is of course the duty of the disposal authority, in preparing the plan, or any modification of it, to consult the local authority. I feel that there is a danger further on, under subsection (3)(b) at the bottom, where the alteration of a plan at the request of a collection authority might produce a situation in which a modification or change of plan did not go back again to the water authority for reconsultation. That is why I have put down this Amendment to try to strengthen it.
The effect of the waste disposal on water can be devastating. It is bad enough to put something into a river. In the course of time, although that does very great damage, the river cleans itself. But if you put something, by seepage, into underground aquifers it may never come out. This is why it is so vitally important that the water authorities should, I feel, have very nearly the last say in this kind of thing. The interest of the water authorities is so great that it might have been argued in the first place that the power to control this should have been given separately to them in the first place. For administrative convenience, that was not done, but in return for that administrative convenience I feel that the fullest possible consultation and liaison must be given, and be seen to be given, beyond any possible slip-up, to the water authorities. Formerly, ministerial directions and circulars could be issued in this respect, but not under this Bill. Local arrangements between the bodies concerned have nearly always been very satisfactory, but not always in areas of very heavy pressure for development. Very often things have been granted in ways which were not in the public interest, at any rate as seen from the point of view of the water authorities.
A difficult situation will arise in local government with the new district councils. They are going to be extremely short of expert opinion, particularly in regard to the very complex problems of water. It seems to me that, because they are going to be under pressure, there will inevitably be decisions which some of us will deplore. In my view, the danger under the Bill as it stands is that the disposal authority will be left with complete and unfettered discretion when it comes to revising these draft plans, in spite of what is said in subsection (3)(b). My Amendment tries to prevent this and to strengthen the position.
I took note of what the noble Baroness said on the last Amendment about our taking the view that disposal authorities and local authorities were not capable of managing their own affairs. I should be the last to wish to suggest this. But it would be a pity that the uncontrolled last word here was left with the disposal authority, because I think, as I have said before, the question with regard to water is probably more important than anything else. I agree that the best consultations are those which are agreed locally by both sides. I feel that this facilitates local exchange of views. The number of plans and applications for licences which are going to be required is not so great as to put much extra burden on the disposal authorities; and even if it did, it seems Ito me that it should be disposed of by agreement. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, there is provision in this clause for consultation with the water authority in the preparation of the waste disposal plan. What I think he is suggesting is that if there are any representations there should be further statutory consultation, and I think he went so far as to say that in his opinion the water authorities should have the last word on the plan. We all accept that consultation with water authorities is of enormous importance. This is why this requirement for statutory consultation is written into this clause. I should have thought it would be very unlikely that disposal authorities, having consulted the water authority, and having listened to the points they wish to make, would not continue informal consultation throughout their consideration of the waste disposal plan. It seems to me that

901
if the water authorities were given this statutory right to further consultation it would be difficult to deny this to the collection authorities, or indeed to other statutory authorities where rather similar arguments might well apply.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will accept these arguments. In the first place, there will be consultation with the water authorities. There must, I believe, of necessity be a continuing informal consultation. But if the water authority is still not satisfied at this stage, the disposal authority will be required to consult the water authority at a later stage on the issue of the individual disposal licences. It is at this stage, again, where the water authority, if it felt that the conditions which ought to be met were not being met, would be in a position to study the licence in detail and, if it disagreed with the licence, could take this matter to the Secretary of State. I hope that Lord Henley will feel that this explanation meets his points and the fears expressed by water authorities. They will have consultation, and in the question of the licences they could, if they felt strongly, take the matter to the Secretary of State for a decision. I hope that this assurance will meet the noble Lord's points and that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD HENLEY: I am satisfied to some extent by the assurances given me by the noble Baroness. In the last resort it is a matter for consultation, back and forth, between the disposal authority, the collecting authority and the water authority. I hope, and indeed expect, that everybody will be very sensible about it; if not, then we are in trouble indeed. My Amendment is perhaps merely a dotting of i's and crossing of t's to make doubly sure, and I think the noble Baroness has gone some way to making me feel that that is not necessary. I said that formerly a good deal of advice came by way of direction direct from the Department, and I hope that appropriate advice will be given in the form of circulars, even though it is not laid down in the Bill, and that the Report of the Sumner and Kenny Working Parties will be noted. I am not entirely happy, but I am some way towards being happy and therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.16 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 38, after ("it") insert ("in a case falling within paragraph (a)(iv) of the preceding subsection except with the agreement of the county council whose area includes that of the authority or, if the county council withholds its agreement with the consent of the Secretary of State or").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment refers exclusively to the Welsh county councils which are referred to in paragraph (a)(iv) of subsection (3). As your Lordships will by now be fully aware, the position in Wales is different from that in England, in so far as in Wales it is the district councils which are the disposal authorities as well as the collecting authorities. We had a discussion on this matter at our last Sitting on this Bill and considered the principle on an Amendment moved, I regret unsuccessfully, by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. He proposed a somewhat different way of dealing with the anxieties which beset us as to the results of this allocation of functions in Wales. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments I put forward on that occasion. One does not propose in this Amendment, any more than one did in the previous Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, to alter the functions of the district councils. They will remain the disposal authorities as well as the collection authorities. I tried to explain how it was that there was a difference of approach in Wales for reasons of history and, one might say, psychology—with the districts which had formerly been counties in their own rights. Whereas in the rural areas I thought the position would be reasonably satisfactory, in the heavy industrialised areas of Wales we anticipate very real trouble. Therefore one is endeavouring to find a method by which one can improve the situation without altering the actual functions of the district councils.
It seemed to me that in this particular Part of the Bill, where we deal with waste disposal on land, one ought at least to put the county, as the senior planning authority, in a position where it could, if it felt gravely disturbed about any proposals in the plan, have some final say. The difficulty is that although there is a statutory right of consultation, it goes no further than that. The county has no sort of appeal to the Secretary of

903
State or anybody else if it is very much disturbed at the way in which the various districts within its area may have failed, for example, to consult one with another, as suggested by Lord Amory, or where disposals of waste might be proposed by the different districts which, taken in totality, would provide a very unsatisfactory pattern. It is for that reason that it seemed to me and some of my advisers, particularly as the Government have not felt in a position to accept Lord Amory's proposals, that this Amendment would at least provide a method whereby we could bring in the county council to a position where it had some kind of definitive right. A mere obligation on the district councils to consult the county council does not necessarily get one far enough.
It is perfectly open to anybody on the Government Benches to say to me, personally, "Surely you are being in consistent in taking this attitude now. If this is how you really felt, why did you not speak up on the Local Government Bill?" I entirely accept that situation. My explanation is that since then I have studied waste disposal in far greater depth and I have come to realise that it is a much more complex matter than I had supposed. In fact the Government themselves, in arguing against some of their own supporters on the Local Government Bill, when pleas on behalf of the English districts were put forward, emphasised the complexity in modern life of waste disposal. Also, of course, the Sumner Report came down strongly in favour of making waste disposal a function of the larger authorities.
I do not for one moment suggest that one should go back on that constitutional decision, but if one is considering waste disposal in a heavily industrialised area, where it really matters, the whole subject is becoming more and more complicated and sophisticated, and especially when one is coming towards the part of the Bill, to which we were looking forward with very great interest, on account of the Amendments, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, promised to bring forward, on recycling and reclamation. This is something which an individual district council will probably be quite incapable of carrying out, and there might well be a situation in which
904
one ought to decide where, in a county, would be the appropriate place for carrying out certain processes of dealing with waste matter of different types. One district authority would be quite incapable of doing it. There would be various considerations of traffic, or transport and so on, as to whether the place in a county would be more desirable than another for certain types of possibly very sophisticated processing, which might well be highly desirable in the national interest. For that sort of reason it seems to me that, in the particular circumstances of the Principality, we ought now to be statesmanlike and to look at the position not only as it is now but as it may well develop over the next few years.
I have been much impressed by some of the scientific research which is going on into this whole question of dealing with various aspects of waste processing, and not least, as I think I said in our earlier debates, at our University College in Cardiff, where we have a very strong unit on this subject. If we are going to move into really modern methods of treating waste it will be impossible to do it if one looks exclusively at a small district area. Therefore it seems to me that the larger planning authority should have a distinctive voice when its final plans are being determined. It is not just a matter of putting waste into holes in the ground. There is much more to it than that, and for this reason I think that we ought to look at the situation in the industrial world as clearly as we can. I may say that I have had consultations not only with some individual industrialists but also with the C.B.I., who tell me that they share my anxieties on this matter so tar as the industrial waste is concerned, and I think there are others who would very much welcome something to strengthen the synoptic examination of this problem on a basis which is wider than that of individual district councils.
For those reasons I hope very much that the Government may feel able to accept this Amendment. I have been asked that we should save time and consider with it Amendments Nos. 62 and 64, which refer to page 12, where the situation, though not quite the same, is cognate. As your Lordships will appreciate, Clause 9 refers to the special provisions for land occupied by the disposal authorities themselves.

905
It is obligatory for them to refer their proposals and statements to water authorities and to collection authorities in each area which includes any of the land in question. It appeared to me that also in Wales one should include the county council, which naturally would take a broader view of the total situation in the county than one could expect any individual district council to do. The circumstances are slightly different from the clause that we are examining at the moment, but the general principle and the reasons for it are the same. I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I hope my noble friend has listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said. I cannot claim, like her, to have spent the Yuletide Recess in exploring waste disposal in depth—at first sight a not frightfully attractive occupation at that time of the year, but I honour her for having done so.
As the noble Baroness said, this question arises from the Government's decision in the local government reform Act to split the planning powers between the county and the district but leaving the more important part of planning to the counties. That being so, I should have thought that, as the noble Baroness has said, there was a cause for making sure that the counties are brought into consultation with some authority to express their views in a matter which may well involve planning going beyond a particular district. As the noble Baroness has said, what I am suggesting now is rather what I suggested in an earlier Amendment, and at that time I was not wholly satisfied with the advice given to us by my noble friend although in the circumstances at that time I decided that I would accept it and would not press the matter to a Division.
6.28 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful for my noble friend's valuable advice, but I always listen with the greatest attention to every word that the noble Baroness says, and on this occasion particularly. I was pleased to hear her repeat what she said on the last occasion when we were discussing these matters in Committee, that she continued to take the view that responsibility for refuse disposal should remain with the district councils and that she did not want to
906
upset that decision, which was part of the decisions of Parliament in the Local Government Act of 1972. I certainly think this is right, especially as we have as yet had no experience of how this proposed division of functions would work in practice. I must say to her that her Amendment goes very close to a change in the division of functions, because it gives what is in effect a power of veto to the county council, subject only to an appeal to the Secretary of State. What I believe she is seeking, and what I am quite sure my noble friend Lord Amory is seeking, is to ensure that the waste disposal powers of the districts are used consistently with the counties' planning responsibility. I am satisfied in my own mind—and we have looked into this very closely during the Recess—that there is in fact very adequate provision already for full consultation of waste disposal proposals between counties and districts. In the first place, they will have had detailed discussions within the framework of the planning Acts on the question of land use planning during the, preparation of the structure plans or development plans. But to make quite clear the extent of this consultation and of the counties' oversight of land use planning after reorganisation, I should like to explain, if I may, in a little more detail what the county planning authorities' powers are.
Clearly under Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 the granting of planning permission would be the responsibility of the district council. But there are four very important exceptions where this decision would lie with the county planning authority. The first exception is if the land is within, or partly within, a National Park. The second exception—and this is an important one in the case put by the noble Baroness—is if the proposal would conflict with, be inconsistent with or prejudice the implementation of fundamental provisions of the new structure and local plans, or the old style development plans, or firm proposals for them. The third exception is if the proposal would be inconsistent with any statement of planning policy adopted by the county planning authority, or with any proposals of others for development, in which either case had been notified by them to the district. The fourth exception is if the

907
proposal is for the disposal of mineral waste.
In all these cases, the decision lies with the county planning authority. Furthermore—and this I hope gives even more reassurance to the noble Baroness—the county planning authority may give directions to a district planning authority as to how the district is to determine any application in any case where it appears to the county that their interests as local planning authority may be substantially and adversely affected. So it seems to me that in the planning and land use sense, the powers of the county are considerable, and that it is in this sphere that detailed consultation and co-operation is needed. We have gone slightly further in the Bill by additionally making provision for consultation during the preparation of waste disposal plans. This is what we were discussing on the last occasion. This comes under Clause 2(3)(a)(iv). It is this statutory requirement of consultation with the county that will ensure that the county authority has an early opportunity of looking at and assessing the land use planning implications of the disposal authority's proposals, and of using its powers to intervene on planning grounds if that is necessary.
The noble Baroness has already mentioned the difficulties of industrial districts, and small districts in particular. There is nothing at all to stop collaboration between districts within a county and, of course, as the noble Baroness mentioned on the last occasion, between Flint and Cheshire there is quite an exchange of waste in both directions. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, a group of district councils who felt unable to resolve problems of toxic waste disposal could enter into an agency arrangement. I hope I have gone some way to convince both the noble Baroness, Lady White, and my noble friend Lord Amory, that without changing the responsibilities of the districts, which we have already decided in the previous Bill, there are plenty of adequate planning powers in the control of the county which would avoid any difficulties brought about by the fact of the district doing something not in the general interest of the country as a whole.
BARONESS WHITE: I must admit that I am disappointed with that reply,
908
although the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is absolutely right when he says that there are various safeguards, fall-backs and so on. But I am still worried. The Government have had some time to consider this during the Recess. They know quite well that this is something on which a number of us who are concerned with the Principality are not happy, shall we say. However, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, it does not appear to me that the Government are disposed to modify the Bill in the sense that I hoped they might be willing to do. I do not wish to waste the Committee's time in going over the arguments again. We have put the position fairly, that we are much concerned about what does happen. We can only hope that the diplomacy of the county councils will be such that with the limited duties of consultation on the part of the districts, if included in the Bill, they will be able to get satisfactory systems of waste disposal into operation. I think it will be a challenge to all the local authorities concerned in the highly industrialised areas, and we can only wish them well. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Prohibition of unlicensed disposal of waste]:
6.37 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 10, after ("land") insert ("or water").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 22. If the Committee is agreeable, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments 23 and 24 which happen not only to have a common theme, but to be in identical terms and are intended to serve identically the same purpose as Amendment No. 22.
We have now come to that Part of the Bill which provides for a licensing system by which the disposal authorities will be able to regulate disposal operations, and to attach operating conditions to them. Clause 3, to which I am now moving this Amendment, provides for the prohibition of unlicensed disposal of waste. I am seeking to secure that we should make it abundantly clear that there will be prohibition not only with regard to

909
unlicensed disposal on any land, but that there shall also be quite clearly the same prohibition applying to water as well except, of course, where there is a licence which may permit it. The Committee will have listened with considerable interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had to say about the deposit of waste in water. I do not wish to repeat the points he was making with regard to that. I have taken note of what is set out in subsection (6) of this clause and I have taken note of what is set out in Part II of the Bill. But it seems to me that the acceptance of this Amendment would provide a safeguard that could serve a very useful purpose, and certainly would make clear beyond any doubt that not only does the prohibition in regard to the unlicensed disposal of waste apply to land, but it equally clearly applies to depositing such waste in water. The Amendment is tabled with a view to being helpful, to make the Bill clearer than it might otherwise be, and I hope that the Minister will feel disposed to give kindly consideration to it. I beg to move.
LORD SOMERS: I should like very strongly to support this Amendment. I feel that it is important to remember that when regulations for the disposal of waste on land are tightened up, very naturally people who wish to dispose of it will seek other places where they can get rid of it; and the first thing that will occur to them, if they happen to be near water such as the Broads or the canals, or anywhere like that, is to get rid of it there. It seems to me most important, if we are going to keep these amenities in the same state as our land, that they should be equally protected.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Perhaps I should begin by reminding the Committee of the rather strange anomaly that the definition of "land" in this Bill in fact includes lochs, lakes or ponds which do not run into streams. But that in fact does not alter the substance of what we are talking about. This is an instance where the Government have given further consideration to the matter since the Bill was drafted and are disposed to change their mind on their original thoughts; we feel that here the points being made should certainly be borne in mind. Part II, as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, pointed out, really deals with this point,
910
but there is no harm, and there might possibly be a positive advantage in emphasising the point if we quite simply say that there is to be no tipping except on a licensed tip. So we would certainly want to give favourable consideration to this Amendment, although I think we might want to adopt it in a slightly different form at a later stage.
LORD HAWKE: Could the noble Lord set my mind at rest on this point? We are dealing with controlled waste, which means household or industrial or commercial waste. Can it be said that the produce of broiler houses and the like is commercial waste?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think it would be rather wise for me to give an off the cuff answer to that, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord or deal with it later on in the Bill.
LORD HAWKE: I do not think that mswer by the noble Lord will be good ough, because this Bill will have very ide repercussions if indeed broiler house and chicken refuse in general is controlled waste. I think we ought to and out the answer more quickly.
BARONESS WHITE: Could the noble Lord tell us what happens if a car is pped into a stream?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I believe that last one is rather easier. That is definitely an offence, is it not? With regard to broiler waste—and I am speaking now completely without having had notice of this question—the question is really whether it is agricultural waste or strictly commercial waste. That, I would guess, is one of the problems here. I do not think I can give an official reply without going more deeply into the point. I am sorry not to be able to satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD MOLSON: Arising out of that answer, is agricultural waste covered by this Bill or not? Broiler waste is not the only kind of concentration which can be very harmful and noxious. I think we ought to know whether agricultural waste is covered or not. But if it is not convenient to give the answer at this moment I do not wish to press my noble friend.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Agricultural waste is certainly dealt with, but I am not sure whether it is dealt with at this stage and under this heading. It is something that I would like to let the noble Lord know later, if I may.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I would thank the Minister for the reply he gave. I gather that if I withdraw this Amendment he and his friends will consider tabling an Amendment to meet the point at a later stage. Do I have that quite clear?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Yes.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: In that event, I have no more to say beyond that I think at a later stage we shall have an opportunity to return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. So far as this Amendment is concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I should like to confirm that. I think this would provide us with an admirable opportunity of answering the two questions which I am afraid I have been unable to answer off the cuff. If the noble Lord would agree, that course would be an ideal one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY moved Amendment No. 24A:
Page 4, line 23, at end insert—
("(1A) For the purposes of this Act, a person is to be treated as depositing waste if he deposits any thing or substance (whether solid, semi-solid or liquid) in such circumstances, or for such period, that he may reasonably be assumed to have abandoned it where it is deposited or to have brought it to the place where it is deposited for the purpose of its being disposed of (whether by him or others) as waste.")
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24A standing in my name, and if it is agreeable to the Committee I should like at the same time to speak to no fewer than 19 other Amendments. In case your Lordships get rather alarmed about that, may I say that I feel permission is more likely to be given if I assure your Lordships I do not intend to speak for more than two and a half minutes on the whole 20 taken together. The sole object of this group
912
of Amendments is to bring within the present Bill the remaining provisions of the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act 1972 and certain relevant provisions of the Civic Amenities Act 1967; namely, Sections 18 and 23. Without these Amendments which I have ventured to put down, it would remain necessary to look outside and beyond the terms of Part I of this Bill for provisions which relate to waste disposal. It would therefore seem sensible to take this opportunity to consolidate all the relevant provisions in one Bill. So far as I know, no reason has been given for not doing so.
In the case of the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act 1972, it was said, I understand, at the time of its enactment that it was interim legislation pending subsequent enactment of comprehensive legislation; and I take it that this Bill represents the comprehensive legislation that was in mind at that time. These Amendments do not alter in any way either existing provisions of those two Acts or the objects of this Bill; they are purely and simply a measure of consolidation. In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend will agree that the Amendments seem to be sensible.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like strongly to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Amory. The prohibition on disposal of wastes on land without a licence or without complying with the conditions of the licence is what we are discussing in Clause 3, as I understand it. It therefore seems to me a little illogical that this clause does not deal with the general prohibition contained in the 1972 Act, to which my noble friend referred, on depositing waste. As I understand this Bill which we are considering to-day, it is a reformulation of the law on the collection and disposal of waste, and therefore it seems to me to be somewhat regrettable, if only in the interests of clarity and neatness, that this Bill does not incorporate those provisions of the 1972 Act which are not to be repealed.
The 1972 Act consists of eight sections, and quite a number of them are to be repealed by this Bill. In fact, the major sections of the 1972 Act are

913
Sections 1 and 2, and I think that one should applaud my noble friend for bringing into this Bill the provisions of those two sections of the 1972 Act, for I feel that otherwise the remaining provisions of the 1972 Act—those that are not to be repealed—could easily be overlooked when this Bill becomes an Act. Not only does the 1972 Act work in practice but it also contains clear definitions which are equally applicable to this new legislation—in other words, regarding the depositing of waste. I hope that my noble friend will see her way to accepting this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like from this side of the House strongly to support the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and also to put the Committee on notice that when we have time to take advice—and assuming that our labours are not in vain, as they may well be in the political circumstances of the day—we shall hope to bring in also the vestigal remnants of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961. It seems quite absurd that in a Bill of this kind we should not have subsumed what is left of these two enactments, which is a very small part of them indeed. They are very short Acts, and almost all of them stands to be repealed when we reach the Schedule on page 105 of this Bill. To a lay person there seems to be no reason whatsoever, beyond pressure of work or mental sloth, according to how one looks at it, why they were not brought into this Bill anyway.
It must be irritating for the people who have to deal with this legislation—not only local authorities but the legal advisers to the water authorities, and so on—to have to fiddle around with small remnants of Statutes which are very closely related to the Bill that we have before us and which surely, in the interests of sound legislation, ought somehow to have been brought into this Bill. Therefore I strongly support the noble Viscount on the principle of this matter. If time is vouchsafed to us to go any further with profit on this Bill, 1 hope to do a similar exercise on these two Acts, though I must admit that I have not yet had time to take advice from my noble and learned friend or
914
any other legal adviser as to how best this is to be done.
VISCOUNT AMORY: May I ask the noble Baroness whether she would be good enough to put her criticism on the grounds of pressure of work rather than on mental sloth?
BARONESS WHITE: Having been guilty of mental sloth from time to time, I have great sympathy with others who may suffer from the same trouble.
LORD MOLSON: I am a little surprised at what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said—if indeed it is the case; and such is my mental sloth that I have not done all the homework on this Bill that I should have done. If noble Lords will turn to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum on the first page they will see this statement:
"This Bill extends existing statutory provisions dealing with certain aspects of public health and pollution control. It relates particularly to:

(i) waste on land—replacing the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936.

(ii) pollution of water—replacing the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 to 1961.

(iii) noise—replacing the noise nuisance provisions of the Public Health Acts and the whole of the Noise Abatement Act 1960;"

When we discussed this Bill on Second Reading I said that I understood it consolidated all the existing provisions dealing with these special matters. If it does not in fact do so, I would certainly join with the noble Baroness in asking the Government to make all necessary Amendments in order to ensure that it does. It is a great disadvantage of our inevitably piecemeal legislation that people concerned with particular subjects have to turn to a number of different Acts in order to understand the law upon the subject until, at long last, consolidation takes place. Consolidation is long delayed, partly because of the lack of Parliamentary time but chiefly because of the tremendous burden upon the Treasury Counsel who draft the Bills. I was under the impression that in this Bill we were in fact consolidating the existing legislation concerned with waste on land, pollution of water, and noise. I should be glad if the Government would either confirm that that is so or, if not, would undertake to do what the noble Baroness has requested and see that this Bill, when it is enacted, in fact contains the whole of

915
the legislative provisions these subjects.
6.57 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I listened with great care to what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, had to say in moving these Amendments. As he rightly said, they are a measure of consolidation. The new clause after Clause 3 would incorporate Sections 1 and 2 of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972 into this Bill, and allow the whole of that Act to be repealed. The Act was intended as a temporary measure to deal with the immediate problem of dumping of toxic waste, and it was envisaged at that time that it would be replaced by more comprehensive legislation on waste disposal, which is now embodied in Part I of the Bill. The notification procedure in Sections 3 and 4 of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act will be replaced by the more comprehensive authorisation procedure laid down in Clause 16 of the Bill. The Government are entirely in sympathy with the object of these Amendments, which would have the effect of making the law much easier to understand. Therefore, I shall be glad to take these away and consider them. However, I have to add a proviso to this—and it is only fair to the Committee that I should say this now—that it will very much depend on drafting time.
I also listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady White, had to say about this and the other Acts to which she referred. I too should like to add a word to what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said about this distinction between mental sloth and pressure of time, and say that I think that this was not a question of just being lazy about the Bill at all. The Bill now has 97 clauses, and it would have been made a very long Bill. Many of these matters have been looked at. This is a somewhat complex measure, and there is no question of anybody trying to get out of doing something. We want to get the Bill right and we will certainly look very seriously at these Amendments, but I add that proviso about the need for drafting time.
Similarly, the Amendments which my noble friend Lord Amory has proposed to Clauses 12 and 15 appear designed to bring the relevant parts of Sections 18 and
916
23 of the Civic Amenities Act into the framework of the Bill. That would have the highly desirable result of bringing more of the law relating to waste disposal into a single Bill, and the Government undertake to consider these Amendments. We hope at some future date to consolidate the Public Health Acts and it may well be that we should leave this consolidation until that time; but that, again, is a matter for consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, mentioned two Acts referred to in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The noble Baroness was right in saying that they are not dealt with under the Bill and I can only apologise for that fact. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum certainly gives the impression that they are so dealt with but they, together with the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act, were left out of the Bill. I have given an assurance that we will look at these points and I hope that we shall be able to make some amendment to the Bill, but at this stage I can only promise to consider them.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I should like to emphasise the importance of this legislation to many thousands of small companies. Large companies have specialised staff and departments which examine all these problems, but this Bill will affect many small companies which do not have them. That is a very strong reason why the noble Baroness, Lady Young, should do her best to get draftsmen's time and ensure that these various Acts are consolidated in this Bill.
LORD MOLSON: I am not quite sure that I fully understood what my noble friend Lady Young has said. Am I to understand that what the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states about the Bill—that in respect of the pollution of water it replaces the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 to 1961, and that in respect of noise it replaces the noise nuisance provisions of the Public Health Acts and the whole of the Noise Abatement Act 1960—is not correct? Does the Bill not do what the Memorandum says it does?
LORD MERRIVALE: Before my noble friend decides what to do about this matter, I should like to make one point about the Deposit of Poisonous Waste

917
Act 1972. I believe I am right in saying that the Confederation of British Industries has had lengthy discussions with the Department concerned, and that the problem is mainly one of finding drafting time. But if I understood my noble friend aright, she said that the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Amory incorporate Sections 1 and 2 of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972, which would enable the entire Act to be repealed. So that if the Amendments of my noble friend which are relative to the 1972 Act are correctly drafted, it seems to me—perhaps I am naïve—that very little drafting time would be involved and the 1972 Act could be repealed in its entirety.
BARONESS WHITE: I would urge noble Lords to look at Schedule 4 on pages 104 and 105 and compare it with the remainder of the Bill. What is left of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 and 1961 is so little in extent that it should not take a competent draftsman long to work out a method of consolidation in this Bill, without waiting, till goodness knows! when, for a very large measure consolidating the Public Health Acts.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I should first like to thank my noble friend for what she has said. But I am not absolutely clear where we are. My noble friend seemed to me to be saying that she agreed in principle that these provisions ought to be consolidated in this Bill, but she then said she would consider the point and made the proviso about drafting time. She did not say that my 20 Amendments are nonsense, and I am sure that the Committee would be sorry if the immense labour that it is clear I put into their drafting were wasted. Like the noble Baroness, Lady White, I cannot believe, as the substance of these Amendments is merely lifted from the other Acts, that it will take very long to correct any faults.
Also, I would remind the Committee that we are still at a relatively early stage of the passage of this Bill, so I hope my noble friend did not seriously mean that it will not be found possible to improve my Amendments, if such improvements are called for, before the Bill leaves this House. I should be grateful if my noble friend would add a few words to what she has said, be-
918
cause it would not be very satisfactory to me if the matter were left to be considered further by my noble friend, with a big question mark against whether time could be found for the inclusion of these Amendments. If the matter were left like that, I would sit down again and redraft these 20 Amendments and see whether I could improve them still further, but I should like my noble friend to give me a hint as to the respects in which they are less than perfect.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Viscount is an old-enough hand to know that an even easier solution is to put these Amendments as they now are into the Bill and, if they are imperfect, I am quite certain that the Parliamentary draftsman will soon put them right.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Amory that we shall consider these Amendments. I would not think of suggesting to him that his drafting is defective, because I am not a lawyer. Drafting is a matter on which I must accept professional advice, and that advice is that the drafting must be looked at again. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will realise that we take these matters seriously and intend to consider them.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I wonder whether my noble friend can repeat what she said earlier, which was that, in principle, she thought a case had been made for the inclusion of these Amendments in the Bill. If she could say that, instead of just saying she will consider them, it would comfort me a great deal.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am very glad to confirm what my noble friend has said. We entirely accept the principle and are sympathetic to the desire to make legislation easier for everybody to understand through consolidation. But I can only repeat the clear-cut advice I have been given, which is that the drafting must be looked at. I am very happy to take up the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Amory that he will attempt to improve the drafting, and it may well be that he can do that in co-operation with someone else. So I would not in in any sense want to turn down that offer.
VISCOUNT AMORY: The offer is made only on the condition that my noble friend gives me some hint as lo the respects in which my drafting is faulty,

919
because it is difficult for me to imagine that that could be the case.
BARONESS WHITE: I am serious about this. I, too, have had very strong representations from the C.B.I. and other quarters on this matter. There is great disappointment that the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act (which was hurried legislation, as we all know) is not dealt with in this Bill. What is there seriously against the Committee accepting the Amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, as they are now and then the Department taking advice as to possible amendment of them? I cannot believe that they would want to amend them all, but there may well be some points which they would wish to amend. That, surely, is the constructive way to consider this: not taking it all out again, but leaving it in the Bill—subject, of course, to Government amendment at a later stage, to which I would suppose your Lordships would listen very sympathetically.
BARONESS YOUNG: If I may give just one example, suppose that in fact we took the first Amendments as they stand and merely incorporated them in the Bill. They interact with other parts of the Bill, and I am advised that they need further examination. This is the kind of point I was referring to when I talked about drafting points; and when the advice is that no one has had the time since these Amendments were put down to go through the Bill completely to make sure that everything is in order, I think one must accept that we should have the opportunity to do so. This takes drafting time, and I hope I am being as fair and as frank with the Committee as I can be in giving the reasons for this.
If I may answer the question which has been raised about the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, I should make it absolutely clear that the Noise Abatement Act 1960 is wholly replaced and that the relevant parts of the Public Health Act 1936 are wholly replaced. When I apologised to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, it concerned some parts of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts which have been left over; and there are, of course, these sections of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act, which we have been discussing.
VISCOUNT AMORY: If my noble friend is assuring the Committee that she
920
agrees in principle that these provisions should be included in the Bill and that she will see how that can be done, I would then be prepared to withdraw my Amendment; but in the light of that assurance I really should expect that at the next stage of the Bill we should see the Amendments on the Marshalled List. If they were not there, then I would have to say that I would myself have to produce fresh Amendments giving effect to this consolidation—improved, if possible, on the present ones. On that understanding, which I think comes out of my noble friend's speeches, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: Before the Question is put, may I say, on a matter which has also been raised—that is, the pollution of water—that I hope that by the time we get to the part of the Bill dealing with the pollution of water it will be possible to replace completely, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 and 1961, in order that the legislation dealing with that matter may all be contained in one single Statute.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.14 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 5, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move that paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of Clause 3 be omitted. I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving this Amendment, I also gave the reasons which I shall seek to advance in support of the next Amendment, No. 26, because those reasons are not dissimilar and really the argument forms one piece. In the hope that your Lordships will think that that is convenient, I shall follow that course.
As your Lordships know, Clause 3 says that you must not deposit controlled waste on land unless you do so on the authority of a disposal licence. If you transgress, you are liable to very severe penalties. If one looks at subsection (2), one finds that a person who disobeys that injunction is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400, and on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or an unlimited fine, or both. I think that the

921
Committee will accept it as being elementary that where legislation creates a serious offence that offence must be precisely spelt out in the terms of the legislation. It is utterly contrary to our tradition, and very bad in principle, if offences are created and it is not possible from the terms of the legislation to discover exactly what the offence is and is not.
Looking at subsection (2) one would have thought that the offence consisted simply in the act of depositing controlled waste without having the authority of a disposal licence. That would be simple enough, if that was how the matter were left. But when one looks at subsection (3) one finds that that is not the offence at all, because certain defences are provided in subsection (3); and if a person charged can establish any of those defences he must be found not guilty and acquitted; in other words, must be found by the court not to have been guilty of an offence.
One then looks to see what those defences are. That set out in paragraph (a) is perfectly clear; likewise, that set out in paragraph (b). If you are an employee or you rely upon information given to you, then in the circumstances described in those paragraphs you do not commit an offence. But when one gets to paragraph (c), I submit that one really is brought into an area of the greatest possible uncertainty. Paragraph (c) provides that it shall be a defence for a man to show,
"that he took all such steps as were reasonably open to him to ensure that no offence under this section would be committed".
One immediately asks: Well, what is an offence as described in paragraph (c)? It is not the action of depositing waste without a licence, because it is no offence if you take steps to try to avoid doing that thing. Then you ask yourself: is it an offence to deposit waste without taking all reasonable steps not to deposit waste? The answer is: No, that is not an offence, either, if you took all reasonable steps to avoid depositing waste without taking steps not to do so. It is rather like a dog running after its own tail: one goes round and round in a circle until one becomes absolutely dizzy.
I submit that this is extremely bad drafting, and that the Government ought to give a firm undertaking that they will take this language back and reconsider
922
it. It is (I hope I am not being repetitious) utterly elementary that an offence must be clearly spelt out in the terms of the legislation which creates that offence—and here that is not done. Nobody can tell what the offence is. One can add almost ad infinitum the proviso about taking steps reasonably open to you not to commit the offence. It is never an offence if you have taken reasonable steps not to commit whatever is the offence and you are never told what the offence is. That is the case that I make on the first Amendment, No. 25, and I ask the Government to give an undertaking that they will take it back and look at the language very carefully, and spell out clearly what the subject must not do and what, if he does it, amounts to an offence.
With permission, I will shortly make the case on the next Amendment, No. 26. It is quite simple. It is perfectly reasonable, I submit, that you do not commit an offence even if you deposit waste on land without a licence, if you do so in an emergency. But I submit that it is desirable that you should nevertheless not be excused unless you give notice that you have done so. The case I make for that is a purely practical one. If you do not commit an offence when you act in an emergency, and you do not tell anybody to begin with, the prosecuting authority may prosecute you; time will be wasted; you will remain liable to prosecution for a considerable period of time. You will be in a situation of uncertainty and the prosecuting authority will not know whether or not it should prosecute you. That is a situation which could be so easily cured by adding the words in Amendment No. 26 which require you, if you are to have this particular defence available to you, to give notice of what you have done. Those are my reasons for these two Amendments. The Amendments are both designed with the same objective. Paragraphs (c) and (d) are defective compared with paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraphs (a) and (b) are perfectly clear. Paragraph (c) is a prodigy of mystery. Paragraph (d) will lead to grave inconvenience, in my submission, unless the change which I venture to propose is made.
LORD MERRIVALE: Although I hate to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in view of his extensive legal knowledge, I hope that

923
my noble friend Lady Young will not give way to him. As I understand it, paragraph (c) is an important defence available to a person charged with an offence under this clause, which deals with the unlicensed disposal of waste. To remove the paragraph would in my opinion create an absolute offence, and I hope that that would not be in line with Government thinking on the matter; for in Clause 23 (2) (d) there is a similar provision regarding pollution of water and control of entry of polluted matter and effluent into water. I hope that my noble friend may agree that certain considerations in factory legislation are much the same as in environmental legislation. I should like to bring to the attention of the Committee a report produced by the Confederation of British Industry not very long ago regarding pollution legislation. I think it relevant to the Amendment we are considering. In this Report the C.B.I. say:
"We believe that it is important to get the philosophy of our environmental legislation right and that there is no place in enlightened U.K. legislation in this field for the absolute offence. The case against the absolute offence may be summarised as follows:

1. If a person, including a company, has done all in his power to avoid pollution, he ought not to be made a criminal when pollution occurs as a result of an accident or some other cause which he could not have avoided.

2. When pollution does result following an accident or some other unavoidable cause it will sometimes be desirable for the controlling authorities to be alerted without delay so that remedial steps can be coordinated. If disclosure is going to lead automatically to unfair criminal conviction, some people will tend to conceal the fact of the accident and serious environmental consequences may follow.

3. If a conviction does not necessarily imply blame of some sort, the currency of a conviction becomes debased. The law should be such that a person convicted in this field should regard the conviction as a real blot on his record."

I think that that quotation is relevant to the matter we are now considering. I would also bring to the attention of the Committee the conclusion reached by the Law Commission, in their Working Paper No. 30, Strict Liability and the Enforcement of the Factories Act 1961. Their conclusion was:
"For accident cases and other serious breaches of the law, criminal proceedings are appropriate but liability to criminal sanctions
924
should be subject to a general defence of due diligence."
I am a layman in these matters, but I hope that what I have said makes sense; and if it does, I hope that the noble Baroness will not accept the Amendment.
7.27 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: Like my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, I am always extremely hesitant about picking an argument on points of law with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. But in this case I shall have to take a great deal of courage from what my noble friend Lord Merrivale has said. I think he put the case clearly on what I believe is now regarded as quite a standard form of defence of no negligence in these matters. If I correctly understood the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, he was saying that the offence was not defined in the Bill and therefore this clause was not very clear. What we had in mind was the sort of case where, for example, the conditions of a site licence had been broken, but the licensee could show that it was not intentional on his part; that he had taken every precaution he could to meet the conditions, but pollution had nevertheless occurred. This would be the kind of situation in which he could well argue that in fact he had not been negligent and therefore this would be a defence in law.
It might also be the case that waste had been deposited illegally on an unlicensed site. The defence would not perhaps be so relevant in that case. It is situations of this kind that we had in mind. I hope that I have explained the kind of offence which could be created and which this defence is designed to meet. For reasons which I think were well stated by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, I feel that I cannot accept this Amendment and that this is a necessary part of the clause.
LORD STOW HILL: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that I was not for one second arguing in favour of creating an absolute offence. I was simply trying to make clear that my objection to this language was its complete obscurity. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I am sorry she has adopted such an obdurate attitude? If she has in mind that a person should not be guilty of an offence if he infringes the conditions

925
of the licence, having taken all reasonable precautions not to, I should be perfectly content if the language so said; or if the language so chosen indicated that that was the sort of thing the Government had in mind. My objection to the language is that it gives no kind of indication as to what the Government have in mind. I am all in favour of ensuring that transgression against the terms of the licence, or any other prohibition, which is involuntary or takes place despite reasonable precautions to prevent it should not result in rendering the person who transgresses liable in a criminal court, especially to such a severe penalty.
If the noble Baroness were to say that she would take the language back and, with her advisers, look further into it, so that she gave some indication as to what was the defence which is being afforded, I should be perfectly content. But I shall be glad if I may have the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment. I hope that she will be able to go as far as that and that she will reconsider language which in my submission is obscure, and objectionably obscure.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sorry that I should have sounded obdurate because I hope that I shall always listen with sympathy to what the noble Lord has to say.
LORD STOW HILL: May I please withdraw the word "obdurate"?
BARONESS YOUNG: I hope the Committee will feel that throughout these proceedings we have tried to be as reasonable as we can on all the points that have been raised. If I feel unable to take this point back it is not, I can assure the noble Lord, because I am trying to be difficult about this but because my understanding is that to reconsider this in any way at all would be to weaken a defence which is a common form in legislation to-day and which I would have thought means that the case which I put, and which I understood, from what he said, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, accepts, is the kind of case that ought to be met by this kind of defence. The purpose of Clause 3 is to deal with the prohibition of the unlicensed disposal of waste which is the offence; and, as I tried to explain, this particular part is put in to deal, as a very necessary defence, with circumstances where a condition or conditions of the
926
disposal licence have been broken but the licence holder considers that he has taken all necessary care. I am sorry that I cannot undertake to look at this wording again, but this is such an important part that I feel it would be quite wrong of me to mislead the Committee in this respect.
LORD STOW HILL: In view of the reply given by the noble Baroness I ask permission to withdraw the word "obdurate", and may I now ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment, but also to consider whether perhaps I ought not also ask your Lordships to restore the word "obdurate".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STOW HILL: I beg to move Amendment No. 26:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, at end insert ("and that notice was given to the disposal authority immediately afterwards.")—(Lord Stow Hill.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am placed in the fortunate position that the noble Baroness passes over to me the rather easier Amendments where I can afford to be much less obdurate perhaps than she is. We believe that it is, in principle, a sensible suggestion to strengthen the exceptions procedure in this way, and we certainly accept the principle underlying the Amendment. There is, of course, the additional specific merit that this procedure would inform the local authority when somebody had had to exercise an emergency procedure so that it would not be unaware of something having been done under this clause, which is very desirable in itself. However, we should like to consider the detailed wording of this Amendment because it fits in with the spirit of a future Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton—I think it is Amendment No. 52—which is the reverse side of this particular Amendment. We should like to consider these two Amendments together, to get harmonious wording between the two.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am glad to hear that my noble friend has agreed in principle with this Amendment. It seems to me to be reasonable that if action had to be taken in an emergency,

927
the authority should be notified at once rather than wait until proceedings were taken later when the facts might be more difficult to discover. We take it that having accepted it in principle, my noble friend will find some way of introducing appropriate words into the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has proposed.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.36 p.m.
LORD MER RIVALE LORD MER RIVALE moved Amendment No. 26A:
Page 5, line 9, at end insert ("or damage to property.")
The noble Lord said: I feel that there will be occasions when the removal or depositing of waste is essential to avoid damage to property rather than simply to avoid danger to life or health. Such circumstances are recognised, I think, in the Deposit of Poisonous Waste, Notification of Removal or Deposit Regulations 1972. Section 4(2) of those Regulations reads:
"In this regulation any reference to circumstances of emergency is a reference to a case where a person removing or depositing waste has reasonable cause to believe that circumstances exist which are likely to endanger life or health or cause damage to property unless the removal or deposit is carried out without delay."
Damage to property has been considered important. That is why I think it would be only right if it was also incorporated in this Bill. I am trying to see that these circumstances are recognised in this Protection of the Environment Bill—for example, waste which reacts with construction material of plant or building with which it is in contact. I have particularly in mind a plant manufacturing man-made fibres. There could be a strike or some other action that would mean that you would get this viscous material which might possibly be or have a corrosive content. It may be a continuous process which would stop and therefore there may be damage to property. That is why I think it is important that damage to property should be within the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: The effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is to extend the definition of "an emergency" and to provide a further defence for a person charged with an offence under Clause 3(1) who acted in an emergency in order to avoid damage to property. I am glad that in the course of his remarks he gave an example of what he meant. If I have understood him aright, he is saying that an instance would be in a continuous process in which there might be an emergency in which property might be damaged. He is, of course, quite right in saying that this definition was used in the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act Regulations, and to include it in the Bill would be simply bringing this Bill into line with that Act. We have been trying to obtain a reasonably broad definition of "an emergency". If it is felt that the present definition is unduly restrictive I should be prepared to consider this further point. However, we must be careful not to enlarge the definition too much so that we throw open the position to abuse by the person committing an offence. While we must be careful not to go too far, in view of what my noble friend has said I will undertake to consider this point.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am very grateful to my noble friend and I am also very glad that she is well seized of what might happen with a continuous process, an example of which I have just given. I am grateful to my noble friend for her assurance that this matter will be looked at further, and in view of that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.41 p.m.
BARONESS BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("one year") and insert ("six months").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment which is really a probing Amendment. We wished to satisfy ourselves that the period of one year suggested by the Government really was the right period. It worries us that this particular subsection has meaning only if there is something unsatisfactory about the disposal licence, because it refers to the end of that period where—
" … an appeal is pending in pursuance of Section 8 of this Act against a rejection of an application for a disposal licence …'.

929
Then one has to wait not only for one year but until an appeal has been determined.
The Amendment which the noble Baroness proposes, which is about conditions and not merely concerned with rejection, scarcely alters the position. Bearing in mind the slowness of legal processes in these matters, there could be a very long period during which disposal would have been carried out in circumstances which were not satisfactory, or so it seems to us. That is why we thought it might be sensible to try to reduce the initial period from 12 months to 6 months because one would still, if conditions were unsatisfactory, have to wait until the appeal procedure had been carried out. As I say, that might take a very long time; so one might find the situation where unsatisfactory waste disposal was going on for quite a long time. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness whether she thinks that a period shorter than one year would not really be better.
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like intervene very briefly, if I may. The noble Baroness referred earlier on to the feelings of the Confederation of British Industry in relation to a previous Amendment. My understanding is that the C.B.I. feel that a period of at least one year is necessary to enable disposal authorities to deal with applications for site licences for existing disposal facilities. Too short a period, it is felt, could result in a spate of appeals reaching the Secretary of State. This fear may be groundless, but it does exist. I am quite sure that my right honourable friend would not welcome that, and so I hope that my noble friend will resist this Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: I hope that I can give the noble Baroness, Lady White, the answers to the questions she has raised. I very much sympathise with the intention behind this Amendment, which is, I am sure, that the whole procedure for settling the plan and getting the site licence should be speeded up. However, we feel that the time allowed ought to be one year rather than six months, because the new county councils will come into being only on April 1 this year. They will be undertaking new functions and will have many new jobs to carry
930
out in their first year. It therefore seemed to us much more reasonable in this context to give them a year rather than six months. The second reason, to which my noble friend Lord Merrivale, referred, is that it may well be some time before private operators are fully aware of the detailed provisions relating to the disposal of waste and it would not be fair to expect the waste disposal authorities to cope with what in some areas might amount to a large number of applications for site licences within such a relatively short period of time—again bearing in mind the fact that they will have many new powers and duties to carry out under the Act.
BARONESS WHITE: I thank the noble Baroness very much for that explanation. I think on balance that she is probably right in believing that 12 months would be better. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5 line 19, after ("land") insert ("or against a decision to issue such a licence which specifies conditions").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lady Young, I beg to move this Amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, said just now, it probably does not make a great deal of difference to the situation. It is largely a technical point. The present arrangement allows for a period of one year plus a period of appeal against refusal. The purpose of this Amendment is, analogously, to extend the period in case of an appeal against the conditions attaching to the licence.
7.47 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 5, line 22 after ("of") insert ("a building which is in use as").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29. The reason for this modest Amendment is that I was somewhat concerned that one might have deposits of household waste within the curtilage of a house which is a private dwelling and could not be described as anything else, but which may have been abandoned as a private dwelling for a number of years. I have in mind the

931
particular case of a house in one of our South Coast towns which has remained empty for many years. There is a large garden which is now a wilderness, and it is really one of the most disgusting areas I have seen for many years, because it has become just a dump; yet it is within the curtilage of a domestic dwelling and it is what once was a garden.
It seemed to me that one ought to confine this particular exemption to a building which is in use as a private dwelling. I realise that this may be a slightly tricky legal point, and if the noble Baroness says that we may need some firmer definition I shall be happy to leave it with her. But there is a real point here: when a house has been abandoned, so far as I can make out, it is perfectly legal for anyone to throw what he likes into its backyard. Of course it might be a public health nuisance, in which case the public health authorities could intervene; but if it could not be said that the dumping had a bad effect on health but was just hideously unsightly, then I am not sure that under the Bill as it is now such a situation could be dealt with. If I am wrong I shall be most happy to be corrected.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for having explained exactly what she meant by this Amendment. I must confess that it was slightly puzzling at first, because, as she will know from the definition clauses, a private dwelling is defined and it covers the case of a caravan—so I realised that the noble Baroness was not referring to that. The intention behind this is that a private household may have a compost heap, or something of that sort; but the intention behind the waste provisions is that it is an offence to dump waste anywhere except on sites licensed for the purpose. I must admit that the particular case cited by the noble Baroness is one on which I should not like to give an off-the-cuff definitive answer. I find it difficult to imagine a house which has been abandoned for some considerable time and which presumably no one ever expects to live in again since its garden is being used, in effect, as a piece of waste ground. I should have thought, therefore, that it would probably be covered by the gen-
932
eral provisions of the Bill. In view of the uncertainty of this matter, however, I had better look at it, and perhaps I could write to the noble Baroness and let her know what the situation is.
BARONESS WHITE: I should be most grateful as I have this picture so vividly in my mind of the horrors I witnessed in this particular garden. In the circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.51 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 27, leave out from ("on") to ("seashore").
The noble and learned Lord said: The object of Amendment No. 30 is really twofold: partly it is probing, and partly it is designed perhaps to extend the scope of the existing subsection (6) of Clause 3. The Amendment seeks to leave out in line 27 the words "on any part of the seashore", and the result would be that the land which is referred to in Clause 3 would include any land as defined in subsection (6). That would bring in these words
" … and to tidal water above low water mark of ordinary spring tides."
May I address myself to the first object which I described, that is to say, to probe. Is it designed by the Government that, for example, land above low water mark in the tidal stretches of a river should or should not be included within the definition? Supposing one looks at Clause 48, which is the definition clause relating to the next Part of the Bill. One finds that in that definition there is included the following:
"'tidal waters' includes the waters of any enclosed dock which adjoins tidal waters".
I would suppose that with the language as it at present stands in subsection (6), the land upon which an enclosed dock stands would not be included within the definition unless the dock in some way abuts upon the seashore. Is that intended? I submit that the words which I seek to leave out, "on any part of the seashore", import a limitation which first I ask the Government whether they intend; and, secondly, which I submit perhaps it would be better to remove.
The River Thames I believe, although I am not sure, is tidal up to Teddington.

933
But with the language as it stands, the land above low water mark, say at Teddington, or of the River Thames up to Teddington, would, I should have thought, be excluded. It would be excluded as a result of the words "on any part of the seashore". Similarly, if one looks at the London Docks—I do not know whether they are enclosed docks within the meaning of Clause 48, or not—they are to a large extent in the tidal part of the River Thames. Is it intended that the land on which those docks stand, to the extent that they are enclosed docks, should or should not be included? That is what I have to say with regard to the probing objective. I want to know what is intended and what is the result of the language used.
With regard to the second objective, namely, that which is designed to extend the scope of subsection (6), I would ask the Government, is it not desirable to include within the scope of subsection (6) all land above low water mark right up the tidal stretches of a river—in the case of the River Thames, for example, right up I think to Teddington—and to include enclosed docks like the London Docks which, I think I am right in saying, are in the tidal stretches of the River Thames? I may have got it wrong and if so I apologise, but I simply give that by way of example to illustrate my meaning. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would be so kind as to indicate first, what does the language result in; and, secondly, would it not be better to extend the scope of subsection (6) by omitting the words which I apprehend at any rate would import a limitation which I submit is not a desirable limitation? I beg to move.
LORD HAWKE: I, too, am in some slight doubt, as is the noble Lord opposite, because I am not sure whether the term "household waste" includes sewage. If it does, I am very well acquainted with one of the principal beaches in the West Country where at high tide a man appears with a key and opens a lock and the entire previous 24 hours' sewage for the district is let out into the sea. The end of the pipe, of course, is well above low water mark and when the tide goes down, although in theory it has washed it out to sea, in practice there are milky pools among the
934
rocks there and you find little children paddling and bathing in them. I tell them that it is sewage but they take no notice and go on playing there.
If sewage is included here, the local authority are going to have a nasty shock because if they are refused a licence to do this, I do not know what is to happen to the sewage until they have built an expensive plant. Perhaps they are in the process of doing so. Further up the local river, a local authority town discharges all its sewage into the tidal river somewhere between high and low water mark. Therefore it is just as important to discover whether "household waste" includes sewage as to discover whether "commercial waste" includes the effluent from broiler houses or not, to which I hope I shall have an answer shortly.
VISCOUNT AMORY: Before my noble friend sits down, will he tell us where this beach is where the small children take no notice? We may.
LORD HAWKE: I can see that my noble friend has disguised his real purpose. Of course he wants to go shrimping there.
7.58 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I nearly said that we were getting into deep waters; but it is shallow waters we are trying to deal with here. We were in some doubt as to exactly what the noble Lord was seeking with these Amendments, and now that we are clearer on what exactly was involved, I will deal with them as best I can. The short answer is to say that under this Bill the intention is to prevent the deposit of waste anywhere in the country except on licensed sites; and these include the shore, the docklands and the banks of estuaries, not necessarily under this Part of the Bill. I suppose that I may be accused of evading the issue of having to answer all the definitions that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was asking for, but I would say that if the definitions in the Bill at the present time are inadequate as they apply to this clause, the matter is covered by other Parts of the Bill. By the way, if I may just take what we rather thought was the point that the noble Lord was going to take, anything dumped further out to sea is dealt with by the Dumping at Sea

935
Bill which fairly recently passed through this House.
BARONESS WHITE: No, it has not, yet.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: —which is in the process of passing through this House.
My noble friend Lord Hawke made reference to the disagreeable occurrence which goes on at his favourite bathing spot. There is no doubt that if sewage is being dumped above the low water mark (and may I say, in passing, as an ex-sailor, that we always used to refer to the mean ordinary spring tides, though I hope we do not add that particular word) something will have to be done about it, and the local waste disposal authority will have to bring this into its plan.
My noble friend also referred to a point that we were unable to deal with a little earlier in the debate, and perhaps it might be useful if I tried to clear it up since we have now been able to take advice. I am advised that broiler waste is definitely a farm waste, and though farm waste is at present excluded from the definition of controlled water, there will be opportunity to bring it under control by regulation under Clause 17. Under Part II of the Bill it will in any case be an offence to deposit broiler waste in a stream. I hope therefore your Lordships will see that we believe this Amendment is not necessary, since all the points, I hope, are covered in the way that I have attempted to describe.
LORD HAWKE: My noble friend referred to depositing broiler waste in a stream. The particular waste I had in mind was when I crossed a river of chicken manure roughly three yards across and one foot deep which was making its way towards a stream. The owner of the broiler house was not depositing the waste in the stream; gravity was doing it and his chickens were doing the rest. Is that an offence under the Bill or is it not?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Surely that is depositing a waste on land under Part I of the Bill.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord says that chicken waste is not a controllable
936
waste. That is the point. But he goes on to say that to put broiler waste in a stream is an offence. It is not an offence to deposit it on the land round the chicken house, but presumably it might be an offence by the time the river of chicken manure that I mentioned reached the stream.
LORD STOW HILL: Can the noble Lord answer the question about enclosed docks?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I have to confess that in a sense I evaded answering that question. If the docks were not part of the tidal waters they would become part of the land, and the land includes the sea-shore, docklands and banks of estuaries. So it is covered either way.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry to press this matter, but I feel unhappy about the wording of this subsection. No-one reading it could come to the conclusion that it included the shores of tidal rivers away from the sea. On the point made by my noble and learned friend about the Thames up to Teddington, and the Humber up to a considerable distance of its length, I have had a question raised by those concerned with the present river authorities as to what is the position regarding the shores of tidal rivers which could not by any means be called seashores. Although by careful examination of the Bill one might be able to find some other clause in which the shores of tidal rivers would be included, it would be more satisfactory for everybody concerned if it were plain from this clause that they were included. This is one of the reasons why my noble and learned friend put down this particular Amendment and mentioned simply tidal water without the seashore. I wonder whether this point could be looked at again. Even if one could find reference to it somewhere else in the Bill, surely this is the place in which one would like to see it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for moving this Amendment. He did it in a manner which I could not at any time hope to emulate. The matter raised by the Amendment is one of some concern to the Association

937
of Municipal Corporations. The use of the words:
" … to tidal water on any part of the seashore above low water mark of ordinary spring tides."
is not the best description that could be used to specify the land which is to be made subject to control. I should like to add my voice to the request that this point might be looked at again. I appreciate what the noble Lord said when he replied to my noble friend, but it seems to me this provision could be looked at again with a view to improving the wording. There is a point of some substance here.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am grateful to noble Lords. The general intention is perfectly clear: whatever happens, we do not want to see these areas excluded. The point being made is that the Part of the Bill in which these matters come may be obscure. Our feeling is that this particular Amendment does not help to clarify that point. We ought to have another look to see whether there is another way in which the point could be clarified. I hope that will satisfy noble Lords.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: If I may add one further point of clarification, at an earlier stage in the proceedings the point was made in discussing sewage that this was part of controlled waste. In fact sewage would not be controlled waste, but its discharge would be regulated by the Regional Water Authorities under Part II of the Bill.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Baroness put something in the Interpretation Clause to make sure that it does not include sewage, because "household waste" is rather an all-embracing term.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 30A:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert:
("(6A) The presence of waste on any land is to be treated as giving rise to an environmental hazard if the waste has been deposited in such
938
a manner, or in such quantity (whether that quantity by itself or cumulatively with other deposits of the same or different substances) as to subject persons or animals to material risk of death, injury or impairment of health, or as to threaten the pollution or contamination (whether on the surface or under ground) of any water supply; and where waste is deposited in containers, this shall not of itself be taken to exclude any risk which might be expected to arise if the waste were not in containers.
(6B) In the case of any deposit of waste, the degree of risk relevant for purposes of subsection (3) above shall be assessed with particular regard—

(a) to the measures, if any, taken by the person depositing the waste, or by the owner or occupier of the land, or by others, for minimising the risk; and

(b) to any likelihood of the waste, or any container in which it is deposited, being tampered with by children or others.")

The noble Viscount said: While it is extremely painful for me to find myself withdrawing one meticulously drafted Amendment after another because my noble friend has hinted that it may be possible to improve my drafting, the mere thought of which is very wounding to me indeed, I do so again, but with the confident expectation that my noble friend may find that my drafting is perfect, in which case I shall expect to see these excellent Amendments down again one after another. I therefore do not move Amendment No. 30A.
8.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I draw attention to the first four words of this clause:
"Except in prescribed cases …."
I should like the Government to say what cases they anticipate will be prescribed in this way. Presumably they will be prescribed by regulations to be made under the Bill. It seems to me these words might to some extent militate against the objects of the Bill if too many exceptions are prescribed. I should like some enlightenment on what my noble friend has in mind in regard to what will be covered by these four words.
BARONESS YOUNG: The intention lying behind this clause, and indeed this Part of the Bill, is that all sites that will be used for the the disposal of waste will require a site licence. These words I are put in because there could be cases

939
which would be exempt by regulations: for example, there might be small tips of industrial waste on an industrialist's own land which might be prescribed. There might possibly be household waste which could be deposited on a householder's own premises. We have already referred to this in the sense of compost heaps, but I suppose it is possible that in certain circumstances something else might be deposited. In effect, these words are written into this clause because there may well be instances where something should be omitted and this gives a freedom of choice. I should like to confirm that it is the intention of this Part of the Bill that every site should be licensed and a large number of cases should not be omitted.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am very grateful for my noble friend's assurances, but I feel guilty because I did not put down an Amendment and it is much more difficult for her suddenly to spring something like this on her. I am worried when she says that industrialists may make a tip on their own lands—a "small tip", I think she said—and that they can be exempted from getting a licence. It seems to me that dangers could attach to that. I wonder whether my noble friend could possibly look at this again, and perhaps at some future stage give an assurance that that would not be the case.
Perhaps I had better put down an Amendment at the next stage of the Bill to try to clarify these four words.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Licences to dispose of waste]:
8.12 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 5, at end insert ("or serious detriment to the amenities of the locality").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move. The point of this Amendment concerns that part of Clause 4 which provides
"Where a disposal authority receives an application for a disposal licence for a use of land … for which … planning permission … is in force, it shall be the duty of the authority not to reject the application unless the authority is satisfied that its rejection is necessary …"
940
for two purposes as the Bill now stands: pollution of water or that it would be a danger to the public. We feel that for the Bill to make any pretence whatever to live up to its Title, then the least one can do is to include another condition, namely, that this particular permission, if given, would result in serious detriment to amenities of the locality. A planning permission might have been given some time back, and the local circumstances might have changed—a house might have been built, for example, quite close to the place where the disposal might take place. One has heard of one or two quite horrific stories of circumstances of precisely this kind where life has become very difficult indeed. Therefore we feel it only proper that while the disposal authority is more or less compelled to give a licence unless certain circumstances are satisfied, if it felt there was going to be serious detriment to the amenities of the locality, even though not necessarily an actual danger to health, it should have a possible option.
It has been suggested that with this Amendment we should look at the comparable Amendment, No. 57. That is at page 10, line 39. In a sense that is consequential. If the Amendment which I am proposing should be made, then one would need to amend subsection (3) of Clause 8, because this provides for appeals to the Secretary of State against decisions to withhold licences or to impose conditions which are regarded as inappropriate. There the local authority might have refused the licence on the ground that to grant it would involve the possible pollution of water or some danger to public health. If this third condition were accepted, then it might have given as its reason for not granting the licence on these conditions that to do so would be seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality.
I think the Bill is defective as it stands in that there are two reasons only that would justify a disposal authority not giving a licence if planning permission were in force. But planning permission, I repeat, having been given in somewhat different circumstances sometime back, we think the disposal authority should have this possibility of taking into account serious detriment to amenities. There is a provision for appeal in Clause 8, so the decision is not absolute. If the Secretary

941
of State in his wisdom decided that it was not reasonable to invoke this particular condition, then of course he could act; so there is a safeguard. As I said, at least in order to justify the Title of the Bill, I think our Amendment is a reasonable one.
VISCOUNT AMORY: There seems to me to be one possible objection to the Amendment the noble Baroness has moved: that the planning permission already in force can be modified or revoked on payment of compensation. Would not the effect of the Amendment's proposal to permit the withholding of a licence for essentially planning reasons be that in such a case the planning permission would be revoked without payment of compensation and in some cases might not that be unfair?
LORD MERRIVALE: I agree, with respect, with my noble friend. It seems to me the purpose of site licencing is to institute controls that are inappropriate under the planning legislation. Therefore it would seem that the amenity consideration, on the other hand, should be regarded at the planning stage. I know the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to "changed conditions", but I think the point was covered technically by my noble friend Viscount Amory. It seems to me definitely wrong that amenity considerations should be considered under site licensing. I hope that my noble friend will consider it again.
BARONESS YOUNG: I think the important point in this Amendment is that it would add another reason for rejecting the licence application, and the important point is that once the planning permission is in force, as has been very well explained by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, this Amendment would confuse the two purposes of planning permission and site licensing. Planning decisions, of course, take into account the amenities of the locality and a great many other matters which are rightly the concern of planning authorities. But once planning permission has been given it is not imagined that site licensing would be refused, except on grounds of public health or some kind of danger of pollution in this context. Therefore it would be very unfair to take away a site licence on grounds which in effect are not appro-
942
priate to the licensing provision at all. I think they are appropriate grounds for determining planning applications, but I think it would not be right to take this into account when giving a licence for the site. It is for that reason that I feel unable to accept this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I can quite see the logic of the argument. But I wonder whether the noble Baroness can say anything about the time factor. Is planning permission for purposes of this kind more or less indefinite?—because it is the changing circumstances in the neighbourhood that are worrying us. We can see perfectly well that this is more a planning matter than a site matter, but we feel that there should be some safeguard. If a planning permission had been given a considerable period beforehand, and the circumstances had changed, something really very obnoxious might take place which had not been foreseen at the time when the original planning permission was given. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could enlighten me on that point.
BARONESS YOUNG: It is always somewhat difficult when there is a very long-standing planning permission on something, but certainly there is no reason why planning permission cannot be limited Ito a given period of time. I should have thought in this connection that when a waste disposal authority draws up its plan it would obviously be looking at existing sites and any other sites it considered suitable. And, of course, when it considered giving planning permission to something it would obviously, I should have thought, take into account precisely this kind of point, which is a planning point. It is also, as Lord Amory said, possible for it, by giving compensation, to extinguish the use, or revoke the planning permission in this way. So it is not impossible for it to deal with this situation. I should have thought, although I believe this is not specifically stated in the Bill, that when the waste disposal authority and the planning authority were considering the planning application for new sites they would certainly take into account the fact that waste disposal is, as it were, a changing world—that new processes take place and new things cone up which cannot necessarily be thought of in advance—and would write something into

943
the planning conditions on these lines. Therefore they would be taking this point into account.
BARONESS WHITE: It is not the new permissions we are thinking of; it is the possibly long-standing planning permissions which under the new dispensation of waste disposal plans and so on might never have been granted. However, I do not wish to press the point. I can see that there are difficulties, but the matter worried us and I thought it right to draw attention to our concern. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.22 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I refer to this Amendment and at the same time to No. 63, which is on the same point. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would also be prepared to discuss his relevant Amendment at the same time. It is a short point. I put the Amendment down just after Second Reading so that the noble Baroness might think about it. Under this particular Amendment the disposal authority, when it proposes to issue a disposal licence, must refer its proposal to three different interests: the water authority, any collection authority, and any other prescribed person. All those interests have, in spite of difficulties concerning Her Majesty's G.P.O., and other difficulties, to put up their representations within 21 days. I felt it was rather a short time and that 28 days would give them more opportunity to get the job done properly. I beg to move.
LORD HENLEY: If I may speak now to my Amendment, to save time, it seems to me that even 28 days is not quite long enough. It might be all right in a straightforward case, assuming that plenty of staff were available. But where geological and other scientific investigations are probably going to be necessary, it will not be long enough. My Amendment, following Lord Craigton's,
944
is rather wider. What my Amendment suggests is the inclusion of:
"or such longer period as may be agreed in writing between the disposal authority and the other authority concerned".
This would give some flexibility regarding the time within which another authority—probably a water authority—has to make representation on a licence application.
We already have the same sort of thing in Clause 4(9), so I should have thought there would be no great difficulty in giving this latitude here. I do not know whether the Government have it in mind to accept either the Amendment of Lord Craigton or mine. I think mine is the better Amendment because it leaves greater latitude. Would the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, be of mind to withdraw his Amendment in favour of mine?
LORD CRAIGTON: I prefer my own Amendment, but I am grateful for small mercies.
LORD HENLEY: Perhaps we had better hear what the noble Baroness has to say about both Amendments before either of us withdraws his Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, wondered whether we had had time to consider his Amendment. I would make quite clear that my Department has given very considerable thought to the question of how long a period should be allowed for comment by the authorities consulted on this question of a licence. It is all a question of fitting it into what must be regarded as a reasonable timetable in order to get the question of the licences resolved. The original pre-introduction proposal was 14 days and this was extended to 21 days—the present provision—to give water authorities, in particular, more time to carry out their investigations. But the fact is that in the case of a licence application the waste disposal authority has only two months in which to decide whether to accept or to reject it, and to extend to 28 days the period of making representations might impose too tight a schedule in the processing of applications.
In both cases, however—both private applications and the waste disposal authority's own sites—the question is to a certain extent academic because the waste

945
disposal authority must be concerned with the water authority's points—especially to protect itself from the possibility of causing water pollution by its own disposal operations if it has not secured the support and advice of the water authority. So in practice we are likely to see a flexible arrangement. In the last resort, as I said earlier, if there is not an understanding, and there is a serious disagreement, the water authority's position is safeguarded by an appeal to the Secretary of State.
I have explained this timetable in some detail because, although I have some sympathy with the suggestion of Lord Craigton, I would turn to the more general Amendment put down by Lord Henley. If I have understood it correctly, what he is saying is that the 21 day period for consultation could be extended if there were an agreement in writing between the waste disposal authority and the water authority or the other authority concerned. I think that there is some merit in this point and it is one that we should like to consider further. One
946
must consider it in the light of the kind of circumstances that are likely to prevail. I would therefore give the assurance that we will look further at this second Amendment—that is, Lord Henley's Amendment—and I understand Lord Craigton is happy to accept that.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS YOUNG: I think it has been agreed that we should close our proceedings at 8.30 p.m. It is nearly that time now, and there is not time to deal with another Amendment effectively. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Baroness Young.)
House resumed.
House adjourned at half-past eight o'clock.