Sitting of 28 June 1974

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL
  Order for consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  11.5 a.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to question whether the Bill is properly for consideration today. As I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to explain the circumstances concerning it. When it went before the Committee it was in substantially the same form as when introduced on Second Reading on two previous occasions and, in particular, on Second Reading in this Parliament on 3rd May, by which time it had already passed all its stages in the other place.
  The Bill went to a Standing Committee which considered it on 12th June. Government amendments were then put down to the Bill. They were complex, and amounted to a complete rewriting of the whole Bill, in that the original clauses were all deleted and fresh clauses were proposed in the Government amendments. Those amendments were put down only 48 hours before the Standing Committee on 10th June.
  The Bill had previously received consideration by national organisations and experts in the subject with which it is concerned, and by those whose duty it would be to apply it if it became law, but 48 hours before it was to be considered by the Standing Committee the whole of the terms of the wording of the Bill were, in effect, changed. Incidentally, my amendments to the Bill could not be considered, nor could manuscript amendments be accepted by the Chairman of the Standing Committee because of the procedure adopted by the Government. The Standing Committee completed con
  1940
  sideration of the Bill at its Second Sitting on Wednesday 19th June. It did so without suffiicent consideration because there was insufficient study of the new terms by the experts and outside bodies to which I have referred.
  The Bill as amended is now before the House but the Government have yet again tabled a whole series of amendments. The amendment list before us totals 36 amendments. They are amendments of substance and were tabled only yesterday—indeed, two of them became available to hon. Members only this morning.
  We appreciate that the industrial dispute concerning the printers has affected publication of these matters, but it all amounts to the fact that back benchers have not had an opportunity of considering the wording of the Bill as it has progressed through this Parliament and we are now being asked to complete consideration without being able properly to consider the terms of the Bill.
  If back benchers' rights are a matter for your protection, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that we should say that we are not a rubber stamp for the Home Office, and that we should ask that the Bill be withdrawn so that it can be properly considered after due study by the experts and outside bodies concerned. We in this House are not experts on any particular subject. We accept that there has to be assistance from outside bodies. We have not had that assistance, because the wording has been drastically revised by the Government in a short time without a proper consideration of the matters to be involved.
  I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not right that consideration of the Bill today should be withdrawn.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may be able to assist the House in determining this question. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). The matter which he raises arises largely because the Government have been given the assistance of draftsmen and officials in redrafting the Bill in a confined period of time. We have all been working under considerable pressure.
  I had hoped that we could restrict most of the major amendments to the

  1941
  Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman says that the amendments were put down late for Committee. In fact, they were considered in Committee each in turn and there was a full discussion of them in which the hon. Gentleman himself took part. He has tabled one amendment for Report stage, and that will be discussed today because it has been provisionally selected. Therefore, he has had the opportunity of raising amendments to the draft as it came out of Committee.
  Nevertheless, it is true that we have found it necessary, because of some of the matters which were not capable of being dealt with in Committee, to table a number of technical amendments. I gave that warning in Committee and I shall explain the technicalities as we get to them.
  In general, they do not seriously affect the principles of the Bill. There are only three matters on which issues of principle arise. Those matters are easily understood and capable of being discussed in the course of the discussion we shall have today. I shall draw attention to them as we reach the amendments. I do not think that the House will find itself in any way inconvenienced by the nature of the amendments I have tabled.
  Mr. Roger Sims: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is surely an issue of principle that there should be adequate time for back benchers to consider amendments and to consult outside bodies which may be interested. Nobody is suggesting that the Minister is trying to pull a fast one, but it is important, I again stress, that there should be time for consultation. We all appreciate that there are technical difficulties and difficulties over printing. However, this has become virtually a Government Bill, and it differs completely from the original Bill which went into Standing Committee. If Private Members cannot be given adequate time to consider amendments, I suggest that further consideration of the Bill should be deferred for a few days.
  Mr. Speaker: This matter has been raised as a matter of order for the Chair. I have to do my best to protect the rights and interests of back benchers and, indeed, of the whole House. I know that certain difficulties have arisen because of the printing dispute, and I sympathise
  1942
  with hon. Members. I cannot rule that the House should not proceed with the Bill now.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I beg your indulgence—
  Mr. Speaker: I have ruled on the hon. Member's point of order.
  Mr. Stanbrook: On a new point of order, as a matter of procedure with regard to the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends and I have tabled Amendment No. 24 to Clause 5. Subsequently to our tabling it, Government Amendment No. 25 was tabled, which will have the effect of deleting Clause 5. In the circumstances, will you accept a manuscript amendment so that I can move my amendment to the new Clause 5?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will produce his manuscript amendment so that it can be considered, a ruling will be given on the matter.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

New Clause 1

  REHABILITATION OF PERSONS DEALT WITH IN SERVICE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
  (1) For the purposes of this Act, any finding that a person is guilty of an offence in respect of any act or omission which was the subject of service disciplinary proceedings shall be treated as a conviction and any punishment awarded or order made in respect of any such finding shall be treated as a sentence.
  (2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above any finding in respect of any act or omission which was the subject of any such proceedings that the person charged was guilty of, or did the act or made the omission, but was insane at the time, or is not guilty by reason of insanity, shall, if no order is made in respect of that finding, be treated for the purposes of this Act both as a conviction and as a sentence.
  (3) In this Act, "service disciplinary proceedings" means any of the following—

  (a) any proceedings under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955, or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (whether before a court-martial or before any other court or person authorised thereunder to award a punishment in respect of any offence);

  (b) any proceedings under any Act previously in force corresponding to any of the Acts mentioned in paragraph (a) above;

  (c) any proceedings under any corresponding enactment or law applying to a force other than a home force, to which section 4 of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act 1933 applies or applied at the time of the proceedings, being proceedings

  1943
  in respect of a member of a home force who is or was at that time attached to the first-mentioned force under that section;

  whether in any event those proceedings take place in Great Britain or elsewhere.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The first group of amendments illustrates the difficulty that I was referring to, which caused the Government to give assistance with the Bill and try to help with the redrafting to meet all the difficulties that are attendant upon it.
  The new clause deals with the position in relation to courts martial and courts martial sentences and convictions. Clearly it would not be right if we were to pass a Bill giving rehabilitation for convictions and sentences in the past if we did not try also to deal with the problem in relation to Service disciplinary proceedings. This is what the new clause does, together with the other amendments that are grouped with it.
  Subsection (1) equates findings of guilt by Service authorities with convictions by civilian courts, and punishments awarded by such authorities with sentences passed by such courts, for the purposes of the Bill.
  Subsection (2) provides that where, in Service disciplinary proceedings, a person is found guilty but insane, or not guilty by reason of insanity, the finding is to count as both a conviction and a sentence for the purposes of the Act. This brings it into line with the Bill as at present drafted in relation to civil criminal proceedings.
  This means that a person is capable of becoming rehabilitated in respect of such a finding. The appropriate rehabilitation period is five years, or two years after release from custody, whichever is the longer, under subsection (7A) of the new Clause 3, which is to be inserted by a later Government amendment.
  Subsection (3) defines "Service disciplinary proceedings" and is largely self-explanatory. The definition includes proceedings under Acts superseded by subsequent legislation so that persons found guilty in such proceedings may benefit from the provisions of the Bill.
  1944
  It also includes proceedings which take place outside Great Britain. Other Government amendments to the new Clause 3 set out the appropriate rehabilitation periods in respect of sentences imposed by service authorities.
  11.15 a.m.
  The other amendments are largely drafting. There are two to which I shall draw particular attention. Amendment No. 6 deals with
  "a sentence of cashiering or of discharge with ignominy or dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service".
  Cashiering is now an obsolete sentence, and it is referred to only because there will be some people who still have a sentence of cashiering against them, and we have to deal with their position as well.
  The way in which the matter has been approached is that these offences should count in relation to rehabilitation. In relation to a sentence of detention, the period will be seven years for rehabilitation. In relation to a sentence of dismissal from Her Majesty's service, it will be seven years.
  In relation to dismissal with disgrace, it is not proposed that that sentence could be rehabilitated. I have considered this at some length, but I am advised by the Ministry of Defence that courts martial normally retain the sentence of dismissal with disgrace for very serious offences which might be equated in civilian courts with a sentence of imprisonment of more than two and a half years. In other words, it is rather like a Crown court sentence for an exceptionally serious offence. In those circumstances, the Ministry of Defence thinks it right, and I agree, that this sentence should not be capable of being rehabilitated. That would be the effect of the amendment.
  Amendment No. 17 specifies the rehabilitation period applicable to a finding in Service disciplinary proceedings that the person is guilty but insane or not guilty by reason of insanity. The period is five years or two years after discharge, whichever is the longer.
  The second new subsection provides that, where a conviction results in any kind of disqualification, the rehabilitation period applicable to the sentence shall be a period of disqualification beginning with the date of conviction. This goes

  1945
  wider than military service questions. It relates to the point taken in Committee about disqualification. The House will recollect that the Bill in its present state says that the period of rehabilitation shall be the period of disqualification or one year, whichever is the longer.
  It was drawn to the attention of the Standing Committee that there will be occasions when a sentence by itself—not apparently including a period of disqualification—may attract, under the general law, a period of disqualification—for instance, disqualification from jury service. It would, therefore, appear possible that that period would be included. This amendment is designed to help with that provision and, equally, to deal with the position of disqualification from driving offences. It retains the effect of the new Clause 4(3) in respect of orders arising from a conviction—for example, under the Criminal Justice Act 1972, which disqualifies from jury service for 10 years anyone sentenced to more than three months' imprisonment. Under the new existing Clause 4(3), that would automatically apply a 10-year rehabilitation period to any such sentences, which would make nonsense of the shorter rehabilitation period set out in the Bill. By confining the effect of disqualification to orders arising from a specific conviction, that difficulty is overcome.
  The next amendment with which I wish to deal is No. 20. This is merely a minor drafting amendment to take account of the inclusion in the clause of new subsection (7A) and (7B).
  Amendment No. 30 is a drafting amendment, to deal with definitions. It provides that an official record for the purpose of the Bill includes the British armed service record at home and overseas.
  Mr. Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister moving amendments or is he merely moving new Clause 1?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I was intending when the Minister had resumed his seat, to regularise the position, inasmuch as I was going not only to give the page and line numbers referred to on the typed copy of the Bill but also to mention, before
  1946
  proposing that the clause be read a Second time, the amendments which are to be taken with. I will do that now. With new Clause 1 are being taken Amendments Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 35, 17, 20 and 30. The page and line numbers in the Notice Paper refer to the typed copy of the Bill which was published yesterday and which hon. Members have in their hands. I hope that will help the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I am sorry to be tiresome about this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just been handed a copy of Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments. I have been here since 10.30 asking for this list in the Lobby and in the Vote Office. These lists were not available at 11 o'clock. The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), who has just arrived, has a copy because presumably copies are in the Lobby now, but they were not in the Lobby at 11 o'clock. I was waiting for them. This really is an abuse of the proceedings of this House. It is taking away the rights of back-bench Members. The Home Office may have known how these matters were to be discussed, but back-bench Members do not.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Office has no control over how Mr. Speaker selects amendments or groups them or deals with the way in which hon. Members are informed about the grouping. As I understand it from my hon. Friends, the table showing the grouping of amendments and the order in which they have been selected was available in the Vote Office this morning at a reasonably early hour.
  Mr. David Weitzman: Further to that point of order. They were in the Lobby at 11 o'clock. I picked up my copy then.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that they were available before 11 o'clock; I could not give the exact time but somewhere around half-past Ten, I understand. That is my information.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

  LIMITATIONS ON REHABILITATION UNDER THIS ACT, ETC.
  (1) Nothing in section 2 of this Act shall affect—

  (a) any right of Her Majesty, by virtue of Her Royal Prerogative or otherwise, to grant a tree pardon. to quash any conviction or sentence, or to commute any sentence;

  (b) the enforcement by any process or proceedings of any fine or other sum adjudged to be paid by or imposed on a spent conviction;

  (c) the issue of any process for the purpose of proceedings in respect of any breach of a condition or requirement applicable to a sentence imposed in respect of a spent conviction; or

  (d) the operation of any enactment by virtue of which, in consequence of any conviction, a person is subject, otherwise than by way of sentence, to any disqualification, disability, prohibition or other penalty the period of which extends beyond the rehabilitation period applicable in accordance with section 4 of this Act to the conviction.

  (2) Nothing in section 2 of this Act shall affect the determination of any issue, or prevent the admission or requirement of any evidence relating to a person's previous convictions or to circumstances ancillary thereto—

  (a) in any criminal proceedings before a court in Great Britain (including any appeal or reference in a criminal matter);

  (b) in any service disciplinary proceedings or in any proceedings on appeal from any service disciplinary proceedings;

  (c) in any proceedings relating to adoption or to the guardianship, wardship, marriage, custody, care or control of, or access to, any minor, or to the provision by any person of accommodation, care or schooling for minors;

  (d) in any care proceeding under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 or on appeal from any such proceedings, or in any proceedings relating to the variation or discharge of a care order or supervision order under that Act;

  (e) in any proceedings before a children's hearing under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or in appeal from any such hearing; or

  (f) in any proceedings in which he is a party or a witness, provided that, on the occasion when the issue or the admission or requirement of the evidence falls to be determined he consents to the determination of the issue or, as the case may be, the admission or requirement of the evidence notwithstanding the provisions of that section.

  in the application of this subsection to Scotland. "minor" means a child under the of eighteen, including a pupil child.

  (3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, it at any stage in any civil proceeding before any court or other judicial authority (within the meaning of section 2 of this Act) in Great Britain (not being proceeding to which section 6 of this Act applies) the court or authority is satisfied, in the light of any considerations which appear to it to be relevant (including any evidence which has been or may thereafter be put before it), that justice cannot be done between the parties except by receiving or requiring evidence relating to a person's spent convictions or to circumstances ancillary thereto, that court or authority may receive or, as the case may be, require the evidence in question notwithstanding section 2 of this Act, and may determine any issue to which the evidence relates in disregard, so far as necessary, of the provisions of that section.

  (4) Subsection (3) above shall not apply if the issue to which the evidence in question is alleged to be relevant is the failure of any person (whether he is the rehabilitated person or anyone else) to comply with any obligation to disclose to any other person any spent conviction or any circumstances ancillary to a spent conviction, unless the failure alleged occurred in circumstances to which an order under section 2(2) of this Act for the time being applies.

  (5) Subsection (3) above shall not apply if the issue to which the evidence in question is alleged to be relevant to the property of the dismissal or exclusion of the rehabilitated person from any office, profession, occupation or employment, or of any treatment accorded to him in any occupation or employment, unless the evidence relates to a spent conviction which, by virtue of any order under section 2(2) of this Act, the rehabilitated person would not, if asked, have been exempt under section 2(1A)(a) of this Act from disclosing, or excused under section 2(1A)(b) of this Act for not disclosing, in relation to his appointment or admission to that office, profession, occupation or employment, or in relation to any position, assignment or function held or performed by him in the course of that occupation or employment.

  (6) The Secretary of State may by order exclude the application of section 2 of this Act in relation to any proceedings specified in the order (other than proceedings to which section 6 of this Act applies) to such extent and for such purposes as may be so specified

  (7) No order made by a court with respect to any person otherwise than on a conviction shall be included in any list or statement of that person's previous convictions given or made to any court which is considering how to deal with him in respect of any offence."—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this new Clause are to be taken Government Amendments Nos. 4 and 25, and Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 67, at end, insert:
  '(c) in any proceeding relating to the disciplinary jurisdiction of any judicial authority having the power referred to in subsection (4) of section 2 (effect of rehabilitation)'.
  Mr. Lyon: This clause is a much more substantial matter and is one of the few issues of principle which are raised in the amendments which we are discussing today. It arises out of the debate that we had on Clause 5 of the Bill as it emerged from Committee, which, as hon. Members will recollect, dealt with the effect of rehabilitation upon the courts and, in particular, upon magistrates' courts.
  The way in which we approached the matter in Committee was as follows. The Bill as drafted in Committee followed the decision of the sponsors that, for the purposes of sentencing, the Crown courts and the higher courts should be able to look at spent convictions but the magistrates' courts should not. This was justified on the grounds that the mischief which they wished to prevent was the disclosure in minor criminal cases of previous convictions which may have been very much more serious a long time ago, which did damage out of all proportion to the kind of case which was being considered before the magistrates' court.
  My view, which I expressed in Committee, was that if a spent conviction really is a spent conviction, a matter which ought not to be held against a man because he has lived it down, save in most exceptional circumstances, it ought to apply to all courts and not just to a magistrates' court. No one had put down an amendment in Committee to cover that situation. I indicated that I had allowed the Bill to go into Committee with the position relating to the magistrates' court as originally dictated by the sponsors, in order to listen to the debate and to make up my mind in the light of the debate.
  1950
  The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) sought to delete the provision relating to magistrates' courts, and there was also a sponsor's amendment which dealt with a compromise which had been reached; namely, that in indictable offences tried summarily in a magistrates' court the magistrates would be able to look at spent convictions but that in relation to summary offences or road traffic offences they would not.
  I said in Committee that I did not find that to be a very happy compromise because there were cases involving summary offences of some gravity and there were indictable cases tried summarily which were not of great gravity, and it is a little difficult in practice to distinguish logically between the two. I therefore suggested in Committee that I would look at the possibility of allowing the spent conviction to be used for sentencing in all circumstances but that any reference to it should not be published in the Press afterwards.
  It was borne in upon me by the sponsors that to do that might also have unforeseeable and difficult results. Therefore, I have discarded that possible alternative. The course that I have decided to take is dictated by a feeling that the watering down of the original provision in Committee has left very little of substance as a protection for people with spent convictions when it comes to sentencing in any court, and that I ought to try to deal with the matter by including all the courts. Therefore, what I am suggesting is that all criminal courts should be allowed to consider spent convictions in the sense that the matters can be laid before them, and that as a matter of practice they should not place any reliance on spent convictions save and except where it is in the interests of justice either for the prosecution or for the defence that they should do so.
  11.30 a.m.
  How to achieve that end was the problem which faced me. I did not wish to lay an even more complex amendment on top of all the other complex amendments which I had put before the Committee, and I was anxious that we should proceed as quickly as possible in order to allow the Bill a swift passage through

  1951
  Parliament. I have therefore asked my officials to contact the Lord Chief Justice to ascertain whether, in principle, he would be prepared to issue a practice direction which would dictate the practice to be followed in the Crown courts. We in our turn in the Home Office would propose, through instructions, to try to dictate the practice in the magistrates' courts.
  It may be, if the Lord Chief Justice, on reflection, considers it right, that he will issue a statement about the practice in all courts, which would help to establish what we all want to see, namely, that spent convictions shall not be used in any court in relation to any sentence save in the most exceptional circumstances where they may be relevant.
  We shall watch the position thereafter. The Lord Chief Justice has agreed to take that course. The terms of the announcement or practice direction have not yet been settled, but what we are trying to ensure—the exact terms will be a matter for discussion—is that the prosecution will not disclose spent convictions when putting antecedents before the court, so that evidence of spent convictions will normally be put in writing and not be given orally. A copy of the record of convictions, including spent convictions, will be given to the accused, and the court should refer to the spent convictions only if, in the very exceptional circumstances to which I have referred, it feels that they are relevant to the sentence which it proposes to pass in order that its decision may be understood.
  If that practice is obtained in all our courts, it will, I believe, be a bigger advance than either the Bill as originally drafted or the amendment passed in Committee. Since the Lord Chief Justice is willing, in principle, to take the course to which I have referred, I have thought it more convenient that we delete from Clause 5 all reference to criminal courts. That is the object of new Clause 2 with the paving amendments relating to it. New Clause 2 will reinstate such parts of Clause 5 as are still maintained after that deletion, and it will, in effect, cut out the criminal courts.
  I should refer to one other matter of substance, which was raised both in Committee and by the Solicitor-General. The
  1952
  Bill as it stood in Committee allowed a spent conviction to be put to the accused when, under the rules of evidence, it was relevant to do so for credit. It did not allow a spent conviction to be put to a witness where, under the existing rules of evidence, that also was relevant.
  If the practice is coloured by the practice direction, as I expect it to be, one hopes that in courts in general spent convictions will just be disregarded. But it will be possible under the amendments which I am now laying before the House to put to a witness as well as to the accused a spent conviction if the existing rules of evidence allow that to be done.
  I am not happy about that situation. All I can say is that there will be occasional cases—rare, I hope—in which a spent conviction will be relevant and right to be put both to the accused and to a witness, and it would be wrong to prejudice the accused if he could not use such a device against a witness to test credit.
  Other parts of the new clause deal with certain matters raised in Committee, with the object to polishing up the drafting as it emerged from Committee. Basically, most of them are drafting matter, and I need not detain the House with them. No doubt, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) will wish to deal with his Amendment No. 24.
  Mr. Sims: I thank the Minister both for the changes which he proposes and for his detailed explanation. I was the Member who raised this matter in Committee. It seemed to me to be central to the Bill, and my main objection was to the proposal as it then stood. The steps which the Minister has taken meet my case completely, and I am grateful to him.
  Mr. Hal Miller: Will the Minister be good enough to refer to the last word of subsection (4) of the new clause? Is there a misprint? Should not the word "applies" be "applied", since the exemption must refer to the actual period, and the verb should be in the past tense?
  Mr. Weitzman: I am not happy about the arrangement now made, which alters the original provision in the Bill that in

  1953
  magistrates' courts spent convictions should not be mentioned. Admittedly, my hon. Friend has arrived at some sort of compromise by arranging that there should be a practice note given by the Lord Chief Justice, but practice notes may be altered from time to time, and it seems an unsatisfactory way to legislate to declare that a proposed provision should now give way to a practice note given by the Lord Chief Justice.
  The original idea in this part of the Bill was that, because magistrates' courts throughout the country were presided over by magistrates with differing ideas, spent convictions should not be referred to, whereas in the Crown courts, where a trained and experienced lawyer sat as judge, the matter was entirely different. In a Crown court, the learned judge has a discretion. In a magistrates' court, constituted in a different way and, as I say, presided over by magistrates who may have different ideas as between court and court, the position is entirely different, and I should much have preferred the original arrangement to remain.
  The difficulty is that there has been such a short time to consider these matters. The Report stage has come very soon, and the amendments were not available until yesterday. One could not put down an amendment, therefore, save by way of manuscript. I am not tempted to do that—I recognise the difficulty—but I protest at the change which has been introduced. I regard it as a bad change which ought not to have been made.
  Sir Michael Havers: I congratulate the Minister and his officials and the draftsmen on having produced the new clause in such a short space of time. I was not a member of the Committee, but I kept in touch with what went on, and I was concerned by the apparent anomaly which existed between the proposed procedure for the Crown courts and the magistrates' courts. I think that we may rely upon all courts, in spite of what the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) said, to observe a practice direction given by the Lord Chief Justice, and I am more than happy to leave it in his hands to frame how that practice direction should be given.
  1954
  Subject to the amendment which will be proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I welcome the clause.
  Mr. Stanbrook: It would be churlish not to thank the Minister for the clause and the way it amends the powers of magistrates' courts on sentencing. I rise only to rebut the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) that magistrates without legal training were not the best people to have access to all information concerning any individual defendant appearing before them. Lay magistrates deal with over 95 per cent. of all criminal cases, and they are chosen not because of their legal training but for their knowledge of the world, their experience and their common sense. Those are the qualities which primarily go to assessing a proper sentence for any individual, and it is right that full discretion should be awarded to them.
  The magistrates are unpaid servants of society, the very best type of public servants. They are the people on whom we rely for the maintenance of law and order; they are the essence of a civilised society. We should trust them, and it is a good thing that the Government have accepted that principle in the clause by allowing them full access to information about previous convictions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the proposed clause, in line 29 after "hearing" insert:
  (f) in any proceedings relating to the disciplinary jurisdiction of any judicial authority having the power referred to in sub-section (4) of section 2 (Effect of Rehabilitation)
  The new clause that we have just agreed to contains a number of alterations and extensions from the principle of the Bill, and modifications of the principle of exemption from that principle. In particular, subsection (2)(b) contains a reference to Service disciplinary proceedings or any proceedings on appeal from any Service disciplinary proceedings. I believe that it should apply also where disciplinary proceedings are being conducted by a profession. For that reason I believe that the Government, having accepted the principle, should accept my amendment.
  11.45 a.m.
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I begin by declaring what may be an interest in that from time to time I sit as a member of a panel of legal assessors to the disciplinary committees of the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council. The Bill is concerned with criminal convictions, and I understand its purpose generally to be to prevent them from being dragged up unfairly out of the past for no useful purpose but to the prejudice and embarrassment of the offender, and as such I support it. However, the Bill already recognises that there are circumstances and contexts in which the effect of a conviction may, but not necessarily will, be relevant, however far back that conviction may have been recorded.
  It may be relevant to the matter which a tribunal now has in hand. The question of sentencing for a subsequent conviction is an obvious example. The Bill already recognises that earlier convictions should not in certain circumstances be concealed from the tribunal, so that the protection of the Bill is withheld from criminal proceedings under the clause tabled by the Minister. It expressly preserves the normal admissibility of any evidence relating to a defendant's previous convictions and the reason must be the power of tribunals, criminal courts first and foremost, to impose really heavy penalties.
  They should, therefore, before exercising that most serious and important power, know the full story. At least, they should be able to know the full record of the defendant before them. So often they must ask themselves whether the latest offence is out of character and whether it is likely to be repeated; can the public be adequately protected without imposing a heavy sentence? The purpose of the amendment, which I support, is not to extend that principle but to extend in a logical way the application of the principle to disciplinary proceedings by judicial authorities as they are defined in the Bill.
  Parliament has created a large number of bodies separate from the criminal courts to exercise disciplinary powers over, generally, professional people subject to their jurisdiction. The disciplinary committees of the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council are obvi
  1956
  ous examples, and there are many more. The codes were laid down for them in a series of Acts passed between 1950 and 1960. All of them have the function of promoting high standards of professional conduct ultimately for the protection of the public. Most, if not all, have the power to erase a defendant's name from the professional register if that were thought appropriate on proof of conviction of a criminal offence.
  That is a most severe penalty. It is capable of bringing to an end the professional life of the defendant, and it is not, therefore, one which should be exercised in all cases without the ability of tribunals to look at the complete record of persons before them. In the interests of justice and the public, these tribunals need to know, in exercising their powers, the defendant's complete record, or they may need to know it just as a criminal court may need to know. Take common offences such as the abuse of drugs or alcohol. The question for the committee in that sort of case is whether the defendant has done it before, albeit seven years previously, or whatever the rehabilitation period may be. If so, was it once or several times, and were the circumstances ancillary to those previous convictions? Did the defendant promise on those occasions to give up drink? Can he be allowed to continue safely to practise on the strength of his present assurance that he will stop drinking?
  In the Bill as it stands any evidence of such convictions or series of convictions. or circumstances ancillary to them cannot be given to the tribunal. Registrars of disciplinary committees are liable to criminal proceedings if they divulge such information improperly. I know that the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council are most concerned about this issue, and I agree with them. The amendment would correct the situation.
  The new clause we have just accepted includes Service disciplinary proceedings and lots of types of proceedings from which the protection afforded generally by the Bill is withheld. The amendment seeks to add to that list a further category. A judicial authority is defined in Clause 2(4) of the Bill in terms which obviously embrace disciplinary authorities. I do not believe that the amendment is too widely framed to serve the purpose to which I have referred. The

  1957
  situation that it seeks to correct has probably arisen by oversight. The circumstances are miles away from the mischief which is the true and proper target of the Bill. I commend the amendment.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I understand the motives behind the amendment, and I am sympathetic to its general tenor. There obviously are certain kinds of professional organisation with tribunals relating to high standards of probity in areas that touch upon the public which may find it necessary on occasions to see previous convictions, even including spent convictions.
  The argument is not entirely self-evident. There are also many other areas of human intercourse where the fact that a man has a previous conviction may be thought to be relevant, at first sight, and where we are saying that because a man has lived down a past conviction it should not be held against him, particularly in relation to some kinds of jobs. It is not entirely easy to distinguish between a professional job which is governed by professional standards upheld by a disciplinary body and other kinds of jobs of high responsibility which are not professional but which nevertheless carry considerable importance.
  If we are to exclude spent convictions in one sense, it is perhaps right to exclude them in another. What I should certainly want to see, even if I gave way on the amendment, or gave way to its spirit, is that any tribunal which thereby then had the power to consider a spent conviction would, on the whole, disregard it, except, as in the case of the criminal courts, in very exceptional circumstances.
  Therefore, it would be a sine qua non that first it would have to be a judicial tribunal of high standing, capable of applying that kind of discretion, and it would also have to be borne in upon the tribunal that it was given the power specifically because it had that high standard and would apply that discretion.
  The amendment is a little too wide. Clause 2(4) says that
  "judicial authority'
  includes any tribunal, body or person having power—
  (a) by virtue of any enactment,"—
  so far, so good, but it continues:
  "law, custom or practice; … to determine any question affecting the rights, privileges,
  1958
  obligations or liabilities of any person, or to receive evidence affecting the determination of any such question."
  The House will see immediately that that is a good deal wider than the General Medical Council, the Law Society or any other of the professional bodies referred to this morning. It can include a number of bodies which may not have the same sense of discretion as we would expect from bodies such as the GMC.
  I am in the hands of the House, and I will listen to the argument if the House feels differently, but I think that the best way for me to deal with this matter is to consider the representations of any body of that nature, about the right to look at spent convictions in relation to its disciplinary procedures, when we make the rules which will have to be made under new Clause 2(6). Under that provision:
  "The Secretary of State may by order exclude the application of section 2 of this Act in relation to any proceedings specified in the order (other than proceedings to which section 6 of this Act applies) to such extent and for such purposes as may be so specified."
  In those circumstances, I can by order include the GMC and not include other bodies which may be more suspect. If the House passes the amendment I shall not have that degree of selectivity, because it will have excluded all judical tribunals of the kind stated in the amendment. There is no power under the rules to put them back again.
  Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I understand the spirit in which it is moved, and I promise that in the rules, which would have to be tabled in any case, and which are subject to the positive procedure, the House will have the opportunity to include anyone whom I fail to include.
  Sir M. Havers: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. The Bill has a dual purpose. Its philosophy is to help those whose minor convictions should be forgotten, but it is also that the public interest must always be remembered. The public interest is just as important in disciplinary tribunals as it is in dealing with such people in criminal courts.
  However, I am prepared to accept the Minister's offer, which I think is sensible. It will give him and the tribunals concerned an opportunity to consider not only whether they should be included in

  1959
  the exceptions under subsection (6) but whether they might also wish to draw up their own practice direction similar to that which the Lord Chief Justice will draw up for criminal courts. It might be an advantage for the future if a practice direction were laid down for disciplinary tribunals, so that they knew the framework within which they had to operate.
  I believe that the Minister's proposal is a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
  Mr. Stanbrook: In view of what the Minister has said, and the assurances he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

  SPECIAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN DISPOSALS BY CHILDREN'S HEARINGS UNDER THE SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) ACT 1968
  Where a ground for the referral of a child's case to a Children's hearing under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 is that mentioned in section 32(2)(g) of that Act (commission by the child of an offence) and that ground has either been accepted by the child and where necessary, by his parent or been established to the satisfaction of the sheriff under section 42 of that Act, the acceptance or establishment of that ground shall be treated for the purposes of this Act (but not otherwise) as a conviction, and any disposal of the case thereafter by a children's hearing shall be treated for those purposes as a sentence; and references in this Act to a person's being charged with or prosecuted for an offence shall be construed accordingly.—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
  The effect of the clause is to apply the provisions and the benefits of the Bill to children who have committed offences in Scotland and whose cases have been disposed of by children's hearings. This application is achieved by equating to a "conviction" the acceptance of fact of commission of an offence, or the estab
  1960
  lishment of such commission by the sheriff; and also by equating to a "sentence" the disposal of a case normally by imposing a supervision requirement.
  The clause makes it clear that these effects referred to are for the purposes of the application of the Bill and not for other purposes.
  The system of children's panels in Scotland has got away from the concept of prosecution for offences, convictions and sentences. Children may be referred to informal hearings of three lay persons by an official called the reporter on a variety of grounds, though mainly offences. If the grounds for referral are accepted by the child or his parent, or subsequently established by the sheriff, the hearing considers whether to discharge the referrals or to make a residential or non-residential supervision requirement. In what is to some extent a treatment situation the hearing has to take its decision in the best interests of the child. The trouble is that this leaves the system outside the benefits of this Bill.
  Although, for example, the supervision requirements following a referral for offences are not sentences they may still be regarded much in that light by some, and employers may well ask whether an individual has had any convictions or has been under a children's panel supervision requirement. It is wrong that a system designed to take children out of the elements of a criminal situation should leave them worse off in these rehabilitation terms.
  12 noon.
  I now turn to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. The effect of the amendments is to make provision for a rehabilitation of six months where the referral of a child to a children's hearing in Scotland has been discharged by the hearing.
  It is necessary to make provision for rehabilitation periods for decisions of children's hearings. They are not convictions in the sense in which they are normally described. The aim has been to create a system for children outside the court structure. But inquiries are not infrequently made as to whether young people have appeared before a children's hearing and what the result was because of offences that they have committed. It would be wrong to deny them

  1961
  the benefit of the Bill when, it they had committed serious offences and appeared before the courts, they would have had its protection.
  Discharge by a children's hearing is therefore treated for the purposes of the Bill as technically a sentence. That is provided for in new Clause 3. It attracts the same rehabilitation period as discharge by a court.
  Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are drafting amendments. A supervision requirement is not an order and there-for the more general term of sentence is to be used. The effect of the amendments is, like the previous amendments about discharge by a hearing, to enable a rehabilitation period to be fixed for a supervision requirement by a children's hearing in Scotland under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The reason is the same as that given for discharge—namely, the need to rehabilitate a person who has been the subject of a supervision requirement made by a children's hearing.
  Residential supervision requirements and non-residential supervision requirements are broadly equivalent to care orders under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. The rehabilitation period is the same, namely, the period during which the order is enforced or one year from its being made, whichever ends the later. The formula in the Bill as it stands breaks down if conviction and sentence take place at different times. The new wording removes any doubt by tying the beginning of the period firmly to the date of conviction The amendments are within the principle of the Bill and I commend them to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

  REHABILITATED PERSONS AND SPENT CONVICTIONS
  Amendment made: No. 1, in page 2, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line
  1962
  59, leave out from first to ' to end of line 11 on page 3 and insert:
  'his or any other person's past which cannot be answered without acknowledging or referring to a spent conviction or spent convictions or any circumstances ancillary thereto.
  (1A) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 5 and 6 below—

  (a) any question seeking information with respect to a person's previous convictions, offences, conduct or circumstances, put to him or to any other person otherwise than in proceedings to which subsection (1)(b) above applies, shall, if it is capable of being answered on the basis that it does not relate to spent convictions or circumstances ancillary thereto, be deemed not so to relate, and the answer to any such question may be framed accordingly; and

  (b) a person shall not be subjected to any liability or penalty, or otherwise, prejudiced in law, by reason of any answer given by him, otherwise than in any such proceedings, to any question referring expressly to a spent conviction or spent convictions as such, or to any circumstances ancillary to any conviction or convictions, being circumstances peculiar to spent convictions as such.

  (2) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as seems to him appropriate for excluding or modifying the application of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1A) above in relation to questions put in such circumstances as may be specified in the order.
  (3) For the purposes of'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 3, in Clause 2, page 2, line 59, leave out from first ' to ' to end of line 11 on page 3 and insert
  'his or any other person's past which cannot be answered without acknowledging or referring to a spent conviction or spent convictions or any circumstances ancillary thereto.
  (1A) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 5 and 6 below—

  (a) any question seeking information with respect to a person's previous convictions, offences, conduct or circumstances, put to him or to any other person, whether in proceedings to which subsection (1)(b) above applies or otherwise, shall be deemed not to relate to spent convictions or to any circumstances ancillary to spent convictions, and the answer to any such question may be framed accordingly; and

  (b) a person shall not be subjected to any liability or penalty, or otherwise prejudiced in law, by reason of any answer given by him, to such a question as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

  (2) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as seems to him appropriate for excluding or modifying the application of either or both of paragraphs (a) and

  1963
  (b) of subsection (1A) above in relation to questions put in such circumstances as may be specified in the order.
  (3) For the purposes of'.
  Mr. Lyon: I find these two amendments the most difficult of all the amendments on the Order Paper. There is a difference of attitude about the way in which questions can be asked about previous convictions. There is a good deal of sophistication about the drafting of the amendments, which both seek to do the same thing, in rather different ways. The question really is to determine the alternative effects of both amendments. I am willing to listen to the supporters of Amendment No. 3 and to consider whether it is an improvement upon the drafting of Amendment No. 2 by the parliamentary draftsman.
  As I understand it, the basis of Amendment No. 2 is to try to clarify the existing drafting for questions both in and out of court. The amendment proceeds on the basis that questions out of court must be treated in a more elaborate and detailed way than questions in court. If somebody is asked a question in court the question and the answer are controlled by the court and can be dictated by the judge or the magistrates. For court questions it is sufficient for the Bill to prohibit the asking of unwarranted questions and to permit a person to refrain from answering such questions.
  The effect of the proposed paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 2 differs from the existing paragraph (b) only in that it speaks of questions that cannot be answered without acknowledging or referring to a spent conviction instead of questions which relate to a particular spent conviction. The proposed new phraseology is designed to cover such questions as, "Have you ever become a rehabilitated person?" or, "What spent convictions have you got?" Such questions do not in themselves relate to particular spent convictions in terms of the existing Clause 2.
  If a prohibited question is asked in court—for example, "Have you any spent convictions?" and the answer is, "No" when, in fact, there has been one, the general provisions at the beginning of Clause 2(1) are considered to be a sufficient defence to a perjury charge and
  1964
  any detrimental consequence arising from procedures in court.
  Out-of-court questions are dealt with in the proposed new paragraph (a). There is no way, as there is in court proceedings, to prevent a question being asked. All that can be done is to try to ensure that the effect of the question is suitably circumscribed so as to protect the person being questioned. Paragraph (a) in the amendment is directed to such questions as, "Have you any convictions?" or, "Have you any convictions for dishonesty?". It deems that such questions do not relate to spent convictions. The answer may be framed accordingly—for example, "I have not "or, "I was convicted of theft last week", despite a conviction 20 years ago. There cannot be a deeming provision of this kind in relation to a question referring expressly to a spent conviction because such a question could not be answered on the basis that it did not relate to a spent conviction.
  I assert that with all the authority of those briefing me.
  The answer to the distinction between Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 hangs upon a certain approach which is only a question of logical sensitivity, and I am not particularly sensitive to logic. If a man is asked, "Have you a spent conviction in 1967 for theft?", can it be said that there is a deeming provision which says that that question was never asked or that it does not relate to an actual spent conviction in 1967 for theft? Can the question be disregarded or should it be said, "Well, the question was asked, we shall simply allow the person to take whatever action he likes in relation to it without any consequences". Questions can be asked in court without any deeming provisions, as they will simply be stopped by the court. Under Amendment No. 3 the question is deemed not to have been asked even though it has been asked and refers specifically to a spent conviction which is known.
  Mr. Piers Dixon: I should like to refer in particular to Amendment No. 3. I had great sympathy for the Minister when he said that he understood that the wording as prepared for him by the parliamentary draftsmen meant such-and-such. It might console the Minister to know that the sponsors of the Bill are

  1965
  in much the same situation. They, too, have their draftsmen, and when speaking in the House attempt to interpret in simple language what draftsmen of all sorts have put into various amendments.
  I invite the Minister to consider two simple points which perhaps draw a distinction between his amendment and Amendment No. 3. First, in out-of-court proceedings, until a couple of days ago the Bill allowed a potential employee who was asked by his employer whether he had a spent conviction to answer, "No", even if he had one, but under Amendment No. 2 the employee will not be able to answer "No" to the specific question, "Have you a spent conviction?".
  In in-court proceedings, the Minister is right in saying that the question about a spent conviction should not be asked in the first place because the judge or the magistrate should be wide awake and make sure that questions of that sort are not asked, but we all know, despite what some of my hon. Friends have said, that even magistrates are human and make mistakes, and a question such as "Were you convicted of stealing a bicycle 40 years ago?" is sometimes asked. Under the Government's amendment, a person who is asked that question and replies "No", although it is true that he has been so convicted, will be guilty of perjury.
  It is in those two, I hope fairly simple, respects that Amendment No. 3 is an improvement on the Government amendment.
  Mr. Weitzman: I listened carefully to what was said by both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon). I cannot help but feel that both amendments seek to obtain the same result, and I must repeat the criticism that I have made before. The wording of Amendment No. 3 is much more satisfactory than that in the Government's amendment. It is simpler and more direct, and I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that amendment rather than ask the House to agree to Amendment No. 2.
  12.15 p.m.
  Sir M. Havers: One of the great ambitions of successive Parliaments is to simplify the laws that they pass and make them more readily understood. Following
  1966
  the extremely difficult consequences of making perjury not illegal in certain circumstances—which has always been regarded as a major difficulty—it seems that those who have spoken prefer Amendment No. 3, and I confess that I do, too.
  Amendment No. 3 has a neatness and simplicity. It is more easily understood than the other amendment on first reading, and that is important, because there may be occasions on which people will have to be advised by their solicitors about the situation. That may be very near the time at which a conviction becomes spent. I can see occasions on which adjournments will be begged in criminal cases so that another week or month can pass in order that the conviction can be spent and questions cannot be asked about it.
  I prefer Amendment No. 3 to Amendment No. 2. I do not feel strongly about this, but the former amendment is a little neater than the latter.
  Mr. Hal Miller: I am grateful to those who have supported the wording of Amendment No. 3. I do not want to engage in splitting logical hairs with the Minister who is more able than I am, but I should like to refer to two points that have been made.
  I do not wish to be thought to be reflecting upon the attention with which judges pursue cases in court, but the judicial authority as defined in the Bill extends to a very much wider range of court and can be taken to be construed as covering arbitration proceedings by a mercantile body or by people who would not normally have borne in upon them the desirability of following the practice in the courts, and that is the reason for that Amendment No. 3.
  The question of logic arises much more on the basis of the wording
  "does not relate to spent convictions".
  That would seem to exclude the effect that we are trying to achieve, and I cannot understand how the overriding power in subsection (1) would be deemed to govern that.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On questions as nicely balanced as this, who am I to resist the combined wisdom of the House? I yield, and I shall accept Amendment No. 3.
  Mr. Dixon: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for what he has just said.
  Mr. Stanbrook: We are coming to one of the more objectionable parts of the Bill. The clause seeks to make all truth into lies, and lies into truth. It does not matter about the wording, because that remains a fact.
  When witnesses go into court and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth we think that we are getting something fine in our society. In fact, when there is a provision of the law which clouds the simplicity and clarity—
  Mr. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I had accepted the amendment and that the discussion had therefore been closed. I do not quite know to what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is referring. It may be that he is starting a Second Reading speech.
  Mr. Stanbrook: You have not yet put the Question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whatever the Home Office may think about it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter of putting the Question. As I understand it, the Minister is prepared to withdraw the Government amendment. The normal procedure would be, following that, for me to invite the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) formally to move his Amendment No. 3. The difficulty is that if an hon. Member begins to speak after another hon. Member—a Minister to boot, if I may put it that way—has sought leave to withdraw an amendment, withdrawing the amendment becomes rather more complicated.
  Mr. Stanbrook: It may be made complicated, but it is not out of order. As I understand it, the amendment has not yet been withdrawn, by leave of the House, and leave of the House is necessary.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the point. The Minister has not formally sought leave to withdraw the amendment yet. The hon. Member may therefore carry on.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I am speaking for the rights of back benchers, because, as every hon. Members knows very well, an amendment may be withdrawn only
  1968
  by leave of the House, whatever the Minister may say.
  I want to add a few words to the observation that I was trying to make. If Amendment No. 3 is accepted, these considerations will be in the minds of people who used to have a clear notion of what was truth and what was falsehood. The amendment will provide that—
  "any question seeking information with respect to a person's previous convictions, offences, conduct or circumstances, put to him or to any other person, whether in proceedings to which subsection (1)(b) above applies or otherwise, shall be deemed not to relate to spent convictions or to any circumstances ancillary to spent convictions, and the answer to any such question may be framed accordingly."
  That is nonsense. It is a typical example of wasting the time of the House on trying to make truth into falsehood and falsehood into truth.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I was about formally to ask leave to withdraw the amendment and to allow Amendment No. 3 to be put, but, in view of the criticism of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) of words that are central to the Bill. I should like to add one comment.
  The hon. Member is against the central principle of the Bill. I understand his opposition, but most of us are totally in favour of that principle. Once the principle is accepted, the question arises how, in proceedings in court or out of court, if a question is asked about a man's previous convictions, he is to be protected so that he does not have to divulge them.
  The basic answer in the Bill is that if he is asked the question, he should not be obliged to answer it in a way that discloses his spent convictions. If he is obliged to answer, either because the law lays a burden upon him to answer or because of his own innate sense of honesty, if there is no defence to that situation, the Bill will be completely nugatory, having no practical effect in society at large.
  Therefore, we have always said, and I say it again and the Press can go on repeating it, that in order to help a great many people who suffer because spent convictions are thrown up in their faces long after they have become spent, occasionally truth will be a lie and a

  1969
  lie will be truth. We allow that out of a greater sense of compassion for the man who has lived down his past and who should be allowed to live it down. There is no other effective way. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  EFFECT OF REHABILITATION
  Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 59, leave out from first to ' to end of line 11 on page 3 and insert:
  'his or any other person's past which cannot be answered without acknowledging or referring to a spent conviction or spent convictions or any circumstances ancillary thereto.
  (1A) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 5 and 6 below—

  (a) any question seeking information with respect to a person's previous convictions, offences, conduct or circumstances, put to him or to any other person, whether in proceedings to which subsection (1)(b) above applies or otherwise, shall be deemed not to relate to spent convictions or to any circumstances ancillary to spent convictions, and the answer to any such question may be framed accordingly; and

  (b) a person shall not be subjected to any liability or penalty, or otherwise prejudiced in law, by reason of any answer given by him, to such a question as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

  (2) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as seems to him appropriate for excluding or modifying the application of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1A) above in relation to questions put in such circumstances as may be specified in the order.
  (3) For the purposes of'.—[Mr. Hal Miller.]
  No. 4, in page 3, line 35, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]

Clause 3

  REHABILITATION PERIODS FOR PARTICULAR SENTENCES
  Amendments made: No. 5, in page 3, line 48, leave out 'and'.
  No. 6, in page 3, line 54, at end insert:
  and
  (e) a sentence of cashiering or of discharge with ignominy or dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service, or a sentence of imprisonment involving dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service'.
  No. 7, in page 4, line 10, at end insert:

  'Any sentence of detention in respect of a conviction in service disciplinary proceeding.

  Seven years.

  A sentence of dismissal from Her Majesty's service.

  Seven years'.

  No. 35, in page 4, line 15, leave out '(7)' and insert '(7B)'.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 4, leave out lines 21 and 22.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 35, leave out 'passed by a court-martial' and insert:
  'in a young offenders institution in Scotland'.
  Mr. Hughes: Clause 3 provides for a standard rehabilitation period of seven years for any sentence of detention in a young offenders' institution in Scotland. We think that that is unsatisfactory.
  The parallel to be drawn with the treatment of offenders under sentence of detention in a young offenders' institution in Scotland is that of the treatment of a young person under sentence of imprisonment in England and Wales. The omission of lines 21 and 22 removes the detention in a young offenders' institution from Table B.
  The words to be inserted in Amendment No. 18 do not replace those deleted in any real sense. Detention ordered by a court martial is now dealt with by Table A, under a different clause. The words inserted equate detention in a Scottish young offenders' institution with imprisonment for the purposes of the clause, and the rehabilitation period varies with the length of sentence accordingly.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made:
  No. 9, in page 4, line 37, after 'applicable' insert '(b)'.
  No. 10, in page 4, line 38, after 'offence' insert
  'and
  (b) to the discharge by a children's hearing under section 43(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 of the referral of a child's case;'—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 42, leave out from 'probation' to 'whichever' in line 53 and insert
  'the rehabilitation period applicable to the sentence shall be one year from the date of conviction or a period beginning with that date and ending when the order for condi-

  "(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, where in respect of a conviction a person was conditionally discharged or placed on probation and after the end of the rehabilitation period applicable to the conviction in accordance with subsection (1) or (2) above he is dealt with, in consequence of a breach of conditional discharge or probation, for the offence for which the order for conditional discharge or probation order was made, then, if the rehabilitation period applicable to the conviction in accordance with subsection (2) above (taking into account any sentence imposed when he is so dealt with) ends later than the rehabilitation period previously applicable to the conviction, he shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as never having become a rehabilitated person in respect of that conviction, and the conviction shall for those purposes be treated as never having become spent, in relation to any period falling before the end of the new rehabilitation period."

  and the amendments to that amendment:

  (a), in line 9, leave out 'never' and insert 'not'.

  (b), in line 10, leave out 'never' and insert 'not'.

  Mr. Lyon: Amendment No. 11 is a drafting amendment which simplifies the existing provisions. If an offender is dealt with for the original offence, following a breach of a probation order or a conditional discharge, he will attract, by virtue of Clause 4(2), the rehabilitation period appropriate to the new sentence, so there is no need to make the shorter period provided by the subsection conditional on his not being so dealt with.
  The same arguments do not apply to binding over, but it seems preferable to opt for clarity rather than try to make special provision for recognisance and bonds of caution.
  Amendment No. 21 covers the situation where the offender commits a breach of a probation order or conditional discharge and is dealt with and sentenced for the original offence after the date on which the original rehabilitation period would otherwise have expired. This matter was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and we have tried to meet the point in the amendment.
  If, on the second occasion, the offender receives a sentence carrying a longer rehabilitation period—revoked from the date of the original conviction—than the earlier sentence attracted, the conviction is deemed never to have become spent. This has the effect of extending the habilitation period to cover the time between
  tional discharge or probation order or (as the case may be) the recognizance or bond of caution to keep the peace or be of good behaviour ceases or ceased to have effect'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 21, in Clause 4, page 6, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
  the expiry of the original order and the offender's subsequent appearance in court. It is clearly undesirable to have a situation where a rehabilitation period in respect of a sentence may be terminated and subsequently revived, and that situation is avoided as a result of this amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 12, in page 4, line 56, leave out 'orders was made' and insert 'sentences was imposed'.
  No. 13, in page 4, line 70, leave out 'or'.
  No. 14, in page 5, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
  'or
  (f) a supervision requirement under any provision of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;
  the rehabilitation period applicable to the sentence shall be one year from the date of conviction or a period beginning with that date and ending when the order or requirement ceases or ceased to have effect, whichever is the longer.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 22, leave out from ' discharger to end of line 26 and insert:
  '(b) an order for detention during Her Majesty's pleasure under section 88 of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act 1857, section 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 or section 3(3) of the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act 1926; or
  (c) an order for detention in or admission to hospital under section 3(3) of the said Act of 1926, section 63 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960, section 5(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 or section 6(1) or 14(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take with this amendment Government Amendment No. 16.
  Mr. Hughes: This amendment represents an expansion of the Bill as drafted in respect of the orders relating to mentally disordered offenders which attract the rehabilitation period specified in this subsection. The new additions are mainly Scottish. Amendment No. 16 is a consequential amendment. If any hon. Member requires clarification on this point I shall be glad to assist.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 16, in page 5, line 30, after 'detention' insert 'or for detention in'.
  No. 17, in page 5, line 32, at end insert:
  '(7A) The rehabilitation period applicable to a finding in respect of any act or omission which was the subject of service disciplinary proceedings—

  (a) that the person charged was guilty of, or did the act or made the omission, but was insane at the time; or

  (b) that he is not guilty by reason of insanity;

  or, where an order is made in respect of any such finding, the rehabilitation period applicable to the order, shall be the period of five years from the date of the finding or, where the finding was made on appeal, from the date of the original conviction, or a period beginning with that date, and ending two years after the end of any period during which that person was kept in custody during Her Majesty's pleasure by virtue of the finding or (as the case may be) by virtue of the order, whichever is the longer.
  (7B) Where in respect of a conviction an order was made imposing on the person convicted any disqualification, disability, prohibition or other penalty, the rehabilitation period applicable to the sentence shall be a period beginning with the date of conviction and ending on the date on which the disqualification, disability, prohibition or penalty (as the case may be) ceases or ceased to have effect'.
  No. 18, in page 5, line 35, leave out 'passed by a court-martial' and insert:
  'in a young offenders institution in Scotland'.—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]
  12.45 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 51, at end insert:
  "(8A) References in this section to the period during which a probation order, or a care
  1974
  order or supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, or a supervision requirement under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, is or was in force include references to any period during which any order or requirement to which this subsection applies, being an order or requirement made or imposed directly or indirectly in substitution for the first-mentioned order or requirement, is or was in force.
  This subsection applies—

  (a) to any such order or requirement as is mentioned above in this subsection;

  (b) to any order having effect under section 25(2) of the said Act of 1969 as if it were a training school order in Northern Ireland; and

  (c) to any supervision order made under section 72(2) of the said Act of 1968 and having effect as a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1950".

  The effect of this amendment is to make sure that there is not premature rehabilitation of certain orders or requirements when persons are moving between Scotland and England, or vice versa, or when they are moving from Great Britain into Ireland. To illustrate the effect, take a supervision order in England on a child who moves into Scotland, and whose case is referred by the English court to the Scottish authorities—the reporter and the children's hearing. If they make a supervision requirement which means really a continuation of the English order, then, although the English order itself has lapsed and the rehabilitation period would therefore expire, this clause means that the rehabilitation period will continue until the derivation order—the Scottish supervision requirement—comes to an end.
  The reason for this amendment is to prevent the wiping out of sentences without full rehabilitation periods simply because of cross-border moves. It may be argued that there is another "sentence" in the new country and that there is little practical loss; but, on the other hand, if there are a few moves and trace is lost individuals might rather too readily avoid rehabilitation periods.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 20, in page 5, line 54, leave out "(7)" and insert "(7B)".—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]

Clause 4

  THE REHABILITATION PERIOD APPLICABLE TO A CONVICTION
  Amendment made: No. 21, in page 6, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

  "(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, where in respect of a conviction a person was conditionally discharged or placed on probation and after the end of the rehabilitation period applicable to the conviction in accordance with subsection (1) or (2) above he is dealt with, in consequence of a breach of conditional discharge or probation, for the offence for which the order for conditional discharge or probation order was made, then, if the rehabilitation period applicable to the conviction in accordance with subsection (2) above (taking into account any sentence imposed when he is so dealt with) ends later than the rehabilitation period previously applicable to the conviction, he shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as never having become a rehabilitated person in respect of that conviction, and the conviction shall for those purposes be treated as never having become spent, in relation to any period falling before the end of the new rehabilitation period.".—[Mr. Robert Hughes.]

  The Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): The next amendment is No. 36.
  Mr. Hal Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that in my ignorance I remained seated for too long. I understood that the Minister was called on Amendment No 21 but that Amendments Nos. (a) and (b) were not called. I wanted to move them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that those matters should have been discussed with Amendment No. 11. I am sorry the hon. Member was misled. We are now on Amendment No. 36.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If I may assist the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that assistance has already been given.
  Mr. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman wishes formally to move those amendments, they are matters of drafting and I should be prepared to accept them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the Chair has already put that amendment. Perhaps it can be put right somewhere else.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 6, line 39, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
  (5) Where the rehabilitation period applicable to a conviction is the rehabilitation period applicable in accordance with section 3(7B) above to an order imposing on a person any disqualification, disability, prohibition or other penalty, the rehabilitation period applicable to
  1976
  another conviction shall not by virtue of subsection (4) above be extended by reference to that period; but if any other sentence is imposed in respect of the first-mentioned conviction for which a rehabilitation period is prescribed by any other provisions of section 3 above, the rehabilitation period applicable to another conviction shall, where appropriate, be extended under subsection (4) above by reference to the rehabilitation period applicable in accordance with that section to that sentence or, where more than one such sentence is imposed, by reference to the longer or longest of the periods so applicable to those sentences, as if the period in question were the rehabilitation period applicable to the first-mentioned conviction.
  This amendment is a late amendment. It arose at the last minute because of a lacuna in the Bill. It has been tabled to deal with the situation.
  The effect of the amendment is to confine the impeding action of a subsequent sentence on a previous one in the course of becoming spent to the sentence proper and not to any disqualification period which extends it.
  Section 3(7B) provides that the rehabilitation period for a sentence with a disqualification ordered to be attached is the period of disqualification, if that is the longer. If a man is fined and disqualified from driving for 10 years, the rehabilitation period will be 10 years. But the delaying effect on any outstanding convictions will, assuming the offence is indictable, be the five-year period appropriate to the fine. If this amendment were not made, there would be the risk of a lifelong disqualification—for example, for motoring, preventing any previous conviction becoming spent. We had to take

  1977
  this somewhat heavy-handed way of dealing with a difficulty which will arise in a few cases but will be of considerable importance in those cases.
  Mr. Weitzman: Was it not beyond the wit of the parliamentary draftsmen to put this clause in much simpler form'? It is almost incomprehensible.
  Mr. Lyon: We have had a discussion about these matters before and I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend. I am glad that he has reiterated the point, and I hope the parliamentary draftsman takes note of it. However, I am assured that it is impossible to deal with the matter in the simple kind of language to which my hon. and learned Friend and I are accustomed in our pleadings. The truth is that it depends on a different kind of tradition. I hope that this continual dripping on the stone will lead to a change in the situation. I am sure this should happen.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 43, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
  '(6) Subject to subsection (7) below, for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) above there shall be disregarded—

  (a) any conviction in England and Wales of an offence which is not triable on indictment;

  (b) any conviction in Scotland of an offence which is not excluded from the jurisdiction of inferior courts of summary jurisdiction by virtue of section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 (certain crimes not to be tried in inferior courts of summary jurisdiction); and

  (c) any conviction by or before a court outside Great Britain of an offence which, if the conduct constituting it had taken place in England and Wales, would not have constituted an offence, or would have constituted an offence not triable on indictment, or, if it had taken place in Scotland, would have constituted an offence not excluded as aforesaid from the jurisdiction of an inferior court of summary jurisdiction.

  (7) Notwithstanding subsection (6) above, a conviction in service, disciplinary proceedings of an offence consisting in the commission of a civil offence shall not be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) above if the civil offence in question is triable on indictment.'
  The effect of this amendment is to clarify in its application to Scotland Clause 4(6) concerning offences which can be disregarded during the rehabilitation period applicable to a conviction.
  1978
  The words "triable on indictment" do not mean the same in Scotland as they do in England and Wales, and the words inserted by the amendment have the effect of making the convictions which can be disregarded during the rehabilitation period those for offences which come within the jurisdiction of inferior summary courts in Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

  EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS, ETC.
  Amendment made: No. 25, in page 7, line 1, leave out Clause 5.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We now come to Amendment No. 24
  Mr. Stanbrook: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Amendment No. 24 was tabled by me and certain of my hon. Friends to amend the Bill as it emerged from Standing Committee. Subsequently, as a result of a Government amendment, the clause concerned has been deleted completely, so the effect of Amendment No. 24 is lost. If I need formally to ask for leave to withdraw the amendment, then I do so.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Clause 6

  DEFAMATION ACTIONS
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 8, line 58, leave out 'either'.
  Mr. Lyon: These amendments rectify an omission in the defamation clause accepted in Committee. The omission relates to the defence of fair comment and, in particular, to the "rolled-up" plea. The matter was originally raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), and we have sought to meet his point as well as to maintain for the "rolled-up" plea the elements of justification where the justification can be proved to be in the public interest. The test whether publication is in the public interest is more stringent than the test whether the matter is of public interest, which is the essential requisite for fair comment. When the statement complained of relates to a spent conviction, and where a comment is added, as may

  1979
  often happen, the more stringent test involved in establishing the truth of the facts must be applied also in the defence of fair comment.
  Hon. Members who are familiar with the defamation law will know that the "rolled-up" plea has nothing to do with corsets but concerns the question whether one can assert certain facts and then make comment on the facts. The facts must be justified as being true and the comment on the facts must be proved to be fair. The two are rolled together for the purpose of one defence, and both must be substantiated in the defence. While the fair comment provision was maintained in the Bill, the justification part of the facts might have been difficult to assert. Therefore, we preserved the justification provided also that it was in the public interest to assert the facts.
  In relation to a spent conviction, the defence of fair comment will depend on whether the facts, first, are true, and, secondly, are published in the public interest and that the comment is fair.
  Amendment No. 26 is purely drafting, for consistency with Amendment No. 27, as is Amendment No. 28, while Amendment No. 29 is consequential.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to the Minister for the amendment which he has proposed to meet the criticism I made in Committee, but it does not remove my objection to the Bill or to the concept of public interest as a defence. An allegation of public interest as a defence will be a matter for consideration by the jury, and no one can say how the concept of public interest will be applied by a jury. When these cases come to court, they will no doubt involve consideration of what is meant by "public interest". It is a phrase of general scope, application and understanding by individuals, let alone lawyers, which may lead to a great deal of confusion.
  12.45 p.m.
  Juries may well take the view that the object of the Bill is a matter of public interest—in other words, that the Bill's social object transcends the importance of any other consideration, including the desirability for the public to have the fullest knowledge about a matter. It will, therefore, be a difficult procedure to understand and a difficult concept for
  1980
  juries and courts to apply, and it will lead to great confusion about the law generally.
  For example, a reference given for a former employee will have to be in such vague and general terms that it will, in effect, perhaps be more damaging than would be telling the truth about him. One would not take the risk of having to show that it was public interest which justified the disclosure. This is another example in the Bill of the social object overriding the implications for the constitutional liberty of the individual. Therefore, we may well be causing a great deal of trouble for ourselves.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the average man in the street understands the niceties of the law of defamation, he is a more astute observer of the man in the street than I am. The question is of great complexity and is usually reserved to the esoteric lawyers who practise in this area of jurisprudence.
  The hon. Gentleman is confused about the references between qualified privilege and the defence of fair comment. I make no criticism as I notice that in Committee I, too, fell into the same error. Under the Bill, the defence of qualified privilege is left intact, even in relation to spent convictions. Therefore, if a reference is called for and the defence of qualified privilege would cover the reference—which is the normal situation where information which may be defamatory is communicated under a moral or legal duty to some other person—the person concerned would have the defence of qualified privilege anyway. With regard to fair comment, this is a question of saying in public—not between two people who have an interest in communicating the matters between them—something about a man and then seeking to claim that it was fair to say it in the public interest. The question which then arises is: where is it right to allow fair comment for the purpose of the Bill?
  We have said that the defence of fair comment shall be retained in certain restricted circumstances. If it is relevant to the "rolled-up" plea, one would have to show that the facts on which the comment was based were in the public interest. That will accord with the general provision in the Bill, but justification as such will no longer be a defence unless

  1981
  one can prove that it is in the public interest.
  The concession made in Committee was generally welcomed as being a satisfactory compromise for all concerned. It is probably right that it should apply equally to the "rolled-up" plea and fair comment as to justification generally.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 27, in page 9, leave out lines 5 to 10 and insert—

  (a) that publication of the words complained of, in so far as they consist of allegations of fact, was in the public interest; or

  (b) that the words were published as mentioned in subsection (5)(b) above; or

  (c) that he did no more than to republish innocently a document first published before the conviction became spent;

  but in a case falling within paragraph (a) above proof of the matter there mentioned shall be taken, without more, as sufficient proof that any expression of opinion in the words complained of which relates to the facts in question is comment on a matter of public interest.'—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 9, line 13, after 'adduce', insert 'or require'.
  Clause 6(7) speaks of a defendant not being at liberty to adduce evidence. It should be amended so that he is not at liberty to adduce or require evidence.
  Clause 2(1) deals with admissibility of evidence in paragraph (a) and comparability in paragraph (b). Comparability should be reflected in Clause 6(7). The amendment makes Clause 6(7) consistent with Clause 1(2)(f) of the new Clause which is termed "Limitations on rehabilitation under this Act, etc". That is a somewhat involved explanation of a simple amendment which is designed to improve the draftsmanship.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 29, in page 9, line 34, leave out '(b)' and insert '(c)'.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]

Clause 7

  UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE OF SPENT CONVICTIONS
  Amendment made: No. 30, in page 10, line 15, after 'Britain', insert:
  'or a record kept, in Great Britain or elsewhere, for the purposes of any of Her Majesty's
  1982
  forces, being in either case a record'.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 10, line 31, after 'defendant', insert:
  '(or, in Scotland, the accused person)'.
  The amendment is required to take account of differences of expression between Scotland and England and Wales. The words "accused person" are substituted in Scotland for "defendant" in England and Wales.
  This is a drafting amendment, and no point of substance is involved.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

  ORDERS
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 10, line 59, leave out from 'and' to end of line 60 and insert:
  'an order made under any provision of this Act except section 9 below may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made under that provision'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we will take Government Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
  Mr. Lyon: Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are consequential amendments arising out of the later amendment to the commencement clause. The important amendment is No. 34, which seeks to meet a point urged upon me by the sponsors of the Bill, namely, that the commencement of the Bill should be on a fixed date.
  I had some difficulty because, as the House knows, regulations are to be made under the Bill to indicate, for instance, which judicial tribunals will be covered by the Bill and which will not. There are certain classes of occupation where questions about spent convictions will be allowed or will not be allowed. Therefore, the regulations will take a little time to prepare as one has to try to survey the whole field to see where the regulations should catch.
  In addition, one has to listen to observations by interested bodies before the regulations are tabled. I could not be sure how long that would take. I am determined that it shall take the shortest possible period, but it may still be longer

  1983
  than is normal for the coming into effect of an Act of Parliament.
  I was loth initially to have a firm date for bringing the Bill into effect, but the sponsors urged upon me the desirability of having a firm date, and we we have compromised on Amendment No. 34. It gives the firm date of 1st July 1975, but it allows the Government to table an order to bring in the Bill if by any chance we are ready before then. I suspect that we shall be. To avoid any eventualities—and who knows what eventualities are before us in the next few months?—I have taken a rather longer date, but if we can table the orders before that time we will do so to bring the Bill into effect as soon as possible.
  Mr. Dixon: We sympathise with the Minister in these uncertain political times, and the sponsors are appreciative of the fact that he has come some way towards meeting our point. He has Oven himself flexibility, and I hope that he will arrange matters in his Department with the greatest expedition. He may manage to bring the Bill into effect on 1st January 1975. Possibly, if he and his officials put their skates on, we may have it in operation on 1st December 1974, or 1st November 1974, or 1st October 1974.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 33, in page 10, line 62, after 'Act' insert
  'other than section 9 below'.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]

Clause 9

  CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 34, in page 10, line 66, leave out from ' on ' to end of line 67 and insert
  '1st July 1975 or such earlier day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint'.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of the misunderstanding which occurred earlier, I invite the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) to move, as verbal amendments to the Bill, the amendments which he wished to move to Amendment No. 21.
  Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to move, as an amendment to the words inserted in the Bill by Amendment No. 21, in line 9, leave out 'never' and insert 'not'.
  Verbal amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to move, as an amendment to the words inserted in the Bill by Amendment No. 21, in line 10, leave out 'never' and insert 'not'.
  Verbal amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Stanbrook: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to put the Question now. I will take the point of order afterwards.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wished to speak on the Third Reading.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Standing Orders required me to put the Question forthwith.
  Mr. Stanbrook: That is why I raised it as a point of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had been able to put his point of order, I should have told him that I must put the Question forthwith. The House has given instructions to the Chair, and occupants of the Chair try to obey the instructions of the House.

  CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS BY ROAD BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL

  (CHANGED FROM MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) (AMENDMENT) BILL:
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  Mr. Martin McLaren: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you put the Question, I should like to declare to the House, as I did to the Standing Committee, a possible interest as a director and member of a mineral working company.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY AMENITIES BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]
Question, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BROADCASTING UNIT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

RATING REFORM BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

HISTORIC CHURCHES PRESERVATION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ABOLITION OF TIED COTTAGES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

LABELLING OF TOILET PREPARATIONS BILL
Order read for adjourned Debate on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time [21st June].
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SAFETY PACKAGING FOR MEDICINES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PUBLIC AUTHORITY DWELLINGS (RIGHT TO PURCHASE) BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [17th May].
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

HARE COURSING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PLANNING PERMISSION CHARGES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PROTECTION FROM SLUM LANDLORDS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS (DECLARATION)
Ordered,
That Mr. Walter H. Johnson be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) and that Mr. Nigel Spearing be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pavitt.]
Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Prices
  Prices
  Oystercatchers
  Oystercatchers
  European Economic Community (Government Aids)
  European Economic Community (Government Aids)
  Production
  Production
CIVIL SERVICE
  Stationery Office (Harrow)
  Stationery Office (Harrow)
DEFENCE
  Suez Canal
  Suez Canal
  Open University
  Open University
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Medical Schools
  Medical Schools
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Padgate Teacher Training College
  Padgate Teacher Training College
  Students' Mandatory Awards
  Students' Mandatory Awards
ENERGY
  Electricity Boards (Contracting)
  Electricity Boards (Contracting)
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Gas Bills
  Gas Bills
  Gas Price
  Gas Price
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  National Association of Ratepayers Action Groups
  National Association of Ratepayers Action Groups
  M3 (Sunbury-Lightwater)
  M3 (Sunbury-Lightwater)
  Council Housing Costs (Taxation and Rates)
  Council Housing Costs (Taxation and Rates)
  Noise (Motorways)
  Noise (Motorways)
  A38, Northavon
  A38, Northavon
  Building Materials (Scotland)
  Building Materials (Scotland)
  Motor Cycles
  Motor Cycles
  Freight (Carriage)
  Freight (Carriage)
  Traffic Control
  Traffic Control
  Rents
  Rents
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Commission Offices
  European Commission Offices
  European Economic Community (Faroese Withdrawal)
  European Economic Community (Faroese Withdrawal)
  Tanzania and Zambia
  Tanzania and Zambia
  Malta (Preferences Agreement)
  Malta (Preferences Agreement)
  Holidaymakers Abroad
  Holidaymakers Abroad
HOME DEPARTMENT
  General Elections
  General Elections
  Public Assemblies (Advertising)
  Public Assemblies (Advertising)
  Election Addresses (Mailing)
  Election Addresses (Mailing)
  Disturbances (Red Lion Square)
  Disturbances (Red Lion Square)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (IDENTITY PASSES)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (IDENTITY PASSES)
INDUSTRY
  Rolls-Royce (Chilean Contracts)
  Rolls-Royce (Chilean Contracts)
  State Intervention (Burton)
  State Intervention (Burton)
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Companies (Top 20)
  Companies (Top 20)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Emergency Provisions Act (Committee of Inquiry)
  Emergency Provisions Act (Committee of Inquiry)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Commodity Export Countries
  Commodity Export Countries
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Central Heating (Credit Facilities)
  Central Heating (Credit Facilities)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
SCOTLAND
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Auxiliaries (Pay)
  School Auxiliaries (Pay)
  Sewerage Facilities (Ayrshire)
  Sewerage Facilities (Ayrshire)
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Whitley Council (Nursing)
  Whitley Council (Nursing)
  Child Care Allowances
  Child Care Allowances
  National Health Service (Administrative Staff)
  National Health Service (Administrative Staff)
  East Staffordshire
  East Staffordshire
ENERGY
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Electricity Consumption (Meter Cards)
  Electricity Consumption (Meter Cards)
  Off-peak Electricity
  Off-peak Electricity
  North Sea Oil (Production Estimates)
  North Sea Oil (Production Estimates)
  Brickworks (National Coal Board's Sales)
  Brickworks (National Coal Board's Sales)
  Burmah Oil Company
  Burmah Oil Company
  Electricity (Demand and Cost)
  Electricity (Demand and Cost)
  Gas Price
  Gas Price
  Coal Production
  Coal Production
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
INDUSTRY
  Scrap Metal
  Scrap Metal
  Steel (Direct Reduction)
  Steel (Direct Reduction)
  Cyclohexane
  Cyclohexane
  Caprolactam
  Caprolactam
  Steel Industry (Review)
  Steel Industry (Review)
  State Participation
  State Participation
  British Steel Corporation (Coke Consumption)
  British Steel Corporation (Coke Consumption)
  Liquefied Gas Tankers
  Liquefied Gas Tankers
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Ship Repairing
  Ship Repairing
  Postal Charges
  Postal Charges
  Company Accounts (Checking)
  Company Accounts (Checking)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
TRADE
  Merchant Navy (Training Grants)
  Merchant Navy (Training Grants)
  Overseas Trade Statistics
  Overseas Trade Statistics
  Transcontinental Airport
  Transcontinental Airport
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Helicopter Flights (London)
  Helicopter Flights (London)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  UNIFICATION CHURCH
  UNIFICATION CHURCH
  DIVORCES (ESSEX)
  DIVORCES (ESSEX)
  STATUTORY BODIES (MEMBERSHIP)
  STATUTORY BODIES (MEMBERSHIP)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  North Sea
  North Sea
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Portugal (Aid)
  Portugal (Aid)
  Arab Countries (Geneva Talks)
  Arab Countries (Geneva Talks)
  British Assets (Aided Countries)
  British Assets (Aided Countries)
  Commonwealth Trade
  Commonwealth Trade
  Passports (Children and Foreign Nationals)
  Passports (Children and Foreign Nationals)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Capital Projects (Avon)
  Capital Projects (Avon)
  HNC and HND Students
  HNC and HND Students
  Nursery Schools (Cheshire)
  Nursery Schools (Cheshire)
  Colleges of Education (Reorganisation)
  Colleges of Education (Reorganisation)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Kent)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Kent)
  School and Library Books
  School and Library Books
  Further Education (Unemployed Persons)
  Further Education (Unemployed Persons)
  Financing
  Financing
  Postgraduate Students (Grants)
  Postgraduate Students (Grants)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
DEFENCE
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Quality Assurance Organisation
  Quality Assurance Organisation
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Stoppages and Lost Days
  Stoppages and Lost Days
  Industrial Relations Commission
  Industrial Relations Commission
  Macclesfield
  Macclesfield
  Home Workers
  Home Workers
  TRADES IN WHICH LISTS OF OUTWORKERS HAVE TO BE KEPT
  TRADES IN WHICH LISTS OF OUTWORKERS HAVE TO BE KEPT
  Scottish Banks (Clerical Staff Pay)
  Scottish Banks (Clerical Staff Pay)
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Blind Persons (Training)
  Blind Persons (Training)
  Eye Injuries
  Eye Injuries
  Flammable Gases
  Flammable Gases
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Printing
  Government Printing
  Dispersal (London to Middlesbrough)
  Dispersal (London to Middlesbrough)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Damage
  Fire Damage
  LPG Heaters
  LPG Heaters
  Broadcasting (Chatton Transmitter)
  Broadcasting (Chatton Transmitter)
  Broadcasting (Crawford Report)
  Broadcasting (Crawford Report)
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Police (West Midlands)
  Police (West Midlands)
  Rape
  Rape
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Double Taxation Agreements
  Double Taxation Agreements
  Gifts Tax
  Gifts Tax
  Rating (Sewerage)
  Rating (Sewerage)
  Wages and Salaries (Public Services)
  Wages and Salaries (Public Services)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospitals (Birmingham and Solihull)
  Hospitals (Birmingham and Solihull)
  Disabled Persons (Environmental Aids)
  Disabled Persons (Environmental Aids)
  Chorea
  Chorea
  Winterton Hospital, Sedgefield
  Winterton Hospital, Sedgefield
  Geriatric and Psychiatric Wards
  Geriatric and Psychiatric Wards
  Fostering Allowances
  Fostering Allowances
  Diabetic Children
  Diabetic Children
  Cheshire
  Cheshire
  Supplementary Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Supplementary Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Rehabilitation Centres
  Rehabilitation Centres
  Voluntary Emergency Services (Lincolnshire)
  Voluntary Emergency Services (Lincolnshire)
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Old People's Day Centre (Hull)
  Old People's Day Centre (Hull)
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Cohabitation
  Cohabitation
  Welfare Services (Financing)
  Welfare Services (Financing)
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  General Medical Services (Working Party Report)
  General Medical Services (Working Party Report)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
SCOTLAND
  Farm Tractors (Accidents)
  Farm Tractors (Accidents)
  Bute
  Bute
  Burmah Oil Company
  Burmah Oil Company
  Roads
  Roads
  Herring (Conservation)
  Herring (Conservation)
  British Airports Authority Police
  British Airports Authority Police
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Jura (Ferry)
  Jura (Ferry)
WALES
  Quarries
  Quarries
  A55 (Traffic Survey)
  A55 (Traffic Survey)
  Roads
  Roads
  Nant Gwrtheyrn, Dwyfor
  Nant Gwrtheyrn, Dwyfor
  Celtic Sea Oil Development
  Celtic Sea Oil Development
  Kilbrandon Report
  Kilbrandon Report
  Reservoirs
  Reservoirs
  Cambrian Coast Railway
  Cambrian Coast Railway
  Telephones (Disabled Persons)
  Telephones (Disabled Persons)
  Mid-Wales Development Corporation
  Mid-Wales Development Corporation
  Milford Fishing Industry
  Milford Fishing Industry
  Footpath Maps
  Footpath Maps
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
ENVIRONMENT
  South-West England
  South-West England
  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Water and Sewerage Charges
  York Bypass
  York Bypass
  M.62
  M.62
  Housing Standards
  Housing Standards
  Vacant Council Houses
  Vacant Council Houses
  Tenancies (Private Sector)
  Tenancies (Private Sector)
  Crown Property Rating
  Crown Property Rating
  Building (High Density Accommodation)
  Building (High Density Accommodation)
  Aberdeen Harbour
  Aberdeen Harbour
  Rate Rebate Scheme
  Rate Rebate Scheme
  Rothbury, Northumberland
  Rothbury, Northumberland
  Flockton Bypass
  Flockton Bypass
  Housing (Demolition)
  Housing (Demolition)
  Avon (Ministerial Visit)
  Avon (Ministerial Visit)
  Accommodation Agencies
  Accommodation Agencies
  Railways (Investment)
  Railways (Investment)
  Goods Yards
  Goods Yards
  Freight Transport
  Freight Transport
  Norman Shaw (North) Building
  Norman Shaw (North) Building
  Wellington Barracks
  Wellington Barracks
  Bridges
  Bridges
  Conservation Areas
  Conservation Areas
  Traffic Signs
  Traffic Signs
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Statutory Bodies (Membership)
  Roads Programme
  Roads Programme
  Departmental Dwellings (Rating)
  Departmental Dwellings (Rating)
  Water Rates
  Water Rates

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

GATWICK AIRPORT SECOND RUNWAY
LORD TREFGARNE: 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—

(i) whether the British Airports Authority intend to build a second runway at Gatwick Airport;

(ii) what would be the cost;

(iii) by what percentage such a runway, if built, would increase the capacity of the Airport.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the replies which I gave to Questions by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, on April 10 and May 21. The British Airports Authority have no present intention to build a second runway at Gatwick Airport. Consequently, we have no current estimate of the cost or capacity of such a runway which would vary, for example, according to its physical characteristics, its location and the type of traffic which might use it.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, which I think will give a lot of satisfaction in many quarters, may I ask whether he is aware that hitherto there has been a sad case of planning blight to the North-East of Gatwick? Furthermore, is he aware of the widespread rumour that has been abroad that the B.A.A. are planning to build a short second runway at Gatwick, suitable perhaps only for STOL aircraft?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there have been these speculations and of course, as the noble Lord knows, it would be eminently suitable for that kind of
1720
traffic. But at the moment the fact is that the one runway can accommodate all kinds of traffic.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one other question? Is he aware that when this matter was first mooted, at the time when Stansted was originaly projected as the third London airport, it was said that the second runway at Gatwick would have to be built to the North of the existing runway and that the geographical limitations of the runway were such that the total capacity of Gatwick would be increased by only about 10 per cent. as a result of the construction of this new runway?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, all those figures and speculations of some years ago are to some extent rendered out of date by the technical developments that have taken place. I cannot say where the runway might be because the fact of the matter is that there are no plans for a second runway.

POST OFFICE POSTCODES
11.8 a.m.
LORD KILMANY: 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 saving of time is expected from the addition of letters, for instance the letters B5HH to mail addressed to London W.C.1; and whether experience has shown that such a saving of time has, in practice, been achieved.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand from the Post Office that postcodes have been introduced so that letters can be sorted more quickly by automatic machines. The overall transmission times of individual letters are largely dependent on other factors and are not in general altered.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, will he agree that it does not provide complete evidence for which I asked? Is he aware that these extra letters and numerals seem to have no rhyme or reason behind them, and that it is almost impossible for one to remember them

1721
unless one happens to have the address in front of one on a desk? Would it not be much better to concentrate on getting a decent service with the use of the old numerals and letters, such as W.1 and S.W.1, which mean something and which we all understand?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite understand that the noble Lord has some difficulty with these combinations of letters, as I have. I gather that it took twenty to thirty years before our forebears were able to assimilate the London postal code, to which he referred, which now seems so simple.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many centres there are in the country which can make use of these machines?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there are 12 large sorting offices which now have the automatic machines which can utilise the postal code.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, of all the letters posted in any one day, week or month, what percentage really make use of these hieroglyphics?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord means by that question. I have said that there are twelve large offices which now have the automatic machines and which can utilise to the full the benefits of the postal code.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: But, my Lords, my question was very simple. Do they make use of it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my understanding is that they are becoming increasingly used in those areas where it is known that they are equipped to benefit from them. I am told that in Norwich, for example, which was the first area to have a postal code, something in excess of 60 per cent. of the postal traffic uses these codes.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, knowing the interest that the Minister takes in this matter, and as the postal service is now the responsibility of his Ministry, may I ask two brief supplementary questions? Has it ever been considered that the delivery of letters has deteriorated since we had a two-tier
1722
system; and is it ever likely that we might look into the possibility of returning to a one-tier system? Secondly, not knowing whether or not my noble friend lives in W.1, may I ask whether he can say anything for the benefit of those people who do? Is he aware of the present position in regard to the delivery of letters, my own this morning having been eight days in the post in the W.1 area, although they were for first-class delivery? It is impossible to do one's work and, even appreciating the difficulties, are we really to pay 4½p for an eight-day delivery?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have now forgotten what the first question was, but I am sure it was not related to the Question on the Order Paper. To the extent that there has been a deterioration in the postal service, it is due to the fact that this is a labour intensive service and we are not paying enough money to get the sort of numbers into the service that are needed. The automatic machines have to some extent offset the deterioration which would otherwise have taken place.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what happens with these machines if the codes are not written distinctly? Does the letter then go astray, or can the machine deal with bad handwriting?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have no reason to believe that the machines are not as good at dealing with bad handwriting as the ordinary human sorting agency. If an address is not clearly written, it is liable to delay.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that the Post Office have no intention of penalising in any way the users of the postal service who for various reasons do not use these particular hieroglyphics?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is no deliberate intention at all. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, asked the meaning of a particular group of letters. As he has probably noticed, it is the code which applies to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, of which he is a member. The fact of the matter is that there have been no protests at all about the service they are getting.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that great confusion is caused because the letter "I" and the figure "1" also appear in these numerals, and it is very difficult to distinguish between them, both in handwriting and, in many cases, in typewriting?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is the sort of common sense and constructive comment that I would expect my noble friend Lord Leatherland to bring forward, and I will see that it is considered.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since this question was recently raised in the House, is the noble Lord able to make any comment on the inconvenience and loss that is being caused to all users of the post by, for instance, the delay between the City and the West One area? Further, is he able to suggest any greater speed than 10 days in the West One area for letters bearing these various hieroglyphics about which the noble Lord asked?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the West One problem is a separate one about which I answered a Question earlier in the week. Now that settlement has been reached, I hope that the backlog of letters will be cleared and that the services will be improved. Wearing another hat, I wonder whether I might suggest to your Lordships that this would be a suitable moment to turn to the next Question.

R.A.F. AIR/SEA RESCUE SERVICE
11.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Ministry of Defence decided to remove from R.A.F. Manston a civilian helicopter company, after it has operated successfully for three years as an Air/Sea Rescue Service; what guarantee the Ministry of Defence can give that an R.A.F. Air/Sea Rescue Service will not be withdrawn again, without prior arrangement for a civilian operator to fill the role; and what financial effect will this new arrangement have on the local ratepayers.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has not removed the civilian helicopter company from Manston. There is a military requirement for a Royal Air Force Search and Rescue helicopter detachment to be stationed at Manston. It will be available for civil rescue emergencies and in these circumstances it was decided by the Department of Trade that the present civilian helicopter rescue service was not required in addition. The civilian contract is therefore not being renewed when it expires in September. The R.A.F. detachment will be regarded by the Ministry of Defence as a high-priority unit, but in the unlikely event of it having to be redeployed from Manston, sufficient notice will be given to the Department of Trade to enable a satisfactory alternative search and rescue service to be provided. The new arrangement should have no financial effect on the local ratepayers.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for that detailed reply. I am sure that in the reply, the guarantee is perhaps the most important issue, as there was apprehension that the Royal Air Force would be forced yet again to withdraw the service they have previously provided. Is the noble Lord aware that, over the past few years, the private helicopter company has saved some 159 lives from the sea? Is he further aware that the team of 12 which has taken part in these operations and which has kept together for these three years, will now, sadly, be broken up? Can the noble Lord say whether the policy is for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy to supply the helicopter Air/Sea Rescue Service around the coast, or whether it is the intention to explore the possibility of employing further civilian companies?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am glad to be able to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the value of the services provided by the company. It is accepted on all sides that the civilian company has provided an excellent service. We expect the Royal Air Force to provide at least as good a service to the civilian community—as well as being operational in the Service itself

1725
—and possibly better from certain Services' technical requirements. As to present policy, I understand that the general practice is to use Royal Naval and Royal Air Force detachments for Air/Sea Rescue operations, both for operational and for civilian reasons. As to the future, I have no doubt that where it is necessary to redeploy such detachments rather than face a gap in the provision of service to civilians in danger, consideration will certainly be given to the employment of civilian contractors.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could advise the House of the cost of the services? It is noted that, with regard to the civilian company, the D.T.I. paid for the service, not the ratepayers. Can the noble Lord tell us what the situation is with regard to the Armed Services? Is this something which the D.1.I. will pay to the Armed Services? If so, how do the costs compare?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it would be difficult to compare the costs of the two services because of the different nature of the two and, to some extent, the different provisions. I understand the direct operating cost of the Royal Air Force detachment in this case is not expected to be significantly higher than the actual cost of the civilian I service, but in fairness to the civilian firm, it is difficult to compare the two. As to inter-departmental payments, I will have to look into this and give the noble Earl the proper answer. My impression is that the Royal Air Force bears this cost on its own Estimate, but there may be a transfer which I think the noble Earl ought to be told about in terms of the questions he has put.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what type of helicopter will be operated by the R.A.F. on this service, and whether it will be equipped with Decca navigator equipment so essential for search and rescue operations in bad weather?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I understand that the R.A.F. will be employing two Wessex helicopters. These have a somewhat better range, higher speed, better endurance and greater lifting capacity than the civil Whirlwinds at present used on this station. As to
1726
equipment, my information is that the R.A.F. aircraft will be fitted with communications equipment—I could not identify the proprietary make at the moment—which will provide the same links with the coastguard and other rescue organisations as the present civil aircraft.
CUSTOMS CO-OPERATION COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974.
EUROPEAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974
SPECIALISED AGENCIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974
UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974
CENTRAL TREATY ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974
SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974.
ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974
EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1974
11.21 a.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc the eleven Immunities and Privileges Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. Of course, if any noble Lord objects to this procedure, I shall to the extent desired move the individual Motions separately.

1727
These draft Orders will all be made under the International Organisations Act 1968. With the exception of the last but one on the list, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, these Orders are basically revisions of earlier Orders conferring privileges and immunities made under Acts of Parliament replaced by the 1968 Act. The exception is that the European Molecular Biology Order does only one thing, that is, to confer legal personality upon the laboratory; that Order does not refer to privileges and immunities but simply to conferring legal personality on the laboratory.
The 1968 Act enabled certain privileges which had hitherto been granted to international organisations by administrative means to be conferred by Orders in Council. Since then Orders have in fact been made conferring these privileges on five international organisations with their headquarters in London, including the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. The privileges in question are refund of the customs duty element in the price paid for petrol and heating oil for official use, and duty free importation of the personal effects of staff members of the organisations on their arrival to work in this country.
I referred to five organisations which. in pursuance of the Act of 1968, had had these immunities and privileges conferred upon them by Order in Council. Unlike those organisations, however, those which are the subject of the Orders now under discussion do not have even offices, let alone headquarters, in London; so these provisions, which are really replacement orders by Order in Council for what was previously done by administrative action, will have little practical effect.
The introduction of car tax and value added tax by the Finance Act 1972 has necessitated a change in the new Orders to provide relief from these taxes in place of previous references to purchase tax. This is again revisionary. Similarly, the Orders contain transitional provisions required by the eventual replacement of the National Insurance Acts and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts by the Social Security Act 1973; the replacement of the former National Insurance provisions by last year's Social Security Act is again transitional and revisionary.
1728
In addition, I am glad to say that the occasion for revision of these Orders has provided a welcome opportunity of introducing more uniformity of wording, corresponding as closely as possible with the terms of the 1968 Act. Noble Lords who have looked at the various Orders will see that the wording is very much common form. Where it varies it is in respect of the minor variations between the various Agreements to which we are party. I should, therefore, like to assure your Lordships that the making of these Orders is really a tidying-up process and involves no extension of the privileges and immunities which are required to be granted under international Agreements to which we are party in respect of organisations of which the United Kingdom has been a member for many years. Nor do they in any way expand at all significantly the number of personnel who would qualify for the somewhat restrictive privileges and immunities which these Orders cover.
In the case of the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations. however, where we are making a single consolidated Order to replace twelve separate Orders—a very useful exercise in itself—we have not hitherto taken steps to give effect to revised texts of two of the Annexes to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialised Agencies. The second revised text of Annex II requires privileges and immunities to be accorded to representatives of Associate Members of the Food and Agriculture Organisation to the same extent as to representatives of State Members of that Organisation. The present Order enables us to give effect to this Amendment, an Amendment to the Annex to the Convention, in the same way as, as far back as 1955, by Order we gave effect to a similar Amendment to Annex VII of that Convention relating to the World Health Organisation. The revised texts of both Annexes, II and VII, also require that high officer status be conferred upon Assistant Directors-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation and on Assistant Directors-General and Regional Directors of the World Health Organisation. This is a requirement of the Agreement to which we have long been party; we take the opportunity now under the revised Orders to put this right. The present

1729
Order will, therefore, enable us to accept the revised texts of the Annexes.
The Order relating to the International Atomic Energy Agency will enable the United Kingdom to withdraw two reservations we made when we accepted the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of that Agency. The effect of the Order will be to bring the officials and experts of the Agency into line with those of other Specialised Agencies and without discrimination against citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It will not, however, mean that high officers of United Kingdom nationality would enjoy any additional immunities in the United Kingdom. The withdrawal of the second reservation will similarly mean that, as in the case of the Specialised Agencies as a whole, an officer acting for a high officer during the latter's absence from duty will be accorded on a temporary basis while he is so acting the privileges and immunities appropriate to the higher post. All this is in line with agreement and practice, of course.
The Order relating to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (O.E.C.D.) rectifies an omission in the 1961 Order, which it replaces in fact, by providing for the very limited immunities required by the Convention on the Establishment of a Security Control in the Field of Nuclear Energy to be conferred upon judges of the Tribunal established by the Convention, and on representatives, counsel and advocates appearing before the Tribunal. This is something of an academic point, very much a tidying up operation, because the Tribunal has never met in this country and the absence of this provision has had no practical effect so far. However, the opportunity is now being taken to ensure that Her Majesty's Government are able to fulfil their legal obligations under the Convention should the Tribunal ever meet here.
These are the point that I should like to draw to your Lordships attention. The exercise is generally a revisionary one, as I have stressed, and I do not think that there are any other particular points I would wish to raise concerning at least ten of the eleven Orders which are, as I have described them, replacement Orders. The eleventh
1730
Order is that relating to the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, and the purpose of that Order is somewhat different from that of the other ten. The genesis of this is rather interesting. As a result of a decision by the European Molecular Biology Conference established in 1969 to further international co-operation in molecular biology, an Agreement was drawn up in May, 1973, providing for the establishment of a Molecular Biology Laboratory as an intergovernmental institution. Its purpose is to permit co-operation among European States in fundamental research, in the development of instrumentation, and in advanced teaching in molecular biology and related fields of research.
An important application of such research is the experiments being made into the causes of cancer. I understand that the activities of the Laboratory will be concentrated in particular on work not normally or easily carried out in national institutions. To expedite the setting up and the work of this important laboratory it is necessary, by this Order, to give to it corporate status, the legal capacities of a body corporate. As to progress I am glad to inform your Lordships that, apart from the United Kingdom, nine other States have signed the Agreement and four others have ratified. Before it can come into force ratification is required by a majority of the Parties to the European Molecular Biology Conference, including the State in which the laboratory will have its headquarters. We expect that by this autumn the required majority of ratifications, and the required percentage of contributions by ratifying Member States, will have been achieved, and that this very important development in international research for health purposes, among other things, will be implemented. I therefore beg to move that these Orders be agreed to en bloc.
Moved, That the Draft Customs Cooperation Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.
That the Draft European Space Research Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.
That the Draft Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and

1731
Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.
That the Draft United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.
That the Draft Central Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.
That the Draft South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.
That the Draft Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.
That the Draft Asian Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.
That the Draft International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.
That the Draft European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.
That the Draft North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy Roberts.)
11.34 a.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the detailed explanation that he has given to the House of the purpose of these Orders. I am sure that he is right to take all eleven Orders together rather than ploughing through them individually, particularly since he has told us that ten out of the eleven, with only minor exceptions, involve no extension of privilege or immunity to those already accorded to, or enjoyed by, persons connected with the organisations concerned. The eleventh Order, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Immunities and Privileges) Order, I was interested to hear, has a connection with cancer research, a subject with which I was connected for a number of years. Some noble Lords in this House will be aware that the United Kingdom is regarded, outside the United States, as
1732
one of the great international centres of research into the causes of cancer. This is perhaps the last great unsolved problem facing medical and scientific research, and if this Order for co-operation within Europe can be a further step in that direction, I am sure that it is something all of your Lordships would welcome. Having said that, I have no further points to raise. It may be that other noble Lords have. So far as I am concerned, there is no need to delay the House further.
11.36 a.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend one or two questions about certain of these Orders, and, in particular, the Order which has just been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, concerning the Molecular Biology Laboratory. I understand that this is certainly concerned in some way with cancer, though I think that it would be dangerous and unwise to assume that the object of the laboratory was to solve that problem. I think that the object is much wider than that; it is to study the whole problem of molecular biology, using the most advanced scientific methods.
I should like to ask my noble friend whether the signing of this Order means that Her Majesty's Government will now be definitely throwing their weight behind the formation and setting up of this laboratory because, as I understand it, in this laboratory they will be requiring extremely elaborate equipment of a nature and scale which it would be difficult to maintain in a single country. It is a little like some of the nuclear energy research laboratories where enormous sums of money have to be spent. If I may mention one instrument, for instance—I am not familiar with the details of the programme of the laboratory—I am quite sure that they will be wanting very high-powered electron microscopes. The sort of electron microscope that is used in an ordinary laboratory may cost £50,000—the cost has been going up steadily—but I believe that the sort of one that they will want to use in this laboratory may cost millions. I think that this point will apply to a lot of their equipment. They will be attempting to solve the most basic problems concerned with human life. Because of this, it is really important that Her Majesty's Government, having agreed to go ahead,

1733
should throw all their energies into ensuring that this laboratory is properly maintained.
I notice that although this is referred to as an Immunities and Privileges Order, there are no immunities and privileges concerned with this European Molecular Biology Laboratory. I wonder why that is? Is it because it has not yet been set up, or is it because it will not require them? I should have thought they might require such privileges, but perhaps I am entirely wrong about that. The other matter I want to raise concerns the European Space Research Organisation Order. Here we have something which has been in existence for some time, and which has been doing important work. Does the continuation of this Order mean that Her Majesty's Government are resolute in seeing that this European Space Research Organisation is properly maintained and supported?
11.39 a.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I should be the last person in your Lordships' House to raise any objection to the establishment of international scientific bodies in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, I should welcome them, as indeed is the view of the Members of your Lordships' House. I was absent for a moment when my noble friend began his speech (I had to reply to a telephone message), and, therefore, I am not certain whether he furnished the information that I am anxious to request now, and for which I have been anxious for quite a long time; namely, how many persons who come from foreign countries and who are resident in the United Kingdom are the recipients of immunities and privileges? I suspect they run into many thousands. Occasionally difficulties occur. Incidents are reported in the newspapers of people, who are associated either with Embassies or with other bodies of an international character, who are responsible for misdemeanours, or alleged misdemeanours, but who escape simply because they happen to have the privilege of immunity. I should like to know, as indeed I have indicated already, how many are concerned and whether there is a full and complete reciprocation in other countries.
On the second point, I am deeply sus, picious. I make the confession that I
1734
have not delved into the matter sufficiently to enable me to produce any evidence, but my suspicion inclines me to say to Members of your Lordships' House that in countries like China, maybe Japan, particularly the Arabian countries representatives from the United Kingdom, whether associated with Embassies or with other bodies, are not the recipients of the privileges and immunities which we provide for those who come from those countries. I am all in favour of good relations—I think they are essential—but this matter of privileges may be extending too far.
The other day, in the course of a debate in your Lordships' House associated with the Rent Bill, I ventured to put a question about the number of persons associated with foreign Embassies in London who were occupying premises to a considerable extent and, as a result, causing inflation in rent prices and the cost of housing accommodation. Where I live, in a part of St. Johns Wood, I know of this because I hear from time to time of people who are able to pay what we regard, some of us who cannot afford to pay inflated rents, as exorbitant rents. There is no difficulty, because these people do not pay out of their own pockets. The rents are paid and the charges are met by their Embassies and the organisations which they represent. It may be thought by Members of your Lordships' House that this is a kind of niggling objection, but it is not to my mind. I think it is a matter that ought to be considered. I repeat, if necessary, that I welcome people from abroad engaged in foreign Embassies and scientific organisations. It is of the utmost advantage to have the latter. On the other hard, there ought to be reciprocation, and perhaps my noble friend could advise me on that point.
11.44 a.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, to begin with, if I may deal briefly with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I am sure that nobody in your Lordships' House—not I, certainly—would regard the point he has raised as being a niggling one. It is essential that we keep a balance. On the one hand, we should welcome into our country people who are about diplomatic and inter-Governmental business which is of assistance to all countries, and

1735
provide the kind of immunity and privilege which is common form in all countries which participate in this kind of international activity, while on the other hand we should guard so far as we can against any excess or any abuse of any immunity or privilege so granted.
I have some figures here which I will give to the noble Lord, but no doubt he will wish to have more and I shall do my utmost to supplement the figures I am now able to give him. The total of 2,114 officials with their families covering the Embassies, as well as international organisations here, accords well with what would be the position in a comparable country in Europe or in another part of the world. They have the diplomatic immunity and privilege status. There are a further 3,400 officials who are entitled to much more restricted privileges and immunities and, in any case, all of them restricted to their official business. These are figures which to some people might present certain difficulties: some thousands, as my noble friend quite rightly said. However, I do not think they are at all out of line with statistical experience in other, comparable, countries, as I have said.
I was extremely glad to hear the noble Lord emphasise the importance of attracting to this company, if we can by reasonable, though not excessive inducements, inter-Governmental organisations. This is of great advantage to us in every way and many of us feel that so far we have not been successful in this. There are a number of reasons. There is the point he raised about accommodation. It is difficult to find housing and other accommodation for inter-Governmental organisations of this kind in London. Indeed, we have no Government conference centre, as so many other countries have. It is an advantage to us to attract these organisations, though I fully agree with my noble friend that we should keep a careful watch both over the numbers and over the extent to which the privileges are granted when we do this. I shall endeavour to supplement the figures I have given, to break them down and add to them, in the appropriate form, either by circulating them or perhaps by responding to a Question for Written Answer, because I should like to give as full a picture as possible of the position.
1736
Turning to my noble friend who raised a number of points about the molecular biology laboratory, of course the purpose of this extremely important international and European development ("European" in the sense which my noble friend Lord Shinwell and all of us would agree was appropriate) is to engage in fundamental research; and I need not spell out to my noble friend—least of all to him—what that means. As he said, this includes a great many things, all of them desirable, I am sure, in this field. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said also, most hopefully it has an important connection with the conquest of cancer. While we do not want to put this too highly, as he reminded the House, neither should we minimise the possibilities of this laboratory making a substantial contribution to the conquest of this dread disease.
On the point about the extension of privileges and immunities (the very restricted ones in common form with the other 10 Orders which he raised), I understand that this cannot be considered until the host country has ratified the decision of the conference. In the meantime what we can do is give to this laboratory, by Order, so far as we are concerned, corporate status. The privileges and immunities would follow much on those lines, and, we hope very soon. As I have said, we would welcome its very early establishment. As to the European Space programme, which is the subject of one of these Orders, I entirely agree with my noble friend that its intended quality as an organisation is comparable to that of the molecular biology laboratory. Anything that we can do, always bearing in mind the cautionary words uttered by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, to promote organisations of this kind, I am sure we would all wish to do.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

EDUCATION (MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN) (SCOTLAND) BILL
11.51 a.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It comes to us with impeccable multi-Party antecedents. In its original form it was presented by a Labour Member in another place and supported by the then Conservative Government. Now it has been presented by my fellow-Scot, Mr. Hamish

1737
Gray, a Conservative, and again it has been given every assistance by the present Government. It is a small measure of two clauses and one Schedule and I shall try to be correspondingly brief in presenting it to the House.
Its scope is limited. Essentially, it brings Scotland into line with the English practice on the pattern of the Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970. The number of children affected by the measure is about 2,000 in Scotland and about 100 staff in the day-care centres. The Bill seeks to implement the recommendation of last year's Melville Report on the Training of Staff for Centres for the Mentally Handicapped. It seeks to implement those measures which called for legislation. The main purpose is a simple one. It is to cease regarding very severely handicapped children as hopeless cases who have to be totally opted out of the education system and cared for in mental hospitals and in day centres. Instead it places a duty on local education authorities to make special provision for continuing efforts to be made to develop the minds of these unfortunate children.
Research into mental handicap indicates increasingly that personal development can be considerably enhanced by the skilful use of educational and training programmes, even for the severely mentally handicapped. I cannot do better than quote from the remarks made in another place during the Committee stage, when this was said:
"These children cannot he taught to read and they cannot he taught to write, but that does not mean that they must be written oil as incapable of any development. Programmes and techniques now exist and are being explored and extended, which can appreciably increase their awareness of themselves and their response to the world in which they live. This is no small matter. The gain can be very worth while relative to the child's condition. One does not need to be a specialist to appreciate the difference between a child who is lying staring at the ceiling when its name is spoken, and one which turns its head and even if the child cannot speak it smiles back."
So one has to recognise, my Lords, that we are very far down in the educational scale when talking about children who are in this unfortunate position. It almost sounds unduly hopeful to be using expressions like "education", when you regard it as a major step forward if a child even recognises its name when spoken to by its own parents. But it is this area
1738
with which we are dealing and it is right that we should be clear about it.
The present situation for the severely mentally handicapped and the mentally ill in Scotland is that they can cease to be the responsibility of the education authority. This happens in two ways. In the case of the mentally ill, they end up in hospitals where the education authority at present has the power, but not the duty, to attend to any education that they may be capable of absorbing. Under the Bill, the education authority will not only have the power but will also have the duty—a duty which they are quite happy to take on. But in the case of children who have been what is called "ascertained" and allocated to day-care centres, the education authority at the present time has neither the duty nor the power to undertake education, even if it wants to. That is the major change that the Bill brings about.
I believe that the important point is that there is general acceptance of the need and the obligation to go further than the pure caring function which is currently offered in the day centres. It is only right at this point to pay tribute to the devoted staff who man these daycare centres, but it should be stressed that it is a purely caring function which they currently exercise. The suggestion is that it would be right to add modest educational and training effort, however restricted the level that is operated. As regards staff in these centres, they wil! be transferred from the social work authority to the education authority, and I understand that these proposals have the support of the Association of Directors of Social Work. The status and conditions of work of these staff will certainly not suffer. Indeed it is envisaged that they will gradually be upgraded by giving these nursing staff a training in the basic educational function.
Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that it is not envisaged that the additional demands on the education authority, in either manpower or money, will be unduly onerous. In any case, this will take some time. The appointed day for the new arrangement to come into operation is likely to be a year away, and it is envisaged that it will be about three years before the full effect of these new arrangements will be in full operation. I have already

1739
said that the number of children involved is small, but I am sure that the passage of the Bill will bring relief to parents who are placed in a distressing situation. It will reassure them that continuing efforts are being made to give a meaning to the lives of their children, rather than having the feeling that they have been abandoned as hopeless cases. One hopes that the most up-to-date techniques devised by psychologists and educationists will constantly be deployed to aid these sad cases. With those few words, my Lords, I hope that this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships' House. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
12 noon.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I rise to express the Government's attitude to this Bill which, I may say, is one of unqualified approval. This is a Bill which has of course been contemplated for some time. There is much public support for it, and it has been the intention of successive Governments to see it placed on the Statute Book. We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, for introducing it into this House, and I should like to congratulate him, if I may, on the clear way in which he has explained the purposes of the Bill and on his speech, which I think has moved us all. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
My Lords, there are one or two points to which I should perhaps refer. First, as your Lordships are aware, the Bill is in the nature of an enabling measure, in the sense that it will begin to have an effect only on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. When consideration was being given to this measure in another place, it was announced that consultations were going on with the local authorities in Scotland to decide the most suitable date. I am now able to say that the decision has been taken, and that the intention is that the new arrangements should be brought into operation on May 16, 1975. This is, in fact, the earliest date that would be really practicable. It is the day on which the new system of local government in Scotland takes over.
1740
If we had chosen an earlier date, not only would there have been insufficient time for the present local authorities to get ready and make the provision that will be necessary, but also there would have been a double change in many parts of Scotland, affecting many staff. The reason for this is that at present the children to whom this legislation applies are cared for by social work authorities, many of which are the present large burghs. If the change were made before local government reorganisation, the responsibility for this service would pass temporarily to the county councils and then, after reorganisation, to the regions. This double change would be unnecessarily complicated and upsetting to all concerned. We have therefore decided that the day on which the reorganisation comes into effect is the right moment for this legislation also to come into effect.
Perhaps, my Lords, I should also say something about the rate of implementation of the Bill. Naturally, we are anxious to see the fruits of this Bill as soon as possible, for the reasons which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona. It is only realistic, however, to accept that progress will be gradual, especially at the beginning. What we expect is that after the appointed day the child guidance service will put in hand an investigation into the potential of the children in day-care centres, and teachers will begin to be assigned to them. It is bound to take some considerable time before either the child guidance service or the teachers can develop appropriate education and training programmes to meet the needs of the individual children, which of course vary very much. But we would expect the staff who are at present in charge to continue with the work that they are doing—and here I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord has said in his tribute to them. The difference will be that they will become increasingly involved in the programmes devised and supervised by educational psychologists and teachers. There will, of course, be a good deal of empirical work to be done.
Your Lordships may also wish to know what calls the Bill will make on educational resources. What I have already said about the gradual build-up of the new service means that the implications will be relatively minor at first. Even

1741
when the service is fully implemented, however, the expenditure, whether in terms of money or of manpower, will not be unduly heavy. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, asked me to give some sort of figure. It is difficult to make any precise estimate, but we do not think that more than somewhere between 100 and 200 teachers will be required, and at most that represents a cost of less than £500,000, which is a very small factor in Scotland's total expenditure on teachers' salaries of more than £100 million. That, of course, is not a great sum. I venture to say, however, that in terms of the development of children who are perhaps at present receiving less from society than they are entitled to—in terms, in other words, of human happiness—the value to be obtained from this expenditure is out of all proportion to the amount of it. My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships any longer, and I hope that this Bill will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS
12.7 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in setting up community health councils throughout the country; and how names of members are selected. The noble Lady said: My Lords, I am asking Her Majesty's Government the Question about the delay in forming community councils, and the selection or election of members to these councils, because this is a very important subject, and one which worries a very large number of people. It is important, first, perhaps. to the consumer (in other words, the patients); secondly, to the many people who have served on regional boards, hospital management committees or house committees of hospitals; and, thirdly, to the members of the voluntary organisations who have given so much of their time and effort to help the hospitals, the staff and the patients. There has been a great delay in the appointment of these community councils. Very often I have been told. and have also read in the
1742
newspapers, that the delay is caused by the Department of Health and Social Service not sending early enough clear instructions on how these community councils are to be set up.
With this, I must profoundly disagree. I have seen and read a document called, 1973 Number 2217 National Health Service England and Wales (Community Health Councils). The instructions contained in this document are, I think, very clear. I have also seen all the documents sent out by one regional authority to their areas and districts; a report of the first meeting of one of their community councils; the names of those individuals, and who and what they represent, and of all the community councils in that region. I have been sent copies of the Department's instructions on the appointment of secretaries, allowances for travelling and subsistence allowances; and also the Secretary of State's statement on the appointment of National Health staff as members of community councils. I feel certain that all regions have received the same letters from the Department, but many regions have not taken immediate action.
I feel certain, myself, that the delay in forming the community councils has been caused by the many other appointments to areas and districts that regions have had to deal with; and also, perhaps, by the fact that they knew so little about the community councils that they put it on one side until they had completed what they thought were more important tasks, whereas in the eyes of many of us community councils would have been the first priority. I know one region which, up until about a week ago, had done nothing even to call a meeting of the people who would like to serve on a community council. Some other regions have just a few community councils going in some of their districts, but by no means all. The Council of Social Services has offered help in many places to assist the regions. As a result in one region that I know they have formed community councils, but, unfortunately, most of the regions have not accepted the offer from the Council of Social Services.
In one region I discovered that a community council had been formed in what I can only call a curiously infantile way. They received applications from well over a hundred people—all from

1743
highly respectable voluntary organisations —who volunteered and put forward their names for consideration. This region was so distressed or worried or fussed by the number, and did not know what to do about them that they divided the names into ten packets, one for each district in the region, and drew out the names just like that. It may be a good idea, but it is not exactly what we thought would happen. I make no accusation of neglect against the Department which set out explicit instructions, but against the regions which were too overpowered by the reorganisation and also, in many cases, had no knowledge of the importance of community councils to so many people, particularly to patients.
So in answer to the first part of my Question, I should like to know from the Government, or from the Minister who is to reply, how many community health councils are functioning in England and Wales at this time. I understand that Wales is far ahead of England; they have a community council for each one of their districts. I believe that we have 206 districts in England, but I know that they have not by any means formed as many as 206 community councils. My second question is: how are the members of community councils elected or chosen? I have given one had example and I fear that there are many other regions which do not take much trouble. In 1973 the new Health Act was being discussed in this House. The noble Baroness, Lady White, and I, together with many noble Lords, wanted the councils to be strong, to have teeth and to be carefully selected. I managed later, with the help of many noble Lords from all parts of the House, to get the setting up of the councils transferred from the areas to the regions. I think I suggested the Secretary of State to start with, but the regions were equally good. They would also provide the accommodation, secretarial assistance and finance when needed.
We all felt that an impossible position would arise if community councils were set up and looked after by the very people in areas on whom they were going to report. and I think many noble Lords, were glad when my noble friend Lord Aberdare, who was at the time Minister of State, was able to persuade the then Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph, to
1744
make the alteration in the Act. I must confess that I am worried by the way the choice of members is made. It varies from region to region. I remember that in our debate in this House in 1973 the question of the members of community councils was raised, and I must confess that I had the temerity to suggest that one-third should be appointed by the local authorities, one-third should be from voluntary organisations, and one-third should be chosen or appointed by the regions. I was defeated in my efforts, and it was left with one-half appointed by local authorities, ten by voluntary organisations and five by the regions.
I repeat what I said so long ago, that there are too many members from local authorities on these councils. I know of one district where two members appointed by local authorities were very elderly aldermen, though I must admit that that was balanced by having two quite young people; but I still think that there are too many of them. I have found in my travels around the country that many appointees of local authorities know little or nothing about hospitals—I emphasise "hospitals", because that is what community councils are to deal with; hospitals and patients in hospitals—compared with the original regional boards, the hospital management committees, the house committees and many of the voluntary organisations, such as the Red Cross, St. John's, the W.R.V.S., the League of Hospital Friends and many others.
I declare my interest in the League of Hospital Friends. We started 25 years ago with 24 groups; we now have nearly 1,000. Though we are supposed to be only money-raisers, and we raise about £1½ million a year, at least 800,000 of our members actually work in hospitals. I feel very strongly that they should be better represented, because it has taken quite a lot of work to get their names on the community councils. I think we have too many appointees from local authorities, and too few of those people who have served on the various bodies which run the hospital service and the voluntary organisations.
My Lords, I have spoken for too long. I did not mean to go on for so long. I am so glad that we have a new Member of our House who is herself a regional chairman, because she will be able to

1745
tell us much more than I can. I speak only from observation, from reading newspapers and from talking to various people throughout the country. I have worked for 25 years in the Health Service and I still care deeply for the hospital side of our Service. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give me reassurances about the methods of the present situation. I know that the Secretary of State regards community councils as a very important part of our new Service, and I hope that the Government will be able to reassure me and my noble friends that setting up elections of members of community council; will be given a priority which, alas, is not the position throughout the country.
12.18 p.m.
BARONESS ROBSON: My Lords, I rise with great trepidation to make my maiden speech en the Question raised by the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland on community health councils, their selection and role within the reorganised National Health Service. Before I proceed I must, however, declare my interest, which has already been mentioned. I am chairman of the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority, and in that capacity the remarks I am about to make are framed basically on my own personal experience within my own region. They do not necessarily represent the views of my fellow chairmen in other regions, nor of the members of my authority.
I should like to begin much further back. Before we consider the role of membership of community health councils in the reorganised Health Service I think it is important to consider what the goals of that Service are. They were admirably expressed the other day in a pamphlet issued by the Office of Health Economics. Without a doubt the fathers of the National Health Service, men such as Beveridge and Bevin, saw it as an instrument for promoting social change and a means of breaking down inequalities within our society. In this I think the Service has largely achieved their aim. However, the most obvious goal of the Service is to deliver adequate health care to the population of this country and the demand for its services has always over the years exceeded the resources available to it.
The current reorganisation of the National Health Service is not a revision
1746
of these goals but it changes the means by which we hope to achieve them. I do not believe any longer that the fundamental principles underlying reorganisation—the unification of the three arms of the Service—are disagreed with by anybody, even although we may disagree on whether we should have a two- or a three-tier system. So I think we must consider the present reorganisation as a stage in the development of the Service in this country. The demands on the Service will continue to change as new health problems appear, and a changed social environment will make further demands on the Service we have.
In any process of development one must very carefully consider and try to retain what was good in the old system. In my view, one of the sad things is the reduction by about two-thirds of the "lay" interest in the Health Service through the abandonment of hospital management committees, Boards of Governors and local authority health committees. It can be argued that the old authorities had a dual role to perform—they were both administrators and representatives of the general public—and that the new concept of the unified Service has a more clear-cut managerial responsibility. The introduction, therefore, of community health councils into the unified Service to represent the views of the community and the users of that Service, is one of the most important aspects of the reorganisation and is warmly welcomed I believe by the whole of society.
Here I should like to make a plea for refraining from using the word "consumer" or comparing the community health councils with the consumer councils of the nationalised industries. Most importantly, users of the National Health Service are not consumers. To be a consumer, to me at least, means exercising some kind of choice: for instance, as to whether I heat my house by electricity or by gas (and I suppose to-day, I would choose gas). I do not choose to break my leg, I do not choose to have a mental breakdown, so as to be able to consume the service provided. I am therefore either a patient or a recipient of the service provided. I believe we should refrain from using the word "consumer".
As has already been mentioned, the constitution of the community health

1747
councils has been carefully spelled out in the Statutory Instruments and, as your Lordships will know, it provides for half the membership to be nominated by the local authorities, one-third by the voluntary organisations, and the rest to be direct appointments by the Regional Health Authority. In a 20-member community health council, that would allow the Regional Health Authority the appointment of three members. The appointment of members by the voluntary organisations is governed by strict regulations on consultation and, in my own particular region, has been greatly helped by the services of the Council of Social Service. One can imagine the problems of selection within any one district in which there may be 150 voluntary organisations. The problem for them is to decide between themselves who should represent that interest in the community health council. The Council of Social Service has been immensely helpful in getting the organisations together. The number of voluntary organisations in any one district which attended the regional selection meetings has been as high as 60 within my own region.
The few members retained for appointments by the Regional Health Authority are in order to ensure a reasonable balance of interest when the number of members from the other two bodies have already been selected and nominated. The appointment of local authority members has been left to the discretion of each local authority. The only advice given, so far as I am aware, in the Statutory Instrument, is that local authorities may appoint either councillors or those who are not councillors. This has resulted in widely varying methods of appointment. Some councils have made their appointments through the leader on a Party political basis; others have made their appointments on a proportional all-Party basis; and yet others in their right to appoint non-councillors have used the criteria of interest in the National Health Service regardless of political affiliations. Of the three methods used, I very much regret the appearance of appointments on a one-Party political basis. The community health councils, one would hope, should not become a forum for Party politics, but should emerge as an informed body of opinion capable of scrutinising the
1748
performance of the new authorities, and acting as a liaison between the authorities and the general public. A tremendous responsibility rests on their shoulders for the success of the re-organisation.
However, in order to exercise their responsibility, they need money, they need to be adequately serviced and financed. That is one of the responsibilities of the Regional Health Authority. But that responsibility has been placed on us with no special allocation from the Department for these expenses. It is a conservative estimate that the minimum cost of servicing a community health council will be between £15,000 and £20,000 a year, which in my own region will amount to £210,000 a year. For the country as a whole it is estimated that the cost will be somewhere in the region of £4 million. And that is only a beginning. That is only to give them the basis to start. Your Lordships may think, as I do, that this is money well spent if it helps to improve the efficiency of the Service. However, it is important r, look at this sum, in the context of the economic situation of the country and having regard to the cuts in public expenditure now being imposed. If this was the only additional demand on the revenue of the new Authorities it would be bad enough. But the highly inflationary times through which the country is passing have created large financial shortfalls in the Health Service budget. It is estimated that the revenue allocations for 1974 and 1975 for each region show a shortfall of between £3½ million and £4 million per region, which, over the country as a whole, at a conservative estimate, is well over £50 million a year.
It is necessary to make sure that it is realised that the shortfall is on the money necessary to maintain the Service as of April 1, 1974. It includes no monies for new development and no money for the implementation of political decisions already taken, such as free family planning or hearing-aid provisions. In my own region the shortfall is £4 million, made up of a 15 per cent. shortfall in the money transferred from the local authority for the maintenance of the former local authority services, plus an additional sum of £1.8 million for the increased price of oil. These figures take no account of possible increases in the remuneration of Health Service personnel, because those sums are especially funded.

1749
At this point I should like to return to the additional £4 million needed for the community health councils. You may call it the straw that broke the camel's back. If no more money can be found to make up for the shortfall a reduction in the service provided is inevitable. If the shortfall is made up by additional monies being allocated, the present Service can be maintained, but no developments can take place. It may be necessary, therefore, to ask the community health councils to function on a shoestring for their first year unless specific allocations are made for this purpose. I feel this would be a tragedy because the first year of the functioning of the community health councils will he by far the most important year. This is the year when they begin to work out the role they are to play within the Service, and this is when they really need more secretarial help than perhaps they will need in the future. I think that it would be a tragedy, and I should like to make a plea to the Government for a special allocation of £4 million initially for the servicing of the community health councils.
I have spent some time discussing the financial situation of the Health Service, as I see it within my own region. I have no doubt that this need for greater financial resources could be voiced and repeated by those concerned in the other major social services as well. Because the resources arc limited, the Government arc confronted with the obligation to establish priorities, and surely the medical and welfare needs of the sick and the aged take precedence in any allocation of the nation's resources.
12.32 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, it falls to me, in speaking immediately after the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, to have the very great pleasure of congratulating her upon her maiden speech. She speaks from great authority as the Chairman of the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority, and in this respect your Lordships' House is specially fortunate in having her here to participate to-day in the debate on this Unstarred Question. It is particularly appropriate that the noble Baroness should have spoken from the Benches she occupies because, as your Lordships will remember with great affection and deep respect, it was from those
1750
Benches that the late Lord Beveridge also spoke—and it is to him, as its architect and founder, that the Health Service owes the deepest debt of gratitude.
The House is indeed grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, for bringing forward this Question today since it is the last opportunity for doing so before July 1, and it is a date of special significance in the programming of events. Your Lordships will be aware that community health councils should have been established by April 1, 1974, with a deadline of April 30. It is therefore with dismay that one recognises that not all local authorities have played their full part and not all regional health authorities have been able to carry out their functions in appointing these boards. We look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the precise numbers of those who have been able to do so.
There is another ground for gratitude to the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven, for having brought this matter before your Lordships to-day; that is, she has persuaded not only the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, to take part but also the noble Lord, Lord Aldenham, who will deliver his maiden speech. We look forward with pleasure and anticipation to his remarks.
I recognise what the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven, said, and I would echo her words that regional authorities have placed this problem on one side. However, I think we should recognise straight away that 1974 has been a specially difficult year. Nevertheless, we should chide those regional health authorities which have been unable to take any action whatsoever. Many of your Lordships will have served in the past on bodies of a kindred nature, as I have, and will know that the approach of local authorities is one which, by its nature, is different from voluntary organisations when they put forward nominations. Here I should declare an interest as a member of the Council of the British Red Cross Society.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness when she says that no accusation of neglect should be placed against the Department of Health and Social Security. During my very brief period of office I was attached to that Department, and I am specially proud to recollect that it was during this period that

1751
Circular HRC/74/4 was produced. In my view, the Department can take pride in this circular, because it makes particularly clear the duties of the Regional Health Authorities; and whereas the language of the Statutory Instrument 973/227, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is arcane, to say the least, and only the initiates of Statutory Instrument language will be able at first sight to interpret the precise role, the Departmental circular is a model of what has to be done. Therefore I do not feel that Regional Health Authorities can claim that there is a lack of clarity in instruction on what their duties should be. Indeed, it has been taken to the ultimate degree in Appendix 2, which sets out a summary of the action required on the initial establishment of community health councils. In Appendix 3 can be found the numerical balance to which the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven, took exception. I can quite understand and share her objection. though I do not necessarily go the whole way with the noble Lady. In Appendix 5 there are clearly set out the matters to which the community health councils, when set up, might wish to direct their attention.
I was most interested to hear that it is within the knowledge of the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven, that the Welsh authorities have given priority to this appointment, and it is of special interest because the noble Baroness, Lady White, who took such a prominent part in our discussions last year, mentioned the extreme difficulties facing regional authorities. The noble Baroness mentioned her own area—a county which stretches from West Shrewsbury to the sea—and of course in these large local authorities there has been great difficulty both in communication and also in the reaching of a degree of satisfaction between the bodies concerned. Therefore I think we ought to give the Welsh Regional Authority a very strong pat on the back—
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to give way? My understanding is that no community health councils have been established in Wales as yet. If I am wrong, I hope somebody will put me right. There is provision for 22, but as it is not a Health Authority it becomes the duty of the Secretary of State
1752
for Wales. My information is that so far no community health councils have in fact been started.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for intervening, because naturally this was something not precisely within my own knowledge. I shall leave the matter there. Finally, I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention the financial situation of those appointed by voluntary bodies and those who serve on local authorities. I do not think it is invidious to mention this at the present moment, because your Lordships will be aware that there are two very different categories of members of community health councils. In the first place, the local authority nominees enjoy a special privilege because in addition to enjoying a mileage allowance and a subsistence allowance they also have an attendance allowance which is not enjoyed by the voluntary membership. Therefore the two classes of members who sit together require the services of an especially astute chairman in balancing and drawing together the forces on that Committee in a degree of harmony which I am sure everybody would wish the community health councils to enjoy.
It is the wish of this side of the House that the community health councils should flourish and form an integral part of the Health Service in the future. We look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, what progress has been made in this respect.
12.40 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, first, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness who has spoken to us for the first time to-day. My one regret is that it was not a day when the attendance of your Lordships was commensurate with the importance of her speech. Those who have worked in the Health Service and have a great wish not only to keep it going but for it to go on improving, must realise that we have in the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, a new and powerful ally.
I must also congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, in having put down this Question to-day. I agree with just about everything she said including her remarks about the composition of the community councils, but it is

1753
too late to go into that matter again. I look upon them as an extraordinarily important part of the Service. One could almost say without exaggeration that they might eventually be the most important part in the reorganisation of the Health Service, because so much of it is concerned with improving, as the authors hope, the administration of the Service. It has been much criticised for hardly ever referring to the patient the whole way through. When I have voiced doubts of this kind to people who are more knowledgeable than I am on the actual administrative side of the Health Service, I have been given first of all a number of vague generalisations, and then, "But, of course, the community health councils are what we must rely on to make sure that the needs of patients in the various districts and areas of our country are being met."
I welcomed the setting up of these councils when I read and, to some extent, studied, the reorganisation Act because as well as serving as a doctor in the hospital service I was for many years on the board of governors of a large teaching hospital. I realised that it was labouring under the difficulty of trying to perform two rather different functions; that is, having a much too large membership composed of people of different kinds with totally different interests. In a large community that can be an advantage; there is exchange of knowledge, interest and so on. Of course there were some professional members, like myself, who represented the medical services; there were others who were clearly able administrators—and I noticed the noble Lady's grasp of the financial side of the Health Service—and there were others who represented purely local interests and were solely concerned whether the maternity hospital in some small town was going to be enlarged, and what was going to be done about this and that, and so on.
All these are tremendously important things, but I felt that they lost some potential in being gathered together in one hospital board. I welcomed the setting up of these community councils because I thought that here would be a group of people whose primary interest was in the patients; who would look at the Area Health Authorities and Regional
1754
Health Authorities to see what they were doing and criticise them; and, above all, make new suggestions to them where they saw a need to do so. If they work properly, I hope that they will come to find new ways and good ways of finding out what the needs really are. I am very interested in the problem and I hope we shall get a satisfactory reply to the Question from the noble Lord who is to reply.
12.47 p.m.
LORD ALDENHAM: My Lords, I rise with considerable trepidation to make my maiden speech after 40 years of silence from my family. On seeing Lady Ruthven's Question on the Order Paper I thought I should break my rule. I should like to declare an interest: I am a member of the North-East Thames Regional Health Authority. We attach the greatest importance to the community health councils. "National" health is an unfortunate name because it is really "community" health. It is for the health of the community and not just running an expensive service. That is what it is all about. We have formed our community health councils and six of them have already held their first meetings; there are ten still to do so. We plan to do that by July 15. I do not say that is a record, but we are trying to go ahead as fast as possible.
To illustrate the importance that the region attaches to the community, one or two members of the authority attend the opening meetings of the councils. I have been to North Camden, and I am going to the Harlow meeting next week. The North Camden meeting almost restored my faith in human nature. Many people, some middle-aged, but a great many young, accepted appointments to the community health councils, and were all keen to set up sub-committees to deal with difficult regions or special problems. A lady chairman emerged of great competence, charm and ability. I am full of hope that will be a pattern for the whole region.
We must not think that the National Health Service is to do only with hospitals. I feel that as soon as a patient gets out of hospital and back to the community the better, and the idea of medical centres, which are being set up as fast as possible, is excellent. This is particularly so when one realises that we have a shortfall of

1755
beds and a decaying stock of hospitals. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, mentioned a shortfall of money. I think it is deplorable, and should like to add to her plea for some more money, not only for the councils but also to restore the cuts made by the last Government. We have an ageing stock of 104 hospitals in our region. We are building one new one out of 100-plus. That is deplorable. The average age of the hospitals is older than when the National Health Service began.
The importance of the community councils is enormous. They will have to deal with complaints, but it is important that they should not become complaints centres. They have much more positive things to do. They have to deal with community problems, planning new services and changes in the services. Most important, they will have to deal with closures of hospitals that are at the end of their useful lives. The Department attaches so much importance to the community decision that they have said that when a decision is taken by the relevant community council the Department will not intervene. But there are far more local things we have to deal with: the ratios of doctors to patients of dentists to patients; catering in the hospitals, facilities for children, facilities for mothers to stay in hospital with young children, and again the waiting time for people who need operations or treatment.
There is one other point I should like to make. We have been thrown a small bomb called "democracy in the National Health Service", and the only thing this Government seem to do is to increase the number of people on each of these councils. We have standardised on 24–12 councillors. 8 from the voluntary bodies, and 4 appointed by the regions. We feel that this is as good a mix as we arc likely to get, and to increase the number of councillors, which is what the document seems to suggest, is not entirely relevant. I have never yet heard of a councillor being elected by his fellows because he is expert in the Health Service. Although he may be an excellent man himself, he is not necessarily able to help very much in the community health per se. I would finish, my Lords, by reiterating my plea, that we cannot maintain the Service, even in its present rather shaky state, without more money.
12.52 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, it is my great privilege to thank my noble friend Lord Aldenham for his maiden speech here to-day. The two maiden speeches we have heard have given us much encouragement. We have heard from two people who really know what they are dealing with in the Health Service, which is so very dear to the hearts of many of us. I congratulate my noble friend and the noble Baroness—who I still look upon as my boss, although I am no longer chairman of a hospital management committee in her region. I congratulate her most heartily on her speech.
I now turn to these community health councils. I am not happy about half of the vacancies going to local authorities, although I know it is a fait accompli. The reason why I am not happy is that councillors come and councillors go, and continuity is very badly needed. Although the work involved is to a great degree outside hospitals, its main object is to look after the hospitals, to suggest what can be done, and to visit them. So membership continuity is needed in these community health councils. Unfortunately, my hospital management committee, to the best of my knowledge, has not one member either for the Area or in the community health councils. This is not the fault of the noble Baroness; it is the fault of the system, by which so few of those who have given honourable service for so many years can be found places within the Service to-day. This is an important point.
The second point I would make is that, now that we have this fait accompli, with the local authorities having half of the membership of the community health councils. I hope that my small voice will reach them in asking that they will consider carefully who is put on these councils. I hope they will put on the councils those who know and care about hospitals— not just this or that person who wants a job or to whom they want to give another job. I am not in any way deprecating the local councils, and I am sure that this will be done. But it is so vitally important, as I know as one who has worked for many years in hospital management committees and visited the hospitals under my command. Those in the hospitals—the nurses, the

1757
doctors and everyone else concerned—want so desperately to know the people who are to look after them in the future. It is not only a question of right; it is a question of morale as well, especially in these difficult times. I hope this point will be remembered.
May I reiterate what was said by the noble Baroness about the importance of not starving these community councils of money. Nothing done to-day can be done without money. These community councils will desperately need staff to help them do of their best. They are vitally important and I hope that what the noble Baroness has said will be carefully considered. Especially in the first year they will have to feed themselves into the hospitals, to become known and understood. My Lords, may I say again what a privilege it has been to hear the two maiden speeches which have been made to-day. They have given me great hope and I thank the maiden speakers.
12.57 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I want if I can to resist the temptation to go down every avenue which has been provided in this debate to-day. In her Question, the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, draws attention to two things, and it is those two things I want really to deal with: the progress which has been made in setting up community health councils throughout the country, and how the members are selected. I hope the noble Lady feels that this debate has been worth while. When this matter was set down to be dealt with on a Friday morning I know she had some doubts as to whether there would be an adequate House to take note of what was said. But the fact that the House may be small in number is not an indication of the value of a particular debate.
In this debate we have been fortunate to have taking part a number of people of great experience. In fact, everyone who has participated brings to this discussion a deep understanding of the problems with which we are faced as a community and of what we are trying to do in the field of the National Health Service. The noble Lady, Lady Ruthven, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, Lord Grenfell, Lord Aldenham, and I, myself, even if not now, have been for long
1758
periods members of boards of governors of hopsitals. The noble Lord. Lord Sandys, has been a member of the Department of Health and Social Security, and has perhaps a deeper knowledge than many other people of what really goes on. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, brings to the subject a lifetime of experience in the Hospital Service.
Having said that, I wonder whether I may add sincerely (because sometimes in your Lordships' House we use words which are a matter of form and are meaningless) to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, how indebted the House must be to her for the quality of her contribution. The House always likes to hear from people who know. The same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Aldenham, who brings a great deal of personal knowledge and personal experience. I know that we are grateful to them, as my noble friend Lady Ruthven also must feel, for choosing this particular debate in which to make their maiden speeches. As your Lordships know, the new Regional Health Authorities in England have the duty of establishing community health councils in each administrative health district. We have to face the fact that this is a complex task, involving extensive consultations with local authorities, local voluntary associations and a variety of other bodies in the district.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and certain noble Lords who have spoken, have drawn attention to the number of people whom the local authority can appoint. I understand that community health councils are advised, generally speaking, to have not less than 18 and, where possible, not more than 30. On the face of it, this would appear to give a disproportionate number of people to the local authorities. However, I want to stress that the local authorities are not bound to appoint local councillors. They can draw on the experience in the community outside the local authority. It is perfectly true that a large number of local authorities will appoint people as a reward for public service. That was the practice over a period of many years in the appointment of lay magistrates.
There was a time when lay magistrates in this country came from one section of the community, and it took time to alter this. It may well be that this kind of thing will happen in the early years of

1759
a community health council, but I do not think that we need feel despondent. When one is setting up something, obviously one tries to do it as quickly as possible, using the people one knows, and one has to face the fact that after a few months or a year many of them are not competent to do what was expected of them. However, it finds its own level eventually, and I am not particularly worried by the fact that there may be a preponderance of local councillors on these committees. The problem will solve itself ultimately.
At this stage I want to turn to the question of finance. This is a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, made with some force and, if I may say so, with some justification. But the cost of establishing community health councils is, as she rightly said, part of the cost of reorganising the Service and Regional Health Authorities are expected to bear this out of their development monies. At the moment we cannot do anything about it. Because I am in at team meetings on matters of this kind, I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State personally feels concerned about what the Regional Health Authorities are asked to do. However, we are faced, as every other Government Department is faced, with the problem of trying to lay our hands on enough money to do the kind of job we want to see done. The noble Baroness is concerned about this, but for the immediate future the position will have to remain as it is at the moment. They will have to judge the priority to be given to the community health councils in relation to the many competing claims on their resources. Any special allocation for community health councils would have to come out of the total allocation to the Regional Health Authorities for running the Service. I wish that I could hold out some hope that we shall be doing something about it in the near future, but it would be quite wrong of me to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said something about attendance allowances. I may have misunderstood him, but local authority members of community health councils do not get an attendance allowance from local authorities for attending meetings of community health councils.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, forgive my intervention but would this not be
1760
true if those said members were councillors?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understand not, but perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to look at this point. If I am not accurate in my information, I will write to him on it. Bearing in mind the time scale for the exercise—and it has been a comparatively short one—the considerable administrative burden falling upon regional authorities and the additional factor of local government reorganisation, it is a considerable achievement on the part of all concerned that so much has been achieved in so short a time. We have to take these two factors—the reorganisation of local government, and the time that they have had to do this—into account. When one thinks that there are, or will be ultimately, something like 207 community health councils, and that 117 of them either have had their first meeting or have appointed all their members it is something of an achievement in a comparatively short space of time. I understand that appointments to the remaining 90 councils are not yet complete, but we have information that good progress is being made and the picture will change considerably in the next few weeks.
May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aldenham, who is a member of the North-East Thames Region, because they have pretty well completed their full number of community health councils? However, it is fair to say that out of the 14 districts only about four are seriously and sadly lagging behind. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, because she was among those Members of this House who played an important part in persuading the previous Government to make extensive changes to their original proposals for community health councils, so as to make them more representative of the community.
It is no secret in your Lordships' House that we on this side were also unhappy about a number of aspects of the National Health Service reorganisation, and many of your Lordships will know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it possible in recent weeks for certain people, who would normally not be eligible for membership of community health councils,

1761
now to become members of those councils. While one is in the process of setting up these councils one must bear in mind that there will be certain difficulties which will take a little time to overcome. But, as I have said, 10 of the 14 regions either have completed or are near completion of their membership of community health councils. If any publicity is to be given to this debate, it is important that the public should know that non-councillors can be appointed by their local authority and we hope that this will happen.
I should like to say a word about the selection of voluntary organisations which, as your Lordships know, are to appoint one-third of the members of each council, the appointments being finally made by the regional health authority after consultation with the appropriate local authorities. The Department's guidance circular which has been referred to by two noble Lords, which was issued by the previous Administration, explained that it was intended that organisations which influence policies should be included, as well as those mainly concerned with providing a service to the National Health Service. Under the regulations, the regional authority must advertise in the local Press, inviting voluntary organisations to apply. I have no information at all as to how many regional authorities have advertised, inviting voluntary organisations to apply. But I think it should be known that the various local Councils of Social Service have done a really magnificent job in this field by getting together all the local voluntary organisations in each area, so that they may be informed of what is expected of them, and as a result of this a good deal of progress has been made. Once the list of organisations has been determined, it is for the regional authority to invite those organisations to agree among themselves how the places to be filled by them should be allocated.
We must also face the fact that in almost every area there is a vast army of local voluntary organisations. I was staggered to learn not so long ago, that in some of the new town areas there are upwards of 120 local voluntary organisations functioning. This has been part of the scene in this country, and when there is a limited number of people to be
1762
selected it is extremely difficult to decide which of the organisations shall be appointed. I think that the local authorities, the voluntary organisations and the regional health authorities have grasped this point and have made tremendous progress in recent weeks. There are, of course, a great many contenders for the limited number of places available. If the voluntary organisations are unable to agree within a reasonable period—and I say this specially for the noble Lady. Lady Ruthven of Freeland—it is for the regional authority to select the organisations which, individually or jointly, are to appoint members. I understand that in most regions there has been no difficulty at all; hence the progress that has been made.
The appointments of the remaining members, normally one-sixth of each council who are appointed by the regional health authority, should also not be made by the regional health authority until there has been consultation with the appropriate local authorities. This proviso has been put in simply and solely so that the regional health authority can look at the composition of the community health councils, can see which interests in the community are lacking, and, we hope, as the last Administration hoped, and as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes, those three places will then be used to fill the obvious gaps in the community health councils.
The Government believe that the community health councils have a vital role in making local participation in the running of the National Health Service a reality. Many of us have been conscious for a good many years that there has been no real point of contact between what we are pleased to call the, "man in the street", the hospital and those who have been running the hospital. I do not want to spell out the duties, obligations, responsibilities and requirements of the community health councils, because I am talking to noble Lords who have read the appropriate documents. But they have a responsibility to see that the Area Health Authority and the Regional Hospital Authority know what local people are thinking about the service being offered. If we succeed in doing that. we shall have made a considerable step forward in the treatment of people who come within the responsibility of our National Health Service. In the majority

1763
of cases, as I have already said, the appointment of local authority and voluntary body members has been made. I understand that the Secretary of State for Wales hopes to make his appointments shortly.
My Lords, the only other point I want to make is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security is anxious that perhaps in the not too distant future there might be a national body co-ordinating the work and responsibilities, acting in a kind of advisory capacity to community health centres. This is still being thought out. I thought I would mention it because to many of us it seems that if we are to have something in the region of 207 community health councils, there ought to be a body to which they could turn for advice and guidance, with which they could have discussion as to the needs of the ordinary person. As I have said, my right honourable friend hopes that the formation of a national council will be possible in the not too distant future.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Third Report from the Select Committee, made and to be printed.
  GIBRALTAR: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
  GIBRALTAR: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
  CONCORDE: SUPERSONIC FLIGHTS
  CONCORDE: SUPERSONIC FLIGHTS
  COAL MINERS: PNEUMOCONIOSIS CASES
  COAL MINERS: PNEUMOCONIOSIS CASES
  LAW REFORM: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
  LAW REFORM: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS